Ginger_Warrior

With heinsight, I think a more beckoning question would be "why did we put Saddam Hussein in power in the first place?" Go check it, it's true, we put him there.

It's not that I don't have the guts to realise that, it's just I don't believe that that is the correct way forward to stop terrorism. You can say that the way to win a "war on terrorism" is to go into every Middle-East country with even the slightest whif of Al-Queda and wave your guns at them to stop them from organising attacks against the US. But I'm sorry, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan has only made things worse. Al-Queda has GROWN, not declined. Consequently, the occupation of Iraq had lead to the July 7th bombings in London. Can't you see that using violence to quell terrorism is actually only feeding the fire at its base? All it will do is alienate people against the US, thus making it more susceptable to attack!

For the soldiers comment you made, I just laughed. I'm sorry and maybe this is a bit judgemental, but I would say most of the army is actually uneducated, and by that I mean they didn't enter higher education and don't have a subject that they specialise in. Under this sense, I wouldn't say most people are educated. I would only say they were if they had a degree! You live under the American Dream of Manifest Destiny (it still hangs over from when the "kind" Americans took over the Great Plains, their excuse being, "we'll educate them undrer a Democracy and Christianity and they'll have a new light"). You seem like a person that just takes everything the mass media and the government says to you without even bothering to question its nature or provinence. Now you can bleat on about the Democrats all you want, Bush has created a situation where frankly, no-one wants to be seen standing next to him, except Condey Rice. Bush has succeeded in alienating everyone away from him. I ask you this. China in 20 years looks set to the world's most largest economic superpower (and possibly military power, given the satellite space missile incident a couple of weeks back). Yet your president seems more focused on fighting a losing war, that nearly everyone, including the Labour Party here in the UK, wants to end and for the troops to be withdrawn immediately? I ask you this, why isn't he investing into the economy and Social Security? Gordon Brown is doing just that over here and we've got the strongest growth in our economy since the Industrial Revolution! Invest into your economy instead of fighting this stupidly pointless war, and maybe you'll have a chance of competing against China in the near future... As for the election thing, I'll tell you how he got in power. I seem to recall in his first election an incident about miscounted votes in the state of Florida (which coincedently, is run by G. Bush's brother, but far be it from me to say that the election was rigged without proof...)! I have no doubt in my mind that Bush will go down in the abyss of history as one of the worst Presidents America's ever had!

hmm, so i only got one opinion, wow, that means im most likely wrong. and the reason he is over there is because he wants to defend his country to the best of his ability, unfortunatly, the liberals wont let him. btw, im joining the marine corps as soon as im old enough, because i love my country. I don't mean to flame you, but I'm sorry; as a right-wing soldier (which judging by his langauge he clearly is), he's bound to be alinated against the Democrats anyway... And because it IS one soldier, the other guy's right, it doesn't paint the full picture of what soldiers think in Iraq...

Well that's fair, it's clear that that particular soldier wants to stay and fight. He seems to hate Democrats though, and glorifies his "commander-in-chief" (which I would point out is actually G. Bush). I would question his political alignment, if he's a Republican, he's almost certainly gaurenteed to dispise the way the Republican Bush is a sitting duck because the Democrats own Congress, regardless of his situation in Iraq. Anyways, this is going off-topic...

In the US, you have the right to freedom of speech, so long as you don't cause slander. In the UK, press censorship is controlled partly by the state, and partly by the state-funded British Broadcasting Cooperation. Thus, we don't have FULL freedom of speech.

You seem to be under the illusion that the UN actually has power... if only! I can understand that frontline infantry doesn't feel happy about the situation in Iraq. However, since as I can only speak about British soldiers, I will do so. And there have been major cases in the UK about the US-lead coalition (led by Bush and Blair) not equipping soldiers with decent armour, and not having a proper exit strategy! This is a direct result of G. Bush's foreign policy, which under the US Constitution, the president does have the right to dictate. Thus it IS G. Bush's fault the situation in Iraq has turned so bad.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't it gone beyond the point where the presence of a foreign (supposesdly) glorious western army would actually be a bad thing! I think the Sudanese refugees would want the US or a European Army to defend them! @ Ambassador, I couldn't agree more. It's actually censored in this country to take a picture/vidoe of a homeless, destitute man. Yet while we impose these laws to protect our own people, it seems somewhat acceptable to go and film a picture of a poor starving African girl crawling with flies, depicting them in a lower light. Well... I have one thing to say, welcome to Democracy, which comes with the handy package of Free Media!

