Ginger_Warrior

The Sailing joke is still a running gag in-game on OSRS whenever a new reboot starts timing down. I joined the Reddit cc (HYT chat doesn't exist any more); if you speak to them about the last five years and look at RS3 player numbers, it's little wonder why numbers here have drifted down. While OSRS has been a huge success for Jagex (around 100k a few weeks ago following mobile OSRS release), RS3 only has 20k active weekly players now. The EoC update in late 2012 set RS3 on course for an ultimately terminal decline. Wikia has also replaced Tip.It and Zybez as the reference for game information. From an ex-staff viewpoint, that's hardly surprising. We would receive literally hundreds of reports every week, and there's only so fast we can process that information (working out what was wrong, deciding between false reports, editing the HTML etc). Wikis are simply a better medium for community-based collaboration.

I'm sorry to hear that. There's nothing anyone here can say that will make this better, but I hope they did everything they could to make her comfortable in her final days, and that she died peacefully. Hello Maddy! I'm also sorry to hear your bad news. The experience you've gained will make you a worthy candidate for other organisations who'll appreciate your worth, don't worry about that. Enjoy Italy--if you're going to Rome, it's a beautfiul city.

Think of the people you like being around. Chances are, they'll generally reflect positivity--talk about things they ARE doing rather than things they can't / don't have time for, talk about people they DO like rather than people who annoy them, talk about where they WANT to go in life rather than brood over the opportunities they've lost for whatever reason. My golden rule is that if there really is no positive way of looking at something, turn it into a joke, or else don't bother mentioning it to strangers or acquaintances. Your friends would probably care, but strangers won't.

First dates are generally hell for most people. It's not something anyone should beat themselves up over. Sometimes you click, sometimes you don't.

(Presumably) cis men telling women that rape culture doesn't exist? How refreshing.

Just to rewind (and de-escalate this rather silly row), no one actually said: "stick with someone even when they're not offering what you're expecting from a relationship, in the hope that one day they will". One fellow TIFer, who happens to be female, simply asked that you stopped assuming Statement X was a manipulation of Statement Y based on nothing else except the gender of the person saying it. Seemed like a pretty obvious and reasonable request to me and I think most people outside of this place, especially women, could empathise with that.

There are some drawbacks. Although you can literally do everything on the mobile, some things (like quests) are actually quite fiddly to do. Posture is an issue; playing hunched over a tiny screen is actually pretty uncomfortable after twenty minutes. Also, although the legality of this issue has always been murky, you can't use the third-party clients which have made the UI so much more user-friendly. It does have some utility though: half-AFK fishing while watching Netflix on television? A little bit of woodcutting while you're waiting for that pasta to boil? On public transport and need a boredom killer? It's here that the mobile version really excels, even if it doesn't fully replace the need to play OSRS on a desktop.

I mean, I wouldn't want to date someone who took "I wanna take slow" as "She never wants to have sex with me and is just leading me on" either. Sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy there. I have dated and, because of the nature of the job I do, have quite a few female friends. I think most of them would agree with Tesset's perspective. If a guy (or girl) they're dating can't take the statement "taking things slow" at face value, much less accept that, then it doesn't bode well for much else in that relationship.

Oh hai. In a strange turn of events, I came back to Tip.It for the bestiary which I worked on as a Crewbie over ten years ago. But to be honest, Leik is bang on the money--the medium of forums has been largely replaced by Reddit, fandom wikis and Facebook groups. That being said, the player numbers for OSRS on mobile are very impressive.

I think that's a really positive way of looking at the situation. Good luck with it, it'll serve you well.

Take things slowly on that one, Noxx. I'm sure she likes you, however, she's said she doesn't want to rush into intimacy; therefore, doing so would be the fastest way of stopping it dead. Also, if she's newly single, she might not be ready to jump into something that deep at first.

omg jagex mod. Purple phat pl0x I'll buy one years membs <3

OT: Did anyone come back here after many years and lowkey cringe a bit at their teenage selves? I wonder if this how Generation Z will feel about Instagram in five years...

