Ginger_Warrior

So: Quote 1) Panic-selling causes an unnatural drop in prices due to an unfounded and baseless assumption that prices are continuously dropping--hence the term "panic-selling"--and this phenomenon is self-fulfilling; number of sellers has significantly increased as a result. Quote 2) Prices continuously drop over the course of an item's lifetime as a natural result of a shift in supply vs demand. As time goes on, there is more supply and less potential demand as players acquire their own sets. This is a glaring contradiction.

I'd heavily advise against pushing away family at a time like that. It's stressful enough and you need the support of those around. Removing her mother from the picture will only add further to the difficulty of the situation.

I've been told by managers not to do certain tasks which are a contractual obligation for anyone else. I didn't bang down the door and demand equal rights because I appreciate women are generally more discriminated against, but in the back was my mind was the nagging thought of "Why should the fact I'm male make any difference?" It was a pretty clear cut case of discrimination, it's like telling a female mechanic they can't go anywhere near the cars in case someone says something about it. My point was more directed at men than women. Feminism didn't come from males who felt sorry for females, it happened from women themselves. Same goes for men, my only fear is that if men did exactly that, they would be told be some less reasonable feminists that what they're doing is somehow wrong. As far as domestic abuse is concerned, domestic abuse is domestic abuse, regardless of sex or gender or whatever.

I can't find any information either way, just do the loyalty points for auras (etc.) carry on coming if you buy this? You'd have to presume so, but I can't find confirmation of it.

I used a search engine to see what you meant by that just to make sure we're on the same page and one result I got was a bot site saying Jagex needs to "fix their shit". I wouldn't believe it if I hadn't seen it myself. For obvious reasons I won't provide an URL or details on what search engine I used. Back to the issue, I'd be pretty disappointed if something like this was filled with questions on technical difficulties rather than the general direction he wants to take RuneScape. I wouldn't want a lead developer working on that sort of stuff; it's not what they're paid for. If PoP is any sort of indication on what new RuneScape content will look like, then it's definitely a step in the right direction. I felt the same way about Dungeoneering in terms of what should define a 'skill' in RuneScape, although I wasn't playing when Dungoneering got released.

Four things really stick out to me: 1) The focus on lore instead of XP rates and skill mastery in the new skills; 2) "There are changes planned down the line to make more skills worthwhile that reward the skill of the player" 3) Mentioning that people often value the XP rather than the finished item itself. 4) Admittance that GP earning potential needs to be improved. When you bundle those four together, I think it indicates a desire to move the focus of the game away from RuneScape's six year long obsession with skillcapes, maxing and completionism.

If you're modding the OT board, we already kneel to our one, true dictator: Randox.

The thing that I find debilitating about debates on feminism is the lack of an alternative schema, in other words, it's either feminism or nothing (and if you choose nothing, you must be inherently misogynist). There are areas where men suffer discrimination and aspects of our lifestyles where men are made to feel very uncomfortable. Admittedly, there's far less of these than there have been for women over the years, but yet I don't see "mascul"ism. I'm training to work in a profession where males are outnumbered by a factor of 9:1 in the UK, and I'm fully aware those figures are reflected in occupations like teaching and social work; when those figures were the other way round in careers like medicine and law, there was outrage. Down the pub, I've actually been asked a few times by women "What drew you to do this career as a male?" and I honestly feel like replying very abruptly with "I imagine exactly the same things that draw women to it". There's no movement to claim I'm being discriminated against, and to be fair I don't feel like I am being discriminated against, even though I am. Another example: Even though the incidence of both is roughly similar, how many times do we hear about cervical cancer compared to testicular cancer? I'm not anti-feminist, if anything I support feminism and I'm definitely not one of these guys who feels threatened by it. I just wish men would stick up for themselves a bit more too.

Believe me, any move to have the WBC recognised as a hate group would be putty in their hands. They're real life trolls who desperately crave attention and sympathy from people who feel their "freedom of expression" is being picked on and violated. The way to deal with trolls on the Internet is to expel them where possible, and ignore them where not possible. People should learn to do the same for WBC; ignore them. Louis Theroux did a fantastic job of exposing the lunacy behind the WBC's beliefs, and it should be left there for people to make their own inevitable conclusions.

You seem to be confusing stubbornness with a denial of opportunity. I can't afford Third Aged Druid or Divine Spirit with a 20M cashpile, which is closer to what the average RuneScaper is able to afford. It's not a case of me being stubborn, I simply do not have the GP to buy it in the first place. Once again you've demonstrated that your perception of what an average player is capable of using as capital, to invest in what is known in RuneScape as 'flipping', is totally wide of the mark. Moreover, you're proving just how much you are missing the point, and I'll bring it back to the topic title here. If it really is that easy for everyone (and again, I quote that word because that's the word you used) to make 100M in a single transaction, then why is RS gold being sold for $25/50M? Because the gold sellers are making a massive real life profit from the vast majority of players who cannot afford to do that. In reality, it's a tiny percentage at the top who can afford to engage in flipping and make a good and steady return from it, but in the face of glaring reality, you seem adamant to convince us that that's not the case, instead of just admitting you were wrong in the first place.

In a game where anyone who isn't maxed tends to invest money straight back into their skills, it largely depends on player psychology and how much people like to keep in reserve, but in my limited experience (because I've only got the people "around me" in RuneScape to go off) I'd say players tend to think 10–20M is a safe number. As far as maxed players are concerned, it varies wildly.

