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

COVID-19

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

  • I see V beat me to what I was about to post. I'll go ahead and post some background on it:
    https://www.nytimes.com/

    Trump administration officials passed when Pfizer offered in late summer to sell the U.S. government additional doses of its Covid-19 vaccine, according to people familiar with the matter. Now Pfizer may not be able provide more of its vaccine to the United States until next June because of its commitments to other countries, they said.

    As the administration scrambles to try to purchase more doses of the vaccine, President Trump plans on Tuesday to sign an executive order “to ensure that United States government prioritizes getting the vaccine to American citizens before sending it to other nations,” according to a draft statement and a White House official, though it was not immediately clear what force the president’s executive order would carry.

    That included whether it would expand the U.S. supply of doses beyond what is spelled out in existing federal contracts.

    The vaccine being produced by Pfizer and its German partner, BioNTech, is a two-dose treatment, meaning that 100 million doses is enough to vaccinate only 50 million Americans. The vaccine is expected to receive authorization for emergency use in the U.S. as soon as this weekend, with another vaccine, developed by Moderna, also likely to be approved for emergency use soon.

    ...
    Asked if the Trump administration had missed a crucial chance over the summer to snap up more doses for Americans, a spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services said, “We are confident that we will have 100 million doses of Pfizer’s vaccine as agreed to in our contract, and beyond that, we have five other vaccine candidates.”

    In a statement, Pfizer said that “any additional doses beyond the 100 million are subject to a separate and mutually acceptable agreement,” and that “the company is not able to comment on any confidential discussions that may be taking place with the U.S. government.”

    The decision to issue the executive order was reported earlier by Fox News.


    More at NYT
    -----------------

    It looks like a key takeaway isn't just that Pfizer currently is light on vaccine to supply and would need to make more, and that the US failed to order more when offered the chance, but that the 'more' they would make is contractually obligated to other countries now.

    Takeaway number 2 is the US seemed to be comfortable that with the other candidates, they didn't need to order more from Pfizer. But that begs the question- If they were fine with what Pfizer could provide and they had other vaccines coming online with Pfizer to fill the gap, then why this new Executive Order?

    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

    -John Wooden

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Bball View Post
      I see V beat me to what I was about to post. I'll go ahead and post some background on it:
      https://www.nytimes.com/

      Trump administration officials passed when Pfizer offered in late summer to sell the U.S. government additional doses of its Covid-19 vaccine, according to people familiar with the matter. Now Pfizer may not be able provide more of its vaccine to the United States until next June because of its commitments to other countries, they said.

      As the administration scrambles to try to purchase more doses of the vaccine, President Trump plans on Tuesday to sign an executive order “to ensure that United States government prioritizes getting the vaccine to American citizens before sending it to other nations,” according to a draft statement and a White House official, though it was not immediately clear what force the president’s executive order would carry.

      That included whether it would expand the U.S. supply of doses beyond what is spelled out in existing federal contracts.

      The vaccine being produced by Pfizer and its German partner, BioNTech, is a two-dose treatment, meaning that 100 million doses is enough to vaccinate only 50 million Americans. The vaccine is expected to receive authorization for emergency use in the U.S. as soon as this weekend, with another vaccine, developed by Moderna, also likely to be approved for emergency use soon.

      ...
      Asked if the Trump administration had missed a crucial chance over the summer to snap up more doses for Americans, a spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services said, “We are confident that we will have 100 million doses of Pfizer’s vaccine as agreed to in our contract, and beyond that, we have five other vaccine candidates.”

      In a statement, Pfizer said that “any additional doses beyond the 100 million are subject to a separate and mutually acceptable agreement,” and that “the company is not able to comment on any confidential discussions that may be taking place with the U.S. government.”

      The decision to issue the executive order was reported earlier by Fox News.


      More at NYT
      -----------------

      It looks like a key takeaway isn't just that Pfizer currently is light on vaccine to supply and would need to make more, and that the US failed to order more when offered the chance, but that the 'more' they would make is contractually obligated to other countries now.

      Takeaway number 2 is the US seemed to be comfortable that with the other candidates, they didn't need to order more from Pfizer. But that begs the question- If they were fine with what Pfizer could provide and they had other vaccines coming online with Pfizer to fill the gap, then why this new Executive Order?
      "according to people familiar with the matter". Right. You might want to stop sucking in fake news.

