Ginger_Warrior

Internet here is really slow. Not even sure if it's worth getting XBL Gold again, the lag would be horrendous.

It sounds like a damn good opportunity to catch up on some films / TV programmes / music albums / <insert interest here>!

I wouldn't necessarily agree with the first part. The vast majority of people I know are in shared, mixed-gender accommodation and get along just fine. There are many pros to that arrangement. The second part is true though: relationships within a household are generally a bad idea, which is what I was concerned about. Agreed. There's the potential for more conflict, and no where to escape too. I agree that what I was initially proposing to do would definitely have counted as needy, which is a negative trait, and not a genuine attempt to be emotionally honest with another person, which is a positive trait and is actually a trait that's necessary to initiate a relationship at all. I wouldn't have said that I'm insecure about what I have to offer, though. I'm pretty self-aware and I know what my better qualities are. I know there are girls that like those qualities. I hear what you say about one girl, but that's just me. I've never really felt for two girls at a time; it just doesn't feel right to me, so I quickly put an end to it whenever it does happen. We've differed before on this. How about a compromise: Accept this is going nowhere, stay positive, talk to new people, find someone else? All in all, you're all right, especially Ring. Don't shit on your doorstep, especially when it's your doorstep for the next nine months at least, probably longer if things stay as friendly as they are. Relationships do start between housemates and they can occasionally be happy and successful, but generally student relationships tend to be quite precarious, especially under that much tension, and when things do fall apart, they make things very awkward for everyone else in the house. Meh... we were good friends so, I'll just stay friendly, and keep my mouth shut about the whole thing, and withdraw when I feel I need to.

I'm in a bit of hole. I moved into shared housing a few months ago. At the time it was me and two girls, and we started getting along pretty well. We go out with each other, help the chores, go shopping, cook for each other, hang out in the living room every night... we've bonded really well, partly because we're all doing the same course. About two weeks ago, I noticed the way I felt about one of them had changed. We went out one Thursday, where one of our neighbors started getting really protective of her as soon as anyone else went near her, which made me feel a bit jealous (he's already in a relationship and he was being a bit of a [bleep] to be perfectly honest) but I just carried on enjoying myself and ignored it. Then a guy she met on the night out starts texting her afterwards, and I find myself getting a bit jealous, trying to convince her she doesn't want to be with this guy. Then a new housemate (male) moves in and I went into a massive strop, finding excuses which weren't really bothering me deep down (like there not being enough fridge space) but once the dust had settled and I realized how silly and impetuous I was being, I apologized, and me and this girl talked about it. She asked what was bothering me, I said to her I was anxious that the dynamics and friendships of the house would change with a new guy in the house. She said she wouldn't treat me any differently just because another guy's in the house. We spent the rest of the night hanging out like we usually do. I think it was then I finally admitted to myself after two weeks of denial that I do like this girl a bit more than just friends and a bit more than just housemates. I've got other close female friends, like really close, but I don't get green-eyed with any of them with other guys like I do now with this one girl. Before we've spoken about what we find attractive, and she says she doesn't find anyone smaller than her attractive. I'm smaller than her by some considerable distance. So I'm pretty sure she wouldn't find me physically attractive, although I think she does find my personality quite attractive (or at least, she probably did until I threw that strop); she jokes whenever I leave the house that I'm spending too much time away from her, and whenever she gets back and I'm upstairs she texts asking me to come down and see her. But she has been in very happy relationships before where she didn't find the guy physically attractive, so then I asked her straight out yesterday "Are you looking for a relationship generally, as in from anyone?" and she said, "Well, if one comes along one comes along." I didn't really tell her my own feelings, because I was afraid it would backfire, especially when I'd been acting like a baby all day over the new housemate. Basically, we're housemates, I like her, I'm 80% certain she doesn't see me in that way, at least not physically. It's obvious other things are making me more and more unsettled about the whole situation. Should I tell her and make things awkward, should I tell her as a way of explaining why things might be awkward in the future, or just leave it?

