Jard_Y_Dooku

What rapist? Where? How about we blame no one, because there's no rapist and no one did anything wrong.

Lol, I dunno how many times I said it - that doesn't work.

I monster-examined all the PC monsters and I'll upload their pictures to my guide tomorrow. NOTE TO SELF: - Remove old 35 PC monsters - Add new 36 PC monsters - Add the eight knights from the new mini-quest - Overwrite level 14 thief and level 26 head thief; Jagex fixed the 6554 max hit bug (will total 790)

It is THAT big of a deal... I'm not criticizing Tip.It, I'm worried someone might SQL inject and pwn their database...

YOU &%*#ING GENIUS!!!!!!!!! I LOVE YOU!!!!!!!! If you are a girl, tons of kisses, if not... high five hard enough to break wrist. So, the solution is:

Like I said, doesn't work. Also, when I used a lockpick on the Camelot castle gate, Morgan Le Fay appeared and said "Back to jail!"... she disappeared and nothing happened. I tried using lockpick again and I got a "Nothing interesting happens.". I've submitted a bug report to Jagex. :|

:-k

NOTE: Doesn't belong in Help & Advice because it's a suspicion. Not a confirmed bug or a request for help. Well... maybe somewhat of the latter but its main classification is "look what I found, this is odd". Quick find code: 20-21-591-48321914 or click here: http://forum.[Please Use QuickFind Code].ws?20,21,591,48321914 If anyone knows the solution to this please tell us... PS - Don't tell me to go through the statue:

Me and my friend were discussing how about that! Highly Illogical but w/e; it's their game. Maybe if your level gets lowered from the ice lands or beer or something, you can't use it unless your "current" level is 55, not your base?

Monday, July 23, 2007 Added Giant lobster (level-32) Added Gardener (quest) (level-4) to wishlist

1. Good job; intelligence. 2. My parents are 8 years apart.

that would work put who would come? Me. Send me Tif PM.

SA Transfer spell... level 91 I believe.

I hate repeating myself. And I am getting $%ing aggravated with the un-intelligent prospect that minors are easily manipulated, or at all. Apparently the lawmakers never met me. I can easily manipulate an adult. Watch. My father is almost 50. I beat him in mental battles all the time. Age is not a factor. Being under 18 years of age does not mean you are easily manipulated! THEY (meaning the incompetent lawmakers) think that, and they have no scientific proof whatsoever. It's almost like racial profiling... what they're doing is generalizing... you can't search only Muslims for terrorist-related activities. You search everyone. This is why you should take a test rather than be judged by the amount of plancks that have been processed since your mom gave birth to you. If I think, feel or believe something, you're not changing my mind unless you put a gun to my head... in which case I will attempt to disable you by removing the gun from your hand, severing your hand with a sharp object, or disabling your vision with eye-unfriendly substances. 13 isn't a "little kid". And I don't know why you're disgusted, I'm sure at 13 that would be a dream come true for you as would be for plenty others. ---------- I'm tired now... those are the best quotes I found. Why might he be disgusted, becuase that is a child, their body may not have even hit puberty yet, the fact is the majority of 13 year olds arn't mature enough to treat sex as a really serious issue, that's why there is an age of consent. At the age of 22 that woman should know what's right and wrong, she should know that having sex with a 13 year old (somebody who's less than two thirds of their age) is wrong, who's to say he knows the risk? Do we know if they used protection? For all we know the woman could have an STD, the point is the law is in place to protect our youth until they are at the age where they should be aware of all this and be able to make educated decisions. The fact is, the woman has broken the law and we don't know all the details, we don't know if the boy had second thoughts or anything, please can we just stick to facts we know, those being: -The boy is 13 years of age, 3(? (not sure where this has happened) years below the age of consent. - The woman is 22 years of age and therefore can be held responsible for her actions. - The woman has broken the law. Now it doesn't matter if the boy encouraged the woman, believe me I've seen this kind of siuation with a 13 year old who was fully developed and I was 17 and knew it would be (very) wrong. I'm sorry, but all you seem to be doing in this thread is laughing at everybody who's opinion disagrees with you. Just because somebody doesn't know the law doesn't mean they have a low IQ, please stop trying to make people feel bad for no reason. Go read my other post. I don't need to repeat myself. I don't give a [:!:] how old he was. If he consented, that's fine. "Who's to say he knows the risks", you say? WHO'S TO SAY HE DOESN'T KNOW THE RISKS?! Me. I say so because someone has to bring logic into this low-IQ infested world. Yes, this case was probably consensual. Why should it still be trialed as statutory rape? Because the judicial system works with precedents. We (the society) do NOT want to give future *genuine* sex offenders a stick to beat the judicial system with. Any defence shark, errr I mean lawyer in future sex offender cases would JUMP at the opportunity to raise this as a case in defence of their client (should this case be deemed 'consensual'). It will shift the burden of proof from the suspect to the actual victim: he/she will have to prove that in fact the relation was NON-consensual. Do you honestly want to subject minors to cross eximination in which the victim has to prove the relation was non-consensual? Do you really want to give future offenders even the slightest chance of escaping justice? There's your logic for you. Yes; yes (logic and fairness is far more important to me than whether a pedophile is convicted or not). I'd rather set 100 guilty people free than set one innocent in jail.

