qeltar

Yes, because you are the True Lord and Master of the Definition of Rushing. And we, your humble servants, thank You for bringing your Good and Holy Word to us. We shall strike down the blasphemers who define "rushing" to include lower difficulty settings or other changes to make the floors faster! Because going faster is obviously not what "rushing" is about! Yes, master! We hear and obey!

Then why are so many things banned from Gaza that have nothing to do with security? No, Israel *used* to be after peace. Now it is after "security", thanks to people like you. The two are not the same. The other side is just as much to blame for the lack of peace. The difference is that it used to be that the other side was a lot *more* to blame. Blockading weapons, maybe. The rest? Not even close to a necessity. Attacking those ships was likewise not necessary for security reasons. This much has been proven beyond any reasonable counterargument. It contained no weapons of any significance, and was miles off shore. You are digging your own collective graves, and dragging many of us down with you. ETA: Superb article that shows just how idiotic Israel has become: Operation Make the World Hate Us.

Yep. 15,000 tons divided by 1.5 million people is 20 pounds per person. That's the thing, though: the blockade of Gaza *isn't* about security. It's about punishing the Palestinians for choosing Hamas. I never used to believe Israel could behave this way, but the last few days have prompted me to do a lot of reading, and the fact of this cannot be escaped. There is no reason to justify what they are doing otherwise. Yep. Unfortunately, the Israeli leadership doesn't appear to be nearly as clever as it once was. And it is influenced and led by braindead right-wing hawks who have deluded themselves into believing that this mess is sustainable over the long run. They are too stupid to recognize what has been shown repeatedly throughout history: laying siege to people because you dislike the government they choose doesn't make them hate the government, it makes them hate the ones responsible for the siege. It was both. And the raid on the flotilla was similarly only partially about security, and also about violently responding to that provocation. More the latter than the former, since as we have all seen, they had superior, non-violent ways of ensuring the boats posed no security threat.

There are many different meanings of "rushing". Some people rush by leaving all monsters they can; others leave only ones in dead end rooms. Some change parameters when rushing; some don't. Some run into the boss room even if it means dying; others prepare first. And so on. That's why I try to put names on these techniques, to try to differentiate them better. The most efficient way to rush is in fact to lower difficulty. If Jagex did change the skill to impose a new penalty on reduced-difficulty floors (which we've all agreed they have not) then it would be entirely valid to say that rushing had been "nerfed".

Okay sport. He doesn't know what rushing means, and neither do I, and in fact probably nobody else does except you. :rolleyes:

No, he didn't. That's what you inferred. If playing reduced-difficulty dungeons was nerfed, and playing reduced-difficulty dungeons is one common form of rushing (and it is), then nerfing reduced-difficulty dungeons would mean nerfing rushing, at least in part. Nowhere did he say or indicate that this was the *only* type of rushing. Cabbage cabbage cabbage.

Of course it is, nobody is disputing that. I simply took issue with your (very false) implication that someone doing 5:1 doesn't know what rushing means. A lot of people rush with reduced difficulty, and it is in fact one of the better strategies. For the first part- that's your own guide. I can sell anything as the truth if i write it myself, i was implying to the fact how people on the street use the word. I'm happy to let people decide for themselves if I know what rushing means. That didn't mean he didn't know what rushing meant. It meant that he thought one form of rushing that is very commonly used was nerfed. He said nothing to suggest he didn't know what rushing meant. Try not being such a cabbage all the time.

First figure is the number of players, and the second is the difficulty setting. So 5:3 means 5 players, but difficulty setting of 3. When you set a difficulty level lower than the number of players, the game generates a map *as if* you had the lower number of players, so challenge rooms only require that number, and there are fewer / lower level monsters. It uses the lowest combat levels in the group for this.

I think this and this pretty conclusively prove otherwise. Of course it is, nobody is disputing that. I simply took issue with your (very false) implication that someone doing 5:1 doesn't know what rushing means. A lot of people rush with reduced difficulty, and it is in fact one of the better strategies.

I've done the tests. So have many others. You net more XP overall by rushing the low floors on reduced difficulty.

You're correct -- xpx is talking out of his cabbage (again). The point of rushing is to give up XP on the lower floors to get more XP per hour on the higher floors. It is a very effective strategy when done properly.

Ah, nothing like beginning the morning with a fresh, healthy heaping of one-sided propaganda. I could post a similar-but-opposite list of "facts" from the other side. Yawn.

I see nobody was able to answer my question. No big surprise there. And so much for the "ship full of rabblerousers and terrorists".

This is completely illogical. Actually *entering* Israel's territorial waters *might* have made this legal. Attacking the ship because you think they *might* enter your waters is not. I don't understand why you are incapable of understanding this. They never attacked anyone that did not attack them. You're the one who keeps judging over simplistic comments, you should point your judgement at yourself. Israel attacked a ship that did not attack them, and they did it in international waters, so the ships refusal to give in to Israel's requests does not make Israel's actions legal. You didn't understand it properly. I understood it perfectly. You're backpedalling. This comment is not only factually wrong, it is insulting to people who really have been lynched. Very offensive, and shows just how completely lacking you are in even a shred of objectivity. Other than calling it wrong, do you have anything to support that claim? Because I have what supports the opposite. If you actually knew what lynching meant, you wouldn't be making such embarrassing comments. Hint: It involves rope and premeditated murder of complete innocents. Nothing to do with this situation.

