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

World Politics

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by D-BONE View Post

    There are legitimate points within the critique of NATO expansion as it pertains to a continuation of Cold War struggle for geopolitical ideology/power between super powers. But ultimately there's nothing that justifies the violent destruction on an innocent people. And, yes, despite there being provocation for our entrance in WWII, I would not have used the atomic bomb on the Japanese as a way to end that chapter of WWII.

    Trump's supposed understanding of the POV on NATO expansion that you allude to is is giving way too much credit to the guy who - along with his conservative Republican acolytes - constantly weaponize "radical left" and "communist" for domestic political gain and leverage. And, certainly, the domestic liberal wing traffics in this as well when advantageous.

    That's essentially what the critique of NATO expansion is about, that in a post-Cold War world the resulting super powers should no longer be motivated by expanding their power, in particular as it relates to their financial ideology. So the Cold War never really ended as it relates to international or domestic power politics.

    Should the U.S. have been courting the former Eastern Bloc countries/former SSRs to joint NATO? There is a legitimate argument to make that we were short sighted and overzealous. At the same time, those countries had to see enough benefit to do so. A part of that decision had to be we no longer want to be under a Russian sphere of influence. Whatever the various reasons, they viewed it as in their best interest or they wouldn't have joined.

    The problem with this critique of NATO expansion is that is only works in an idealized world where the major world powers magically agree to complete to a level of collaboration and/or neutrality in the power dynamic. Something along the lines of the US and Russia actually taking their own nuclear arms reduction commitments seriously, for example.

    So, yes, the US is not beyond questioning in the overarching atmosphere that the unprovoked attack on Ukraine occurs in. But ultimately it's the Russian elite who authorized the slaughter of an innocent population and the disregard for and destruction of a sovereign nation.

    Lots to agree with here, but I will say this: we knew the Russians, justifiably or otherwise, viewed Western expansion as an existential threat (it goes beyond NATO and the EU but those are the most obvious touchstones) to which there was a reasonable chance they'd respond militarily, and yet we persisted in courting nations like Georgia and Ukraine anyway. This despite the fact that it was patently obvious that apart from sanctions and strongly worded letters, we weren't going to actually do anything if they were attacked.

    Therefore, I do think it's fair to say that we deserve some of the blame for what's happening here. We shouldn't have said in 2008 that they'd be joining NATO someday, or sent dumbasses like McCain over to loudly agitate in favor of Western alignment following the Maiden protests. I do believe Ukraine is essentially blameless for responding positively to our overtures, we run the world and they want to be in the kool kids club which is understandable, but it was on us to slap them in the face and tell them to tread lightly, because they were clearly going down a path that would lead to violence that they'd be left alone to face. That's what bothers me about our actions here.

    Hoping we'd voluntarily not be looking to expand our sphere of influence is, as you say, probably naive. But the fact we're used to reckless American foreign policy doesn't excuse the US, especially since we are the most powerful nation on Earth and effectively the ones who run the global order. Which, by the way, also goes a long way toward explaining Russian anxiety vis a vis the West. IMO it's essential to remember that; all interactions between nations must be viewed in the context of American/Western hegemony.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
      Let's not forget about Cuba, Venezuela or many other countries in South America It's not like Russia hasn't dabbled in our neck of the woods.

      https://carnegieendowment.org/2018/0...rica-pub-76228
      The character of the dabbling is different though (in a post Cold War world), because ultimately Russia doesn't control **** or have the ability to actually make **** happen on their own. Establishing connections with countries unsympathetic to us is something that happens after those regimes have taken hold, not as the result of Russian meddling.

      Which again leads us back to the power structure of the global order. This is also why talk of Russia offering an alternative to NATO to which the likes of Ukraine could be attracted to misses the mark. We are exponentially more wealthy and powerful; the only leverage Russia has is the threat of violence. Russia even offered a $22b aid package to Ukraine in the wake of the Maiden unrest, with no strings attached (in the form of changes to government or constitution); the EU offered something like $600m and demanded a host of fundamental changes to their laws and regulations. Yet when the Ukrainian president took the Ruskie deal, the population erupted and ultimately booted him out, because the long-term benefits of EU/Western association are vastly more attractive to the Ukrainian populace. Again, this reflects the relative power of the West as compared to Russia.

      If we assume that Russia is apprehensive about Western leverage over them, and that Western control of a nation they are culturally, socially, and economically quite closely tied to will only worsen that feeling, then we should have anticipated that they would react negatively to this turn of events.
      Last edited by SaintLouisan; 03-11-2022, 10:19 PM.

