Ginger_Warrior

Well, if this only applies to Real World item trading (which is against Jagex's rules anyway), then maybe it would actually force Jagex into dealing with this problem. Jagex claims that one of the main reasons is Chinese 'sweatshops', who continuously play the game and then sell RS GP to US-based sites, who then go on to sell the gold. Think about it - the person who is taxed is the person that owns our property. Now, Jagex clearly state that all accounts, in-game items and anything to do with our characters in-game are their property, so if anything gets traded in the Real World, it will be them that pays the bill for it, not the people who are trading. If this is true, then it forces Jagex to actually take note of this problem, and deal with it at its source, instead of waiting for it to filter down into their game and then taking action against high-level accounts who buy the items.

Nice as this idea sounds, F2Pers still wouldn't be satisfied. No offense n F2Pers, but they'd just start complaining that they need other things, like the Duel Arena etc. As for the blackmarks... well that problem could be easily solved if Jagex gave you the opportunity to appeal using more than 400 words and gave more than 30 seconds time per report.

Can I be clear on one thing? There is not one scientist on this Earth that believes Global Warming isn't happening. What the debate is over is how is it being caused. Now, I do the sciences and History at A2 Level at college, and so far as even I can see, the evidence is conclusive. The climate only started changing as rapidly as it is now as soon as the Industrial Revolution started and the need for Coal and Oil plants developed as industrialists moved away from using water wheels as a source of power. The change starts to get even more rapid towards the end of the IR, into the early 20th Century, when cars, planes and tanks were mass-produced, partly escalated by WWII. Going beyond that, the rate becomes even more rapid, as cars become accessible by the working classes in the post-war Western World, and millions of people start to emit their own greenhouse gases. We know Global Warming is happening, and to some extent, we even know what chemicals cause it. What we don't know is the technicalities behind Global Warming, for example, the mechanisms of the photochemical reactions in our atmosphere, and it's only this that scientists really disagree on. When I hear of these 'counter-thories', I see one thing - a load of conservatives that aren't prepared to sacrifice their quality of life for the preservance of future generations, and I find this kind of attitude ignorant.

The death penalty is such an old argument for dealing with criminals. During the past few decades, there have been several miscarriages of justice which have resulted in innocent people being sent to prison. The only silver lining in that is that they're still alive and can be found innocent and released and live an otherwise normal life. The problem with the death penalty is that once they're dead, that's it, you can't go back on that mistake, and you've taken an innocent life while the real criminal got away with it. This is alone is enough for me to say "No!", but throw in the horrific nature of some execution techniques and the fact that you're actually killing someone, and my argument becomes even more enforced in my own mind. The death penalty should NEVER be re-introduced - even at the expense of tax payers' money.

Well, since the main site Tip.It is actually written in Oxford-style English, it's actually "paedophile". Provide me with a link? I heard somewhere (I think BBC News 24) that they were trialing new methods, but that they were quite explicit - it's not castration, it's a drug to remove their sexual arousals by negating the effect of sex hormones. It doesn't reduce their fertility, nor is it a "castration". Personally, I think castration would be going a bit too far the other way...

This is a nice idea on paper, but there's two major flaws here. The first is what's stopping such people training to that slayer level and then continuing to be a nuisance? The second is the practicality of it all. There's some 700+ monsters in RS, can Jagex seriously be bothered to go through every single one of them and slap a slayer requirement on them, especially when, as mentioned in the previous point, it wouldn't have much of a desired effect anyway? One advantage I do see in this is a much easier way to train slayer, which has been long needed.

I've seen worse. There's another group that believes they're the chosen few God will accept into heaven, and that the death of everyone else is a blessing from God to cleanse the Earth. I'd like to see their evidence, but I think it's a bit stupid really.

Why would SONY or especially Nintendo want to be associated with violent murderous games? So far as both companies can see, those kind of games only belong on the X-Box, and to give them their credit, it's what the X-Box does well. In the meantime, SONY's happy enough to stick by its teenage games, and Nintendo's more than happy to appeal to the more broader market. Above all else for Nintendo, they're trying to build the Wii into a console fit for families, both young children and parents. While trying to build such an image, why would they want to be associated with these kind of games?

As far as I know, mind shields can be used at the Skeletal Wyverns, but they have no additional effect than a normal elemental shield, apart from the extra stats it provides. It doesn't have any additional benefits such as reducing the max hit or preventing you from being frozen or any jazz like that.

No, not because it's cute, for one, I actually bred a pichu a couple of minutes ago, and I don't plan on evolving it, since I already have a riachu. This current pichu has volt tackle now \ . Because of me already having a pikachu, I don't want to evolve it (That...and I can't find anymore thunderstones, gonna go underground tonight). Anyway, pikachu...It's quick, and powerful like raichu, just not AS powerful. And it's always nice to stay with the pre-evo's imo, don't know why, but I always liked pikachu for...Pikachu really. :D BTW, I tend not to worry about ground types often at all, they have all fallen to my feet every battle, so ya. :wink: EDIT! Completely forgot the whole reason! EDIT!: Just remembered the real reason... :oops: Ahem. People tend not to evolve their pikachu because of the light ball. Only allowed to be held by a pikachu, it doubles his special attack, even higher than raichu's! This is why when you breed a pikachu holding this item, the special attack volt tackle goes with it. And this is also why trainers tend not to evolve them (Me included). Hope this clears things up! : AHH... thanks for clearing that up. :wink: I always wondered what everyone's obsession with Pikachu was... :-k

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...