Lecturing in general is a pretty poor way of educating someone. It's (mostly) not interactive, and so you don't actually pay attention to what's being said, much less actually make a decent effort to internalize the information. Most university lectures tend to go on for a full hour or two hours, which is too long to concentrate without a break. They're also structured to become progressively more complicated as the lecture goes on, so if you miss a bit at the start, you're basically screwed for the rest of the lecture. I don't really know why universities still do mandatory lectures. They seem to serve more as a framework to go back on, and even then you just tend to revisit the Powerpoint file anyway, so it's not like you really need to listen to the lecture in the first place. Apart from that, they don't seem to offer anything more than registration classes did at the start of a morning in high school; the register just seems to ensure students are bothering to turn up to uni at all.

First lecture of the year, and my technical nursing vocabulary has extended to taking notes such as: "Don't give IV fluids just after the heart's crapped up".

I'm hoping you've found fast friends and you're too drunk to have updated us. ;)

Tbh, that fluid's not even the worst. Sputum samples are definitely the grossest. They're so sticky and gunky and you literally have to scoop it out.... Eugh...

I understand perfectly well how the change of policy came into effect, and I'm also perfectly well aware of how changes in management result in changes to business philosophy and priorities. You seemed to suggest to Spork, however, that his concerns effectively "don't matter" any more. I disagree. The promise of a level playing field was a big draw to the game. Effectively, competition between players was down to a better knowledge of training methods, and investing more time into the game. The more Jagex integrates things like bonds, spins, and items in Solomon's store which aren't purely cosmetic (etc.) into the game, the further away the game comes from being "fair". Of course, there are some who would be fine taking advantage of this situation, but there's a great many more players who won't. The comparison to the organic food company was to suggest that spoiling something your customers find attractive about your product is poor business sense, regardless of how well (or not) you're doing otherwise.

There's no logical basis for any of that; you're false philosophizing about "values" and "survival". Profits have fallen in recent years, but they're are still profiting by several million, and their turnover continues to rise. Even from a pragmatic point of view, you can't seriously suggest this update has been released to fill holes in a capsizing ship. The ship's barely started leaking yet! Furthermore, companies can (and do) conduct business whilst keeping themselves subscribed to a set of values. What you're saying is akin to suggesting that an organic food company filling their products with GM crops would be nothing more than an "undesirable outcome". Something like that would go against everything the company purportedly stands for, and would therefore be unacceptable, wouldn't you agree? Jagex, throughout its infancy, was absolutely adamant in its insistence that RuneScape should never be a game where the 'real-life' wealth of a player could be a factor in deciding which players have a competitive advantage over others. It was that principle which drove them to fight RWT and gold farming so robustly in RuneScape, while not offering a direct method of purchasing RS gold in-house. It was a core principle which some feel has been eroded over the course of several updates, and you're dismissing their concerns out-of-hand.

If you have the knowledge to see through the holes in it, the anti-farm speech does come across as a screen to distract you away from the real substance. Even if it's partly true, it clearly doesn't stand on itself when providing a rationale for this update.

So because, as a company, Jagex is trying to combat something that has a bad influence on their game (while, of course, making an extra bit of money from it), you want to cry over it? Honestly, that is ass-backwards. Oh come on, that's a blatant misrepresentation on what was actually said. Stick to the points made.

Didn't EVE Online as well? Not really the marriage type, before anyone (alg) gets ideas.

Those days at university when you're sat thinking, "Before I came here, I had a job. It didn't pay very well, but I was pretty happy with it and life in general. Especially on pay day... why the fridge did I give that up to go to uni, be stressed all the time and have no money to play with at the end of it?"

Not really. I don't feel the need to be diverse from anyone else [...] Strangely enough, people don't actually define themselves under two nationalities just to annoy people like you. For the exceptional few, which there will always be, but should not be confused as representative in any way, they're idiots. However, we're not really talking about pub banter designed to make us seem more quirky and interesting, are we? If we are, then why does it bother you so much in the first place--it's insignificant. We're talking babies born in Britain to Indian mothers whose extended family live half away around the world. If you're going to deny that baby the right to choose to call itself (at least partly) Indian when it grows up, you're a cretin and you haven't got your head in the real world. It's a total farce to insist that baby accepts the same nationalist identity as a kid born in suburban Cheshire to two white, middle-class English parents, unless they've chosen to do so.