Staking is not a reliable money-making method. There are relatively few exceptional examples in a community of hundreds of thousands of people, but the vast majority of people either break even or lose out. That stands to reason; not everyone can get rich off staking because somebody has to lose (and I'm emphasizing 'everyone' because in your first post you said, quote: 'almost everyone'). Not to mention the effort needed to learn the knowledge to be successful at staking in the first place. I'll take this as indication you believe your first post was wrong. You can desperately try to marry two clearly contradictory statements together but the rest of us are finding it pretty obvious that you made that first post without properly thinking it through.

Well, just for clarity on the issue: Do you want to change your first post, or your second post? Do people need to work for hundreds of hours to obtain the best armours in the game, or don't they?

Did you talk about it? I don't quite hear the sound of wedding bells, but has that taken things one step further?

There were thirteen mass shootings in the eighteen years leading up to Australian gun control laws. There have been no mass shootings in the fourteen years since. Comparing crime statistics across countries is immensely difficult because of each country's differences on what defines crime, and there appears to have been no attempt by that article to appreciate those differences. India's one of the safest places in the world as far as rape is concerned but that's simply because their law enforcement and record-keeping on the issue is tragically poor, and not because less women are being raped. South Africa would have the world believe no one at all is sexually assaulted there; they publish no figures for it. Hong Kong does publish figures on rape: apparently there were zero cases reported. Incredible.

Instagram's recent attempt to sell photographs which aren't theirs to advertisers for profit. The move doesn't bother me that much. Most of what's on Instagram isn't worth much anyway, and Tip.It actually has a similar policy for content posted on this forum (see the copyright notice at the bottom). But it's the way companies like Facebook try and make these sorts of changes covertly, buried in small print in new privacy policies without making it obvious to their users. Facebook is good, but if the trust between us and them breaks down enough, there's plenty of other social networking websites to use.

Well, firstly I'm not really sure how you arrived at that conclusion from what I wrote, but perhaps I should be more clear in the future. What I said was that it's no use saying "Let's wait for an appropriate time to discuss this" because the NRA are an immensely powerful body who have a vested interest in making sure the issue isn't discussed at some other time and throughout the past two decades they've been remarkably effective at it, almost admirably so from a neutral point of view. Time and time again after incidents like this, national opinion and senior politicians have given the rhetoric about getting tough on guns and it's never happened. Do you think it's appropriate for a single organisation to essentially stifle any talk of gun control because they have that much influence over the political system? I'd say that's no better a situation than settling for knee-jerk reactions. In both cases, a proper, rational debate is impossible.

When you see Nex armour in the same tier as chaotic weaponry and shields, you can clearly see there's an obvious imbalance there. Two million dungeoneering experience compared to hunting Nex? It's not even comparable, there's a massive gulf in difficulty there. But at the same time, Barrows/Bandos/Armadyl at level 70 is good enough generally for most things, so it's not like there's a need for Nex armours to be so dumbed down at level 80 either. The GE prices were the best information I had to go off, I know for a lot of things they are useless to go off. My point was more aimed at the "without putting any effort in" part. It's not like we earn tens of millions a week from MTK or something like that. People do still have to work for those armours, unless they get hundreds of millions donated to them from somewhere.

I genuinely have no idea what observation lead to that concluding, final statement. On current GE prices, a full set of Pernix costs 210m, Virtus is 258m and Torva 332m. How many millions do you think the average RuneScaper has in their bank, exactly?

If the only time you ever try to debate gun control is after a tragedy, are you even trying to have a rational argument? It isn't the only time people have ever tried to debate gun control, and it doesn't always follow tragedies. Both the President and Governor Romney at the very least expressed concern about some aspects of gun control in the run up to the election; they both had anxieties over the availability of automatic firearms, which was particularly prescient of them in this case. So there is clearly some, perhaps very limited, ground for discussion between the two parties. There is one certain organisation, however, which was made it nigh on impossible, for the best part of twenty years, for politicians to discuss gun control at any other time than the immediate aftermath of tragedies like this, so you can appreciate why the dams burst whenever something like this happens. It's impossible to have a rational argument after a tragedy like this, but it's also impossible to have a rational argument elsewhere.

Why? I'd argue it's more disrespectful to those who died not to debate the issues which surrounded their premature and needless deaths, opting instead to kick the issue into the long grass.

The expert advice says Blazer, quick-switch Desperado. Abilities and auto-attacks can cause the combustion effect so I'm not sure using momentum would change anything.

I feel the issue of concealment is academic in this case. Regardless of where you stand on the use of firearms to protect one's life and property, there is absolutely no logical or reasonable basis for a civilian during peacetime to be in possession of a semi-automatic rifle along with two other firearms. Not least because this mother was the main carer for a young man who, we're beginning to understand, had a particularly debilitating case of Asperger syndrome.

The violence and anger towards his mother in particular isn't indicative of autism. It was maybe a factor in how he decided to handle those emotions, but people with Asperger don't just turn angry for no reason. There's still a trigger behind it, just like there is for the rest of us. One thing that's really struck me is how different the reaction in America has been to previous tragedies. There's already been two shooting sprees in the US in 2012 and neither of them evoked the same kind of . It might be because children were involved, it might also be because it happened in a state not particularly renowned for gun violence or gun ownership, but there seems to be more substance behind the calls for change this time. Of course, the final nail in the coffin for handgun ownership in the UK was the Dunblane massacre, and this incident holds many similarities.

There is some interplay between emotional volatility and learning disabilities. It's not reasonable to assume he did this because he had Aspergers, though, however convenient it might be to do so. It could be a whole host of other things. He wasn't "Aspergers". He was a person with Aspergers. Please respect the difference between those two attitudes.