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

Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game (and Deflategate discussion)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game (and Deflategate discussion)

    When did the Patriots ever lobby for the existence of the tuck rule?

    Were the Patriots being shady and disrepectful when the tuck rule was used against them, before it was ever used for their benefit? (A Jets Vinny Testaverde "fumble" was ruled a tuck-rule non-fumble).

    Were the Patriots being shady and disrepectful when the tuck rule was applied to every other team in the NFL in total about 12-15 times per year* from 1999 to 2013? *http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...1401828_2.html

    When did the Patriots ever lobby to change pass interference laws?

    The eligible/ineligible receiver fiasco? Was my high school football coach in southern Indiana a dirty rotten Patriot when we went over the rules for reporting and alignment, because we would see other teams do this all the time? When our coach asked the opposing coach to test us by running such plays in a preseason scrimmage, was he being dirty?

    It seems to me your list of transgressions needs to be deflated.
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

    Comment


    • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game (and Deflategate discussion)

      Slick-By arguing that you are a scientist and can only argue the Gas laws you are stating that the entire argument must be on your terms and that other events in the Wells report are off the table. Seems to me that you are dealing everybody's hands here.

      So let's suppose that McNally confessed that he had a needle and doctored the balls would we still be arguing Gas laws or would that now be irrelevant?

      Comment


      • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game (and Deflategate discussion)

        Why is every aspect of the 70% of the Wells report that deals with science completely closed for discussion here?

        You say I'm picking and choosing. I say you are picking and choosing. You say I only want to talk about one part of it, maybe that's true, but it is the major focus of the entire report and it is my area of expertise.

        It is also the part of the report that should make everyone realize that they were being manipulated by the media, when Chris Mortensen insisted that a trusted NFL source said that 11 of 12 Patriots footballs were more than 2 psi below specifications.

        The (made up) scientific data was what prompted all of the outrage.

        That was the focus of the lead story on CNN world news tonight.

        And it we know, from Mr. Wells, with 100% certainty that it was a made up lie!

        We have the numbers. There were 22 measurements of Patriots footballs, and ZERO were more than 2 psi below specifications, using either gauge. By the gauge that the ref says he used to set pressure in the balls pregame, one ball was down 1.6 psi, one by 1.5 psi, and the other 9 were either down by the amount you'd expect (1.1 psi or so) or were a little on the HIGH end.

        Would we be where we are today is Chris Mortensen would have reported

        "2 of 11 Patriots footballs were about 0.3 psi below where they should have been"
        rather than
        "11 of 12 Patriots footballs were more than 2 psi below specifications"

        Do you think that Chris Mortensen is ever going to retract his story?
        Do you think that Chris Mortensen is ever going to reveal who fed him this lie?
        Pigs will fly first.
        Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-12-2015, 06:33 PM.
        The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

        Comment


        • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game (and Deflategate discussion)

          Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
          Why is every aspect of the 70% of the Wells report that deals with science completely closed for discussion here?

          You say I'm picking and choosing. I say you are picking and choosing. You say I only want to talk about one part of it, maybe that's true, but it is the major focus of the entire report and it is my area of expertise.

          It is also the part of the report that should make everyone realize that they were being manipulated by the media, when Chris Mortensen insisted that a trusted NFL source said that 11 of 12 Patriots footballs more more than 2 psi below specifications.

          The (made up) scientific data was what prompted all of the outrage.

          That was the focus of the lead story on CNN world news tonight.

          And it we know, from Mr. Wells, with 100% certainty that it was a made up lie!

          We have the numbers. There were 22 measurements of Patriots footballs, and ZERO were more than 2 psi below specifications, using either gauge. By the gauge that the ref says he used to set pressure in the balls pregame, one ball was down 1.6 psi, one by 1.5 psi, and the other 9 were either down by the amount you'd expect (1.1 psi or so) or were a little on the HIGH end.

          Would we be where we are today is Chris Mortensen would have reported

          "2 of 11 Patriots footballs were about 0.3 psi below where they should have been"
          rather than
          "11 of 12 Patriots footballs more more than 2 psi below specifications"

          Do you think that Chris Mortensen is ever going to retract his story?
          Its not closed for discussion. But why are you completely ignoring the other 30%? You are dodging and its comical man.

          Comment


          • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game (and Deflategate discussion)




            Someone I talked to brought up a valid point if they had their texts why did they need Brady's? For corroboration even though they had these guys?

