Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

George Hill

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • George Hill

    George Hill is probably the most important player to our team. NOT THE BEST, but his play often times seems to be the most important factor in the way that we play. Bottom line: Whenever he plays well--we seem to win; and unfortunately whenever he does not play so well, or even has an average game--we seem to lose.

    All year plenty of posters have argued many points when it's come to George. Whether or not he's a starting PG. Whether or not he's a good defender. Is he overpaid, or properly paid. Etc.

    All are extremely valid questions given his somewhat inconsistent play this year. But one thing is for certain (at least to me) his play often times sets the tone for the rest of the team.

    Whenever he is able to control the tempo of the game and gets us to play a slow-grind-it-out type of ugly game; we normally win and look like a very very good team (I.E game 6 against the Hawks, game 1 against the Knicks) But when he isn't able to control tempo, and the game gets up and down, we're often times ran out of the gym due to our lack of speed in comparison to other teams (I.E games 3 & 4 against the Hawks, game 2 against the Knicks)

    During the regular season he averaged 14, about 4 rebs, and 5 assists--on pretty good shooting percentages.
    In the playoffs, he's averaging about the same stats: but on a tad worse percentages.

    He often times seems to be the guy that hits the "dagger" against teams in the 4th. But he also often times seems to be the guy that misses a critical lay-up or critical FT when we're trying to make a comeback. A true conundum indeed.

    So I'm curious, after a regular season and 8 games into the playoffs--what are posters opinions of George Hill now? Did we make the correct decision giving him a nice extension in the summer? Do you like his game? How do you feel about George Hill?
    Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 05-08-2013, 05:41 PM. Reason: poor grammar lol

  • #2
    Re: George Hill

    I'm not a fan of his game. I always get torn to pieces on that, but whatever, it's a personal opinion. I would prefer a more pure PG for this team, and I know there is a contingent here screaming that Hill is a great defender and his deficiencies are actually Hibbert's deficiencies in not stepping up when Hill gets picked, but there are still a lot of other flaws in his game defensively beyond that. Chiefly, he does let guards penetrate and drive, and his lateral foot speed is very average.

    I could maybe live with Hill's defensive flaws if his offensive game was just incredible or something. He puts up numbers, and the stats seem to always conflict with my opinion, but purely on the eyeball test: I hold my breath every time he shoots from distance, and I don't think he's nearly consistent enough at actually driving to the basket, which should be one of his strengths.

    Overall, I see Hill as a guy who is going to somehow scramble together ~15 points on any given night -- a scoring guard indeed -- but is also going to be prone to defensive lapses, offensive inconsistency, and mistakes/turnovers under pressure (to be fair, on this last one, him & everyone else). And overall, I just prefer a more pure PG who's a little better on D and a little better with the ball in his hands. But that's just my personal preference.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: George Hill

      Hill isn't a Point. Defensively, he excels on off guards, and offensively, I think he struggles deciding if he should attack or pass. I don't mind Hill being the starting point on the team. In big moments, he seems to be one of the more controlled and calm guys on the floor, and doesn't stray away from taking a big shot, something this team really needs right now. I believe his inconsistencies come from him controlling the ball so much, when Lance grows and matures more I think we will see them split ball handling duties even more than they do currently, and believe Hill would play much more comfortably for the first 3.5 quarters.

      But I do think he's better than a pure point for the team, we need a guy that can put pressure (Even if it's inconsistent) on the other team, because we don't have any one guy that can do that on any given night. I like having as much balance and scoring potential as the starting 5 does. If we were a team that emphasized off ball movement and had at least one guy in the front court that was more athletic and could cut and put more pressure on a defense, I would be more likely to want a "pure pg" type of player.
      Last edited by Ichi; 05-08-2013, 11:11 AM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: George Hill

        no doubt we made the correct decision in extending him, whether he is the true PG of the future remains to be seem, but he will always be a darn good starter like he is now, or one of the best 6th men in the NBA, I am hoping Lance can develop and become out PG and Hill can play about 30 mpg off the bench as a pure scorer

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: George Hill

          I think the idea of eventually having Hill and Stephenson split PG duties is a good one. I think it would be a good way to balance out their strengths and weaknesses.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: George Hill

            Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
            I think the idea of eventually having Hill and Stephenson split PG duties is a good one. I think it would be a good way to balance out their strengths and weaknesses.
            Like i said earlier, I hope Lance can take the starting PG role in about 2 years, and Hill can come off the bench and only focus on scoring, he would be great in that role

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: George Hill

              It just drives me up the wall when confused fans complain about the wrong things or praise the wrong things. That's why I'm a George Hil "apologist" a Kobe Bryant "hater," or a Granger "fanboy."