      How about you instead read this. Perhaps that's why Pfizer might lack capacity. They admitted to their own supply-chain problems. Perhaps that's why Trump hedged his bets and accepted some competition rather than a monopoly. Also, Moderna's is more effective, 95% to 90%. Had Trump bought all Pfizer, more people would have died.

      Is that what you prefer? That more people die because they didn't get the best vaccine?

      In any event, read about Pfizer's troubles...and you wanted to lock us up with that:


      Pfizer plans to roll out half of originally planned vaccines due to supply-chain problems
      https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyl...e-supply-chain

      Pfizer Inc. expects to ship half of the Covid-19 vaccines it originally planned for this year because of supply-chain problems, but still expects to roll out more than a billion doses in 2021.

      “Scaling up the raw material supply chain took longer than expected,” a company spokeswoman said. “And it’s important to highlight that the outcome of the clinical trial was somewhat later than the initial projection.

      Pfizer and Germany-based partner BioNTech SE had hoped to roll out 100 million vaccines world-wide by the end of this year, a plan that has now been reduced to 50 million. The U.K. on Wednesday granted emergency-use authorization for the vaccine, becoming the first Western country to start administering doses.

      “We were late,” said a person directly involved in the development of the Pfizer vaccine. “Some early batches of the raw materials failed to meet the standards. We fixed it, but ran out of time to meet this year’s projected shipments.”

      Comment


      • It took click-it or ticket to get people to wear a seatbelt.

        I wonder if mask-it or casket might work...

        Comment


        • I'm shocked your retort is from Fox News! LOL...

          Did you even read my comments?

          And what is wrong with ""according to people familiar with the matter""??

          See, I read something and it makes me ask questions. You just wait on Fox News to tell you what to think.

          Edit: And technically, the Fox piece isn't directly an answer to what I posted anyway.
          Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

          ------

          "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

          -John Wooden

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Bball View Post
            I'm shocked your retort is from Fox News! LOL...

            Did you even read my comments?

            And what is wrong with ""according to people familiar with the matter""??

            See, I read something and it makes me ask questions. You just wait on Fox News to tell you what to think.

            Edit: And technically, the Fox piece isn't directly an answer to what I posted anyway.
            The reality is you are following the author of that trash off a cliff. He makes a conclusion with not a shred of evidence. It merely fits his (and your) narrative so you run with it.

            In my case, I have an actual admission from Pfizer. A quote.

            And I thought you guys were pro Fox as long as it wasn't one of the talking propaganda heads. Talking up their news...

            Comment


            • Hidden orange clown supporter Dan Dakich got corona


              https://twitter.com/indystar/status/...027943936?s=21
              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

              Comment


              • Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post

                The reality is you are following the author of that trash off a cliff. He makes a conclusion with not a shred of evidence. It merely fits his (and your) narrative so you run with it.

                In my case, I have an actual admission from Pfizer. A quote.

                And I thought you guys were pro Fox as long as it wasn't one of the talking propaganda heads. Talking up their news...
                Actually, it's not so much that Fox's reporting was wrong, it's that it had nothing really to do with what the NYT's was reporting.

                We've known for several days that Pfizer was coming up short on this first batch of vaccine. That is what Fox is correctly reporting. This report is from several days ago.

                They're not even talking about what the NYT is talking about now.

                This is entirely two different issues. Once I realized your article wasn't a direct Fox reply to the NYT article, or some type of spin, I realized you totally missed the point because you were busy avoiding the NYT entirely rather than understanding where it fit in context.

                So you posted an article, talking about an entirely different issue, from several days ago that was common knowledge to any of us following actual news, as a reply to a new report about an entirely different issue.

                You're going to have to try again.
                Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                ------

                "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                -John Wooden

                Comment


                • IOW... My mistake was once again giving you the benefit of the doubt and trusting you were presenting an actual reply/rebuttal article to the NYT piece.

                  I need to stop trusting you ever to present material correctly and in context.
                  Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                  ------

                  "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                  -John Wooden

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Bball View Post

                    Actually, it's not so much that Fox's reporting was wrong, it's that it had nothing really to do with what the NYT's was reporting.

                    We've known for several days that Pfizer was coming up short on this first batch of vaccine. That is what Fox is correctly reporting. This report is from several days ago.

                    They're not even talking about what the NYT is talking about now.

                    This is entirely two different issues. Once I realized your article wasn't a direct Fox reply to the NYT article, or some type of spin, I realized you totally missed the point because you were busy avoiding the NYT entirely rather than understanding where it fit in context.

