Ginger_Warrior

I'll bet my life it never goes below ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâã200. SONY would lose far too much(they're losing money with every unit sold as it is!). They should have left Blu-ray out. It added about ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâã150 to the price, and no-one cares about it.

The Honda one where all those car parts rolled into one another. Then it had that funky music at the end 8-) On a side note, the ones for the PSP are rubbish. I don't even pay attention to the PSP in the background coz them black dustballs things are wittering on about some benial thing...

1 - A (antibiotics can't kill off a flu/cold) 2 - D (your doctor wouldn't prescribe more than you needed in the first place) 3 - A (In case of lil' kiddies)

Spot the double irony in your argument. You're clearly patriotic of your own country. That's not a bad thing, although I'm not a patriot of England, I can understand why you feel that way. However, America is a country based on nationalism, patriotism and above all else, hope. Your own national anthem represents that. However, often with patriotism comes sentimentalism. If there's one thing the American media doesn't like, it's body bags coming home. While in the UK most of the anger over the Iraq war comes from how much of a mess we've made the country (and how US and UK intelligence lied over WMDs), in America it seems that most people have been alienated against the war by the sheer mass of soldiers coming home dead. America is a patriotic country. I don't think there's much to debate there. However, this means that soldiers coming home dead has more of an effect on your mentallity than it does here in the UK, especially when our casualties are <10% of yours. You can't expect people (and therefore, the media) *not* to feel hurt by (I think) 3,000 US troops dying in Iraq, and then feel patriotic about the war at the same time. Um... change it to something about US foreign policy and the Middle East in general. That seems the most appropriate title.

Well, I don't believe all countries want to. However, the US supports the State of Isreal being there and would therefore never say a bad word about it. And, unfortunetely, America being the most powerful country in the world both economically and militarily means they really get to call the shots. Maybe it'll change when China takes their place... but I doubt it...

Umm, "Yeah, well..." Kinda the same as "Your mum", but doesn't even have a point to it.

I agree with that, but I was referring to the fact that many times in the past scientific 'theories' have been worded as 'breakthroughs', and I think usually the difference in social attitudes to the two is whether or not they'll gain from it at the end of the day. You were correct on your explanation of the Bohr Model, an orbital is indeed an area where there is a high probability of locating a specific electron. However, this still hasn't been factually proven, although to all intent and purposes it has, and people have taken that theory and made our lives better from it. Do you see my point? I'm trying to articulate that there are many things in scientific history which have never been 100% proven, but people have still acted upon those theories in order to better their own quiality of life. Global Warming may only be a theory, but I don't personally see it as much different to this. You're right, it has been all but proven. The main point is that people are only willing to accept things that might not be true as true if it holds the potential to further their own quality of life. Clearly, acting on Global Warming wouldn't, and so people like to refer to it as an unproven 'theory' rather than a fact. It's a change in social attitude, and we have to change these attitudes to Global Warming and about the neccesity to give up certain things in our life in order to preserve our climate.

In my opinion, most of what we know about the world is based on theories anyway. For example, the amount of everyday things we use that have stemmed from the discovery of the Bohr Model of the Atom is staggering, yet that theory itself is exactly that - a theory. Does that stop the world's politicians and economists refining crude oil to make plastics, or to provide feedstock for the petrochemical industries? No, because it makes them billions every year, and it's here where I think the problem with human (or rather, rich humans) attitudes lie. The fact is humans have gone off 'scientific theories' for ages. The only reason the middle-classes aren't willing to act on those 'theories' now is because at the end of the day, they'll lose money/luxeries for it. And where economists won't take action, the State has to, but there lies the problem. We can't reduce CO2 emissions while people are driving freely in their cars and taking holidays on a plane half-way around the world! The State has to act on CO2 emissions by attacking these two factors of CO2 emissions especially, but no government ever will through fear of unpopularity. If you ask me, the book doesn't lie with the scientists here, and I think it's all too easy for economists and politicians to blame scientists on the grounds they have no solid evidence of Global Warming, when they're not actually prepared to do anything in the first place. The blame for the lack of action doesn't lie with scientists, they don't own the means of production or control the legislatures. The responsibility lies with politicians and businessmen, and it annoys me when they consistantly neglect this duty.

That's a very valid point, I partly agree. But do you not agree that perhaps the sheer amount of traders in RS means that a person can effectively act however they so please (even offensively), and not be made accountable for their actions, as they'll just go off and find some other trader? I don't agree that it would necessarily kill RS. I don't know how WoW works (never played it), but if what you say is true then that argument runs counter to itself. WoW isn't dead, yet it adopts this policy, so how would RS be any different? I think that the economy would change drastically, of course, but wouldn't "die". As for the point about Item X being different in one world than the other? Well, isn't that really how the real world used to work? In Egypt, there would have been a lot more gemstones than in, say, London, so gemstones would have been less value in Egypt than London. That kind of situation I think forces people into a sense of cooperation and involvement in something much bigger than their own self-inflated egos (which does seem to be a problem with a lot of people in RS), because essentially they have to contribute, or get left behind. Also, perhaps Jagex could provide a way of trading items from one world to the others? That way, prices wouldn't necessarily be all that hurt because the economy isn't "cut". You could almost set up a shop for your world and 'export' goods to another world. Jagex likes to teach people about the real world. Well, what better way to teach someone about how an economy works than by actually forcing players to be involved into it and learn for themselves through the game?