The reference to social upbringing emphasizes Saq's point (I think it was Saq) about children mixing time with each other. You have a situation now where Israeli children live in constant fear of rocket attacks from Hamas militants, while Gazan children pick dead bodies from the rubble of buildings reduced by the IDF. Neither of those two groups of children are going to grow up with a particularly favourable view of the other, and so the cycle of violence continues and is only exacerbated.

If you didn't know, right now they're a 72 hour siece fire, Israel withdraw its ground troops from Gaza, and a longer term solution is being negotiated. Oh, how merciful. Meanwhile an emergency humanitarian appeal has been launched for Gaza. Y'know, the kind usually meant for unstoppable natural disasters. I'm sure what paltry few rockets managed to hit Israel inflicted similar levels of damage, and I'm sure most Palestinians are now much wiser to Israel's benevolent nature towards their independence. No meaningful long-term solution can be sustained while Israel continues to disrespect the sovereignty of the State of Palestine through economic blockades and military intimidation. There is no sovereign State of Palestine. Israel wanted to continue the cease fire but Hamas ddidnt want to. Christ almighty... where do you get your news on this? It's as if you read pro-Israeli papers exclusively just to narrow your perspective even further. 1) Pretty much the entire world recognizes the State of Israel except, conveniently, most of the industrialized world. The State of Palestine is recognised as an Observer State by the UN. For context, Switzerland was granted similar recognition for well over fifty years. Are you suggesting Switzerland wasn't a state pre-2002? Because that's the only way you can logically continue to deny the existence of Palestine as a sovereign state. At the very, very least, please accept that the Palestinian Liberation Organization is the representative voice of the Palestinian people... because even Israel accepts that. 2) Hamas made an extension of the cease fire conditional on Israel accepting its demands, which included an end to economic blockading (which only backs up my previous point, which you unsurprisingly chose not to reply to). Israel, by the way, also made its own demands, as is perfectly normal and standard in diplomatic peace talks. 3) My point, and I'm repeating this for the third time, was not that Hamas are in the right and Israel are in the wrong. My point is that the level of force used by the IDF in response to Hamas' ineffectual mortar and rocket attacks has been wholly disproportionate and has cost thousands of innocent civilian lives. The "human shields" argument wears thin when you continue to explosively bombard a densely populated area which has no open border for people to evacuate through (a situation designed by Israel itself) and barely any infrastructure at all to deal with major incidents. My second point is that the response is foolish. It has only served to undermine what precious little remained of Israel's reputation in the Gaza Strip, has reinforced Hamas' worldview further, and has driven more young and highly impressionable Palestinian men to the verge of desperation, extremism, and hence, Hamas. Stop trying to portray this is a fight between good and evil, or right and wrong. Anyone with half a brain can see this conflict isn't as simple as that.

If you didn't know, right now they're a 72 hour siece fire, Israel withdraw its ground troops from Gaza, and a longer term solution is being negotiated. Oh, how merciful. Meanwhile an emergency humanitarian appeal has been launched for Gaza. Y'know, the kind usually meant for unstoppable natural disasters. I'm sure what paltry few rockets managed to hit Israel inflicted similar levels of damage, and I'm sure most Palestinians are now much wiser to Israel's benevolent nature towards their independence. No meaningful long-term solution can be sustained while Israel continues to disrespect the sovereignty of the State of Palestine through economic blockades and military intimidation.

Very apt advice in this case. Neither side is going to blast the other away and both Israel and Palestine have to learn to live with each other. The only option for them both is to sit around a table and talk. Conflicts like this only bring that point further away. That's why I find it difficult to understand Israel's campaign here. Israel is losing support from the international community with its disproportionate level of force, is alienating Palestinians further away from the two-state solution, and doesn't seem to be scoring any major tactical victories here, given that support for Hamas has strengthened due to the conflict and Israel already possesses the best anti-missile defence system known to mankind.