Grand Theft Auto V robbery: Three teenagers charged Cue mass hysteria about link between video games and violence!!!

For understandable reasons.

I'll remember that body clock trick when I'm next preparing for night shifts. :)

On the one hand it's "political correctness", on the other hand it's "the cool thing to do". I think you're living off buzzwords, and purposefully remaining ignorant to the points made, in all honesty. If you yourself choose to call yourself English, fine. But don't pretend to be empathizing with those who choose differently. You can't possibly know what their reasons are. Plain "American" shouldn't be reserved solely for whites, while people of color get labeled with their race. That includes black Americans, yellow Americans, and brown Americans. Excuse me, the PC terms are African-American, Asian-American, and Latino-American. Somehow making that distinction isn't racist at all. Is skin colour the only factor which influences and affects a person's ethnicity?

On the one hand it's "political correctness", on the other hand it's "the cool thing to do". I think you're living off buzzwords, and purposefully remaining ignorant to the points made, in all honesty. If you yourself choose to call yourself English, fine. But don't pretend to be empathizing with those who choose differently. You can't possibly know what their reasons are.

You might only get a year, or a year and half out of a new Xbox 360. There's still some decent games coming up though, so it's still potentially worth it. I got my 360 around two years ago now and for the classic series I just got them pre-owned. I was never a Final Fantasy fan but, I was hooked onto FF13. Got Fable 2 and 3. The Halo games. They'd be considerably cheaper now too, FF13-2 would only cost £8 these days compared to a £39.99 price tag on release, minimum. Edit: I turned down a free Windows 8 upgrade from my retailer. I'm the epitome of anti-cool?

Isn't the whole thing meant to be a satire of the American criminal underworld? If it glorifies weed in that context, it would be sardonic, surely. Only a moron would suggest GTA:V is like "Smoke weed e'eryday".

What you seem to be advocating is a warped sense of national purity. "Love it or get out." That's a very dangerous sentiment, with respect, and it's a slogan that has been used in various forms by military dictatorships throughout the 20th Century. It comes down to that most fundamental and basic of human questions: Who, or what, am I? If my family's national origins lie in a place somewhere other than where I live, but I still subscribe to the values of the country I'm currently standing in, where's the harm in saying "I am a citizen of where I'm currently living, but my descendents come from another country"? Where's the harm in saying you're Indian American (referring to American citizens of Indian ancestry rather than indigenous Americans)? I just don't see the value in beating a man's sense of self out of him, because his sense of self somehow offends others who don't share that same identity, nor do I see any pragmatic reasoning as to how that process makes the social fabric of a nation stronger, rather than weaker.

It's an immensely complicated issue. What defines someone's nationality? Skin colour? Cultural origins? Whether they've lived in country Y for X years? Take my example: I was born in Liverpool, in the United Kingdom. My father is British, my mother was Irish (by birthplace) before she passed away. I've been to Ireland only once, as a toddler. Legally, I'm entitled to hold a British and an Irish passport concurrently. On forms which ask about about my nationality, I describe myself where possible as "British of Irish descent", the inference being that I define myself as more British than Irish, but not totally of British origin. My younger brother, in similar circumstances (except for not having visited Ireland at all) defines himself as "British-Irish", the argument being that since one parent was British and the other parent was Irish, he's as much Irish as he is British. Really... who can prove either of us wrong? The arguments are so complicated by conflicts and war, and immigration, and culture, extending throughout a millennium of Anglo-Irish history. Surely the best option is to have a laissez-faire attitude and allow us to define ourselves personally. I'm not sure why anyone would waste time, at taxpayers' expense, trying to prove someone fits nicely into a box labelled "American", or "Canadian", or "German", or whatever, when it's silly to assume that an individual's self-defined nationality is dependent on the same factors as everyone else.

I thought she stated that she was "American with Indian descent". So... she said she was American. So... I don't understand your point.