Ginger_Warrior

That opinion is so terrible it disgusts me. People with opinions like you need to be locked up in prison for life. Its hard to contain my disgust. All of these hitler themed topics are just going to end up flame wars.... Actually, the other one turned out to be quite a healthy debate... just because a certain few have to act immaturely when talking about such matters doesn't mean those who can control themselves can't talk about these issues. As for your post, I actually find people like you harder to get along with than people like Kashi, despite our political views being polar to each other. You've not said anything about his opinion, you've just attacked the person that said it because it contains something you don't agree with. Like it or not, you have to accept his opinion as valid, or you lend yourself to ignorance. As for Sumpta, I agree with mot of that post, except the bit at the end about protecting the individual. I don't understand how symbols take away someone's individual respect. All symbols do is summarize a viewpoint in the form of an image and provide a preview of what that view involves. People aren't hurt just because someone thinks in a prejudicial way about them - they only get hurt when that person takes actions upon those views. Therefore, I don't see how a symbol, especially one with a thousand different interpretations, should be deemed as disrespectful to an individual.

^ Very good, although I notice a distinct lack of Ground attacks, which makes you vulnerable to Electric Pok̮̩̉̉mon since that's their only weakness. Can someone explain to me why everyone chooses to keep Pikachu as Pikachu and not evolve it into its undoubtedly more powerful form? Is it just 'coz it's cute?

Trust me, there's not one historian in the world that denies Stalin was responsible for the killing of more people than Hitler...

I don't agree with the actions of Hitler OR Stalin, despite being an extreme left-wing radical. Stalinism wasn't Communism as Marx describes, and there is no way the NSDAP can be described as a Socilaist party. Germany, perhaps understandably, is very self-conscious of its past. This however, doesn't mean they can ban the icons of an extreme-right party. Banning a political group from publishing their ideologies, simlarly to religion, is a very messy business and it's a road you don't want to go down because you get accused of being oppresive. Right-wing groups should never be allowed in power so far as I'm concerned, but to take away their rights to freedom of speech is taking it too far for me...

This is actually the most healthy debate I've seen in a while =D> Wrong! Japan knew the war was over and was preparing to declare peace, if not before the first bomb, certainly after. The use of the nuclear bomb was unjustified, and I highly doubt millions more lives would have been lost had they not been dropped. I see this as a false argument the US government used to defend its actions. Having said that, the bomb only killed as many people as the UK bombings - it just did it in a more horrific and destructive way. That concept holds true only in a form of government where popular opinion controls who holds power, in other words, a republic/democracy. Hitler was the totalitarian dictator of Germany, and his power was very secure at that. He had no reason to consider 'moral standards' in his policies, and thus his lack of them doesn't make him a weak leader. I'll reiterate for the third time now. When Hitler joined the NSDAP, he had no intention for his polices to become as extreme as they did. In fact, his earlier polices were designed to remove Jews from the Nazi German way of life, in other words, removing them by emmigration rather than murder. Hitler gave the order for the Jews to be removed from the German way of life - although he allowed the Holocaust to happen, he certainly didn't premeditate it, and there is an abundance of evidence to show Hitler would rather have had the Jews emmigrated rather than killed. It was Himmler who wanted the opposite. If you read my post and comprehended it, you would actually see I said the opposite. They did not run counter to Hitler, Hitler said deliberetely ambiguously to gget rid of the Jews. His men did that. Do I agree with how they did that? No. I'm a Socialist (the left-wing variety), why would I agree with a policy of mass murder? But I'm not going to critise his leadership just because his actions don't fit with my morals. I find that attitude to be arrogant and ignorant. My measure of a 'good' leader is someone who sets out with a clear agenda, and then someone who achieves that vision, with the scale being a measure of how far did they acheive that end vision? When I think about Hitler, as said in my original post in this topic, I see someone who wanted to remove the Jews from the German way of life, someone who wanted to economically lift post-Depression Germany to a world military power, and someone who wanted to achieve this system of Autarky. Did he remove the Jews from German way of life? Well, after considering Kristallnacht, the Nuremburg Laws, and of course, the Holocaust, you'd have to say that Nazi Germany didn't have Jews. Did he achive his goal? Yes, this makes him a strong and capable leader. Do I agree with his mission? No! Just because I think Hitler was a good leader in this area doesn't mean I condone his actions. Did he rebuild Germany economically to a military power? Well, considering that the Allies would probably have lost had Hitler not decided to invade the USSR, I'd have to say yes, although I can understand that Germany's Home Front wasn't ready to deal with long wars and this ulitimetely killed them. He never ahcieved his idea of Autarky either. Having said that, Hitler never intented a six-year war. Do I think he's a strong leader here? Well, in his early years, yes, but after war broke out, obviously not. Hence why I believe at times Hitler could be an amazing leader, but at others, a completely hopeless one. Now, flame me all you want. But frankly, if the only argument you can come up with to deny Hitler was a good leader is "He killed millions of Jews" (which is nothing compared to the tens of millions of Soviets that died anyway), then I find your argument weak, since Hitler was in charge of a dictatorship, so what is seen as 'ethical' doesn't really hold much weight in such a state.

