Ginger_Warrior

About a year old? I remember it being discussed back then... wouldn't have been deleted in the forum rollback either.

On another forum I go to, there is a thread about parenting (which I won't be contributing to for a good 10 or so years yet). It's not a sticky, but it's popular enough to stay floating about the front page of its OT section. Then again, the people on there are considerably older than Tip.It's crowd. As far as the point Sumpta raises, this was always the route the real-life pic thread was going to make. If you say to people 'You can post RL pictures of yourself', how can you expect them to stop there and not post pictures of their rooms, their schools, their houses etc.? Moreover, how do you stop the bullying and insults that derive from such conversation? I personally would remove the sticky thread, and just allow users to post a picture in their profiles.

I find some people on the internet take grammar and spelling FAR too seriously. I only correct someone when I genuinely cannot understand what they're saying, or if I'm winding them up. I'm even fine working in txt-speak. So long as it's not a formal document, I don't see why it's needed.

I couldn't agree more. I'm just not that good at actually striking conversation, I'm more better at giving my opinion. :P What we need are quality posters (and I mean discursive posters who debate, not people who just lecture as to death about their own viewpoint whilst proclaiming their own glorious intellect) to start some threads again. Most of the threads are either too childish for mature members to be involved, or way too technically for any one else to be involved. There's no middle ground. Going back to the debate before about the creation of a mature forum, this is why one should never exist. All it would do is, far from preserving thread quality, move the conversation to another place and leave OT for dead.

Correct, albeit I imagine very rarely indeed. So that's: Gold: 34-78 100%: - Weapons: Rune javelin(5) Armour: Steel platelegs, Steel full helm, Steel platebody Runes/Arrows: Mind(18-38), Cosmic(10-19), Chaos(11-18) Misc: Uncut gems, Half key, Shield left half(dragon) Seeds: - Charms(0): -

Well things were certainly different around here to what they are now when I joined five months after Sumpta so...

Yes, that's right. I protest against the Church's blatant homophobia, and this is the same as encouraging a Communist state. :roll: The argument is this: if the only place a couple in either of our two countries can get married is a religious institution, but this institution denies the right for gays to be married, and yet gays are supposed to have equal rights, then the Church should either allow gay marriages or, as I actually said, lose that exclusivity, and we'll have state marriages as well. I don't mean civil partnerships, I mean actual marriages. I don't see how the latter option is forcing the Church to accept a certain viewpoint. Only when you live in a country where the majority of people aren't even Anglican, yet it's our established church and we still have Spiritual Lords in our second chamber, will you understand the deeper frustrations between the state and religion in the UK.

I'd see a doctor. From the difficulty you have waking up, I'd say this is more than just a lifestyle thing.

It is my religious beliefs. Why do I need a secular reason to be against gays getting married in my Church? Because for those of us who are not religious, and have to put with an established Church which doesn't pay any tax, when we see that you own the keys to legalised marital status, we feel you should offer that service to everyone or no one. In other words, accept that gays have no moral or ethical reason to be denied marriage, and marry them, or else lose that exclusivity altogether, and instead of civil partnerships, we'll just grant secular marriages to homosexuals. Like it or not, that's the fork in the road coming for you. I can just about accept the church not allowing gay priests or women - but when you're dealing with the public, that changes completely. See, what I'm reading is this. You've said you don't mind gays. I doubt that. You've whined about how gays 'antagonise' you purposefully while you're in town simply for being gay (you mentioned they just about take their shirt off... oh that's so teasing -.-), and now you're saying gays aren't welcome inside your Church (and tried dressing it up by saying gays don't want to be there anyway. Quite clearly the fact we are even having this debate shows they do). Will you please stop spinning your stance about homosexuality in a way that sounds remotely tolerant, and just admit that you don't like gays? I've far more respect for a man who just says what he means, rather than one who tries to dress up his opinion in a fancy, sophisticated way.