a) Why should Palestinians be forceably evicted from their own land. Why should Egypt be forced to accept some 4.5 million individuals who aren't even Egyptian? There's no legal basis for your argument; b) Most US citizens aren't descended from the indigenous American population. Nor are most Mexicans or Canadians for their respective territories, for that matter. Perhaps in order for the native Americans to have their land, all Caucasian Americans should be evicted from the US and shoved in Europe... or somewhere convenient where (and this is presumably what you meant) Caucasians are meant to be. Doesn't this sound ridiculous? Of course, because it's an ill-thought argument; c) The quoted above is a delusional attempt at re-writing history to suit a pro-Israeli viewpoint. The British Mandate of Palestine clearly meant for a two-state solution. What happened was that one state was made superfluously more powerful than the other (arguably as an apology for mass genocide of Jews during WWII and general antisemitism before then) and, hey presto, started to infringe on the other state's sovereignty. Throughout the history of the Middle East, you repeatedly see this mismatch of power causing real day-to-day issues for Palestinians, and extremist militant groups riding on the back of the anger and resentment which stems from that. My solution to c)? Well, not shelling UN schools might be a good way to start. In fact, shelling any location where 4.5K civilians share a 1km squared area should generally be considered as a recipe for disaster in terms of civilian casualties. The "Hamas is hiding behind women" argument only stretches so far when you begin to understand that the IDF knows civilians are there in the first place.

Do you even know what "demands" Hamas have made? I'll answer the question for you - no you don't, and your opinion therefore lacks all credibility, because they haven't made any demands. Hamas stands for the total destruction of Israel; they're not interested in bargaining. Secondly, I find it interesting that no one responded directly to my final paragraph of my last post. It's incredible to suggest that if a sovereign nation blockaded US waters, embargoed its trade routes, counted its food imports, closed its borders (even to refugees fleeing a war zone), attempted to influence its internal political affairs and commenced a programme which aims to systematically settle on US territory, as Israel is currently doing to the Gaza Strip and some areas of the West Bank, that the American population wouldn't demand some form of retaliation. Imagine that situation, except the US has no standing army, only a terrorist organization willing to act the role of a paramilitary defence force. Questions of "right" and "wrong" go out of the window when you're desperate, and there appears to be only one party which promises to fight for your interests. What frustrates me about people choosing sides is that it polarizes the issue even further than it already is. When you push people into a situation where they believe only extreme measures will provide a better tomorrow, they will move towards extremism. This is why you have such a strong far-right nationalist grip on Israeli politics, and why you have Gazans voting for an Islamist terrorist organization, neither of which I honestly believe represent the values of most Israelis or Palestinians respectively. While that situation continues to exist, both sides will only entrench themselves further away from peaceful co-existence, and violence will continue to spark. tl;dr - so long as you continue to kill civilians, however accidental it may be, you will continue to plough fertile soil for extremism to flourish, which is in no one's best interest.

My main concern is that the Israel-Palestine conflict is seen as "good vs evil" (civilized nation defending its people vs terrorists) rather than a mature discussion which takes into account the wider context, involving the legitimate grievances of both sides. That goes two ways; I see friends posting pictures of dead Gazan children on Facebook while conveniently ignoring the fact that Hamas continues to use those grievances as a platform to justify launching rockets into a neighbouring country; I also see people elsewhere, here included, reducing the conflict to a spontaneous act of unprovoked Palestinian aggression, which is blindly ignorant to say the very least. In some twisted individuals, there's outright antisemitism and Islamaphobia. This "debate" for example, is a joke, and it concerns me that it was played out on a major news network. Load the questions to bias one side, shout down the solitary voice who opposes you and tries to place actions into context, and get a second person to outnumber them just in case that fails too: [hide=] [/hide] I also dislike this use of the word "terrorist". It only seems to have caught on since 9/11, and only appears to apply against somebody who uses violence to support any political position you don't happen to personally agree with. Killing 1,422 (and counting) Palestinians, most of whom women and children, far outweighs any act of "terror" committed against Israel in recent memory. It's a dirty word, used to slur entities and blur the boundaries of morality. I wonder how many American citizens, or indeed British citizens in my own country, would turn to "terrorists" if a foreign sovereign nation was blockading its borders, embargoing its food imports, systematically ruining its economy, settling on its land, meddling with its political affairs or shelling its schools and hospitals, even if those "terrorist" didn't fully represent their political values. Imagine that, except all of those things are happening at the same time. I'm not saying it's right, let me be very clear on that; I'm saying that in context, and with no standing army to protect you, where else would you turn for protection, or even a voice?