              In all three cases the confused ones say, Hill is bad on defense, or Kobe Bryant plays defense (ha), or Granger was an inefficient scorer. All simply false.

              So with all that said, I completely agree with Ace on Hill being an extremely frustrating player. It just bothers me that so many posters aren't frustrated by his actual frustrating play but are frustrated by their very confused and false perception of what a point guard is.

              There's a new rule we should have on PD, if you're one of those lost souls who says Hill isn't a PG, you have to say Westbrook, Rose, Curry, and plethora of other PG's aren't PG's. You should just preface every "Hill isn't a PG" post with that thought. Just so everyone knows whether they should take your post seriously or not.

              Anywho, Hill's pros and cons are as follows (I have to quickly correct multiple posters above)

              Hill is good at getting the offense started, getting the ball to the hot shooters, taking care of the ball and when it comes to crunch time play he's nearly flawless except when it comes to freethrows for some reason. (note- a poster said he's not secure with the ball in crunch time - ha - he's the only player on our team who IS). Hill also plays very well with Lance as it allows Lance to really get going if he wants but if he gets out of control, Hill can take the ball away from him and get our offense running again. Lance is way out of control at times to run the offense full time as anyone who has ever watched the Pacers this season should know.

              Hill is the only player on our team that always makes good decisions, good passes, and plays in control 100% of the time. West sails passes into the upper deck, PG turns over the ball like it is his job, Lance does Lance things, Roy misses 2 footers so he's a much needed calming presence on the court at all times.

              The frustrating part with Hill's game is he's the most reluctant shooter on the team. The guy can score, but some games he's content to simply shoot open three's from the outside even when they aren't dropping. This is ridiculous when he has a killer midrange game as Ace mentioned above. He can get to the line, he can drive to the basket. So it's frustrating when Hill seemingly lulls himself to sleep during some games. The Pacers tend to fall apart when Hill does this.

              So finally, I'll say the money is definitely worth it. Two way players are extremely important, and as Hill plays more PG, he gets better and better at the position. He never spent any serious time at the position until THIS season. So he's making remarkable strides and I think he'll establish himself as a top 10 point guard next season.

              But at only 8mil a year, his reluctant offense will continue to frustrate us. His occasional missed freethrow late in games will continue to frustrate us. But overall we'll continue to appreciate his very good defense, his very good shooting, and his always in control play which is much needed when you have young players like Lance and PG who can't wait to do dumbshit on the court from time to time.
              Last edited by mattie; 05-08-2013, 04:07 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: George Hill

                Edit - I'd also like to note that the idea that Hill would be a great 6th man I think is just so wrong. Great 6th men provide that scoring punch off the bench. As a reluctant scorer, an unselfish scorer to a fault, that is NOT Hill's best position.

                Hill is the best when he's starting at PG, giving us size, defense and offense. Something few PG's in the league provide.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: George Hill

                  Originally posted by mattie View Post
                  It just drives me up the wall when confused fans complain about the wrong things or praise the wrong things. That's why I'm a George Hil "apologist" a Kobe Bryant "hater," or a Granger "fanboy."

                  In all three cases the confused ones say, Hill is bad on defense, or Kobe Bryant plays defense (ha), or Granger was an inefficient scorer. All simply false.

                  So with all that said, I completely agree with Ace on Hill being an extremely frustrating player. It just bothers me that so many posters aren't frustrated by his actual frustrating play but are frustrated by their very confused and false perception of what a point guard is.

                  There's a new rule we should have on PD, if you're one of those lost souls who says Hill isn't a PG, you have to say Westbrook, Rose, Curry, and plethora of other PG's aren't PG's. You should just preface every "Hill isn't a PG" post with that thought. Just so everyone knows whether they should take your post seriously or not.

                  Anywho, Hill's pros and cons are as follows (I have to quickly correct multiple posters above)

                  Hill is good at getting the offense started, getting the ball to the hot shooters, taking care of the ball and when it comes to crunch time play he's nearly flawless except when it comes to freethrows for some reason. (note- a poster said he's not secure with the ball in crunch time - ha - he's the only player on our team who IS). Hill also plays very well with Lance as it allows Lance to really get going if he wants but if he gets out of control, Hill can take the ball away from him and get our offense running again. Lance is way out of control at times to run the offense full time as anyone who has ever watched the Pacers this season should know.

                  Hill is the only player on our team that always makes good decisions, good passes, and plays in control 100% of the time. West sails passes into the upper deck, PG turns over the ball like it is his job, Lance does Lance things, Roy misses 2 footers so he's a much needed calming presence on the court at all times.

                  The frustrating part with Hill's game is he's the most reluctant shooter on the team. The guy can score, but some games he's content to simply shoot open three's from the outside even when they aren't dropping. This is ridiculous when he has a killer midrange game as Ace mentioned above. He can get to the line, he can drive to the basket. So it's frustrating when Hill seemingly lulls himself to sleep during some games. The Pacers tend to fall apart when Hill does this.