When you dream, what is it about? Is it something you're overly excited or anxious about? In which case, talk to someone about it. Getting these things off your chest makes it easier to go sleep and effectively starves the mind of stuff to think over while it's relaxing. This should stop it from keeping you awake. Exercise is good during the day, but not in evenings for the reason Adam007 describes. While it does burn off glucose, it builds up adrenaline and energy levels inside the body which have to be burnt off before the body will enter sleep. Socialising is a good way to exercising the brain. Try to socialise with people during the day and wear the brain out. Above all else, this helps to burn off excess emotion which could keep you awake. If the problem is creative thinking, then try not to engage in anything too thought-provoking or imaginative in the hours before you go to bed. This will again, in theory, starve the mind of thinking-food. I've found a hot chocolate helps me get to sleep too. Even though it contains caffeine, but it's much better than Pepsi or tea. Set your body clock. Set an alarm for 9pm, and your body should be ready for sleep by midnight. Apart from that, did you consider it might just be the heat? Everyone's having trouble at the moment really. It's too humid. :|

I couldn't stand AQ. TBH, if I need a break from RS, I'd do anything other than an RPG.

I still can't believe what your saying. It's one thing to say that the government should sanction gay marriages, but to force the Church to marry gays? Thats a whole other level. Should we force the Church to operate an abortion clinic as well? No, because doctors surgeries are used for abortions. You are one of the few institutions in the world which grant recognised marriage status. Thus, you can effectively control who receives that status, and effectively force inequality based on your own convictions. This is wrong in a society that promotes equal opportunity. I do not see how your beliefs allow you to promote inequality in the face of the law.

[hide=Spoiler]Take a limpwurt seed and plant this in the flower patch, and water it. So long as it doesn't die, this should save some time later. First, use a bucket on the barrel of water in the real world (well, RuneScape real world). go back into the other realm, you'll see a cutscene. Then she'll move to the west. Talk to her. Go back to the real world, and pick the mushrooms on the hollow log. Go back to the other realm, and again, have a cutscene. She'll then move into the house. Talk to her. Using a hammer, two planks and four steel nails, fix the wardrobe in the real world. This will break the wardbrobe in the other realm, giving her access to the clothes. She then moves towards the flower patch containing the dead limpwurt plant. Talk to her. Go back to the real world, and fully grow a limpwurt plant. DO NOT PICK IT!!! This will cause the plant to disappear in the other realm, giving her back her doll.[/hide]

I couldn't care less if you're a typical teenager. I don't see how that stops you having concerns, or how that removes your right to talk about them. Going through your stuff seems completely unreasonable. They are called your personal possessions for a reason and so long as you're not bringing home drugs, booze or stolen goods then I can't really see what moral right your parents have to go through your stuff. Asking where you go out though, well I would have no issues with that. When I was in high school, my Dad still asked me where I was going. He does the same for my younger brother. Sometimes it would be about things that I didn't want him knowing about, things involving my personal life. Nothing criminal, just personal. I lied to him at the time, but I always ended up telling him. All I did was delay the inevitable - him finding out what who I was going around with and what I was doing with them. It would have been far easier for me to have just told him straight out to begin with, then when I started triping, come to him for open advice. Them wanting to know where you're going isn't being overprotective, they just want to know so they can look out for you from the sidelines without getting too involved. Plus, when you keep back that information, it forces them to get more anxious about why you're lying and makes them feel more compelled to actually go through your personal possessions to find out what you're up to. I'm sure they trust you, but they've gotta make sure you're not into something dodgy. And I've seen people in my own life get into something dodgy. It's a tough way to go. I know it's a concern amongst parents in my area. Don't shrug your parents' anxieties off just because you know there's nothing to be worried about. The one thing I've noticed from the first post, as I do with all problems concerning trust and honesty (if you've said something in the rest of thread I haven't read it) is that you haven't seemed to have tried to talk to them about this. Maybe when you feel you can trust them enough to sit down with them and have a talk about how much privacy they allow you, will they actually feel as though you have the maturity to deserve that privacy. Trust is a two-way process, and you've gotta give some to receive some.