            Comment


            • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game (and Deflategate discussion)

              Originally posted by Bball View Post
              I wish Herb Simon would've taken this type of stand for the Malice in the Palace punishments....

              But he might've had a leg to stand on. Kraft, not so much....
              Yeah that wouldn't have worked because well the fans are the paying customers no fans no league. Plus the lasting image of that will always be Artest going into the stands punching that dude out along with a few of the other Pacers even though we are Pacers fans(most of us) and on a human level understand why they did it. It was still wrong especially Stephen Jackson and Jermaine O'Neal more than Artest to be honest.

              Originally posted by RWB View Post
              For a Colts fan you sure are a glass half empty person.
              I'm facing reality of the Colts team as is they aren't awful but they aren't the cream of the crop either I think Andrew Luck makes this team look way better than it actually does. The Pats don't even do anything unique against us and yet Pagano doesn't adjust.

              Hard to believe but not every Colts fan needs to be a shameless homer.
              Last edited by Basketball Fan; 05-12-2015, 07:17 PM.

              Comment


              • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game (and Deflategate discussion)

                I dunno, you guys can tell me I'm taking it too lightly or whatever, call me crazy or stupid or naive or whatever, that's all fine. I just honestly don't really care. It's not a big deal to me at all. If any other team with a long time QB, Romo for example, it'd be a couple days story and that'd be it. Two other teams tampered with balls, on tape. Name em. Bet you can't. Because it's not a big deal.

                And you know it even if you don't want to admit it.

                Comment


                • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game (and Deflategate discussion)

                  Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                  I dunno, you guys can tell me I'm taking it too lightly or whatever, call me crazy or stupid or naive or whatever, that's all fine. I just honestly don't really care. It's not a big deal to me at all. If any other team with a long time QB, Romo for example, it'd be a couple days story and that'd be it. Two other teams tampered with balls, on tape. Name em. Bet you can't. Because it's not a big deal.

                  And you know it even if you don't want to admit it.

                  Panthers and Vikings(and it was referenced)

                  I admit its not a big deal and I think after a while it will all be a distant memory but I disagree about Romo not being a big deal because he's the QB of the Dallas Cowboys another polarizing team in the NFL.

                  However this was a "big deal" for reasons besides Brady and the Pats it involved a trip to the Super Bowl. Also if Brady and the Pats didn't lie about it this would've been forgotten.

                  Its the "cover-up" people remember more than the actual act itself.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game (and Deflategate discussion)

                    http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...of-suspension/


                    Brady will use Kessler for appeal of suspension


                    Patriots quarterback Tom Brady should have used the NFL Players Association in connection with the Ted Wells report. Brady didn’t. But he apparently won’t make the same mistake twice.

                    Per Adam Schefter of ESPN (via Phil Perry of CSN New England), Brady has added Jeffrey Kessler to the legal team that will handle the appeal. And Brady would be wise to let Kessler handle the whole thing, with agent/lawyer Don Yee taking a seat and watching.

                    It still would have been better for Brady to seek — and to implement — Kessler’s advice from the get go. Kessler would have nudged Brady in directions that would have established a better foundation for success on appeal or in court.

                    Kessler also may have been able to cajole Brady into accepting the league’s offer to allow Brady’s legal team to lift from his phone and email account any messages that may be relevant to the investigation, without supervision or involvement of the NFL.

                    Indeed, it’s possible that Yee simply wasn’t able to talk sense into Brady. Kessler, fully able to see how refusal to fully cooperate may have undermined Brady’s interests, may have been far more persuasive — and ultimately far more effective.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game (and Deflategate discussion)

                      Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                      Only if you don't believe the referee's memory on the gauge he had used in the pregame check.

                      Using the gauge that HE REMEMBERS having used for pregame measurements, the Patriots footballs measured (page 12, Wells report)

                      11.80 (should be 11.32-11.50, 0.3 psi too high!, they put in some air!)
                      11.20 (should be 11.32-11.50, a tiny bit too low! close though)
                      11.50 (should be 11.32-11.50, by golly, it is!)
                      11.00 (should be 11.32-11.50, 0.3 psi too low!, , they took out some air!)
                      11.45 (should be 11.32-11.50, by golly, it is!)
                      11.95 (should be 11.32-11.50, 0.45 psi too high! they put in some air!))
                      12.30 (should be 11.32-11.50, by golly, it is!)
                      11.55 (should be 11.32-11.50, a tiny bit too high!, close though)
                      11.35 (should be 11.32-11.50, by golly, it is!)
                      10.90 (should be 11.32-11.50, 0.4 too low, they took out some air!)
                      11.35 (should be 11.32-11.50, by golly, it is!)