I know you do, that's how I found this post :

I agree with you on many of the things you have said Locke although I have to disagree with you on this. I believe the US was completely justified in going into Iraq and deposing Saddam. I just think Bush screwed up in how he went about it and what to do after the dictator was overthrown. I am like you in that I believe the US should not be involved in anything that doesn't have anything to do with their national security. Iraq did have ramifications on the security of the US. Earlier you made the point that weakness invites further aggression on a country and that a country has to retaliate or face further attacks. I completely agree with this statement. To me Iraq falls into this category. Why? The first Gulf War by my understanding never officially ended. A cease fire treaty was signed under terms of surrender for Iraq to comply by so that the war could stop. Iraq broke the terms of the cease fire treaty repeatedly which gave the US the right and the obligation to demand the terms be complied with even if it meant forcing them to at the end of a cannon. Failure to force Iraq to maintain the peace treaty showed weakness. Again this was Clinton not backing up US policy and making the Arab World think of us as having no backbone which invited things like 9/11, the US embassy bombings, the USS Cole being attacked, etc. If I was a country that had the US declare war on me I would sign a peace treaty in a heartbeat with them and then wait for them to take their army home... wait a few years and then break the treaty if they aren't going to retaliate. If Iraq could get away with it why couldn't I? This directly undermines the security of the US and the world as a whole. Bush should have gone into Iraq to depose Saddam for breaking the peace treaty and used his reasons like possible WMD's and other things that he used as his primary reason instead as side topics that would just be a bonus if it really was found Saddam had developed WMD's. Doing this would guaranteed there wouldn't have been any political embarrassment when no major WMD's were found. (Who knows... maybe they are there and Saddam had them hidden away amazingly well and had the people burying them shot to keep the secrecy... we may never know the full truth... If he hadn't had any WMD's I don't see why he would kick the UN weapon's inspectors out of the country. Either way it wouldn't have mattered in this scenario.) This way US peace treaties would be assured of being complied with in the future. The US doesn't appear weak willed. Legally the US has every right to invade. The US could have appealed to it's allies from the first Gulf War explaining how this wasn't a new war but merely a continuation of the first Gulf War because the terms of cease fire had been broken. Politically the US would have had the upper hand and been right to act this way. To sum it up the war in Iraq is the right war for the wrong reasons in my opinion. This seems to be turning away form the situation in Darfur, but I would like to comment further on this. I was indeed at the Stop The War Coalition march in Hyde Park, London, March 2003. In my opinion, I don't see how the Americans can justify the reasons that they have given thus far for the war in Iraq. It's turned that Britain has a guilty part to play in this as well, with the accusations of the "sexed up dosier" on WMD in Iraq and the 45 minute claim. To be frank, you have to dread into what the American and British actions after the war were. Of course, Bush (or rather the US Army) has mishandled the situation engrossingly. I don't blame G. Bush 100% for this, the Americans seem to have a history of not knowing how to fight wars properly, and especially what to do after. The European countries have a much grater knowledge on war-time mobilisation, simply because we've been around about 1,500 years longer than the USA. To look at why they went to war, you have to look at what happened after the war was over, behind closed doors. Oil rigs are running fine, as are pipelines, yet Baghdad suffers constantly from Electricity shortages, which the US Administration admits is nothing to do with "insurgent" (off-topic: I like this name, considering they were there before the US/UK coaltion turned up! lol) activity. This beckons the question, in a world plagued by fossil fuel shortages, where is the oil going? Anyways, tI've not been studying the Sudanese Civil War in any great detail, so I can't really comment. However, for both Iraq and Sudan, we should look at Russia and the Bolsheviks for understanding of what needs to happen for true peace to be restored. On March 3rd, 1917, Tsar Nicholas II was overthrown in a popular movement. Revolution had sparked off. The Provisional Committee formed to make the Provisional Government of Russia, and because it was mainly made up of middle-class liberals, was afraid of the growing threat of the workers' revolution. It tried to stop it, much in the same way that the US Army is trying to quell unrest in Iraq, however, it was ultimetely unable to satisfy the needs of the starving war-time workers. In these conditions, the Bolsheviks became more popular and seized power. The whole point of this story is that a popular revolution cannot be stopped via suppresion. The US army cannot to the sectarian violence in Iraq through combat, the will of the people is just too strong, and it's gone beyond a battle of "winning hearts and minds". Iraq, and I would use this philosophy for Darfur as well, HAS to undergo a revolution; and if during that revolution, the country has to split in three, so be it! Iraq's just lost an autocrat, there's a massive vacuum of power in Iraq, and a full-scale overhaul of the government is needed to restore a parliament that can deal with the violence. Likewise, the Sudanese Government seems incapable of dealing with the vilence by itself, or with the UN Security Council's backing, thus unless help comes soon, it will have to start making concessions. What can we do? Well I'm sorry to say, but there's physically not a lot we can do. The obvious one is to question the condidates running for elections in your local area via, and see what they would propose to deal with the situation in Darfur. As for the US, I can understand why it would need a base of power (ie. Iraq) to monitor terrorist activity in the Middle-East, and to bascially do their dirty work for them. However, there are other way to do this than to attack every country with a terrorist cell... mnearly every country in the world would have to have war declared upon them in order of this philosophy. The way to do this is to invest in countries... picking wars will only make the US more unpopular and thus more susceptable to attack. Investing will make the population of a country see more favourably upon them.