      Comment


      • #18
        ^^this is too anti-US. ukraine is a sovereign nation. it has every right to decide that a western approach will benefit it more than a quasi-unification with russia. i'm sure the us made clear to them the benefits of joining eu/nato; at the same time, russia was making its case. unsurprisingly, russia's vision was not particularly appealing to ukraine. that in no way comes close to justifying russia's actions here, or shifts the blame in any way to the us.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by SaintLouisan View Post


          If we assume that Russia is apprehensive about Western leverage over them, and that Western control of a nation they are culturally, socially, and economically quite closely tied to will only worsen that feeling, then we should have anticipated that they would react negatively to this turn of events.
          they're not gonna be closely tied after this !

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by SaintLouisan View Post


            Lots to agree with here, but I will say this: we knew the Russians, justifiably or otherwise, viewed Western expansion as an existential threat (it goes beyond NATO and the EU but those are the most obvious touchstones) to which there was a reasonable chance they'd respond militarily, and yet we persisted in courting nations like Georgia and Ukraine anyway. This despite the fact that it was patently obvious that apart from sanctions and strongly worded letters, we weren't going to actually do anything if they were attacked.

            Therefore, I do think it's fair to say that we deserve some of the blame for what's happening here. We shouldn't have said in 2008 that they'd be joining NATO someday, or sent dumbasses like McCain over to loudly agitate in favor of Western alignment following the Maiden protests. I do believe Ukraine is essentially blameless for responding positively to our overtures, we run the world and they want to be in the kool kids club which is understandable, but it was on us to slap them in the face and tell them to tread lightly, because they were clearly going down a path that would lead to violence that they'd be left alone to face. That's what bothers me about our actions here.

            Hoping we'd voluntarily not be looking to expand our sphere of influence is, as you say, probably naive. But the fact we're used to reckless American foreign policy doesn't excuse the US, especially since we are the most powerful nation on Earth and effectively the ones who run the global order. Which, by the way, also goes a long way toward explaining Russian anxiety vis a vis the West. IMO it's essential to remember that; all interactions between nations must be viewed in the context of American/Western hegemony.
            I don't know. I mean I fully agree with your last sentence. And I'm not arguing that the U.S. hasn't been "neutral" nor that we have no responsibility in the back and forth that has resulted in this. But Russia hasn't been "neutral" either. They were okay with things as long as Putin puppets were running Ukraine. My point is history will continue to repeat itself (in this case a neo Cold War era proxy war) as long as both major players in this relationship won't both commit to neutrality (collaboration/agreement/tolerance?).

            Is the U.S. - as the stronger power (strongest power) obligated not to exert influence and the lesser powers free to exert it to whatever extent they see fit? If we don't play the game, that doesn't mean others just follow our lead. There's no good answer to that conundrum. Hence my suggestion that, ultimately, Putin and his supporters will have to deal with the consequences of making the call to obliterate innocents. My stance on war regardless is it's only justified in the most extreme defensive cases. Putin can claim that's what this is, but Russia wasn't under attack or threat of attack. We've initiated or participated in several wars where we were not directly provoked. That's not defensible in my mind either.
            I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

            -Emiliano Zapata

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by dal9 View Post
              ^^this is too anti-US. ukraine is a sovereign nation. it has every right to decide that a western approach will benefit it more than a quasi-unification with russia. i'm sure the us made clear to them the benefits of joining eu/nato; at the same time, russia was making its case. unsurprisingly, russia's vision was not particularly appealing to ukraine. that in no way comes close to justifying russia's actions here, or shifts the blame in any way to the us.
              It certainly is and does, but there's nothing that says Ukraine must be aligned with the EU and NATO or that we must offer it to them. Now obviously we could persist and tell Russia to go **** themselves, but when they start dropping bombs (which they made obvious was on the table) I have to think we acted wrongly by putting Ukraine in a position where suddenly it had the option to pursue interests that would expose them to danger.

              Moreover, I think there's much to be gained from long term rapprochement with Russia, especially in terms of containing China. There was a picture I saw today of Xi, Putin, Bolsonaro, Modi, and someone else (South African president i think) all smiling and waving at the camera at some conference recently. Mexico and Pakistan have also been notoriously ambivalent about the whole thing and in some senses supportive. This all portends bad things IMO. Western hegemony has been largely good for the world and it's certainly been good for us. Ignoring Russia's concerns until it turns them into our enemy and encourages them to align with our emerging rivals only facilitates the end of that international order. That only hurts us in the long run. If this means accommodating their concerns (not in terms of allowing them to invade Ukraine or whoever, but in the sense of relenting when it's made clear they don't want our organizations embedded in the nations along their border), it makes sense for us to do so if it means bringing and keeping them aligned with us.