                  So finally, I'll say the money is definitely worth it. Two way players are extremely important, and as Hill plays more PG, he gets better and better at the position. He never spent any serious time at the position until THIS season. So he's making remarkable strides and I think he'll establish himself as a top 10 point guard next season.

                  But at only 8mil a year, his reluctant offense will continue to frustrate us. His occasional missed freethrow late in games will continue to frustrate us. But overall we'll continue to appreciate his very good defense, his very good shooting, and his always in control play which is much needed when you have young players like Lance and PG who can't wait to do dumbshit on the court from time to time.
                  I agree with everything you said here and then some. I sometimes wish he's take Westbrooks "eff-it" attitude every now and then. (obviously not to that extent, but you get what I mean)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: George Hill

                    Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                    I agree with everything you said here and then some. I sometimes wish he's take Westbrooks "eff-it" attitude every now and then. (obviously not to that extent, but you get what I mean)
                    IF he would get aggressive when his three isn't dropping this team would be so much better. He makes me want to throw things at the TV sometimes haha

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: George Hill

                      Hill is a fine player, but unfortunately he is a scoring guard forced to play point, and he hasn't adapted as smoothly as say Steph Curry.

                      He just doesn't have the instincts of a point guard, he telegraphs passes at times, doesn't feel comfortable feeding the post when defenders are fronting, ball handling is average, along with court vision. What he does very well however, is shoot the ball, and has the ability to improvise. Hill has a nice scoring touch around the basket, and is usually a reliable outside threat. I think most of PD has acknowledged we are better when Hill is aggressive. I hate it when the opposing point guard leaves Hill to help out on West and Hibbert, and when they give the ball back to Hill he doesn't look to shoot or drive. I think he should make better use of his offensive talent.

                      This is also why I want Lance running point. Lance clearly has the best ball handling and court vision on the team, and his decision making has improved tremendously. I can't imagine it would take Lance 14 seconds to break the pressure and finally start initializing the offense. The Pacers take WAY too long getting into their sets, I think a lot of it is because Hill really doesn't like ball pressure.
                      //

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: George Hill

                        Originally posted by Pace Maker View Post
                        Hill is a fine player, but unfortunately he is a scoring guard forced to play point, and he hasn't adapted as smoothly as say Steph Curry.

                        He just doesn't have the instincts of a point guard, he telegraphs passes at times, doesn't feel comfortable feeding the post when defenders are fronting, ball handling is average, along with court vision. What he does very well however, is shoot the ball, and has the ability to improvise. Hill has a nice scoring touch around the basket, and is usually a reliable outside threat. I think most of PD has acknowledged we are better when Hill is aggressive. I hate it when the opposing point guard leaves Hill to help out on West and Hibbert, and when they give the ball back to Hill he doesn't look to shoot or drive. I think he should make better use of his offensive talent.

                        This is also why I want Lance running point. Lance clearly has the best ball handling and court vision on the team, and his decision making has improved tremendously. I can't imagine it would take Lance 14 seconds to break the pressure and finally start initializing the offense. The Pacers take WAY too long getting into their sets, I think a lot of it is because Hill really doesn't like ball pressure.
                        It's a part of our game-plan. Slower, power-post teams do not want to initiate offense too early. Just watch other teams that play the same way (Grizzlies, Chicago) and they do the same thing. You want to slow the game down and limit the number of offensive possessions when you're a defensive, grind-it-out team.

                        Also, Hill has an Asst/TO ratio of 3.1/1 which is pretty good. He doesn't turn the ball over very much at all, so he's not really telegraphing his passes. He's also EASILY the best post entry passer on the team.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: George Hill

                          Originally posted by mattie View Post
                          (note- a poster said he's not secure with the ball in crunch time - ha - he's the only player on our team who IS).
                          If you're referring to me, I said he's not good with the ball under pressure, and I also said no one on this team really is. This team really struggles with defensive pressure, to a man.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: George Hill

                            Originally posted by Dr. Hibbert View Post
                            If you're referring to me, I said he's not good with the ball under pressure, and I also said no one on this team really is. This team really struggles with defensive pressure, to a man.
                            Well. Hill doesn't. =)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: George Hill

                              Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post

                              A true conundum indeed.


                              FIXED ... courtesy of Grahm Arnatsi

                              But yes I agree



                              co·nun·drum

                              /kəˈnəndrəm/



                              Noun

                              1.A confusing and difficult problem or question.
                              2.A question asked for amusement, typically one with a pun in its answer; a riddle.



                              Synonyms

                              riddle - puzzle - enigma - mystery
                              "Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X