                    So you posted an article, talking about an entirely different issue, from several days ago that was common knowledge to any of us following actual news, as a reply to a new report about an entirely different issue.

                    You're going to have to try again.
                    I was simply presenting an example of recent, actual news story to help you distinguish between that and propaganda.

                    Anytime you read "according to people familiar with the matter" AND you don't see direct quotes supporting your assertion, you might just be reading FAKE news.

                    So the example I presented was in no way to refute the NYT article directly. It was to point out that the NYT article was your standard, run-of-the-mill propaganda getting pumped continuously out of the left.

                    Also, late summer was 3 months ago. How far along was Pfizer and why would the US commit to a contract if a) there was any question it might fail and b) other vendors had promising vaccines?

                    On top of that, are you supporting not using Moderna's medicine? If so, statistically, you support more death.

                    Answer that one.

                    Comment


                    • You know, EVEN IF Trump rejected locking down 330M doses (or 660 M if it takes 2)....anyone with an objective bone in their body would admit he made the right call not committing us to an ALL PFIZER solution.

                      Let's say this virus would have killed a million more people. Choosing Moderna over Pfizer saves 50,000 lives. Just short of the population of Noblesville. So these libs want people to die. Hmmm.

                      Comment


                      • Some insight on the adviser board and the process to approve. So probably Friday pfizer gets approved and for sure next week. They will release the data in a 100 page summary 2 days prior to the vote. So tomorrow or Wednesday we should see those 100 pages.

                        https://www.statnews.com/2020/10/20/...cines-matters/

                        Comment


                        • Keep in mind guys that the US has 5 stage 3 clinical trials going on. They have commitments for vaccines for every American 3 times over if I remember correctly.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                            Keep in mind guys that the US has 5 stage 3 clinical trials going on. They have commitments for vaccines for every American 3 times over if I remember correctly.
                            Bball probably thinks we need 10 times of it purchased...smdh.

                            I would say that is enough especially since at least 20% of the people will not take the vaccine. I am absolutely certain of that.

                            For one, there are tons of people going into gas stations without masks. There are tons of young people who don't give AF. There are old people who would just rather die and are not taking it. There are all kinds of people who will not take this vaccine.

                            People have different opinions. There are people I know who still believe Trump won. They do tend to be far right conservatives, some of my best peeps. I have disagreed with that. I tend to need hard proof that I can validate, but I am accepting that he lost. I can't prove that and I would like better validation of it. But I am buying that Biden won. And frankly I don't even like Trump. I don't hate Biden.

                            There are also people I know less well who still think this virus is a hoax. They tend to be libertarian types...not really conservatives. Guys that run with Rand Paul. I think Rand is a brilliant dude, but I definitely don't think this thing is a hoax.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post

                              I was simply presenting an example of recent, actual news story to help you distinguish between that and propaganda.

                              Anytime you read "according to people familiar with the matter" AND you don't see direct quotes supporting your assertion, you might just be reading FAKE news.

                              So the example I presented was in no way to refute the NYT article directly. It was to point out that the NYT article was your standard, run-of-the-mill propaganda getting pumped continuously out of the left.

                              Also, late summer was 3 months ago. How far along was Pfizer and why would the US commit to a contract if a) there was any question it might fail and b) other vendors had promising vaccines?

                              On top of that, are you supporting not using Moderna's medicine? If so, statistically, you support more death.

                              Answer that one.
                              What are you even talking about?

                              You are the picture in the dictionary when I look up "Gullible". In the encyclopedia, you're the example of a believer of propaganda.

                              I don't even know why I bother to read your replies and rebuttals. It's always clear you're too blinded by propaganda to actually have a legitimate discussion about anything.

                              I presented a current news piece and you presented, as a rebuttal, a piece from several days ago. I thought it was something legitimately released as spin to counter an entirely different news story hoping readers wouldn't notice the context. Instead, it was you, late to the party, presenting some days old news as a rebuttal to something it didn't even apply to. And now that you've been called out on it, you don't just admit your mistake and move on. Instead you're rambling.

                              I need to quit ever giving you any benefit of the doubt and just start ignoring you until you come back to planet earth.

                              Turn off Fox News. Stay off OAN. Turn off FB. Quit dumbing yourself down, yet thinking you're informed. You're not.
                              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                              ------

                              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                              -John Wooden

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X