I have a friend who did website design for a restaurant and the restaurant owner refused to pay him. You know what he did, he didn't take it down... he left it up.

This could pretty easily be solved by having the model change by bending the knees rather than stretching the torso. And it's clear the head isn't there to avoid the visor clipping through in front of the camera.

Hey I bot banned a few times, when I was a kid... and it changed me because I wanted to be part of it said communities.

"would make the game feel as if it's a prequel to the original series."

"There actually isn't a lot of Arab killing in Call of Duty games."

Wait so the "evidence" he's a nazi is that he made the obviously sardonic "worse than Hitler" remark? By that logic Larry David (the Jewish comedian who often makes "worse than Hitler" remarks) is a full Colonel in the SS.

if only it could somehow be combined with Brutal Doom

Go back to cowadoody, that's what the 14 year olds are actually playing, it is the children and the childish adults who refuse to play any Doom game because it's not got 3D graphics or about killing arabs like most COD games.

"The issue is that there's no real accountability and standards set for enthusiast press sites. And there needs to be."

Does this site have a policy on the relationship between advertising for things and coverage of the thing - or another thing who owns the same thing they want you to feature in banners.

Shots fired!

It's got a hard act to follow, and I'm not talking vanilla doom, I'm talking about the mod everyone says is so captures the Doom nature:

It would have to be a catastrophic failure if the recent reports are true of debris scattered over a large area. Catastrophic enough to rip open the fuselage and start separating the seats and internal components of the aircraft.

WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW?!?!?

Because you could say "here have this money" but be thinking "I don't want him to take my money" then go to the police complaining of theft. But he was told you wanted him to have it.

"Consent is a thought, so if someone thinks they didn't consent, and that person is sane and not lying, then that person didn't consent... I can understand that you're frustrated, but consent will always depend on the "thoughts" of all parties involved."

Too close to my liking, and how can I be comfortable with the idea of she only THINKS she's been sexually assaulted. That's bad enough. Am I just supposed to be okay and be like the bad guy of Lethal Weapon 2 with Diplomatic Immunity Legal Technicality as the defence. That doesn't make it all right.

A judge will say "prove beyond all reasonable doubt" which generally means over 99% certain. Distinct from a civil case where it's simply "preponderance of evidence" which means just 50% certain overall.

No that still sounds scary, still a mistake away from "worst crime category ever" (sexual assault) especially as verbal expression of consent isn't true consent, they may feel through baseless fear they have no choice but to consent. I'm not even talking about legal basis I'm talking about how THEY may be genuinely…