Will H

There's going to be a lot of factors in this. Production, shipping, distribution or retail costs might have gone up, or the US dollar might have dropped against the pound. In any case, it's a very small change for one of the two available cards in one country, and it's not even the most popular or cheapest method of gaining membership. In other words, it's not a big deal. This is still an absurdly good value MMO.

HURRAY!!! Oh thank god. They really shouldn't scare us like that, and they should put that on the BTS. Overall, sounds like a pretty mediocre month. Not bad for me, as far as I'm concerned, I've still got 99 Dungeoneering to get. The less distractions, the better. That's not going to be the case for most people though.

That quote pyramid hit critical mass. Good job. I wonder, why do we have armpit hair? Is it an area where you lose a lot of body heat?

I got all of the emotes long ago. When I got a costume room, I collected all of the clothes. Now I've got everything, I usually just go for the xp and stick it on Prayer. Never go for the mystery box.

Why? I know you're not asking me, but I'll answer that question anyway. Torture is the infliction of harm on an individual for a purpose other than the infliction of harm itself, such as the extraction of information. Waterboarding causes the perception of harm, in this case drowning. Harm is subjective, so the perceived harm that waterboarding inflicts is equivalent to actual harm. Waterboarding is therefore torture. If your definition of torture doesn't include waterboarding, it is incorrect or you have misunderstood it. Often these things just need a little logic.

Regulations mean nothing when a corrupt government is part of the problem. What I would see as a real solution is get rid of the fed entirely and put us on the gold standard again. Federal Reserve notes arent even constitutional anyways. Article 1 Section 8 of the US constitution [powers of congress]: "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;" Article 1 Section 10 of the US constitution "No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility." Federal Reserve notes arent real money and aren't even allowed by the constitution. Also by the constitution are not considered to be real money. Also part of the problem. That's not an argument for returning to the gold or silver standard, that's an argument that the US constitution is wrong. Which it is on several counts. The fact that people blindly follow that document without thinking irritates me.

Ah, so the bronies have established a new outpost. I'm an unashamed fan. Ok, a little ashamed. And yes, I've watched the whole series. The pilot episodes are okay, but after that the whole thing really comes into its own.

No word from Harold Camping yet. Do you think that they're going to pretend he got raptured? That would really piss off his followers.

Also, Dungeoneering is supposed to be a skill that benefits from other skills. Go train up some skills first before you attempt it.

That's just nonsense, these things are either deciding factors or not, there's no middle ground or points system. Even if the condition had no associated health risks, it would be unethical to stop parents from giving permission to operate on the child. The social problems alone that the child would experience would amount to harm, and we have laws, responsibilities and rights in place to minimise that harm when possible.

I eagerly await the video response of the guy who predicted the Rapture explaining why nothing happened.

