Italian Jew

Why...just why? This is why we can't have nice things.

OT4B-NJUcZE

Sneaky, you fanboy fucktard, just don't start shit. Hell, you can start off by using correct info. The Wii outsold the 360 which outsold the PS3. /rage Didn't want to go overboard on him... : ( I have under 10,000, but I don't go achievement hunting like some of those lonely people out there.

5rMnSqPRUs4

You have no power. Get your own damn cake!

Alright, here's the tea and unknown pastry. I am also offering free dental care to sweeten the deal. HIT EVERY LAST MEMBER THAT JOINED AFTER JANUARY 2009!

Cocoa powder most likely

That actually looks pretty damn good

I request the ability to neg rep so I can put these people back in their places

He tried to cast some SERIOUZ on this thread but failed to realize it was Off Topic and not the Politics section.

The Saints players caused the turnovers (short of Favre's interception and the screwed handoff). Peterson has been known to drop the ball more frequently than your average RB. Also, it's not like the Saints didn't give the Vikings opportunities. They came up big when they needed to by causing the turnovers while the Vikings could have played up to their pedigree. If they were the "better" team as you say, then they wouldn't make stupid mistakes and let the Saints make the big plays. The Saints have to score points to win the game. The Vikings tried everything they could to stop them and the simple fact is that they failed to stop the Saints from beating them. The Saints played exactly like they were supposed to, by eliminating stupid mistakes while causing the other team to make some ( or at least capitalizing on mistakes better than the other team). A stable team that plays solid football and performs when it needs to is better than a seemingly dominant team that doesn't play at the same level through the entire game. Their mistakes helped to lose the game, but the Saints won the game by scoring when they needed to and not settling for anything other than the W. I will agree with the America's team BS though. The Saints haven't done enough or have enough fans to earn that title.

I'd say the team with fewer turnovers was the better team.

Again, his hand was between the ball an the ground in the angles presented. There was no CONCLUSIVE footage that showed the ball in contact with the ground (the ball moved, but his hand was under it possibly preventing an incompletion). The original ruling was a completion, so unless you have some hidden footage that clearly shows that his hand was not preventing the ball from hitting the ground at precisely the right angle, you are just spouting nonsense that ignores the procedure of reviewing a play. You also seem to be bringing up only one seemingly controversial call while ignoring others, but that doesn't matter, does it?

um...no Not enough visual evidence to overturn it as his hand looked like it was underneath the ball. There was no conclusive evidence to the contrary. QQ

That's called martyring and is against the rules.

Naw dude, it's completely legit. Internet ads are the most trustworthy things in this world short of con artists and hungry squirrels. Like, this one time, this girl I know did it and now she makes millions by not eating and walking up and down a path. She almost got a part in a new sitcom, but she wouldn't blow the producer to get "in". You should try and snag yourself a job from the advertisement. Once you are living the life in Hollywood, remember us poor folks at SG who inspired you to dream big!

He's great with other players and people he favors. When teams and coaches don't see eye to eye with him, he throws a temper tantrum every now and then. Just keep him on your good side and he displays his good side.

I think the problem was that he was being stubborn about fixing the tags, but then I don't know the way in which Crimson told him how to fix them. The guy said he was harassed, but everyone just ignored it, so I don't know what the exact details were.

If a T starts running at a CT (with no object in the way), you can assume it as a threat or violation of the order given if the T comes within or close to knife range. No need to bullshit the T's around and allow them to strike first. If the CT is running into a crowd or approaches a crowd for the sake of starting shit with the T's, then I would consider that the same as martyring. In that case, I would not shoot any T's approaching within knife range, but as soon as he was killed, I would target the T that killed him and any others that may have gotten weapons. If a T knifes a CT trying to be a douche, I usually won't give a shit.

From what I understood, you should only kill AFK's if they were the last ones in the round (still in their cells) or if they became AFK after orders were already given (in big cage then told to go to pool). If there was an order for the prisoners to move somewhere else and you were AFK at the time, then you can be killed for being AFK. Technically, you are holding up the round in a way preventing the CT's from escorting the prisoners to the next location. They would have to leave someone to watch you to make sure you wouldn't come at someone from behind and start a revolt. Letting you live at that point was purely optional. I would say it isn't a huge deal because you were only killed like this during one round it sounds like. Just seems the admin was a douche or other orders were called during your absence. There is no real rule for killing AFK's, just rough guidelines as to what courtesy you should provide to players who might be joining soon. Admins shouldn't punish for it nor should people complain about it unless something else was involved.

If you were in the doorway looking out, then it should be a warning shot. The CT was just just VERY strict with the orders given. This is assuming that you are still inside the shower area at the time (half in shower/half in locker room). Again, if you are trying to get away with something, pray for the warning shot instead of some trigger happy CT. The safest thing is to just follow the orders to the letter instead of assuming.

I haven't seen any showers near enough to a doorway where there wasn't a hallway or other room/space in between. You are either at the showers or out of the showers. You should get a warning shot unless you are blatantly disobeying the order or have already taken a warning shot for the same offense. I will say that I won't cry over your corpse if you just get killed without a warning shot first as it is disobeying an order. My advice: If you are trying to get away with something, pray for a warning shot.

You have a weapon out, so yes, you are technically a legitimate target and threat for the CT's. If you weren't aiming at anyone, I would give you the courtesy of asking you to drop it unless shit was going down (if I am in a nice mood at the time). If T's were trying to revolt at or near the same time, I would probably shoot you right away. If you had the weapon out without being ordered to drop it or allowed to mess around with it, you aren't up to anything good and I wouldn't expect someone to let me live for doing the same thing.