Mood swings might explain it, but I see more than just hormones at work here. You're clearly a well-thought person, kinda like me really. One piece of advice I have to offer is not to think as much as you'd like. Some things in life don't have a logical explanation, or even a solution. As for your friends... well I know this isn't really what you want to hear, but if they're worth it, they'll stick by you. Also, don't follow them blindly just to keep them with you, they'll have far more respect and perhaps even understanding for you if you show you're strong and speak you views about them.

And I'll repeat, dutchdreams: And he didn't. If you study the organisation of the NSDAP in any sort of detail you'd realise Hitler was *not* the person that orchestrated any of his policies. Hitler's role, despite all the propaganda, was to basically set a vision of what should be done, and then leave others to achieve that vision. This actually helps to explain why the Final Solution was thought of. Hitler asked for a 'solution to finally end the Jewish problem'. Himmler and Georing (who BTW wasn't in Hitler's good books after an affair) took this opportunity to radicalise the Nazis' views on how they should take action against (what they perceived as) the 'Jewish Problem'. Hitler at no point calls for extermination camps to be built. In fact, on the contrary, he actually promised his economists that no such thing would happen. Get this into your head now - Himmler came up with the Holocaust, *not* Hitler; and the SS carried it out, *not* Hitler. Strange argument really... since that would entail going back on what he personally stood for (strong, autocratic leadership). Going back on such values would actually make him a weaker leader, not a stronger one merely because he fits into your ethical world. Was he the right man for the job? How could I possibly comment? All political opponents were killed within the first year of his Chancellorship - that's something we'll never know the answer to. I do however know one thing - the democratic government that existed prior to the regime wasn't ever going to solve Germany's problems. Now, can you please lay this argument to rest? This isn't about whether Hitler was an ethical person, it's about whether he was a good leader. That's the question I was asked, and it's the question I've answered. Whether or not Hitler's views make him suitable to be a leader in the first place, which is the argument you seem to following, is a different question - but it's not the one that's being asked by the author of this thread.

Ethics has absolutely nothing to do with being a good leader. if you are ethically-sound, you're a nice person, not a good leader. Did anyone watch The Apprentice (UK version), where Sophie got the boot for being too ethical towards her approach? Unfortunetely, doing the best thing as a leader doesn't mean doing the best thing ethically. Do I shop at the Co-operative because it's well-run, or because it's an ethically sound group? As for the reference about Mein Kampf made before. Hitler made that after the failed Munich Putsch, and while he does blame the Jews for the troubles (hypocritically at that!) of the German people, he doesn't actually say what should be done about them. Stop with this myth that Hitler was a brutal psychopath that knew what he was doing from the moment he was forced onto the streets in Vienna.