                      You have two footballs seemingly over inflated 0.3-0.45 psi, two footballs seemingly over underinflated 0.3-0.4 psi, and seven footballs about where they ought to be.

                      Do you make a definitive call?

                      Wells did. "Let's throw out that crappy data. The ref must have been WRONG in his memory of which gauge he used before the game."
                      Slick you are reading past what he said. The ref clearly states that is certainly possible that he used the other gauge. Simply put he doesn't remember so stop acting like he his certain he does remember. He doesn't.

                      You know two temps and measurements that were taken at one and measurements that were taken will the balls were warming up. You don't know the ball temperature which is why their predictive curve that they generated on the ball pressure doesn't match with either gauge.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game (and Deflategate discussion)

                        Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                        The Patriots football did warm up during the course of their analysis. That is why they dropped in pressure ONLY 1.01 psi, on average, when the ideal gas law says they should have dropped 1.13 psi. This explains the 11% difference, prediction vs. measured.

                        The Colts football did warm up by the time of their analysis and during the course of their analysis. That is why they dropped in pressure ONLY 0.56 psi, on average, when the ideal gas law says they should have dropped 1.13 psi. This explains the 50% difference, prediction vs. measured.

                        The data aligns with the conclusion that no tampering could even POSSIBLY have occurred, if you keep all of the data.
                        The data aligns with the conclusion that no tampering could even POSSIBLY have occurred, if you keep the data that fits the memory of the referee about which gauge he used.
                        The data aligns with the conclusion that tampering could POSSIBLY have occurred, ONLY if you completely discard the data that fits the memory of the referee about which gauge he used.

                        Mike Florio and Peter King each summed up the data-based part of the Wells report very well, by calling it trash.

                        I am evaluating the science as a scientist. That is the part I am most well-equipped to evaluate, because I evaluate scientific arguments every single day of my life (well, not so much on vacation, if the wife has her way )
                        so you are saying 11% difference with Pats and a 50% difference with the Colts? The 39% difference is to due to a 1 minute transition time in measurements to complete the colts balls. Seems terribly shady to me to toss that bs out there and again you have to use averages because you have to assume the ball boy deflated every single ball in the bag and equally no less or he deflated none of them.
                        Last edited by Gamble1; 05-12-2015, 10:58 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game (and Deflategate discussion)

                          Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                          For your benefit, I will private message the poster Solozzo, who seems rather trustworthy and level-headed. I have never met him.

                          He can verify, or NOT, who I am

                          My PM to him will include:

                          my faculty e-mail address
                          a link to my faculty web page
                          an interview discussing how I grew up in indiana
                          hyperlinks to pubmed or sciencedirect abstracts of 8 research papers that I have published in 2014 and 2015


                          FAIR?

                          edit: PM was sent to Solozzo, 8:27 AM

                          Slick sent me all of the above this morning, and I am 100% certain that he is an accomplished scientist who is who he says he is.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game (and Deflategate discussion)

                            Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post



                            Someone I talked to brought up a valid point if they had their texts why did they need Brady's? For corroboration even though they had these guys?
                            They didn't want Brady's for corroboration. They saw the texts on the other two guys phones, and know Brady is lying his *** off. They wanted Brady's phone because they want to see who else he talked to about it, to see how deep the rabbit hole goes.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game (and Deflategate discussion)

                              new dude's name is Jimmy Grilledcheese btw

                              Comment


                              • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game (and Deflategate discussion)

                                Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                                For your benefit, I will private message the poster Solozzo, who seems rather trustworthy and level-headed. I have never met him.

                                He can verify, or NOT, who I am

                                My PM to him will include:

                                my faculty e-mail address
                                a link to my faculty web page
                                an interview discussing how I grew up in indiana
                                hyperlinks to pubmed or sciencedirect abstracts of 8 research papers that I have published in 2014 and 2015


                                FAIR?

                                edit: PM was sent to Solozzo, 8:27 AM
                                Hey man I believed you. You've been around long enough and posted enough that I doubt you would just make some crap up like that.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X