If one person gets their face [bleep]ed up by someone, its mutilation. If everyone did it to their kids, its culture. :lol: At any rate I still believe that any permanently body altering surgeries [such as plastic surgeries or circumcisions] should not be rights the parents have over their children. If parents/guardians didn't have that right, that would make performing medical surgeries on children difficult if not impossible. That then causes harm, and that's exactly what we don't want. True about the culture thing though, but what can you do about it? I wouldnt say Uncut is harmful after all that is the way nature intended it to be. What can you do about cultural mutilations? Not allow the parents to do them until the whild is an adult. Also I would support parents rights to do life saving surgeries on children, however cosmetic ones like circumcisions or plastic shouldn't be done until the child is old enough to decide that. If a kid had a condition where his foreskin was harmful, Id support the parents to get him circumcised as a medical necessity. However as far as religion or cosmetics go they shouldn't hold the right. Also to people who compared this to getting ears pierced, if you dont wear ear rings the hole will close eventually, so its not >permanent< body modification. Circumcision is roughly the same as childhood plastic surgery or getting a permanent tattoo at birth but even a tattoo isnt perfect because those can be removed now. Again to anyone that quotes me, my stance is about human rights not the benefits or disadvantages of cut vs uncut. I disagree. What if you had a child that was disfigured in a road accident, and the parents wanted to go ahead with plastic surgery to correct that? Would you deny their child the quality of life they would reclaim if they had that surgery at a young age? I agree that this isn't really like getting your ears pierced either though. @Other posters: The medical benefits are irrelevant. Irrelevant. Stop talking about them. You're complicating the issue when it's not needed. I would support reconstructive surgery, not destructive surgery. A major injury, yes get the reconstructive surgeries done [doubtful the child would object to it anyways]. Though where it gets iffy for me is if the child was born with a major deformity should the parents have the right to change their kids looks? Here is a good example: Cleft lip and palate's would be something I support a cosmetic surgery for, as this will help with speech, attractiveness, health, etc. plus arguably can be considered a medical emergency where there would be negative side affects for doing nothing. In relation to a circumcision... A circumcision may or may not have benefits, my beef with it is that not getting circumcised has no disadvantages [not enough of a difference in reducing risk of std's for it to be justified, nor is the "why does mine look different" in a society where sex education is a click away or a responsible parent is completely able to tell their kids about] and is certainly not a medical necessity [except in specific cases where it is one I support the surgery]. In unnecessary permanent [not earrings which the hole in your ear can close, or even tattoos which can be fully removed with enough money] cosmetic surgeries I think the patient should have the right to say no, which a baby doesnt have. Good example, I'll run with that. You say that attractiveness is an acceptable reason to correct a cleft lip in a child, but that's purely a cultural reason. Society could treat children with cleft lips no differently than children without. It would be a better and more tolerant world. Unfortunately, that's not the case. A child with an uncorrected cleft lip would feel pretty isolated from the culture it grows up in. I'm not Jewish, so I might be taking a leap here, but I assume that circumcision is the same thing in Jewish families, albeit a version that isn't so outwardly obvious. As far as they're concerned, being uncircumcised is something against their own cultural norm. As such, they should be at the liberty to correct that, so long as it does not harm the child. Well attractiveness was a minor reason for cleft lip as there is more medical complications by not doing anything then just being ostracized, but for circumcision its not like your friends and family will see you there on a daily basis [or ever]. Besides by the time he would be having sex he would likely be able to decide for himself if circumcision is something he wants. But I know what your saying the whole "mine looks different then his, is there something wrong with me?" its part of growing up, sex ed [>] mindless conformity, imo. Its not as blatantly everyday as your face, but even then attractiveness isnt the only reason I'd allow parents to make decisions for say cleft lips, its also because of the medical complications that go with that if left untreated. So you regard attractiveness, a purely social/cultural concept, as enough of a reason alone to have the surgery? If so, I rest my case. He never said that. He said that attractiveness was a minor part of it, and that medical reasons are far more important. 'Twas a question, not a statement, although I'm pretty sure the answer is yes. He did say 'attractiveness isn't the only reason I'd allow parents to make decisions for cleft lips', suggesting he thought it was valid reason. I'm just waiting for clarification.

If one person gets their face [bleep]ed up by someone, its mutilation. If everyone did it to their kids, its culture. :lol: At any rate I still believe that any permanently body altering surgeries [such as plastic surgeries or circumcisions] should not be rights the parents have over their children. If parents/guardians didn't have that right, that would make performing medical surgeries on children difficult if not impossible. That then causes harm, and that's exactly what we don't want. True about the culture thing though, but what can you do about it? I wouldnt say Uncut is harmful after all that is the way nature intended it to be. What can you do about cultural mutilations? Not allow the parents to do them until the whild is an adult. Also I would support parents rights to do life saving surgeries on children, however cosmetic ones like circumcisions or plastic shouldn't be done until the child is old enough to decide that. If a kid had a condition where his foreskin was harmful, Id support the parents to get him circumcised as a medical necessity. However as far as religion or cosmetics go they shouldn't hold the right. Also to people who compared this to getting ears pierced, if you dont wear ear rings the hole will close eventually, so its not >permanent< body modification. Circumcision is roughly the same as childhood plastic surgery or getting a permanent tattoo at birth but even a tattoo isnt perfect because those can be removed now. Again to anyone that quotes me, my stance is about human rights not the benefits or disadvantages of cut vs uncut. I disagree. What if you had a child that was disfigured in a road accident, and the parents wanted to go ahead with plastic surgery to correct that? Would you deny their child the quality of life they would reclaim if they had that surgery at a young age? I agree that this isn't really like getting your ears pierced either though. @Other posters: The medical benefits are irrelevant. Irrelevant. Stop talking about them. You're complicating the issue when it's not needed. I would support reconstructive surgery, not destructive surgery. A major injury, yes get the reconstructive surgeries done [doubtful the child would object to it anyways]. Though where it gets iffy for me is if the child was born with a major deformity should the parents have the right to change their kids looks? Here is a good example: Cleft lip and palate's would be something I support a cosmetic surgery for, as this will help with speech, attractiveness, health, etc. plus arguably can be considered a medical emergency where there would be negative side affects for doing nothing. In relation to a circumcision... A circumcision may or may not have benefits, my beef with it is that not getting circumcised has no disadvantages [not enough of a difference in reducing risk of std's for it to be justified, nor is the "why does mine look different" in a society where sex education is a click away or a responsible parent is completely able to tell their kids about] and is certainly not a medical necessity [except in specific cases where it is one I support the surgery]. In unnecessary permanent [not earrings which the hole in your ear can close, or even tattoos which can be fully removed with enough money] cosmetic surgeries I think the patient should have the right to say no, which a baby doesnt have. Good example, I'll run with that. You say that attractiveness is an acceptable reason to correct a cleft lip in a child, but that's purely a cultural reason. Society could treat children with cleft lips no differently than children without. It would be a better and more tolerant world. Unfortunately, that's not the case. A child with an uncorrected cleft lip would feel pretty isolated from the culture it grows up in. I'm not Jewish, so I might be taking a leap here, but I assume that circumcision is the same thing in Jewish families, albeit a version that isn't so outwardly obvious. As far as they're concerned, being uncircumcised is something against their own cultural norm. As such, they should be at the liberty to correct that, so long as it does not harm the child. Well attractiveness was a minor reason for cleft lip as there is more medical complications by not doing anything then just being ostracized, but for circumcision its not like your friends and family will see you there on a daily basis [or ever]. Besides by the time he would be having sex he would likely be able to decide for himself if circumcision is something he wants. But I know what your saying the whole "mine looks different then his, is there something wrong with me?" its part of growing up, sex ed [>] mindless conformity, imo. Its not as blatantly everyday as your face, but even then attractiveness isnt the only reason I'd allow parents to make decisions for say cleft lips, its also because of the medical complications that go with that if left untreated. So you regard attractiveness, a purely social/cultural concept, as enough of a reason alone to have the surgery? If so, I rest my case.