lol short article, I think he's running out of things to talk about :P My favourite examine option has to be the Piglet's at Draynor Village "I sahll call him mini-pig". My GF was round at my house when I examined it, she was in fits lol! I like the way that Jagex can make references to historical events, such as the Soviet Union (which is still a part of history that plays a MASSIVE effect on our world today), and yet not be serious about it and not cause controversy, and make it into a fairy tale. As for the Recipe for Disaster quest, the way that you could go out of the room and talk to people about how you defeated the enemy - shades of LoZ: Ocarina of Time on the N64, with the bit where you learn the Song of Storms!

An interesting and constructive article, as I have come to expect from you Editor... Great Work! :D I too find it a bit creepy that Jagex DO have the power to watch everything I say. Not least because I do have some rather controversial viewpoints, that in the eyes of Jagex, would almost certainly result in a Forum Ban on their official RS forums. I think the issue that really needs to addressed here though is not whether Jagex should get along with their fansites (I think this is beyond question. It's the same as politics, as more people join Jagex, more people will join fansites such as Tip.It or RuneHQ, for whatever reason be it good or bad.) I think this because at the end of the day, the more members a website has, the more power it starts to gain over the company it associates itself with (think of Trade Unions and political pressure, the two aren't much different). This will probably likely never happen, but Tip.It as it grows gains more threat to Jagex in the form of (at the worst-case scenario) boycotts. As I said, very highly unlikely (some would argue an impossibility), but it puts Jagex in a place where does have to get along with fansites, or else lose popularity with the members of that fansite. This becomes ever so more crucial as the population explosion of RS continues. I think the issue that really does need to be addressed is why Jagex haven't already acknowledged the creation of fansites and the influence that they undoubtedly have over the game. Paul and Andrew seem to be under the impression that those two alone are in charge of running Jagex, and while this is theoretically true, it's not in reality. RS has an estimated members populace of 750,000. Can two people in an office in London really control 750,000 gamers whom live all over the world, in the US, Canada, Asia, Central Europe and Australasia? And not just that, but keep in touch with what all these people want? Certainly the BA update showed how much Jagex can miss their audiences' wants by. The way I see, Paul and Andrew have to realise that RS is no longer a small national company and can no longer realistically be run by two (albeit very clever) people in an office in England. To use an old line, they have to start letting the baby grow. One way to do this is to let fansites have more of a direct relationship with Jagex. There would be so much for Jagex to gain - it would be more in touch with its audience, it would have a better control of players around the world, and (off topic a little) would also give players and mods a place to refer people to if the knowledge database (KB) has holes in its information. Under the circumstances, it is completely beyond me why Jagex haven't already affiliated themselves with trusted fansites, such as Tip.IT and RuneHQ. They have an area for fansites on the KB, yet no fansite mentioned. Strange, no? Using fansites to help administer the game would be a cost-effective way for Jagex to remain in-touch with its audience (a skill which Jagex in fairness have lacked in months of late), give more ideas for suggestions, without compromising the safety of it or its players, or alienating anybody away from RS. Many would say this will never happen, I say that it has to happen sometime. Either that or privatisation, and if that happened there would be greater monitoring of fansites for information about players' thoughts anyway, I feel. Sooner will be better for Jagex in the long run...