Ths article was unfortunetely naÃÆÃâÃâïve as much as it was anticipated: I'm sorry to wake everyone up to the real world here, but welcome to Capitalism. The whole idea of Capitalism is that a select few prosper, and inevitably, some people suffer because it of it. Marx says this himself, and some 150 years on, what he said is becoming common-place in everyday society. The Western-world chose this structure of society, and just as you said in your article, abide by the rules or perish. I personally am a Socialist and I don't believe in this kind of structure, but it exists, and it would be completely naÃÆÃâÃâïve to try and even deny it's there. You're preaching Existentialism, and while I partly agree with this philosophy, humans don't always have the choice over what they want to do, and often there are constricting factors, such as money. What you and Jagex are effectively trying to say is "In the Real World, he who owns most doesn't get what they want". Well, what a load of crap quite frankly! Have you seen Chelsea FC the past two years? While I don't agree either that you should be judged in RS on how much wealth you own in Real Life, I realise that I'm foolish to even try to take such an ideology and then realistically compare it to the Real World. I'm sorry Editor, this was a bad and misinformed article. 2/5 tops.

The story of Isreal and the Jews stems some 2,000 years in history. The behaviour of Isreal can partly be explained by the way Jews were persecuted throughout History, firstly in the Roman Empire, then the Christian Church-controlled Middle Ages, the Islamic World, then the Industrial Revolution, Marxism and, obviously, the persecuation of Jews in Nazi Germany. It's understandable that now the Jews actually have a state to call their own, they'll do anything to maintain it. It's almost a sense of paranoia that's developed throughout those 2,000 years. This doesn't however excuse their blatent racism. I know of no other UN country allowed to actually write racist messages in their own constitution,a dn it annoys me how the Western world ignore the disgusting behaviour of the Isrealli government towards Lebanon and Palestine. While both of the latter countries aren't glistening examples, it doesn't excuse countless Isrealli attacks which they are forced to undergo.

This comes from a suggestion in the Rants section, regarding a thread about abusive language. One poster there suggested an idea that, in my opinion, is a very logical and practical way of dealing the amount of rule breakers and the general hostile attitude of some players that play RS, and I want to elabourate on it. The thread is here, and the relevent post is: The poster suggested that Jagex should close off the option of so-called 'World Hopping'. By this, I mean the right to play the game on whatever server the player so desires, and forcing them to spend their RS career on one server. I like this idea. It forces people into a community that they have to cooperate with, or else have their in-game development hindered. It forces people not to use things like abusive language, and to actually contribute something in order to progress in the game. The game would also become more socially-minded. It would no longer be the case as is, which is that you can do near enough whatever you like, and not have to compensate for your actions. Under this idea, if you did something which the majority of the server you're placed in doesn't agree with, you'll be hit hard through the fact that not as many people would be willing to cooperate or trade with you. Under this logic, people would be forced to be pleasent, and would have a spirit of being a part of a community with real people, and not "just pixels". This also reflects the medieval society RS is supposed to be set in. In medieval times, people were dependant on one-another for their own development. For example, if a fisher fell out of favour with their village, people in the village starved through a lack of food. They were dependant on that fisher for their own survival. I think this is an attitude that should be encouraged in RS. At the end of the day, we're dependant on other players for our own development in many areas of the game, and this should be reflected in in-game mechanisms. I want to discuss people's attitudes to this, and if Jagex were to do this, how would they go about doing this?

Ltfairy, that's your personal experience. I'm not a PMod so I can only go on what I see of others. You've said it yourself though: So if we're doing just as much as you are, why is your specialist status needed? Also a point on 'educating' players. You don't teach players to think for themselves, as what the word 'education' actually means. You've made the same mistake Jagex have made by thinking 'education' = 'information'. You don't educate players about the rules, you inform them of them. There's a big difference, and they shouldn't be confused. I could go into an in-depth discussion about the necessity of PMods, but this thread isn't about that, so I'll leave this discussion here as it would be going off-topic. However, my opinion on the matter is that Mods do receive some benefits, which when even weighed against the downsides of Modship, provide an unfair and unnecessary advantage.

Oh God don't get me started on that. You tell anyone here in the UK it's partly the parents fault for leaving their child unattended and you get called shallow and evil. I'm sorry if the truth hurts... let's face it if it was in the UK, Social Services would have those kids taken off them for it! But I agree with the rest of that post. Hundreds of Iraqis due every week due to the occupation, yet we only seem to care because ~100 American troops died this month. They kill us, it's seen as a vicious act of Jihad. We kill them, it's seen as an 'accident' and a necessary price for their 'Democracy'.

^ By that do you mean Tony Blair or John Howard (since you live in Brisbane)?