A bit comical, but more sad IMO. Also, I wouldn't call them Christian if they don't base their beliefs on the Bible. This is a usual case of a few nutcases getting way too much attention. Anyway, I'm off to eat breakfast. While I can. :razz: There's clever nutcases, the ones that predict events that will happen past their lifetime like Nostradamus, that we should collectively ignore. Then there's the stupid nutcases like this one, who predict something in the near future and can be tested and proved wrong. Those guys you should put the limelight on, turned up as high as possible, to show them up as the idiots that they are to everyone. It's sends a message to the world: "Don't be an idiot like this guy". As a whole, this is a good experience for everyone.

If one person gets their face [bleep]ed up by someone, its mutilation. If everyone did it to their kids, its culture. :lol: At any rate I still believe that any permanently body altering surgeries [such as plastic surgeries or circumcisions] should not be rights the parents have over their children. If parents/guardians didn't have that right, that would make performing medical surgeries on children difficult if not impossible. That then causes harm, and that's exactly what we don't want. True about the culture thing though, but what can you do about it? I wouldnt say Uncut is harmful after all that is the way nature intended it to be. What can you do about cultural mutilations? Not allow the parents to do them until the whild is an adult. Also I would support parents rights to do life saving surgeries on children, however cosmetic ones like circumcisions or plastic shouldn't be done until the child is old enough to decide that. If a kid had a condition where his foreskin was harmful, Id support the parents to get him circumcised as a medical necessity. However as far as religion or cosmetics go they shouldn't hold the right. Also to people who compared this to getting ears pierced, if you dont wear ear rings the hole will close eventually, so its not >permanent< body modification. Circumcision is roughly the same as childhood plastic surgery or getting a permanent tattoo at birth but even a tattoo isnt perfect because those can be removed now. Again to anyone that quotes me, my stance is about human rights not the benefits or disadvantages of cut vs uncut. I disagree. What if you had a child that was disfigured in a road accident, and the parents wanted to go ahead with plastic surgery to correct that? Would you deny their child the quality of life they would reclaim if they had that surgery at a young age? I agree that this isn't really like getting your ears pierced either though. @Other posters: The medical benefits are irrelevant. Irrelevant. Stop talking about them. You're complicating the issue when it's not needed. I would support reconstructive surgery, not destructive surgery. A major injury, yes get the reconstructive surgeries done [doubtful the child would object to it anyways]. Though where it gets iffy for me is if the child was born with a major deformity should the parents have the right to change their kids looks? Here is a good example: Cleft lip and palate's would be something I support a cosmetic surgery for, as this will help with speech, attractiveness, health, etc. plus arguably can be considered a medical emergency where there would be negative side affects for doing nothing. In relation to a circumcision... A circumcision may or may not have benefits, my beef with it is that not getting circumcised has no disadvantages [not enough of a difference in reducing risk of std's for it to be justified, nor is the "why does mine look different" in a society where sex education is a click away or a responsible parent is completely able to tell their kids about] and is certainly not a medical necessity [except in specific cases where it is one I support the surgery]. In unnecessary permanent [not earrings which the hole in your ear can close, or even tattoos which can be fully removed with enough money] cosmetic surgeries I think the patient should have the right to say no, which a baby doesnt have. Good example, I'll run with that. You say that attractiveness is an acceptable reason to correct a cleft lip in a child, but that's purely a cultural reason. Society could treat children with cleft lips no differently than children without. It would be a better and more tolerant world. Unfortunately, that's not the case. A child with an uncorrected cleft lip would feel pretty isolated from the culture it grows up in. I'm not Jewish, so I might be taking a leap here, but I assume that circumcision is the same thing in Jewish families, albeit a version that isn't so outwardly obvious. As far as they're concerned, being uncircumcised is something against their own cultural norm. As such, they should be at the liberty to correct that, so long as it does not harm the child.