Another point on the Barricades... try not attacking them just so you can get passed them and don't use them to protect your own lives, use them to prevent the enemy escaping with the flag. Your free teleport to the waiting room means a lot less than the enemy scoring in a nail-biting showdown! -.- BTW, not sure if anyone noticed this, but a wall has been placed so that people can no longer hide behind the stairs on the waiting-room floors...

There shouldn't be an apostrophe in the above cases, objects(animals too) cannot possess other objects. Final word should be 'yourself'. You're right up until the point over animals. Animals live, and this is regardless of the point anyway becasue objects can be possessive. For example: The tree's branches. The branches belong to the tree. It would be this if there were more than one tree: The trees' branches However, this, as you suggest, would imply many birds, and the nest would be lost so it wouldn't make sense: ... a birds nest. It should be bird's, or birds'. Therefore, it should be skill's (the level belongs to the skill), and bird's. Its' however IS wrong. A possive 'it' doesn't contain an apostrophe, hence it should be 'its'. 'You' is perfectly correct. It is written in the third-person narrative tense, and thus could be 'you' OR 'yourself'. In this case, both mean the same thing.

A fascinating, thorough, and above all else - a correct viewpoint on the RuneScape community! Unfortunetly, the kind of people that this quote most relates to won't have the patience, or perhaps in some cases the intelligence, to understand or even finish the article, and will merely brush it aside as some geeky adult trying to be clever... needless to say, I couldn't disagree more! -.-

Hmm... see that's an interesting point. I don't really like the way this is, but if Zezima left for example, can you imagine the amount of fanboys that would leave with him? TBH, it could be none, it could be many, I don't think anyone can make that kind of estimate. Perhaps something Jagex would be more worried about is if a high status (arguably famous) RS player started to (let's put it nicely) bad-mouth Jagex. Would people feel more swung to their argument because of their status, and put pressure on Jagex for this? :-k I don't think any player is worth more than the other IMO. At the end of the day, there's hundreds of thousands of RS members - one leaving has little significance, especially as the RS population is actually booming. As far as Jagex is concerned, it's more financially profitable to keep the masses of mid-low levels sweet than the very few high levels...

However, to play devil's advocate, do ratings honestly matter? Certainly in terms of mining, a high skill will beat a lower, but apart from wilderness combat, players don't directly compete. Ahh yes... but if what you propose happened to a new combat skill that would improve your performance in the wilderness, then would you not agree something is wrong here? The pures would benefit more than they already do, and while I have no problem with pures, it's not fair on people who don't try to mislead other players. My idea... this should never happen. It creates an uneven playing field, because although gold purchasing is against the rules, it does happen.

A skill with directly purchasable exp? I would be outraged! Personally, I like working for my goals, and this would encourage exactly the opposite. the rich players of the moment would have no trouble getting the exp, and promoting their rating amongst other players, which I find unfair, especially considering the tactics some more narrow-minded and less-driven people use to get money

I've often been asked if I'm a skiller. Personally, I don't believe in labelling myself just to feel secure. However, I do accept my total skill level is disproportionally high compared to my combat level, and I am still called a noob for it. Why do I have such high woodcutting, fletching and construction levels? My answer is this... surely I don't have to do combat non stop until I get to level 100 to feel a sense of fulfillment or achievement do I? At the end of the day, I like construction more, and I'd feel prouder of level 99 construction than 99 prayer/hp/mage/range any day!