Eventually, someone mentions Dresden! All these people who think Hitler killed milliond of people in the Blitz... well that's laughable really. It is estimated the UK only lost about 40,000 (I say only 40,000, but on the scheme of things it's pretty small) citizens during the German bombing campaigns over the whole of the six-year war. Towards the end of the war, the Allies were killing around 40,000 people a night in their bombing missions! If this thread proves one thing, it's that children go to school these days to be 'taught', not to learn.

This question is about whether Hitler was a good leader, not a good person. There's a difference. Also, when people talk about the Holocaust with Hitler, they're mistaken. It was other Nazi leaders such as Himmler (leader of the SS) and Goering (head of the Office of the Four-Year Plan) which radicalised the party and came up with the 'Final Solution'. This wasn't Hitler's doing - in fact Hitler was quite uneasy with this policy at first, but saw no other option after their invasion of the USSR. Now, on to the question. In my opinion, Hitler was at times a brilliant leader, but at other times the most hopeless one that will ever walk this Earth. You're right - he did recover Germany after they were hit badly because of the Wall Street crash (they'd borrowed a loan from the US, which the US recalled during the Depression), using the Autobahns and extending public works. However, does Hitler deserve all the credit for this? Well, it wouldn't have been possible without Schacht's bartering with the Balkan states or his Mefo Bills, so while Hitler had a very effective agenda, it wasn't him which made it work. As for restoring Germany to fighting fitness... well I'd have to say he only half did this. The introduction of the Hitler Youth, the conscription polices and the Four Year Plan all helped to get Germany ready. Indeed, had war not been declared in 1939, Germany's economy would have continued to grow, and the war would have been even tougher than it was for the Allies. But the fact remains that by 1939, Germany wasn't ready for war. Hitler also made the call to attack Poland with the USSR, so he could be called stupid for this. He was also winning the war when he decided rather stupidly to attack the Soviet Union. Therefore, Hitler at the beginning made some absolutely genius decisions which turned Germany from a ruined, broken country into a world power, but by the end of the war, as he becaome more radicalised it's clear his decision actually led to the downfall of Germany. I'd also like to point out Hitler never really 'led' his party. The Nazi party was strangely organised, as pointed out in many books. It was almost like Hitler created the impression of what he wanted, and other went out to acheive that vision. Therefore, I think a more pertinant quesiton would be, "Did Hitler lead his Party?", rather than, "Did he lead it well?".

Nor it helps the countless others who have been in same situation or even worse. We open our minds and donate thousands when one of "us" gets kidnapped and probably murdered after abusing her/him, but not when the same happens in Africa or Asia. Well, see that's an interesting one. How many of us supported Live8 and joined the MakePovertyHistory campaign, yet never actually contributed any of our money, or contributed anything after the fuss at the Gleneagles G8 conference was over? OK, that's a whole different can of worms, but it really sums up our attitude. So long as the media covers it in a sympathetic way, we'll go crazy over it and turn a blind eye to the bigger problem. It's like when Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman went missing - there was a nother boy at the time who had gone missing abroad. His single mother tried to do anything to get in the media, but got nothing because two idyllic young girls were deemed more important. I agree, there's prejudice at fault there.

Well, assasin you make a good point. The cahnces of a child being abducted like that are incredibly extreme. I actually talked about this with my Dad. He admits that, when me and my little brother were at primary school and my sister was still a little baby in her cot, he sometimes had to go out and leave my sister alone while she was sleeping and pick me and my brother up. But there's a big difference between that scenario and the McCann one. My Dad had to leave my sister in an emergency. There was no other avaliable method for him to follow, since my Mum was at work. What really frustrates isn't the fact they left the child alone, but that they left the child alone when they had the option not to. I don't know the resort's policy on children, what was stopping them taking the children with them for a meal, or from staying at home looking after them themselves? As mentioned by bubsa, the resort had a 24/7 childminding service, precisely to avoid this kind of event. I think the parents' attitude was shown when the Dutch media station questioned them why they left Madelaine alone, to which they reacted rather [puncture]ly, as though what's happened to them excuses them of their clear neglegence. However, me sitting here writing about their actions isn't really helping find her. I, of course, hope the child is OK and she returns home safely, at which point, I hope someone in the UK turns round to the parents and questions them. I really hope she is OK, but it's been a month now - chances are she's regretably not alive.

