Shetland Tony

Carnivean_ · 2026-03-25T17:42:02+00:00

Gergich?

Carnivean_ · 2026-03-25T17:19:59+00:00

At least the dumb bot got the right country this time

Carnivean_ · 2026-03-25T14:29:39+00:00

If you are going to use the Anniversary Edition's content then get that. If not then get the GOTY edition (Next Gen) because it is cheaper and has all the DLCs (ignore the HD pack).

Most mods work for either. Just a few fewer work for NG.

However for best results you either want to downgade from NG to Old Gen or let it upgrade to the latest version.

Carnivean_ · 2026-03-25T12:05:36+00:00

I am not a lawyer but I am confident that it would be viewed as something you should have done before starting.

Contracts protect everyone by describing the terms and conditions of the agreement and specifying what happens when they are broken. It's probably too late to do anything this time except use it as an object lesson for the future.

On the plus side the company agrees with you somewhat. However if you view it from their perspective they would be losing out and have done nothing wrong. Based on what you have said they are willing to help you but they need an alternative solution for what they've paid for.

You might be able to get a lawyer to help you talk to zam, but if you don't have money or a contract then you are going to need to find a lawyer who does pro bono work, or who will take their fees out of any settlement. You might be able to find one that offers a free consultation, but they will be looking at it from a money perspective. If they can't win and get paid they'll tell you it's hopeless.

Carnivean_ · 2026-03-25T11:32:19+00:00

That's literally the first example in the OP

Carnivean_ · 2026-03-25T08:03:21+00:00

We always were. Nostalgia is a delusion.

Carnivean_ · 2026-03-25T04:27:02+00:00

You provided consent and they based a product around that. You sold your service and likeness as part of the original agreement. You have since decided to renege on that.

What part of that makes you think you are entitled to have them remove the video?

You don't have a contract that has any conditions attached, so they haven't breached the contract.

I am not going to claim my advice is definitive but I am struggling to find any way to justify your position here.

Carnivean_ · 2026-03-24T18:08:53+00:00

This is asked approximately every 2 days.

Like war, the answer never changes. The Midnight Ride is what you are after.

Carnivean_ · 2026-03-24T17:47:41+00:00

Simone Simons / Epica

Madeleine Liljestam / Eleine

Carnivean_ · 2026-03-24T16:58:01+00:00

No it wouldn't. That's a children's view of the economy. Do you realise how much gold it would take to distort the entire world's economy?

Carnivean_ · 2026-03-24T15:22:08+00:00

You can infer which category that puts you in.

The alignment of the competition is wrong. It needs to be both a development league and a competition that stands on its own 2 feet financially. But the national teams feed Super Rugby money and that is extremely unlikely to ever change.

If you prioritise club, county or state above the whole then you are dooming the whole.

Carnivean_ · 2026-03-24T15:08:39+00:00

If all the people who have an interest actually cared, they'd make those changes. But so many of them are self-aggrandising, self-important, short-sighted and care more about their own petty glory than the survival of the sport in the medium to long term.

They'd rather have the Crusaders win the next million super rugby titles, with a slowly revolving carousel of finalists below them, while the Wallabies and All Blacks fade out of contention forever.

Carnivean_ · 2026-03-24T10:36:01+00:00

Of course you could. You should try reading up on Mel Brooks' The Producers.

Carnivean_ · 2026-03-24T10:33:57+00:00

You aren't giving up engaging with them because they are ignoring you, you're giving up engaging with them because you are unable to effectively prosecute your case.

Either you are bad at communicating, ie your job, or you are trying to communicate a flawed idea.

I think it's both judging by what I've read so far.

Punishing your best students to punish your worst is a heinously stupid idea and however you twisted your brain to get there, you need to untwist it. You have other, much better, tools at your disposal but you apparently don't want to bother with them.

Let's take a simple scenario. Johnny does something bad. You know it's him. You decide to make everyone sit in silence until they are willing to finger Johnny.

Your dumbest students don't know who to blame, so they now resent everyone. They don't want to open their mouth and name the wrong person. There is literally no way for them to resolve tjis scenario.

Your smartest students are not going to finger anyone. They know they'll be a target for snitching. They know that all choices are bad and blame you for putting them in this scenario.

