Ginger_Warrior

Hmm... I can see your logic there Sumpta but you have to realise than in general, people's personalites never really change that much. The way we behave stems from our childhood and once that mentallity is set it's hard to even adapt from it, let alone change it altogther. We all have negative characteristcs which become expressed when we're stressed. The key, in my experience, is coming to grips with those characteristics, and learning how to control them. For me, half of what building a relationship entails, is adapating yourself to become less frictional against the other partner. At the end of the day, her partner will remain a heavily-guarded, fortress-like figure who won't easily let Mel into his secrets. However, he has to learn to adapt to Mel's needs and respect she has a right to know if something could jeapordise the relationship. If he can't do that, then hell yeah, you're right; Mel should move on. From the sounds of things, Goddess has tried to control her own stresses, and he hasn't. If he wants this thing to work, he's gotta do the changing, not Goddess.

Whilst I can scarcely believe this, I'm actually agreeing with Barihawk here. Even in our NHS, part of the public sector, men who have had anal sex with another man, even if safe and using a condom, are told they can never give blood. Women who have anal sex with a man who has had sex with another man in the past 12 months shouldn't give blood either, according to the guidelines. The issue here in not one of homophobia; it is one of Medicine and evidence does admittedly show a higher rate of HIV amongst homosexual men than their straight counterparts, although there are more facotrs for that than simply, "They're gay", as many homophobes take joy in falsely claiming. I'm intrigued by BlueLancer's logic though; can't this whole issue simply be made indiscriminate by forcing a HIV test for all blood donors? I suppose the counter would be that this would discourage people from donating blood, and there is a desperate shortage as it is.

When there is evidence Iran is a threat to your domestic security, I'll agree with you. As it is, you're buying into hysteria. As mentioned before, the majority of Jihadists are trained in Saudi Arabia. Pakistan holds the HQ of al-Queda, not Iran. Like it or not; Iran has a right to develop a nuclear program. I agree, nuclear weapons are not needed and none at all should exist, but I would urge you to look at your own nuclear stockpile before condemning another country for its intentions to develop nuclear power. As for the territory issue, you're arguing a unreal point. The fact is, Iran does have its own naval space and has the right to dictate who enters that territory. I'm amazed you call me for being "not very smart" (and I suppose you know my IQ then?), and yet you brand Muslims as a 'race'.

It's not like the U.S has completely sealed off all Iranian waters even from itself and is aiming nukes at anyone who sets even a toe inside. They were patrolling, and common sense tells you not to come near a military ship, they had plenty of room swim in their cute little bathing suits in the rest of hundreds of miles of water. That's irrelevant and you know it. Those US ships had absolutely no right to be there in the first place. If they were trying to secure the waters of neighbouring countries, then of course that's a sensible thing to do, but they should have kept within the naval borders of those countries. The US has no Right of Passage agreement with Iran and should therefore not have been in Iranian waters in the first place.

Why are we debating whether America would win a war with Iran because of its military? In all the wars America has been in, it has won through economic superiority; in fact the true stats regarding American casualities as a result of war are quite shocking. Even during WWII, when the British, Canadians (and the rest of the Commonwealth) and Americans were fighting alongside each other, the American troops took longer to secure their objectives, and took more casualties along the way. If America wanted to declare war on Iran, it would win simply by threatening any country with a trade agreement with Iran economic embargoes if it didn't immediately cease those agreements. Ergo, Iran dies through attrition. When you're the world's leading ecnomic powerhouse by a clear mile, that's the sort of power one gets. Another point that seems to have been eluded is that this little skirmish was in Iranian waters. I was watching the news thinking, satirically, "Yes, how DARE Iran use boats to threaten forgeign battleships that enters its territory. I mean, how unreasonable is THAT?".

I'm with BlueLancer. There's little similarity between modern day China and the Maoist regime, or even communism for that matter. In fact, it annoys me how that term is loosely flung around. My own history teacher yesterday referred to the Wartime Economy of the Britain 1939-1945 as communist... :|

Agreed, but that doesn't mean religion is a bad thing necessarily. For many, it's the only thing giving them any faith in life. :wink:

We wouldn't be talking on this forum. :wink:

This is true, and helpful if you're trying to train smithing up on the cheap. However, isn't half the beauty of those rings that the exactly equal 5 runs? I'm not shooting ya down, I'm just being a bit discursive.

