Ginger_Warrior

I've got a choice between Tentacruel or Hitmontop for a spinner roll. I already have a physical wall, but my special defender is weaker (Drought Ninetales). Ninetales puts Sunny Day on the field, so Hitmontop? Yes, it is vital a spinner is on my team. Unquestionably. EDIT: I call hax on the Metang. Crazy luck.

You're not intelligent enough for them anyway. Didn't you hear that you need at least a Masters in Economics, a Doctorate in Christian Theology, plus work experience with Steve Jobs to participate in RuneScape-related discussions on Tip.It? Shoulda read the rules son.

I can read and writes well good, innit... Can I go home now?

I remember when the barracks literally over the road to where I went to school became the focus of national media after photos apparently revealing torture by British troops on Iraqis were revealed to have been faked by soldiers stationed there. Baring in mind I was 14 at the time, against the Iraq war, and that a significant proportion of my school were Muslim, it wasn't nice to know such insensitivity had taken place only fifteen metres from our school playground: http://www.guardian....publishing.iraq That was difficult enough to comprehend--Why would anyone want to 'act out' such barbarism?-- this is even worse. Truly shocking, and I for one won't accept any lenient excuses of, 'They're soldiers so it's OK.'

It's a phase she'll snap out of when she either: a) Grows up; b) Gets too old to be blaming her mum; c) Begins to realise that pining for attention only tends to wind other people up. Whenever anyone acts like that with me I usually give them the barest minimum attention possible ("Oh that's horrible", "Oh yeah, very nice" etc). When they start acting normal again, I give them my attention back. Positive reinforcement at its finest.

No, putting it in the PC only "freezes" the virus, it doesn't spread it to other Pokemon unless they're in the main party. This is helpful because it keeps a copy of the virus indefinitely, so long as you keep spreading and freezing.

Like what? It does usually help to provide examples with half-assed generalised claims. Hence recent attempts by the Chinese government do build up the Chinese middle classes. It is a superpower, there's no denying this.

Well, the deal with Youtube and record companies is ridiculous and I've got no interest in defending the companies there. I can understand why they would be upset over people "sharing" copies of the file to each other meaning they lost potential revenue they were rightly entitled to, but when someone comes knocking on the door essentially offering free video advertising for your products, you don't really have a right to charge them for the gratuitous service they're giving you: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/6832196/How-the-record-labels-spurned-the-YouTube-opportunity.html The cheek of it all is beyond belief.

I remember it being illegal to use utilities in the UK without billpayer's permission. I can't find anything better, but Yahoo UK seems to agree: http://uk.answers.ya...9063026AAjTNpa. I can't speak for other countries, obviously. All that says is that it's on their computer. Doesn't say who downloaded it. Like if I knived someone with a blade given to me by someone else. Ownership wouldn't say anything there.

Because when you provide someone with an investment, you expect a return from it. It's called business. If the record companies were earning less profit, they wouldn't invest in as many new bands. But since you've already been rather derogatory by calling music 'sounds', I guess you don't care about there being new bands. Furthermore, how would you establish accountability? Say I use my nextdoor neighbour's unprotected router to download illegal copies of music. Not only have I already committed a crime in using his Internet access, I've also landed him with a nice fine since the IP address will be traced to his house, when in fact it was me who did it.

If you're using Firefox, you'll come crawling back whenever you type in "F" for Facebook. :thumbup: Good luck in the exams though. Just wing it as best you can.

I've never played RuneScape as a solitary gaming interest (as in, I play it only when I'm also playing other games so I have something else to do when RS got boring). £40ish a year, plus the start-up cost for Internet, PC and electricity is a good price when weighed up against other personal expenses such as XBL, music, travel costs for going out and playing equipment/drinks for football. Frankly, the gaming experience itself isn't good enough to warrant more than that. If it did cost more, I'd spend the money elsewhere to keep myself occupied.

I disagree. I think the industry is outdated but I think that's because of the musicians' inability to organise themselves against the record companies and barter for a better deal. There are music producers locked up in studios up and down the country who will only receive maybe £100 for each piece of work they do, or pitiful royalties which aren't worth taking because most of the stuff they write won't make make enough profit for them to earn more than the £100 offered. Now, if we take NMW, if they spend more than about 16 hours working on a piece, they're earning lower than the minimum wage. Also added to that is the fact that if a piece they wrote does become massively profitable, they won't earn a penny more than £100 because they already signed the rights off to the company. I agree there is a level of exploitation in the music industry, but frankly, trade unions are there for a reason, and so long as artists at the top "don't care" as you say, there will never be an organised effort to resolve this issue. Far from glorifying 'famous bands' for their apathy, you should be slamming them for not supporting those less fortunate than they are, whilst they bask in the sunshine. This, however, is a dispute between musicians and record companies. OK, you're exceptional in that you do pay money to hear music live, but the majority of people are happy to download files for free while chilling on Facebook and not think twice of it, and you know it. How does the above dispute mitigate the fact they have stolen that music, insofar that they have gained something that isn't theirs to own without permission and without paying for it?

Don't bother wasting energy Jaffy. Bottom line is: they're not willing to pay for music if they can get away with not paying for it. This has nothing to do with morals, or whether something is technically theft or not. If these usually self-described "music lovers" want to drown in their own hypocrisy by stealing money that rightfully belongs to the bands who make the music, and the record companies who invest in those bands, then let them. They probably won't change their ways until a stick comes along to threaten them, no matter how much you tear their arguments apart, but the unpoliced nature of the Internet makes this somewhat difficult. The difference between plagiarism and music piracy is simple: Plagiarism gets you kicked out of uni with no chance of earning a degree thereafter. Music piracy might get you a slap on the wrist from your ISP.