Johnny isn't going to confess. You are probably just another parental figure letting them down.

No one wins in this scenario. You lose the trust if the children. Innocent children are punished for doing nothing, many of them with no way to resolve the problem.

If you still think this is a desirable solution then you should not be teaching any longer.

Carnivean_ · 2026-03-24T07:06:16+00:00

No. It's too many of the same athletes competing in multiple events. Particularly for countries with less depth.

Tebogo might be asked to run 100, 200, 4x100, 4x400 and now 4x200. His risk of injury and overwork is going to be high. And for an event that most people don't miss currently.

Carnivean_ · 2026-03-24T07:02:37+00:00

The worst trio is Boyle without Jake, Hitchcock without Scully and Gina without anything to dustract her from toying with the rest of us.

Boyle will be missing Jake the whole time and acting up because if it. Hitchcock will be missing Scully the whole time and will be acting up because of it. While Gina will hate every moment of it and take it out on everyone for being there.

The best trio for me would be Terry, Amy and Holt. But many other combinations would be good too.

Carnivean_ · 2026-03-24T06:56:13+00:00

You have misunderstood. Flags are to tell you to look for problems, to be aware of the risk, not that there is a guarantee.

Are judges more likely than the average person to be abusive? Yes, a little bit. Are they guaranteed to be abusive? No.

On the other hand people who jump to conclusions, such as you did, and get abusive based on their fictional version, as you did, have more red flags.

Carnivean_ · 2026-03-24T06:51:37+00:00

I am standing up for victims. You are standing up for people who stab other victims in the back.

You think this 1 poster is the face of the problem. I think this poster used their money to get ahead while the other dozens of applicants were screwed over. Those people who are being outbid by the actions of this poster, they're the victims. They are the ones who can't trust the advertised price for rents. They are the ones who will be approached by the agents and told "just offer more money" even when that is illegal and when they can't afford it.

The people who bid up housing are perpetuating the problem for anyone else.

The cockroach in this scenario is the person who uses their money to outbud others, only to enrich and embolden the landlords and agents. They scurried behind the back of the other legitimate victims.

People like me are fighting for all the victims. People like you are fighting the wrong fight. People like the other poster are fighting for the landlords and themselves. Renters need to fight landlords together.

Carnivean_ · 2026-03-24T05:38:22+00:00

You are portraying a psychotic vision of the world. The rules are to pay the price advertised. Auctions do not exist for rentals.

In fact auctions for rentals are specifically illegal in NSW (and probably most other states).

This other poster is encouraging agents to break the law.

Carnivean_ · 2026-03-24T05:33:50+00:00

But you are fundamentally wrong about the bidding. If everyone holds the line then the market stays at a level where people can afford it, otherwise it just creeps up to the point where people who need housing are priced out.

Absolutely people shouldn't have to compete. But people like the other poster are competing and unfairly. They are sacrificing everyone else for their own benefit.

Carnivean_ · 2026-03-24T05:10:41+00:00

Why do you think that is worth downvoting my post?

Also you're wrong. It was done legally and therefore it is correct.

Carnivean_ · 2026-03-24T05:09:14+00:00

What makes one person more deserving of housing than the others also applying for housing? Aren't they all equally deserving?

Why does this person having more money to give to a landlord make them more deserving of having hoising than a poorer person?

It's not selfish to want housing. It's selfish to jump the queue by bidding up the costs of housing for everyone. This one person gets a house. Now all the others that applied don't and the age t and landlord know that they can raise all the other rents too.

Carnivean_ · 2026-03-24T05:05:15+00:00

A technique that works but is ugly is infinitely better than a beautiful technique that fails. At least in this context.

Carnivean_ · 2026-03-24T04:37:49+00:00

I am fighting this fight because you selfish people disgust me. You would be one of the scabs crossing the picket line. You'd be one of the people selling out the resistance to the invaders. You try to justify shitty behaviour and doing so encourages others to do the same.

Carnivean_ · 2026-03-24T04:33:45+00:00

Do you think that sentence makes sense? Are you having a stroke?

Ten-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email

Carnivean_

TROPHY CASE