I personally don't believe that they are trying to force f2p into members, however I do believe they have such a limited space (at least, somewhat lower than members) to prevent people who have been members to carry on playing on f2p, and to force them back into paying for membership. I can also see a big problem with unlimited banking. You'd have people storing ridiculous items like grain/ashes that you gain in Lummy starting out on the game. Can anyone par me imagine the kind of strain that would put on the memory usage for RS?

They could have full dragons with 3rd age armour, and 9999M of all the colours of p-hat if they so wished to lol! All they'd need to do is click a few buttons! The last sentence is correct though... :

I don't normally agree with JaGeX and their rule policy. Maybe the fact I'm on a black mark for breaking a serious rule (which I never did nor have any intention to) has something to do with that. But I'm sorry I have to come in to bat for JaGeX on something here. I would question why JaGeX enforced these rules: Those two arguments for enforcing these rules seem fair, I don't think anyone can deny that there is a massive problem with both password scamming AND trade scamming. Unfortunetely, some people don't appreciate what it's like to give so much effort into acheiving something - they'd just rather take the shortcut! But I don't believe that these two arguments are the reason behind JaGeX doing this. When you consider that the Animal Magnetism and An Enlightened Journey are both quests which have clearly aimed to teach science, it's not hard to see that they're trying to appeal to parents, in the same way that Playstation, X-Box or Nintendo (ie. games companies)would have parental information pages on their website. At the end of the day, a fair deal of the people that play RS can't actually pay for their own membership - they have to use a parent as a medium to pay for RS! These rules were clearly aimed at making people more secure (ie. parents), and if people are more secure, they'll be prepared to pay for membership; or even let their children play on it full stop! But what actually triggered the huge uprising? Nothing is ever just 1 factor-caused, but I think there's 2 main reasons. The first is that so many people use it and feel emotionally attached to it, so as soon as one person complaied, it spread like wildfire. It sounds silly, but if someone was to say the RS is illegal and is to be banned, I think nearly all of us would imitate the protestors on the official forums. Why? Because we're emotionally attached to this game, in the same way that lots of people are dependant on 3rd-party chat clients for example. JaGeX completely underestimated how many people use 3rd-party clients, hence the huge response on the forums. The other reason - The fact that there is nowhere else for the anger to be directed. Unless I'm wrong, the forums is the only place where RSers can vent their anger at JaGeX. The complaint system of JaGeX is poor (although I have to give them credit actually - I sent a complaint a few days ago and received a reply in 2 days time, but nonetheless it is still poor). Hence, no-one used it. If you vented your anger in the game, it's always in the back of your head you're gonna get reported by a noob who reports absolutely everything to become a P-Mod. Hence, no-one did. If there was anywhere else for players to actually complain and protest, then this massive protest on the official forums would have had less strength, and would have eventually run out of steam. Maybe that's a thought for JaGeX in the future. There's only 2 things JaGeX can do if they want to get rid of 3rd-party clients. The first is to improve the chat system currently in place. It becomes tiresome having to scroll down a list looking for people in a clan. This is why people use chat clients. If they update it enough and make it better than the 3rd-party chat clients, people will feel less compelled to use them. The second is to, as the Editor said, create one of their own and put it up for purchase, with which the money gained can somehow be used to fight autoers and macroers. Although forcing a charge might just make people turn the free clients. Has anyone thought about perhaps expanding the RS game window horizontally? A half-decent chat system could be put there! At the end of the day, it's not JaGeX's responsibility to look after your computer. It's yours! But JaGeX while trying to clamp down on scamming etc. are in fact succeeding entirely in promoting it... Sorry my post is soooo long lol

Law runners use tiaras infused with a law talisman and wear it. You may notice a blue crown-like thing on their heads... Law talismans are gained after a quest, I think it's 'Death Plateau' although I'm not sure. They cannot be traded and are not dropped by monsters. Literally, that's the only source of law talismans Law runners go to the island with 27 law runes, and all the noted pure essence they need. During trade, the 27 spare spaces (once the law runes have gone) are replaced with pure essence from the other player.

My gf's gonna be with her family... so I might be. Then again I got Wii Play for my younger brother and sister, so I might be too busy with that hopefully :)

A bit of a stupid quesiton, but can they actually pass the bill onto us when, technically, they own everything, and we own nothing. It's taxing us for nothing isn't it?