I don't make such irrational comments. I realise most (in fact all) mods get chosen for their strength of justice and character. However, the point I'm making is that while there are some players that don't know the report button exists, the majority of players are perfectly capable of reporting offences, and leaving confidence with Jagex to deal with the offence. What I'm basically trying to say is why does Jagex need to create (what is effectively) a special heirachy among players? Mods in-game, by their very nature, receive benefits such as priority in trades or more cooperation amongst most players. These are luxuries which most players on RS don't enjoy, and I think this is very wrong. Surely, Jagex should actually be turning to employing staff to deal with the game, instead of creating a special ̮̩̉̉lite of players that, frankly, don't need to be there. I look at a Player Mod and a normal, decent player, and I think what's the difference? Well, not a lot. One can mute, the other can't, that's it. Yet the mod receives far more benefits which, in my opinion are unfair and make the game easier for the mod, for doing a job which the majority of RS could do fine on their own anyway. As far as rule breaking goes, the book should lie with Jagex to deal with it, and not to resort to creating an unfair situation in favour of mods. Why should mods have these luxuries (albeit inadvertently and reluctantly), when they don't do much more to help the overall behaviour of players on the game than I do?

So, unlike past guides, it doesn't include a list of the levels at which they learn moves? Meh, I don't really care all that much anyway, there's plenty of sites (two I could name right now) that give these details anyway...

What makes me laugh is he's made that comment with that avatar going next to it. Do you not listen to Billie Joe Armstrong's lyrics in American Idiot or Wake Me Up When September Ends? Power does not equal victory. Anyone who thinks that is foolish quite frankly. We've heard this power message before with Kennedy, and although I have some respect for him for his involvement in Black Civil Rights, he was wrong and King was right. There is so much more to war than brute force, and I'm sorry to all American Nationalists, but you seem to have a history of making that mistake! As far as I see it, you have two choices - retreat, or die. The choice is yours, but I for one am in favour of bringing the UK troops home, as there's nothing they or the Americans can do there anymore! We made the situation in the first place, yes, but that doesn't give us any right to stay there and make things worse in the process of trying to make things OK. As far as Iraqis are concerned, they want us gone. We should respect their democratic right to request that, and leave.

I agree with the first replier. There's no answer to this question, it relies very much on the person. I personally don't need to be a moderator in order to help people. I help people out of the kindness of my own heart, and report people where I see fit. I don't see how a little silver crown makes me any more capable than a mod for helping on-line gameplay. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that mods aren't really all that needed, as opposed to a more, for lack of a better word, pleasent community. Mods receive recognition they arguably don't deserve, but also they don't really see many benefits in people constantly harrassing them. We've had cases of corruption and the abuse of powers added to this. So can someone please explain to me why we need mods in the first place, when there are plenty of non-mods that do their job just fine?

Actually, the Qu'ran clearly states that the law of the State comes before the law of Islam - something which the media don't like to mention in their biased Islamophobic reports on Sharia Law and Jihad. Also, I think you'll find many followers of supposed 'Jihad' are contradictory to their own cause. Nowhere in the laws of Jihad does it mention anything the occupation (or any international action for that matter) has done. The fact is, most Iraqis want to be exactly that - Iraqis. This has been shown in countless opinion polls and amazingly has never really fluctuated in terms of opinion. What opinion polls have been quite clear on is that they want the occupation to leave so they can solve their own problems out. Whether or that involves a democracy is their option, not the Americans'.

As mentioned in my other post, I think that part of the reason Liverpool lost was because of the timing of the season. Instead of playing UEFA when we're on top form, we play the most important fixtures at the end of the season when we're shattered. Also, Liverpool aren't the best team in England. Fact. So who's to say Chelsea or Man Utd wouldn't have done better if they'd not have had other priorities?

Well StrOwez, that sounds fair. I disagree on one thing though. There are plenty of people in the UK you can't afford clothes, yet the law forbades journalists to film them. However, when it's in a different coutry away from our own, it's seen as acceptable. I just find this attitude wrong... we're all humans quintessentially at the end of the day.

^ Well the obvious counter to that would be it's not about the individual players. Kaka is an example of sheer grace compared to Rooney or Gerrard, but is he a part of a better team?

All English league? yeah, sorry for saying that but i don't have enough knowledge to include all european teams Personally I'd say Chelsea and Man Utd are the best teams in Europe anyway. I think that our season is timed wrong, and we play the final stages of UEFA when we're at our most tired, and that showed with all three English teams in the last four. Also, given the state of Italian football, AC Milan aren't really looking all that stable, and at the end of the day, you have to stable to be good long-term.

It's not a coincidence, nor special power. You're just more aware of it. You may look at that clock more times than that but the pattern of numbers is insignificant so you don't notice. It's like when it's Friday 13th and something bad happens to you. Well, that bad thing could have happened any other day, and probably has - but you notice it more for the fact that it may have some deeper meaning. Also, look hard enough, you'll find something odd in any set in numbers. Hence that crazy Twin Towers chain email thing I got... most of the maths on it was wrong as well :lol:. Oh, and the one about Tupac coming back after 7 years... (still waiting) :-w