I didn't, I promise I'll get round to watching it sooner or later, hopefully tonight. I shouldn't really have spent an hour making that last post, I've got way too much to catch up on.

I'll only respond to those who offer counter-arguments and don't seek to trivialize the topic (since when have I suggested women are 'tied to the refrigerator'?). Excellent points, well thought out post. 1) I think the comparison to Jim Crow is more appropriate, you're right, in that the arrangement is dependent on the relationship being an inherently unequal one. The main difference I'd note is that du jure discrimination has been virtually eliminated in the Western world. Another difference is that I don't think the discrimination is as strong today as it was with racism back then. Some men are misogynist and sexualize women at every turn. The majority, I'm convinced, are perfectly decent human beings and do not, but the problem is the former group aren't challenged nearly enough by the latter to change their attitudes or behaviour. 2) Good questions. There's certainly more men in political office, and since politics and economics dominates our newspapers, you might argue that accounts for the increased number of articles about male subjects. What's more concerning, though, is the manner in which women are presented on front pages of newspapers. In 2012, the top two woman most likely to be photographed (by far) were Kate and Pippa Middleton, perhaps not surprisingly following the wedding, but this was not followed by any description of what they've been up to or how this is even newsworthy, as they would have done for a politician, but followed by a blow-by-blow account of what they were wearing and how they appeared. I cannot recall the last time Michael Gove's or George Osbourne's attire was picked apart thread-by-thread to accompany a largely irrelevant and superficial account of their policies for education or the economy (of course, the irony there is they suit up quite well, being politicians in the public eye; perhaps some men wouldn't mind some free advice?). Again, though, the implication that women aren't there do anything useful, only to look pretty while men do the real work, is made, an association which was made ad nauseum with Diana. 3) This one is frequently brought up as a counter-argument to feminism. "Well, men have it bad too in some ways". I'm not going to argue against that, and I don't think most rational feminists would either, at least not the ones that follow the definition of 'wanting equality between both genders'. If we're going into more sociological territory and discussing power imbalances, though, I'd like to give a personal account. A female friend of mine who went to college to study car mechanics and engineering, but had to arrange her own work placement to pass the course, and was told by every garage in my hometown that, "You're a bird... you must be joking!". Women can't very well place themselves in hazardous occupations if discrimination stops them from even accessing those occupations in the first place, wouldn't you agree? 4) I doubt if your male baker was the Secretary of State, you'd ask him what designer shoes he wears, though. OK, you go to your baker for bread and you're not interested in his ideas about the world, I get that. But when it's your job to be foreign minister for the most powerful country on Earth... Is your choice of designer labels what the people are really interested in? 5) Alright then, fair play. How about this one? :P Bit rapey?

The logical solution to that problem would be for you to get a job, haha. :P Just applied for a warehouse job that I have a solid chance of getting. Not really my ideal job, but its 40hr/week @ $13/hr starting so I'm down. Anything to get me out of bed in the morning really. Good to hear. I remember when I was two years long-term unemployed and eventually got a job offer at a less-than-ideal place. It was probably the one thing that transformed my attitude towards life and my ambitions. Even if it's not ideal, it gives you structure and confidence and that makes such a difference at the end of the day. I hope the application goes well and the job, if you get it.

What discrimination she would get would not ruin her chance at achieving her goals or financial independence. I'm not saying racism/sexism doesn't exist, it is just not a relevant factor anymore. Really? Women make up just 19% of Congress. I'll agree that socioeconomic status plays a little role in that, but in this golden age where women couldn't want for more and every obstacle to gender equality has supposedly been toppled, you're not seriously suggesting that that's all down to class, are you? That's one hell of an extraordinary statement.

It is garbage under the law of social media that states that all Twitter trends are garbage. You know me.... I never post, I just let you guys do the discussing. Understood. So your criticism is aimed at the use of hashtagging as a platform from which to launch short-term trends, rather than a more sustained message. Regrettably, I'd have to agree with you. That's not to say social media can't be used to campaign in this way, just that the use of trending means the message hits home but isn't followed through or reinforced, and therefore, quickly forgotten.