Kotaku reporter has some extra bad news

Meh give it a rest people Shepard is gone. Deal with it.

How's it unsourced? Do you know who this author talked to? Did he reveal his sources or their absence to you? Would you, working for a company, like to be named in an article? Do you want to be fired or sued?

Why does it ignore common sense? What's not comprehensive about the article in lights how the game turned out?

Why does it ignore recent history?

You know i used to be all nice and smug vis a vis the UK and the former colonies.

Then we had the Brexit referendum and all the shenanigans afterwards, culminating in our PM jumping into bed with terrorist sympathisers.

Still, at least we know how to make tea.

That looks to me like whining that so many people didn't take his claims at face value.

its first season was bad but it was starting to really find its footing by and large by the end of season 2 finding an interesting hybrid between SG-1s light hearted campy adventurism and BSGs grim darkness. And it had a long term.interesting storyline.

Clone Shepard in Citadel should've been the opposite sex of whichever Shepard you're running. So you have to fight BroShep if you're FemShep and vice-versa.

That didn't stop him before... 

shivers at the memories.

Speaking of things anyone else like Telford?

Used to be that journalists with journalistic integrity would at least supply one named source if not more. They would at least supply some element of the story that could be corroborated by someone named and willing  to go on record. These sort of secret sources were only common with huge stories that could blow off the lid of something major like massive scale corruption or things along those lines where the blow back was huge and probably lives were in danger. Now journalism has no integrity. It's a bloody joke. Also, those fully unnamed source articles were often meant for public awareness to get people wanting investigations into the issue. They were meant to prompt more people to come forward with what they know and get more people on record. You never got this sort of epidemic of unnamed sources in articles like you do lately. It's a plague right now. There is no way to know how many sources someone has. There is no way to know if it's just a few people with a vendetta of some sort or just angry about some issue and blowing things out of proportion. During the age of journalistic integrity you would get these sort of unnamed sources right before grand juries would convene on pretty serious matters and very often there were paper trails involved, physical evidence that could be shown, and eventually at least one of the unnamed sources would end up on record. So you can see there is a pretty stark difference. Unnamed sources should always be something people are leery about. It should trigger a red flag. If there is no corroborating evidence, not one person on record then you should not trust it. You should question it. People are too damn gullible today and mostly because they aren't savvy enough to know when they are being conned or fooled. They believe whatever they are told and never even bother with using analytical thinking to assess how true, how false it could be, or who might benefit from what is being said when there are no sources named. Frankly, even if there are sources named you should still question it. I guess it's been the death of the analytical mind too.

my thoughts exactly. I mean literally. I could accuse you of telepathically plagerizing what i would say on the topic. Lol.