It's not even theft. Tell that to copyright laws. Your logic implies that things like plagiarism aren't theft either, yet they are. Semantics. I'm not sure how this changes the fact you've gained something without paying for it, something which is essential to protect through law in any consumerist society.

And who says their morality is god given? The church? Yes. That's the job of the vatican - to study scripture and logic to infer God's will. And what makes the Vatican so special that it gets to set its own set of rules in regards to what it finds moral and immoral? To take your example about drug addicts, let's assume an employer takes on a homosexual as an employee. He then brings his gay partner into work and they kiss, as heterosexuals would, in the workplace. The employer has no right to say, "I think practicing homosexuality is a sin, so stop doing it in my workplace", because this would (rightly) be defined as homophobic and in breach if equality laws. The only way the employer can stop them is by saying, "We don't allow romantic realtionships of any sort in the workplace". In other words, heterosexuals are also not allowed either, not because of any issue regarding morality or sin, but because having partners in the workplace distracts them from doing what they are there for - work. If a gay couple walks into an adoption agency, whether it's Christian or otherwise, why is it OK for the owners of that establishment to decide that because they happen to be gay, they are somehow more incapable of doing what they were at the adoption centre for than a heterosexual couple? So long as a homosexual couple can do the difficult job of raising a child in a secure and loving environment as well as a heterosexual couple, why do Christians suddenly gain the moral highground simply for the fact they're Christian and happen to feel that practicing homosexuality is wrong? Such freedoms are not given to other people in society, and I would actually argue it's quite selfish on the owners' part for denying that child a good opportunity to move on into a new, stable home because of their own personal convictions. What makes religion so special that it deserves its own special clauses when dictating what is and isn't morally correct, that the rest of us clearly don't understand because similar rights aren't bestowed on us? "I don't agree with Action X because of my religion" is no different to saying "I don't agree with Action X because I don't think it's right", in my opinion.

I accept that de jure discrimination doesn't exist. However: Catholic charities on gay couples right to adoption: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1304333/Catholic-charity-loses-appeal-gay-adoption.htmlVatican on Catholic priests and homosexuality ('intrinisically disordered'): http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/24/catholic-church-gay-priests-exposedBBC report on Catholic attitudes towards homosexuality: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11307683De facto discrimination definitely does exist. Would it be acceptable for a private company to 'Um' and 'Arr' over whether to employ a homosexual simply because of his sexuality? No. I'm not claiming religion does more bad than good, just playing Devil's Advocate. There seems to be some disconnect with what the church preaches, and what it actually approves of.

If ever a thread needed a version of Wikipedia's Three revert rule, it's this one. This is nothing more than two people contesting to see who can shout 'You're wrong!' the loudest.

If it's any consolation, I personally know some RSers who stayed up until 6am grinding stats all night. At least you got sleep and you're getting an endorphin release.

I tend to like reviews in traditional newspapers rather than Gamespot, simply because Gamespot isn't critical enough in my eyes and often 'misses the point', but this review was pretty interesting when I read it a few days ago. The final bit especially, if you like conspiracy theories. The only other review I've read (or heard, rather) was on BBC Radio, who said the fact they brought someone from Hollywood to do the story rather than relying on a games designer made the story more gripping and interesting, but overall the game "wasn't great" despite it receiving more attention than the 3DS's launch.

Jelli can spin block, that's the only other thing worth mentioning over Tenta. Then again, Tenta absorbs TS for those teams without spin support.

Drizzle Politoed? More defensive than offensive but can deal some fair damage. Rain helps Ferrothorn come in on Fire. I'm no expert on battle strategy so feel free to shoot me for suggesting that.

207 people were Justin Bieber fans. If you're one of the 2% of teens who still listen to real rock music, click like.

Atheism is an umbrella term for a whole set of beliefs, ranging from, "There is no evidence that God exists, but other supernatural things may," to "There is evidence that nothing supernatural has ever existed." There is a difference between saying, "I don't know for sure, but based on anecdotal evidence I think God doesn't exist," and saying, "I know for sure; I have proof God doesn't exist." I maintain that the strongest statement people on either side of this debate can make is, "I think but I don't know for sure", which doesn't make for great conversation. The interesting bit is that for those who do believe God exists, why they believe other Gods are wrong, but theirs is right.

Precisely. I'm not too concerned about whether God does or doesn't exist, I'm more bothered by the process through which people arrive at their own belief. In my eyes, it's fine for someone to state they don't believe in anything that has no evidence, and then say there is no conclusive evidence that God exists, hence they're atheist. The problem is, some people take it further and say there is categorically no God based on no evidence either. It isn't consistent. People try and dress that up by saying, "Burden of proof should go to religious people." That's a cop-out in my eyes. That just says to me neither side has any conclusive evidence. Do you believe in unicorns? No, because we've already explored every corner of land this planet has to offer and seen no reasonable observations that suggest evidence for unicorns may exist. Except for the insignificant probability they may one day be part of the several thousand new species discovered each year, there is no reason to believe in unicorns. I'm not saying unicorns don't exist, I'm saying the probability that they do has been reduced so far that there's no significant chance of there being one.. Likewise, I'm not saying there is no God, just that in my eyes there is no significant reason to believe He exists.