Well... that game was over as soon as we got the flag to be fair. Besides, the ancient that froze the flag holder was out of position when the flag-holder came down. My cades bought him enough time. That's not my usual tactics that you saw.

Bubsa, you know as much as anyone I don't agree with you on many things. This however, you've hit the nail on the head! What baffles me even more is that the parents are doctors (of Medicine). Now, as anyone knows, a degree in Medicine takes a lot of hard work and intelligence. The idea that two doctors in a foreign country didn't stop to think about arranging some kind of permenant watch on three defenceless little children while they went out completely baffles me quite frankly. What makes it doubley worse is the fact that they did this for the three nights before the incident! Then they claim they're the victims and that we should help them find their child, they demand media attention and even have the audacity to request an audience with the Pope! Now, I'm an aethiest, but even I recognise that's just taking it too far. Frankly, I find the parents irresponsible, and as someone that has lived in the UK raised by a single parent on child benefits, I know that if this was the zitty 14-year old son of an Islamic family, or the daughter of a single mother, the media attention would have been far less. Dare I say it, in the above cases, the parents would probably have had their other kids taken off them as well by Social Services with the tabloids applauding them! As for the paedophiles, well, obviously this can only be good news. I don't regard paedophilia as high of crime as something like murder, for example (although they're both equally as sick), and I understand it's not a rational action to download child pornography, but paedophiles really have to understand that every time they do so, they're actually fueling the market and making the problem worse. If this problem of online exploitation is ever to be solved, then the authorites really need to drill this guilt message into such people!

See, this I don't understand. The idea that the RS economy compares to the Real World's economy. The two are like chalk and cheese...

OK, to all those that don't understand, I'll explain. Basically, one way it could work is by randomly generating a number between 1 and 0, and stating a maximum amount of kills for that drop to appear. The two numbers are then multiplied, producing the number of kills needed. At least, that's one method, and I doubt this is the method Jagex use. I would suspect the system in RS is much like the breeding system on Pok̮̩̉̉mon. In Pok̮̩̉̉mon, leaving two compatible Pok̮̩̉̉mon in the Daycare Centre makes them produce eggs, but the rate at which is random. Basically, a number is produced every 256 (I think) steps they're in the Centre. This number is between 1-250 (or around). When the Pok̮̩̉̉mon were placed in the Centre, a number is generated. If the number generated through walking is lower than the number generated by placing the Pok̮̩̉̉mon in the Centre, then an egg is produced. If the number is higher, the counter resets to zero, and no egg is produced, and the process begins anew. If you still don't understand, read this guide, and read where it says '4. THE BASICS'. This is an example of the system on Pok̮̩̉̉mon, but I'd suspect the system follows the same kind of method as RS's system. This is a much more efficient way because it allows the game to control the chances. Think of the number generated at the Pok̮̩̉̉mon Centre as a kind of bar. By lowering that bar, you reduce the chances of a random number being produced lower than that bar. This is how random chances are controlled in games these days. To relate that into RS, Jagex set this 'bar' (if the chances are 1:2000, then the bar would be set to 0-1 on a scale of 3999). Everytime a monster is killed (or respawned, either way still holds true), a random number is generated. If the number is lower than the 'bar' (ie, 0 or 1), then that drop is produced. What the author is basically trying to say is that, just because there is a 1:2000 chance of a visage, this doesn't mean you're gaurenteed one every 2,000 drops, it's just that maths would suggest it would. However, in reality, this isn't the case.