Except with fairness it was in the wrong field (Misc.), so he can't really be blamed for overlooking that. In regards to how we classify herbs though, this table sums up all misunderstood terms: http://www.tip.it/runescape/index.php?p ... .htm#items Thanks for trying to help. :) Locked ~Ginger Warrior

This is a small drop in a huge ocean. America can tell Isreal all it wants to withdraw its troops. There's still plenty of other issues to throw around the table. The Isrealis' own constitution is as blatently racist as they come, clearly against the UN Declaration of Human Rights, yet they're not only allowed to participate in deciding Palestine's future at UN meetings, but they also receive the full blessing of America despite having that constitution, on the grounds Lebanon and Palestine contain supposedly 'terrorist' organisations. Then there's the whole issue of borders. Isreal has not once honoured the UN-recognised borders; it settles on land which isn't even its own. How on Earth can this be anything other than 'theft'? The country's policies show complete racism, and then they wonder why those races attack them? America can politely tell Isreal to remove its tropps all it likes. What Lebanon and especially Palestine need is for diplomatic efforts to secure their own countries. It seems an amazing contradiction from the Bush Admin., who support the wall across the Gaza Strip, and then recognise it is the sole factor which is stagnating the Palestinian economy, and then goes even further to say this growth in economy is vital to secure a resolution for the Isreal question, which would necessitate this wall being torn down. Isreal needs to face the music of economic and diplomatic sanctions before any peace can be found here. In other words, they need to be told their actions are wrong, instead of this blind policy of appeasement, not too dissimilar to the attitude Britain and France showed Hitler.

Precisely; if a person really does need an ambulance, then they need to kept under as little stress as possible before they cuase their own body some damage. There is a reason paramedics come across as a 'calming' influence and it isn't just to be nice people. This is in no way child abuse/neglegence. If the child had gone on to develop a more serious illness, I might understand. However, she was offered a trip to the hospital by the paramedics, and declined. Instead, she was told by the doctors how to make sure the child is safe, and she followed those directions perfectly. If all the injury needed was a bit of ice, then it clearly wasn't that serious in the first place and, as has been put in the article, just a bumped head which I expect every child in the world will have at some point. The cure isn't to go hysterical and demand hospital treatment thus clogging up the health service, it's to use paracetemol, cocodemol and ice to reduce the swelling and pain, and not allow any vigirous activity in the few days after. Your justification that this was a case of "child neglence" and thus they needed to have guns pointed to their faces in order to comply your (non-educated) 'judgement' of whether the patient actually needed hospitalisation has no weight whatsoever.

So rape is comparable to loud SWAT team members? I had no idea. :| 10 points for spotting the point of that comment. :wall: When you're a fully trained child psychologist with a degree or Masters or whatever, come and tell me having a gun pointed to your face while being kicked in the back for seemingly no purpose whatsoever doesn't traumatise. Until then, stop speaking like you know what's going on in their heads at the time, and be thankful you've never been in such a situation.

Mate, we take healthcare a damn sight more seriously than you do and even we have the right to refuse medical treatment. If it's a murder, our policemen are still not allowed to move in and even when there the situation is one of a possible gun-wielding, our police are still generally cautious about stroming into a house, when that in itself puts more pressure on the makes the situation ten times more dangerous. I can't see how you can easily justify the actions here. The fact they didn't read the rights isn't particularly relevant. What they did it for strikes me as a bit more alarming. These are bordering on tactics I'd expect from a totalitarian regime, not supposedly the "Leader of the free World".

