Ginger_Warrior

I'm sorry to jump on the bandwagon, but the idea of a "social contract" to Jagex or to the RS community in general I find to be wholly ridiculous. The social contract implies that if I uphold the society's rules and customs, I will in turn be rewarded by that society. RuneScape has one of the most retrograded, derogatory communities I have ever come across, with the possible exception of FPS games (and in their defence, adrenaline's pumping so it's understandable why they're so abusive, if only slightly). It's rank with "keeping-up-with-the-Jones" types, snobs, trolls, cheaters, bots... you name it. There are good examples of player-made and player-moderated communities within RuneScape, but let's not pretend that the RS community in general is something that any of us owe anything to, sparing a legal obligation to Jagex when we signed the T&Cs. If I choose to follow rules, which I did when I played RuneScape, I do so out of personal conscience, not a "social contract" as I would do in real life.

You must have known her quite well then, I'm guessing. I'm sorry to hear that. I know it doesn't seem like it now, but you will find it gets easier to come to terms with over time.

Solution: Find the support and positivity from sources other than relationships, although you should still search for relationships which are supportive in nature.

The power of the OT board compels you... But if it really doesn't, all the best for the future!

Maybe these girls were interested in him because they only wanted sex too. Now there's a thought...

Romney wasn't a great student behaviour-wise either: http://www.bostonglo...ry.html?camp=pm It's completely irrelevant to Romney's campaign though. If he makes a good President, if he makes a bad President, his college record is neither here or there.

2 party system doesn't allow that. Gary Johnson is probably the best choice. But a 2 party system makes it impossible for people to even hear his name, let alone get used to his policies. I agree there are flaws in the Electoral College system. One thing I have never been able to wrap my head around is why there isn't a "third party" in US politics for those who are disenfranchised from both main parties. Third parties seldom ever achieve any substantial power, but their existence puts pressure on the other two to adapt their policies. Additionally, I think it has made US politics very polarised, and in recent years, I think that's made the elections almost hateful, especially in 2008, which I don't think is particularly beneficial for anyone. When Bristol Palin became pregnant, it might have been a contradiction of her own personal beliefs and the beliefs of her mother, but did it really matter in terms of what McCain or Obama would have done in office? It still got played out in the media. Three points: 1) What names was Obama calling Romney? 2) In what way were they childish? 3) Who claims the US Navy needs no less than 318 ships? Also, what types of ship specifically does the Navy need to achieve all of its aims under US foreign policy?

Mirrors are really lovely, aren't they? Especially when used on cryptic usernames...

Then vote for someone you think will make a difference. They might not stand a chance of winning, but that's democracy. No point [bleep]ing about the top two candidates if you're not willing to back someone you think would represent you better.

Granted you have one post and you only joined TIF today, but no, sorry... I do not.

I thought Romney came out slightly better on the economy, if not necessarily in terms of future direction, but because the economy is just so poor right now, and that made it very easy to discredit Obama's handling of it. The only exception to that was the part about spending on the Navy, the "we don't have as many horses and bayonets either" line was a good soundbite which seemed to put Romney on the back foot from thereon on the issue. Obama came out on top in the foreign policy section quite easily, though. The post debate snaps seemed to give Obama a significant lead (8 points to Obama was the most favourable I have seen to Romney). That's not good news for him given the debate took place in a state he really has to win.

Plenty of water, paracetamol for the high temperature. I hope you weren't too full of the green stuff to impress the girl. He got banned today. How is it off-topic?

They've said will give their evidence to the UCI to allow them to consider taking the case to arbitration, and then publish it in public. They've already stated the evidence includes analysed data and testimonies from over a dozen of his former colleagues. It does seem strange, that you accuse the USADA of being corrupt because they don't provide evidence, without providing evidence of said corruption yourself. Hypocritical, even. What's even more bizarre is that, given the chance to expose the USADA's alleged corruption, and ridicule these claims as the "nonsense" he has described them, that Lance has decided to pass up on the opportunity because he feels "weary". This is a man who has aggressively sued absolutely anyone, anywhere, whenever they have even implied he used performance-enhancing drugs, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars in legal costs and compensation payouts... he's even already tried suing the USADA in a federal court in this case to prevent proceedings continuing any further. But now he can finally deliver a coup de grâce to these claims, and completely legitimise his place as the greatest Tour cyclist of all time, he apparently can't be bothered. Perhaps a more likely explanation is that, just like most athletes and sportspeople who eventually get caught for doping, he's doing two things. 1) Maintaining his innocence in face of the threat of the contrary being exposed, but only by simply stating "I'm innocent" while not following it through with any tangible proof of innocence; and 2) victimising himself. He wouldn't be the first--God, Alberto Contador was doing it only twelve months ago--and he almost certainly won't be the last to follow that pattern of behaviour. [/hide]Nobody has actually seen the evidence yet. All I've seen is them saying they confessions from 10 former team-mates and two of which will probably include Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton who will just about say anything these days. Nowhere is there hard evidence. It's like me saying I have 10 confessions that you robbed a store yet I haven't shown anyone those confessions, nor is there video evidence (urine samples) to support the my claim of you robbing a store, but you now have to go to jail to serve your time for robbing the store. Not to mention, Lance Armstrong just got over a two year federal investigation over basically the same doping allegations. How many times can you trial one man over the same "crime" before enough is enough? http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2012/10/22/decision-day-for-lance-armstrong/ You expected the UCI not to uphold the decision, that this case would unravel because there's no "hard evidence" and, in the end, Lance would get away with it again. I wonder if you still think dismissing the overwhelmingly blatant evidence in front of you, on the basis that USADA are "corrupt", was still a clever idea.