If you truly think that the kind of behaviour you mentioned didn't exist with Milan fans, than your naivety is hardly worth dignifying with a response. I'm naÃÆÃâÃâïve? OK let's think for a while here. Let's take your scenario, where there are two sets of disorderly fans trying to barge their way into a stadium. The UK press, which, for obvious reasons, tends to bias itself in favour of a pro-British view, decides to televise the Liverpool fans being disorderly instead of trying to hide this and televise the Milan fans instead. If what you say is true, and both fans were equally as bad as each other, then why would the British media only televise the Liverpool fans, when they could create a much bigger stir by televising the Milan fans being misbehaved? That makes no sense whatsoever... Also, UEFA have confirmed that there was no trouble at the Milan end. Are they naÃÆÃâÃâïve too? Now, UK fans can say that UEFA deliberetely picks on UK fans as scapegoats for crowd trouble as a whole, but let's be clear about the stats here. There was more violence at fixtures with teams from the UK than there was any other country. That really speaks for itself... I'll say to you what I say to RS players when they get banned for bug abusing (feeling they were in the right because it's only a glitch). Instead of blaming the person that punishes you for your behaviour, why don't you actually stand up and take accountability for yourselves. After all, although others can influence your decisions, no-one controls your actions apart from you. Until you can find proof that the Milan fans were acting in the way you mentioned, and that they were indeed acting anywhere near as badly as the Liverpool fans, then frankly your argument isn't worth the paper it's printed on...

I doubt there will be an outright ban of the game here in the UK, although with the controversy surrounding the SONY game that includes pictures of Greater Manchester Cathedral, and the new one that's been taken off the shelves for its containment of images of James Bulger being abducted (he was later murdered in Real Life), I would expect the authorites to be more harsher than before.

I think that the amount of damage dealt should be proportionate to the strength level of the attacker, and defence level of the defender. For example, a person with X strength should be able to deal much more damage per hit on a person with 1 defence, than a person with 99 defence. At the moment, there's no difference. This would cut the power of pures one heck of a lot. It's also quite common to have this in games. The most powerful weapons in a game usually leave that person almost defenceless and prone to a OHKO. Jagex would only be following a trend that's existed for a decade if they were to do this...

You've taken that argument too far to the other extreme. You've implied that a Level 120 has an equal chance of losing the flag as a low level, which is just a stupid thing to say really for obvious reasons. Also, bare in mind a low level (in general) will have a lower understanding and experience of the game than a high level, so is easily more prone to making mistakes such as taking the flag in a difficult situation and getting killed outside. Flag holding is a factor which expands the gap between high levels and low levels in CW, when really we oughta close that gap down. Also, you play with your friends on either side... sometimes it's fun to face against your players. They know your strategies and your style of play - it makes for an interesting game. My personal strategy is to cade, but when my friend is on the other side, he always keeps me on my feet by bringing explosives. I can't understand how I've said you can't play with your friends. Besides, the current system doesn't guarentee you'd play on the same side anyway. In addition, I have loads of fun playing CW without my friends... it's a contest at the end of the day, and that's why people like it. If I wanted to face my friends in a duel, I'd go to the Duel Arena, or go to my house with my dungeon. In fact, when people say "1vs1, we're mates" in CW, I ignore them and attack my foe anyway. They're not there to have a personal duel, they're there to play a game of CW!