I respect your right to an opinion. However, you turning round to gays and saying, "Not welcome" is forcing your opinions onto them. It's their Church, their God just as much as it yours. Being gay makes no difference to their faith. Give me one secular reason for gay marriages not being allowed inside a Church. And I mean secular. No, forming an angry mob and breaking up a commitment ceremony would be forcing my views on them. What your saying is if someone comes into my house and starts doing meth I should let them because if I didn't I would be forcing my views on them. In a Church gay marriage would be going against what the sacrament of marriage inherently is. Awful comparison. A) That would be trespass (Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you don't open your house to fellow believers, do you?) B) There's no legal rights to be gained through taking meth, as there is with marriage. I'll repeat my question, which you failed to answer instead giving an irrelevant comparison; give me one secular reason why gay marriage should not be allowed? "Because it's my religion" just doesn't cut it as an argument in the modern world, sorry.

I respect your right to an opinion. However, you turning round to gays and saying, "Not welcome" is forcing your opinions onto them. It's their Church, their God just as much as it yours. Being gay makes no difference to their faith. Give me one secular reason for gay marriages not being allowed inside a Church. And I mean secular.

So? Why is it you think we should only challenge inequality when hatred is involved? I couldn't care less whether Christians hate gays or not - the fact is the Church denies them the right to get married, and despite many being otherwise devout Christians, they are shunned simply for their sexuality. This, whatever way you look at it, is inequality, and in the glorious land of freedom should not be happening. I respect the Church's right to hold its own opinions. It is not right that we force morals onto others. However, when you are denying rights to gays that would be open to heterosexuals, that's crossing the line. That actually becomes discrimination.

Crime exists in the UK. Why would an American need a gun more than a Brit? As Sumpta says, the days of the Wild West are long gone, don't worry... there's no evil Red Indians coming to raid your house anymore. I have to confess I've never heard of this 'concealed' weapon business. However, I know from living in a rough area (for some reason, you guys seem to falsely assume I'm middle class...) that possessing a weapon actually places you in more danger of being assaulted. Oh goodie. Someone in America has more sense than paranoia. The vast majority of crime victims, including those committed at the end of a gun, will still be in poor, dominantly black areas. Upper class areas can afford better security, so are actually less attractive to steal from. Are you for real? You're basing your argument from a scene in Indiana Jones... dear Lord... -.- My area has a huge problem with drugs too. I dare say they also carry guns. I don't feel a need to arm myself in anticipation of the imminent assault I am doomed to face, however. Quite simply, I just stay out of it. Strangely enough, the only time a gun has been fired anywhere near me (and it was an air rifle), the person who shot it had absolutely nothing to do with drugs. Just a kid who'd gone off the rails. Course, it wasn't a gun that saved me. Oh no... It was double glazing windows. jackattack, what sort of logic is that? Take black people out of the equation and then count stats. Like or not they are Americans too. I quite clearly said homicide as well, not crime. This is the last time I'm posting on here. I think I've made my point perfectly clear, and only been responded to by people who have described purely hypothetical "What if?" scenarios and provided dodgy stats. I just thank whoever's watching over me that I don't live in a country stupid enough to allow the possession of weapons as a constitutional right, and 200 years later, still think such a right is totally inalienable without some sort of civil war.

Of course there will always be immigrants and weapons that slip the net. Who said otherwise? Moron. The aim is to remove the gun culture. I'm not saying the UK is gun-free at all. I could go out on the street now and get a gun for £50.00 (and I'm not joking, I know exactly who to talk to). Half of all youths in this country feel the same way. It doesn't mean we're gonna run out and buy ourselves one though. We've learnt, through experience, that carrying a weapon attracts unwanted attention, and this puts you in more danger than the gun compensates for. The problem isn't that people have guns, it's that they feel it's acceptable to carry them out in public and even use them.