There's also the freedom to choose and make a decision. If I enter a relationship, and me and the other person know it's a monogamous relationship, we have both freely chosen to enter it, haven't we? Neither of us have lost freedom, if anything, freedom empowered us to make that decision. If somebody knows they can do something, and that still plays a part in their mentality when they know they don't necessarily want to do something, I'm not so sure that's freedom. That's having little self-control over your own impulsive tendencies. To me, that's the opposite of freedom. When I know I don't really want to do something, but it's playing on my mind anyway.

I see no problem with that. I'm a "prefer the journey" kind of guy. Also, just to clear up. You said going without sex and being single, then you said "while single, you can still have sex whenever you want." So... you're not going without sex then, are you? You have no sexual freedom whatsoever if you lack any opportunity to express that freedom.

Well my brother's 40 years old and his sex drive is still high as ever, so I expect mine to be similar. And I plan on dating younger women as long as my sex drive remains high. Then I suspect he's either underplaying the sex drive he had in his late teens/early 20s, or overestimating his sex drive now. Perhaps not consciously, we all overplay things we perceive as "good" or "positive". But the physiology simply doesn't add up. You're not maturing any more. Humans aren't designed to live until 40, let alone be having sex and babies then, without artificially enhancing our quality of life. So then why does it matter that women lose their sex drive in monogamous relationships? Why are you placing so much emphasis on this sex thing, then when someone holds you to closer inspection, say "well sex doesn't really matter so long as you're together anyway"? I could easily level that accusation at you. You're 22 years old. It's hardly a case study in itself for proving one lifestyle is better than any other, let alone better for everyone, which by arguing against those who have chosen to "settle down", you're effectively saying.

That probably won't happen till I'm in my 50s or 60s. It will decrease. You're now at the age where males want sex most. If anything, your sex drive right now above normal (which probably explains why you're putting so damn high in your relationship priorities), and it will start slowing down in a few years. Furthermore, you're male. Female sex drive generally goes significantly down much earlier than their 50s or 60s. If it takes two to tango, and you're 55, and you have difficulty attracting younger women whose sex drive matches yours, then choice is really an irrelevance. Unless you're gay, of course, which I'm guessing you're not. You've made numerous references (you've even used one particular reference multiple times) on why sex is important to long-term relationships, and basically implied that sexual dissatisfaction is a key flaw in traditional marriage, hence why people affair. Yet I am to believe that the same person who claims that, can also be in a relationship where sex is out of the question? You're either very ambiguous, or you're holding a clearly untenable position.

I got pretty smashed last night. Flatmate's girlfriend came round and made loads of punch but only me and her had it, so I had far too much. Went out to a club, got back, was tempted to drunk TIF. Looked at this post this morning, and even though I'm hanging badly... I'm glad I didn't. RPG, once you've sobered... was the policeman really "chill" or was that alcohol telling you everyone likes you? :P

What data is it recording? I'm guessing BM levels... but I'm not sure and I'm genuinely curious. :razz:

Was it not more the case that, during the 1960s, one of the most significant advances in medical science became reality? Oral contraceptives meant that, for the first time in human history, women had a staggering amount of personal control over their own fertility and therefore if they wanted to have sex, whether it was with their SO or anyone else, they could without any significant risk of an unwanted pregnant. Instead of assuming why women got married in the 50s, maybe you should look at stuff that actually did happen during that era. I'm not so sure how any of this is relevant to this, frankly, silly "poly" vs "mono" dichotomy you seem to have designed. The sexual revolution, which owes a lot of its roots to oral contraceptives and the role of women during WW2, had just as much impact on those who want sex with one person exclusively, as those who wanted sex with more people.

Unlock, even. I'd been awake ten minutes before making that post. :?

Didn't you know it costs twice as much to make a device with rounded corners and "slide-to-lock" mechanisms?

← Only just bought a Galaxy S2... and thinks it's incredible even in 2012.

I got XCOM on the 360 but it's clearly designed to play better as a PC game. Played the original on the Amiga (well... watched my parents play more accurately), I've bought some of the spin-off titles but they've all had serious flaws. Absolutely obsessed with this remake, I've been doing other things today as well--recovering from a hangover...-- but I've not left my flat yet and it's 10pm! Only major graphical bug I've had so far is when I rocketed a thin man off the bridge in an extraction mission. Because his corpse fell off the map... and kept falling in what was in collision model terms clearly a bottomless pit... and the camera kept zooming out to compensate. I've never had a problem with shotgun accuracy, but I prefer to keep ARs on my Assault class troops anyway... laser rifle deals more-or-less similar amounts of damage whilst keeping at a distance so I can stay in good cover. With the Tactical Sense perk adding to Defence, that means a bit. Snipers take out anything not-quite-dead-yet, especially if you choose Executioner (which I don't, but if you do...).

I can only speak for myself. But yeah, I can be irrational. Everyone's irrational on some level.