I should post on here more often... been busy with exams and stuff t'is all good. Anyways, I got no idea what levels I've got in the past week so I'll just put what I got yesterday on. :P [hide=Runecrafting 61 + Total Level 1650][/hide] [hide=Magic 78][/hide] Only three levels until I can enter GoF... I'm gonna train like a madman for the next few days to make the 14th deadline. :wall:

I disagree, since you almost create a hierachy amongt the members. "Person X is a mentor, so anything Person Y says that contradicts X is instantaneously wrong by default". It just creates friction that doesn't need to be there. I'd have though we already have good enough mentors anyway; they're called 'moderators'. :wink:

That's already been added to the task list. :)

That quote is too true. And you're right when you say that attitude is selfish. They're expecting you to be there for them and recognise when you need emotional support, when the truth of the matter is they do everything possible to block you from providing that supoort. They so vehemently protect you from knowing their true feelings, it becomes a form of aggression in itself and it's very hurting when you know someone you care about can't open up or trust you. I think you might be overthinking this a bit though. From the sounds of things he's a fairly introverted person who likes his own indepedence. People like that tend to block out what they feel in order to just carry on with life uninterupted; they just can't do proactiveness because they can't deal with the anxiety that goes with it. Talking to them about anything regarding personal issues is like trying to draw blood from a stone. And for people on the other side, that is quite selfish because it's almost like, "I'm trying to help you and care for you, but you're so selfish you can't even deal with your own anxiety so we can actualy be together". If that's too much for you to bare, you did the right thing Goddess. I know my own insecurities would start going into overdrive when someone who's supposedly close to me refuses to talk about the situation between me and them (looks at past seven months...). I know it's a clicḫ̩̉̉ but give him some time. Maybe he just needs time to explore what he's actually feeling, and the real fact of the matter is that he can't articulate his emotions, rather that he won't do it. If he wants to work things out and be close, then he'll talk to one of his mates about it or even try approaching you himself. I think we both know that if it was him that was so closed up in the first place, he has to be the one to open up again first. :wink:

Whilst I have some minor reservations, I'll provide a link and a note in paranthesis to clear up that ambiguity. I'll try and remeber to either PM you or post on this topic if and when misplacedme has released the draft to the public, so you can check it for yourself.

Fix'd :mrgreen: Thanks Dark. I see a pattern emerging on how we deal with submissions. It seems to work well. :P Since there is no more discussion in this thread, I'll lock it up. Pleased everyone's happy at the end of it. :) Locked ~Ginger Warrior

I'm slightly confused. :| This is already clearly written into the guide.

The fact is qeltar, most people who play RuneScape just don't care about the RuneScape economy. If to you that's ignorance, then fine. It's different to real life - whether the economy is doing well in RuneScape doesn't equal the difference between having a house to live under or not like it does in the real world. Most people who come onto RuneScape do so as a form of escapism from the real world; if paying higher prices means removing themselves from the stresses, strains and complications of real life then to them that's a price they don't mind paying. Don't hold the fact we have more important things to worry about over how Jagex operates RuneScape's in-game economy against us. Yes, they messed up on certain items. We've established that.

Are you willing to pay the extra money Jagex would have to charge all its paying members, just to pay for this increased use of memory? Personally, I would be. It's not good enough to yell, "We want more space" when Jagex have already given plenty of concessions in the past couple of years (even to F2P players) without ever increasing the amount we have to pay for the game. In fact, when I write it like that, the call sounds pretty audacious and cheeky. I will answer in very simply way :) I will pay for membership if and only if I want to be member and see it is worth it to be member. It doesn't matter so much for me if I have to pay, for example, 10-20 $ more per year or something like that. Indeed, and I believe you. Can you see my point though? Jagex can't really afford to waste that much more memory without either taking away other existing features, or putting our membership fees up. Both of which I doubt would be more popular amongst members than just remaining in Status Quo.

Zombies and skeletons are already an existing Slayer task, so I'll presume the other two fall into those catagories. In which case, I'll lock this thread. But feel free to open a new thread if anyone finds evidence to the contrary. :) Locked ~Ginger Warrior

At the end of the day Jard, we don't actually have an obligation to update the databases. We are simply politely asked to do a few hours a week; an amount I've hugely exceeded at some points (such as after the GWD update). Put into three forgotten words, we're only volunteers. We appreciate you're helping, but sometimes our real life commitments and various forms of escapism (RS being one of them) mean we physically can't deal with every submission that flies our way. That's true of any organisation, or else they're employing too much staff. I will try my best to deal with this, or darkblade will, when I have time and when the amount of submissions allows me too. We still haven't got around to adding the new monsters from last week's update yet. But as it is I have a Biology exam tommorow that could be the difference between getting into University Medical School and not. That's slightly higher on my to-do list right now. So if you want an answer, it will probably be tommorow, but I'm not promising anything.