              I very highly suspect a multipolar world is not going to be hospitable for liberalism (of the sort 95% of Americans approve of) and human rights.
              Last edited by SaintLouisan; 03-11-2022, 10:56 PM.

              Comment


              • #22
                russia's gonna be left as a vassal / colony of china after this...they've been exposed and are no threat to the world order as long as the current regime is in power...

                then again, it's hard to make predictions about how things will go...supposedly even many in putin's inner circle were shocked his crazy azz actually decided to invade

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by dal9 View Post
                  russia's gonna be left as a vassal / colony of china after this...they've been exposed and are no threat to the world order as long as the current regime is in power...

                  then again, it's hard to make predictions about how things will go...supposedly even many in putin's inner circle were shocked his crazy azz actually decided to invade
                  Saw someone mention Russia's future is to be the UK to the China's US. Found that amusing and probably accurate.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by SaintLouisan View Post

                    The character of the dabbling is different though (in a post Cold War world), because ultimately Russia doesn't control **** or have the ability to actually make **** happen on their own. Establishing connections with countries unsympathetic to us is something that happens after those regimes have taken hold, not as the result of Russian meddling.

                    Which again leads us back to the power structure of the global order. This is also why talk of Russia offering an alternative to NATO to which the likes of Ukraine could be attracted to misses the mark. We are exponentially more wealthy and powerful; the only leverage Russia has is the threat of violence. Russia even offered a $22b aid package to Ukraine in the wake of the Maiden unrest, with no strings attached (in the form of changes to government or constitution); the EU offered something like $600m and demanded a host of fundamental changes to their laws and regulations. Yet when the Ukrainian president took the Ruskie deal, the population erupted and ultimately booted him out, because the long-term benefits of EU/Western association are vastly more attractive to the Ukrainian populace. Again, this reflects the relative power of the West as compared to Russia.

                    If we assume that Russia is apprehensive about Western leverage over them, and that Western control of a nation they are culturally, socially, and economically quite closely tied to will only worsen that feeling, then we should have anticipated that they would react negatively to this turn of events.
                    I think we knew that they could react negatively. You already had many examples of them doing this very thing in the 80s and 90s and in the 2000s.

                    Does that make the US or the EU culpable for Russian atrocities? I mean what the Russians wanted was against the Nato charity. You can not have another nation dictate the terms of Nato because they feel uncomfortable. They did not follow the missle agreements in the past and they won't agree to any terms in the future and keep the promises.

                    This last mistake by Russia basically sealed their fate. The Nato alliance and the EU will gain more power and Russia will keep fading into the background and China will choose the US over Russia. It is the economy size that dictates the power and China will not choose Russia over the US or the EU. China will always go to the economy the makes them stronger while talking trash about that very democratic system that made them who they are.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      So it looks like Biden had a slip up in his speech. Everybody's thinking it but you probably can't say it unless the Russian people agree.

                      I still don't understand why we don't give them planes considering how they use them against Russian planes. Its basically a bait system to try to lure the Russian pilots into ukrainen air defense system. They use ground based radar to inform uktaine pilots that they have an incoming missle fired by a Russian plane. They then basically try to out run the missle. This is how they don't lose planes to Russian missles. If the Russians make a mistake and get baited they get hit with the ground based air defense. The Polish MIGs could be used to do this against the Russians.

                      Part of this just makes NATO look silly. What classifies as a defensive weapon vs an offensive weapon just looks like splitting hairs. Biden looks weak and NATO or Poland seem willing to allow the Ukraine to be split in two by Russia.
                      Last edited by Gamble1; 03-27-2022, 03:09 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        i mean, i think the russian people DO agree, but either way, i don't think it's some huge gaffe...it's an obviously true fact from the us perspective, and putin can hardly pretend to be indignant about this, given his interference in OUR elections

                        on the planes, i've read that there are differences even between the polish and ukranian versions of the jets that would require fairly extensive training...

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Biden said what most people are thinking.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                            Biden said what most people are thinking.
                            Agreed but he looks silly saying he wasn't calling for a regime change. It displayed a lack of composer or the balls to call for one. Either you want it or you don't.

                            Waffling looks weak and even though I follow this close enough to know what he meant and has said in the past in context of the Russian people deciding Putins fate in Russia the comment was a gaffe.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              It appears Ukraine has stuck inside Russia:
                              https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-...-ammo-26587639
                              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


                              • #30

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X