I've seen many people who are obviously using autotypers in World 2, but I only report them if they set the speed to be an unfair advantage. If they set it at an appropriate time interval for the length of the text, more power to them. It saves their hands from hurting. Humans have been using tools for millenia, and thats what sets us above the animals. As long as you can't do it any BETTER than people not using tools, then I believe it's totally within the boundaries of the rules. saving their hands from hurting using 3rd party software = against the rules and an unfair advantage... i think you just pwn3d yourself Read again: Saving their hands from hurting using 3rd party software is a REAL LIFE benefit. Not an in-game benefit. Thus, by your own logic, it's unfair but it's not in full violation because it's not an in-game benefit. Who exactly "pwn3d" themselves in this situation? Please don't start, Soma... not on here...

Nazastarool's max hit is 8 in the second form, and 9 in the other two, so no, weaken would not be required.

Yep. ;)

Ranged, I think.

http://runeuniverse.com/downloads/ScreenSnapper.php

MSB. Seercull is pretty useless now, as the special uses all your energy, and they can pot back up. You're better off using a god spell (I forgot which one, Zamorak is it?) to lower their magic as there's no special involved.

Right... it's lower. You do still burn regardless of the cooking method you use - fire or range.

That's not good... looks to me Tip.It needs to better validate inputted data or turn on magic_quotes.

This one: I <3 my guide (see signature). :) And while we're on the topic of Wallasalkis... their HP is incorrect on the Bestiary (it says 127): http://www.tip.it/runescape/index.php?rs2monster_id=531

That's a very good idea. As for HP checking with Lunar, that's already (almost) done: http://forum.tip.it/viewtopic.php?t=658707 The Slayer XP I know most of but I will do confirming next, after Lunar checking's done.

NO. Age doesn't matter. Competency tests should be required instead. Finally! Another intelligent person! Through all your paragraphs... It angers me as well. Stupid democrats. Very true. VERY TRUE. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind at all that you were perfectly capable of making such a decision at 13. Good points. 13 isn't a "little kid". And I don't know why you're disgusted, I'm sure at 13 that would be a dream come true for you as would be for plenty others. ---------- I'm tired now... those are the best quotes I found. Why might he be disgusted, becuase that is a child, their body may not have even hit puberty yet, the fact is the majority of 13 year olds arn't mature enough to treat sex as a really serious issue, that's why there is an age of consent. At the age of 22 that woman should know what's right and wrong, she should know that having sex with a 13 year old (somebody who's less than two thirds of their age) is wrong, who's to say he knows the risk? Do we know if they used protection? For all we know the woman could have an STD, the point is the law is in place to protect our youth until they are at the age where they should be aware of all this and be able to make educated decisions. The fact is, the woman has broken the law and we don't know all the details, we don't know if the boy had second thoughts or anything, please can we just stick to facts we know, those being: -The boy is 13 years of age, 3(? (not sure where this has happened) years below the age of consent. - The woman is 22 years of age and therefore can be held responsible for her actions. - The woman has broken the law. Now it doesn't matter if the boy encouraged the woman, believe me I've seen this kind of siuation with a 13 year old who was fully developed and I was 17 and knew it would be (very) wrong. I'm sorry, but all you seem to be doing in this thread is laughing at everybody who's opinion disagrees with you. Just because somebody doesn't know the law doesn't mean they have a low IQ, please stop trying to make people feel bad for no reason. Go read my other post. I don't need to repeat myself. I don't give a [:!:] how old he was. If he consented, that's fine. "Who's to say he knows the risks", you say? WHO'S TO SAY HE DOESN'T KNOW THE RISKS?! Me. I say so because someone has to bring logic into this low-IQ infested world.