OK, good news guys! I've gone through this topic with a toothcomb and picked out all the information I possibly can. We realise that there may be some slight difference between what is in our database and what is in-game, but I personally believe we've done our best to gain the most accurate picture following this update. The following items, and in some cases, their quantities, have been added/edited: ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãââ Draconic visage ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãââ Rune bolt(7-22) ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãââ Soul [runes](5-14) ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãââ Adamant crossbow(u) ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãââ Blood [runes](2-10) ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãââ Snakeskin chaps ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãââ Bone bolt(2-24) ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãââ Mithril sword ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãââ Mithril bolt(8-35) ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãââ Herb [seed](1) ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãââ Adamant bolt(7-24) ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãââ Earth battlestaff ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãââ Adamant axe ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãââ Cooked lobster(3) ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãââ Air [runes](30,40-64) ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãââ Water [runes](10-33) ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãââ Cactus [seed](1) ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãââ Limpwurt [seed](1) This is a lot of information, and to have it listed within two days of its release is a real achievement. It is thanks to you - the users - that Tip.It remains one of the most up-to-date fansites out there, and I've reflected this by crediting these following people. If you posted information that is in the list above, and haven't been credited, then it's most likely because someone submitted it before you, and it would be unfair to credit you over their work. Don't be disheartened, we still appreciate your effort! Here's the list of the credited from this thread: ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãââ Bloodshot265 ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãââ zman123123 ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãââ Samsam ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãââ baronmaster ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãââ Dork ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãââ armadillo48 ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãââ Capone_sabre ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãââ wakka102 ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãââ lordkafei Again, can I reinforce my thanks for all of your effort? The haste at which we've been able to do this simply wouldn't have been possible without your help! Thanks loads! :wink:

My first official post as a crew member! :) All this information is proving to be incredibly helpful guys. It's really helping pick out the bad info from the good, especially with these pictures as proof. Thanks loads! If anyone picks up any drops which haven't been listed as yet on this forum, then please don't hesistate to contact me or another Beastiary crewbie, or post it here. A proof pic (with the item on the floor preferably) would be helpful, although not necessary. Until such a time occurs, I'll presume that this is all the drops. Thanks for your help guys!

One of the key problems with CW is the randomness of the levels. I can't really think of how Jagex could control the levels of the players entering the game without disturbing the number of players in each team, but to deny that problem would be foolish. Flag holding only makes this problem worse. I don't consider flag holding to be cheating - after all it's not against any rules - but it does make a rather big mountain out of a molehole. Simply because, if the truth be told, too many CW teams use this tactic: ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãââ Kill any high (80+) player that comes ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãââ Allow the first 'noob' through ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãââ Ancient him outside ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãââ Take the flag, defend with five ancients ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãââ Game over It's clear this problem wouldn't exist if there were equal amounts of experienced (note I didn't use the words 'high level' there) players on both sides, or at least if it did, the probability of it happening would be the same for both sides. In my opinion, while flag holding isn't cheating, it does take advantage of an unbalanced system, and action needs to be taken to make it even for both sides. Maybe you could reduce the powers of ancients using the new CW bracelet, for example, you can't be frozen while holding the enemies' flag? That way, at least if you gain the flag, you'd have done so through strategy and hard work as opposed to the rather simplistic and boring method mentioned before.

Hell... it would make a lot of work for any fansites out there, but they should re-think the combat formula to make it based on experience rather than levels. Would that be fair on Guthix skillers (sorry Ard!)... most likely not, but in my opinion, how high your level is in-game should be dependant on how much experience not levels, as proven by pures. this would make pures much higher in combat levels while making balanced players of the same level lower, making the levels much more fairer and representative. Not to mention it would reduce their dominance of the wilderness.

I personally see this as a matter of people's health as opposed to the ease of the game. As mentioned, for all we know, this is a measure to prevent Jagex's users contracting CTS. I see this as an overriding factor for any reason the hardcore gamers of RS can come up with. Add to that the fact that fletching needs to be slowed down. there's a problem when around 15,000 out of a million members can get the top level with such contemptuous ease. Again, I see this as an advantage, and may even ensure there's enough yew logs in circulation for everyone who wants to get 99 fletching, since some will now be turned away from fletching, reducing the demand.