If one person gets their face [bleep]ed up by someone, its mutilation. If everyone did it to their kids, its culture. :lol: At any rate I still believe that any permanently body altering surgeries [such as plastic surgeries or circumcisions] should not be rights the parents have over their children. If parents/guardians didn't have that right, that would make performing medical surgeries on children difficult if not impossible. That then causes harm, and that's exactly what we don't want. True about the culture thing though, but what can you do about it? I wouldnt say Uncut is harmful after all that is the way nature intended it to be. What can you do about cultural mutilations? Not allow the parents to do them until the whild is an adult. Also I would support parents rights to do life saving surgeries on children, however cosmetic ones like circumcisions or plastic shouldn't be done until the child is old enough to decide that. If a kid had a condition where his foreskin was harmful, Id support the parents to get him circumcised as a medical necessity. However as far as religion or cosmetics go they shouldn't hold the right. Also to people who compared this to getting ears pierced, if you dont wear ear rings the hole will close eventually, so its not >permanent< body modification. Circumcision is roughly the same as childhood plastic surgery or getting a permanent tattoo at birth but even a tattoo isnt perfect because those can be removed now. Again to anyone that quotes me, my stance is about human rights not the benefits or disadvantages of cut vs uncut. I disagree. What if you had a child that was disfigured in a road accident, and the parents wanted to go ahead with plastic surgery to correct that? Would you deny their child the quality of life they would reclaim if they had that surgery at a young age? I agree that this isn't really like getting your ears pierced either though. @Other posters: The medical benefits are irrelevant. Irrelevant. Stop talking about them. You're complicating the issue when it's not needed.

My first exam's on the 24th, so I've been enjoying my time off because I clearly don't need to revise.

If one person gets their face [bleep]ed up by someone, its mutilation. If everyone did it to their kids, its culture. :lol: At any rate I still believe that any permanently body altering surgeries [such as plastic surgeries or circumcisions] should not be rights the parents have over their children. If parents/guardians didn't have that right, that would make performing medical surgeries on children difficult if not impossible. That then causes harm, and that's exactly what we don't want. True about the culture thing though, but what can you do about it?

I really wish that title was different. I hate misleading titles, the opinion and emotive language should go in the posts, the fact of the matter goes in the title. It's really not difficult. The cultural or religious aspects and the medical benefits are irrelevant, they're arguments for whether parents should circumcise their children or not. The problem here is whether parents who wish to do so should be stopped from circumcising their child. The question that it hinges on for me is: Does it actually harm anyone? The answer I would say is no, being circumcised does not diminish the quality of life for the child and does not inhibit them in any way. As long as that isn't infringed, parents are the ones with the responsibility and should be allowed the freedom to do what they wish. Using the word mutilation is all very well, but you have to remember the rational reason to why we object to mutilation, it's something that harms the mutilated person.

Only if the journey inbetween does not contribute to the structure or quality of the quest. For example, there's nothing very interesting about walking from Varrock to the Wizard's Tower once you've already made the journey in the other direction, but in a quest like Regicide, navigating the Elven lands is part of the challenge. I can't really think of any quests which would benefit from teleports which don't use them already. The answer is situational.

Nobody wanted my biscotti last time, so none of you are getting any.

I often have days where I don't take a shower (don't have a bath at where I'm living this year), but never twice in a row. I just feel weird and clammy if I do. As for hair washing, I always put shampoo on and rinse every time I have a shower, but never brush it. It's short, mostly straight, brown and boring, and it sorts itself out. Never looks any different after about half an hour even if I do brush it. That said, my room smells like a proper man-cave. I love it.

Not going to stop them, it's their loss. I'd like to see their faces on the 22nd though. I'd try to reason with them...these conspiracy theories are the same things as scams, they prey on the gullible. This person is a victim.. Unless, of course, it somehow turns out to be true, in which case, he'll be laughing all the way to the....uh.....??????? It's only a scam if someone intentionally makes money out of it. For everything else, there's Mastercard it's stupidity that can only be helped in the long term by education, sadly. By the looks of it, he's either far beyond reason, or a really clever magnificent bastard because he's advertising his own book on the same posters. Only his profit margins will tell.

Not going to stop them, it's their loss. I'd like to see their faces on the 22nd though.