It's been unacceptable since long before the gun ban. The point I'm making is people should not feel they have a right to hold a weapon on them, especially in public, in order to feel safe. Guns included. How would it be unacceptable? Theres a reason it's called a concealed weapon. No one else would know. Anyway look at the states with right to carry laws. People aren't gunning each other down over minor disagreements like the gun control lobby said they would. In fact crime has gone down. It's more unacceptable to carry a firearm in Montana or North Dakota than in Chicago or D.C. I said it has been unacceptable in the UK for a long time, and our crime rate is lower, yet we're also a poorer nation than the US, and crime has always traditionally followed lower wealth. You're one of the richest nations (if not, the richest), and your crime rate is atrocious. There is a huge stack of evidence to suggest the availability of guns is a contributing factor to this crime rate, and yet you still sit here and tell me it's part of 'self-defence'. Above all else, the whole 'self-defence' argument simply does not stand. Your homicide rate is three times higher than it is over here. Quite clearly, your guns aren't preventing as many deaths than if they were just banned completely, as they effectively are over here.

A total ban on weapons would be best. However, expecting this in a country which enshrines a right to possess a gun in its constitution would be fairly naïve.

This is EXACTLY what I mean. Before I go on, I realise this is an announcement and my staff rank may be seen as an official Tip.It view. I want to say that is definitely NOT the case, and this is my personal opinion. But so what if they are? I agree with you when you say it's horrible to read. I too usually type in full prose, even on an IM service. It just seems natural to me. However, you have to realise most people don't attempt to write in perfect grammar while they're on the Internet. txt-speak has, whether you like it or not, become the social norm in how people communicate using the written word, and I'm not going to sit on my high horse and criticise others because they've missed out capital letters or punctuation when it's actually me in the minority who write in perfect grammar. All I ask is they attempt to put enough grammar to make the thread readable, and if people do genuinely have trouble reading what they're saying, that they go back and rewrite it instead of relying on a mod to clear up the mess, or replying with flames. If anything, I've found talking in txt-speak is actually more relaxing, which reduces tension, although obviously I'd still prefer to read good English. We've got to make Forum.Tip.It a generally more welcoming experience though, and flaming others for not using grammar is just a show of needless hostility, and could possibly even cause personal offence if the person in question suffers from dyslexia, or another learning disability.

It's been unacceptable since long before the gun ban. The point I'm making is people should not feel they have a right to hold a weapon on them, especially in public, in order to feel safe. Guns included.

The attitude that carrying a weapon in public is entirely unacceptable has everything to do with levels of violent assaults. If the culture you live in strongly opposes the use or possession of weaponry, you are less likely to use one yourself as an adult if you are attached to that culture. It stands to reason. Conversely, if the very constitution you live under justifies the possession of a weapon as lethal as a handgun, you feel more justified and able to use one. I'm not saying the constitution justified the use of guns in an offensive way, but it does have a psychological effect, in that it seems to be less unacceptable to use a weapon. Thus, the rate of violent crime will be higher. I repeat the statistic from before in this thread of how homicide rates (not total numbers) are lower in England and Wales than the US. By lower, I'm talking a third of the US rate. Quite clearly, we are doing something right that you are not, and the whole 'self-defence' thing is proven to be flawed. Hang on, hang on. You're (not personally, but gun supporters in general) allowed to use hypothetical scenarios where self-defence may be used to justify people owning a gun, but we're not allowed to use hypothetical scenarios to argue the opposite? Does this not seem strangely hypocritical; that you can scaremonger us into accepting a need for guns, but we can't attempt to add some sort of rational thinking to the debate?

Oh damn... the Dags just had to own me didn't they?! :evil: Congrats on the full 99 melees! :thumbsup: