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

Philadelphia Eagles release DeSean Jackson

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

  • #16
    Re: Philadelphia Eagles release DeSean Jackson

    Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
    Chip Kelly was there with Riley Cooper though (I agree he has nothing to do with the Eagles bringing on Vick but the owner knows the players he's dealing with to act dumb now about DJax is just BS to me) since it happened last offseason it was an Eagles player who said if it were Andy Reid he would've been harsher with him.

    The only reason I'm relating this to his alleged gang ties is because that's what is being brought up as to why he's released. We all know Riley Cooper used the N-word. The whole thing with Desean and possible gang ties is alleged.

    If he was released because he's a diva WR who was more trouble than he was worth then yes I have no issue with that however that's not what is being reported here.

    Publicly....that's what the Eagles are saying. Attitude problem and no work ethic.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Philadelphia Eagles release DeSean Jackson

      Originally posted by presto123 View Post
      Publicly....that's what the Eagles are saying. Attitude problem and no work ethic.
      And yet all ESPN is talking about is his alleged gang ties and how the Eagles were disturbed by it now you don't think DJax is the one releasing that info do you?

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Philadelphia Eagles release DeSean Jackson

        Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
        And yet all ESPN is talking about is his alleged gang ties and how the Eagles were disturbed by it now you don't think DJax is the one releasing that info do you?
        I would guess that the alleged gang stuff is just what pushed the Eagles over the edge as they were already on the fence with Jackson. Teammates seem to support the move so there was obviously an issue there.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Philadelphia Eagles release DeSean Jackson

          Or that's a smokescreen and they really released him because of his contract.

          I mean they initially tried to trade him and nobody took the bait so they're using this as an excuse.

          Don't put this sort of thing past NFL teams.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Philadelphia Eagles release DeSean Jackson

            http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...esean-jackson/

            Report: Chiefs are pursuing DeSean Jackson


            Big Red and Little DeSean could be getting together again.

            We suggested during Friday’s Pro Football Talk on NBCSN keeping an eye on the Chiefs. Terez Paylor of the Kansas City Star reports that, indeed, the Chiefs are keeping an eye on Jackson.

            Per Paylor, the Chiefs are pursuing Jackson, whom coach Andy Reid drafted back in 2008.

            The NFLPA’s daily cap report pegs the Chief’s cap space at $4.5 million. Which could make it difficult to afford Jackson.

            But it’s fairly easy to create cap space, if a team wants to do it. Contracts can be restructured easily, creating more than enough cap room to afford Jackson.

            With the Broncos going all in to pursue a championship and plenty of Chiefs players leaving via free agency, Jackson would help Kansas City close the gap with the three-time defending division champions in Denver.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Philadelphia Eagles release DeSean Jackson

              If Peyton Manning can get cut, anybody can. We can speculate all we want about why the Eagles cut him, but the reality is that they don't need a reason. It happens every day in the NFL. We all know the contracts aren't worth the paper there printed on. Also, even if the Eagles do know something about DJax that we don't, and released him for that, they can easily bring up his work ethic, attitude, and complaining about his contract as reasons. We may never know the real reason. What I hope for as an NFL fan is that he lands with an NFC team who embraces him, and he continues to have a good career on and off the field.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Philadelphia Eagles release DeSean Jackson

                Please it was when Joe Montana was cut did I realize that anyone is expendable no matter what you accomplished its why I don't fault players for wanting more $$$ or choosing where they want to go because owners don't care about you at all beyond the bottom line.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Philadelphia Eagles release DeSean Jackson

                  http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10...ngton-redskins

                  DeSean Jackson, Redskins agree

                  Former Philadelphia Eagles wide receiver DeSean Jackson has agreed to join the Washington Redskins on a three-year deal, sources told ESPN NFL Insider Adam Schefter.

                  Jackson took to Twitter to announce the agreement:


                  The deal is worth $24 million, including $16 million guaranteed, sources told Schefter.

                  Jackson's addition seemed to be a certainty ever since he arrived in northern Virginia late Monday afternoon. He dined with Redskins coaches Monday night, went out with players Pierre Garcon and DeAngelo Hall later that night and met with team officials Tuesday.

                  The Redskins' offense will be explosive as long as DeSean Jackson doesn't wind up being a distraction, writes John Keim. Story

                  Garcon and Hall have publicly stated their desire for Jackson to join the Redskins, as has quarterback Robert Griffin III.

                  "Very exciting player. Determined to show he is the best and hungry to win. My kinda guy," Griffin told ESPN's Britt McHenry.

                  Griffin also took to Twitter to welcome Jackson to D.C.

                  "Looks like we won that fight from earlier ha ha @AndreRoberts @PierreGarcon & others have a new member of the family," the quarterback tweeted.

                  The Redskins will pair Jackson with a first-time head coach in Jay Gruden. But Gruden worked in Cincinnati with longtime Bengals coach Marvin Lewis, who coaxed production out of players with off-field issues, including cornerback Adam Jones and running back Cedric Benson. Gruden was there with both players.

                  Jackson gives the Redskins a dynamic playmaker at receiver, something they have not had in some time. He has averaged 17.2 yards per catch in his career. The Redskins haven't had a receiver average more than 17.0 yards per catch with at least 50 receptions since Santana Moss in 2005. No other Redskins receiver with that many catches has even hit 15.0 per catch.

                  Only two receivers since 2008 have averaged more yards per catch -- Vincent Jackson and Malcom Floyd. Since 2008, no player has more receptions of at least 40 yards than Jackson (35), and only Mike Wallace (21) has as many touchdown catches of at least 30 yards during that period.

                  Jackson is coming off an 82-catch, 1,332-yard season with nine touchdowns, tying a career high in touchdowns and setting one for yards. According to Elias Sports Bureau, no player has ever switched teams within the same division after a season with 80-plus receptions for 1,200 yards or more.

                  But the Eagles did not release him because of his production. According to reports, they were displeased with his attitude and demeanor, and they did not view him as a good fit in the culture that coach Chip Kelly wants to build.

                  Shortly before Jackson's release from the Eagles on Friday, NJ.com published a story discussing alleged gang connections.

                  Jackson issued a statement later that day rebutting that charge: "I would like to make it very clear that I am not and never have been part of any gang. I am not a gang member and to speculate and assume that I am involved in such activity off the field is reckless and irresponsible. I work very hard on and off the field and I am a good person with good values.

                  "I am proud of the accomplishments that I have made both on and off the field. I have worked tirelessly to give back to my community and have a positive impact on those in need. It is unfortunate that I now have to defend myself and my intentions. These reports are irresponsible and just not true. I look forward to working hard for my new team. God Bless."

                  Denise White of EAG Sports Management, one of Jackson's representatives, took to Twitter late Tuesday to congratulate Jackson

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Philadelphia Eagles release DeSean Jackson

                    Jackson in the Redskins locker room will be a disaster. RGIII was universally revered when he came out of college as a good humble kid from a military family and look at perceptions of him now. At least the Redskins didn't give him anything in the ballpark of Haynesworth money, but I'm betting you he gets cut at the end of the year on bad terms and signs with Oakland.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Philadelphia Eagles release DeSean Jackson

                      http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...spn-interview/


                      DeSean Jackson will “clear up everything” in ESPN interview

                      DeSean Jackson abruptly backed out of an interview on the Dan Patrick Show this morning, but Jackson does plan to get his side of everything that has transpired in the last week to the public.

                      Jackson has instead taped an interview with Stephen A. Smith of ESPN, according to Jeff McLane of the Philadelphia Inquirer.

                      A Jackson spokesperson told McLane that the interview “will clear up everything” and will air Friday.

                      Jackson issued a statement vehemently denying that he is in a gang after NJ.com published a story about his supposed gang ties shortly before the Eagles cut him. But other than that, Jackson has been mostly quiet about the circumstances that led to him getting cut by Philadelphia and ending up in Washington. Perhaps by the end of the day on Friday, we’ll have a better idea of what went wrong for Jackson with the Eagles.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Philadelphia Eagles release DeSean Jackson

                        Originally posted by presto123 View Post
                        Hasn't done anything? It is common knowledge around the NFL that he is a self centered, locker room cancer with no work ethic.(who didn't want to honor his current contract) I didn't even bring up the gang signs he made on the field or his rumored gang affiliations.
                        You can say that about most talented WR's. He was productive on the field, and never really caused that much of a stir off the field when compared to most "diva receivers". It sounds like he didn't get along with Kelly and Kelly had him cut. Kind of idiotic if you ask me because as we saw, there was a lot of interest in Jackson. At the very least they could have gotten him out of the division. Now he's gonna burn their a$$es two games a year.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Philadelphia Eagles release DeSean Jackson

                          Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                          You can say that about most talented WR's. He was productive on the field, and never really caused that much of a stir off the field when compared to most "diva receivers". It sounds like he didn't get along with Kelly and Kelly had him cut. Kind of idiotic if you ask me because as we saw, there was a lot of interest in Jackson. At the very least they could have gotten him out of the division. Now he's gonna burn their a$$es two games a year.
                          Jackson was productive when he wanted to be. Considering he was becoming unhappy with his contract, again i might add, he wasn't going to be nearly as productive this year. Thats how it always goes with DJax. And it wasn't that he didn't get along with just Kelly. He was a distraction that players were growing tired of as well. Just because there are "diva receivers" doesn't mean the Eagles should have just accepted him like that. There are plenty of WRs better than DJax without that attitude, including one on the Eagles roster in Jeremy Maclin.

                          The Eagles will be fine without Jackson. And he may work out well for Washington, but with how that team is, it can absolutely blow up in their faces as well. Eagles will still 2-0 Washington this season.

                          and they did attempt trading him, but nothing came to fruition.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Philadelphia Eagles release DeSean Jackson

                            Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
                            Jackson was productive when he wanted to be. Considering he was becoming unhappy with his contract, again i might add, he wasn't going to be nearly as productive this year. Thats how it always goes with DJax. And it wasn't that he didn't get along with just Kelly. He was a distraction that players were growing tired of as well. Just because there are "diva receivers" doesn't mean the Eagles should have just accepted him like that. There are plenty of WRs better than DJax without that attitude, including one on the Eagles roster in Jeremy Maclin.

                            The Eagles will be fine without Jackson. And he may work out well for Washington, but with how that team is, it can absolutely blow up in their faces as well. Eagles will still 2-0 Washington this season.

                            and they did attempt trading him, but nothing came to fruition.
                            Though I'm not an Eagles fan, I am a Vick fan so I followed the team the past few years along with the Colts. You're right about Jax, but I disagree that he wasn't going to be productive. Cooper was good last year, but a lot of it was Jax taking the top of the defense, and Cooper having good rapport/timing with Foles. Macklin can be better than Jax, but he isn't terribly healthy nor consistent. Avant is gone, so losing Jax for nothing is kind of silly.

                            I guess I didn't know they tried to trade Jax, so that makes a lot more sense.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Philadelphia Eagles release DeSean Jackson

                              Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                              Though I'm not an Eagles fan, I am a Vick fan so I followed the team the past few years along with the Colts. You're right about Jax, but I disagree that he wasn't going to be productive. Cooper was good last year, but a lot of it was Jax taking the top of the defense, and Cooper having good rapport/timing with Foles. Macklin can be better than Jax, but he isn't terribly healthy nor consistent. Avant is gone, so losing Jax for nothing is kind of silly.

                              I guess I didn't know they tried to trade Jax, so that makes a lot more sense.
                              he wasn't happy with his current deal, so i really expected him to do exactly what he did last time that happened, he half-assed it. No team wanted to pay him $10.7 mil, thats what a trade didnt happen. Washington signed him at $8 mil per year with only $16 mil guaranteed.

                              And Maclin has been consistent, he just has to stay healthy. He has far better hands than Jackson and is a threat all over the field, rather than the long ball threat Jackson is. Cooper can take over that role.

                              There is no doubt that Jackson's a damn good WR. But he was causing trouble.
                              http://deadspin.com/report-the-eagle...ium=socialflow

                              "You see little kids and how they cry and whine when they don't get their way, that was D-Jax. I don't think [Jackson] gave [Kelly] the respect he deserved. Kelly tried to reach [Jackson] plenty of times and [Jackson] tuned him out. Then you look at team functions, when everyone is out together at charity things or social stuff. He was the one missing. It was like he was in 'D-Jax world' and we just happened to be there."

                              "That's [Kelly's] way. It pisses me off that [Kelly] comes off looking like the bad guy here. It wasn't just [Kelly] that wanted him gone. [Kelly] got a lot of feedback from guys that felt we were better off without [Jackson], too. [Kelly] is very much a player's coach. His office is open to anyone. Now [Jackson] is the Redskins' problem. We have something good going here and it's going to get better without [Jackson]. He had to go."

                              "Funny how [Jackson] has this anti-bully thing and he thought he could push [Kelly] around; he found out otherwise. His being cut had nothing to do with the gang stuff. The team knew it. Everyone knew he had 'ties.' Those were his guys. That's okay. What put him out was his selfishness. He can try and spin it all he wants how he's 'a team player.' He's not. I'll put it this way, when it came out last Friday that [Jackson] was released, more than a few guys were happy it happened. They said 'good riddance.' He had no real connection with anyone."

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X