Here's an interesting aspect of this that the Israeli toadies will never give a rational answer to. We're being asked to believe that the Israelis are the good guys and the ship was filled with evil! EVIL! Hamas-affiliated terrorists who want all Jews to die. Funny thing, though. While some of the Israeli soldiers were indeed attacked (which was wrong), they were not killed. The soldiers were in fact taken into custody on the ships, and could have easily been killed if the protesters had wanted to. But they weren't killed. So.. both sides had an opportunity to kill some on the other. The "good guy" Israelis took that opportunity and killed 9 civilians. The "bad guy" EVIL! protestors *didn't*. Explain?

Yep. And the purpose of attacking the ship was also to send a message. It just wasn't the one intended. LOL. An "international blockade" consisting of Israel and Egypt-being-paid-off-to-assist-Israel. Do you ever have anything to back up these pronouncements?

This is completely illogical. Actually *entering* Israel's territorial waters *might* have made this legal. Attacking the ship because you think they *might* enter your waters is not. I don't understand why you are incapable of understanding this. You admitted that they had other options aside from boarding the ship. Would be nice if you could keep your own position straight. I did not. Post #110 of this very thread: "I can again point out what I pointed out up this post, and in the past, just so you could again say they had other choices. Technically speaking, they did." Because they *wanted* this to happen, that's why. They were trying to send a message to anyone else who tried to send a ship. Unfortunately for everyone, they overplayed their hand. This comment is not only factually wrong, it is insulting to people who really have been lynched. Very offensive, and shows just how completely lacking you are in even a shred of objectivity.

And what is this opinion based upon?

It wouldn't. If and when they did so. Not before. It wasn't. Not only was it illegal, it was immoral. And they knew it, and they did it anyway. Why? Because they wanted to stop the ship, and so they stopped the ship, and they really don't care about what anyone thinks or if anyone gets hurt. That's what Israel is turning into. You admitted that they had other options aside from boarding the ship. Would be nice if you could keep your own position straight. Primary? Maybe. Contributory? Of course. Should they have attacked the soldiers? No. Did they have the right to attack them? Debatable. The mere announcement of a warning doesn't give Israel the right to do whatever the hell it wants and to expect to be greeted with a shower of rose petals.

Utter bullcrap. In order to be a threat worthy of justifying a violent response, they have to have the ability to actually cause imminent harm. That ship didn't qualify by any rational definition. Unlike some of the apologists on this thread, you strike me as a rational individual. And I know this has to be very difficult for the people in Israel who are looking at this objectively. For the record, I don't think the people on this boat were "peaceniks", and I've already said I think they bear some of the blame for what happened. I also don't think this is a reason to question Israel's right to exist or anything like that. But dude, your country is going off the rails. People are criticizing because they expect Israel to be better than this. If Israel loses its moral authority, it will cease to exist. That is guaranteed. The criticism shouldn't be bothering you nearly so much as who is doing it, and why.

You're being deliberately obtuse. All they had to do was physically interpose themselves between the ship and the dock. Or they could have disabled it. Nearly anything would have been smarter than what they did. If the ship had been in Israeli national waters, the people on the ship might have realized where they were and not have resisted being boarded. I guess you never considered *that*? :rolleyes: Location matters. There are borders for a reason. An unauthorized plane 10 miles from the US capitol represents an imminent threat. A ship plodding through the ocean 60 miles from the coast, which is flying a Turkish flag and has an Israeli MP on it, does not. Congratulations on what has got to be the most utterly inane analogy I've read in a long time. This isn't about the blockade as a whole. It is about Israel attacking a ship in international waters, a ship that had already been inspected by a NATO member and posed no threat. They didn't go after the ship because they were worried about "self preservation" -- that is a bald, flat-out lie. They did it to intimidate. Only it backfired. As for the blockade itself, I *used* to agree that it was necessary for Israel's self-preservation, but as a result of this event I am questioning even that. When you look at the list of items not allowed into Gaza, there is NO WAY to justify many of them on the basis of concern over Hamas attacking Israel. Unless you think chickens, nutmeg and guitars are lethal weapons. :rolleyes: How exactly do you come around to distorting this so that the *Israelis* are the victims? LOL. The first act of aggression was taken by the Israeli soldiers. They do not get to claim self-defence. You mean like claiming that Israel can do whatever it wants if it gets skeered, or repeating "searching the ships was obligatory" a dozen times even after you've admitted that it wasn't?

Already have, several times. All they had to do was stop the ship from docking, or insist that they supervise and inspect all items. Problem solved. Do you recognize that what you've said is exactly what Israel tried to do? The difference between your suggestion and what Israel did is about, idk, 60 kilometers? The difference between what I said and what Israel did isn't about 60 kilometers. It's about 60 bullets. Stopping the ship from docking is not equivalent to, nor did it require, storming it with special forces commandos. :rolleyes: Damned right it is. Someone has to. Spare me the dishonest bullcrap -- we've had enough of it already on this thread. This action was not necessary for Israel's "self preservation". A ship that far out to sea is no threat to anyone, and they knew about it weeks in advance. Don't bet on it. And even if it doesn't, that doesn't make it right or excusable. You know what would really have made this have no historical significance? If the morons running the IDF hadn't stormed the ship. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Israel is being roundly -- and rightly -- criticized by many, MANY people who never had much of anything bad to say about the country before. That includes me. Anyone who supports a country no matter what it does is a sheep. It is the responsibility of informed, intelligent people to criticize bad policy and inappropriate acts to reduce the chances of them happening again.

Yet you ignore my post asking you to come up with a better strategy for Israel. You expect me to lay out a comprehensive Middle East peace plan in a forum posting? :rolleyes:

Sigh. You seem to think that international law is like an ordnance prohibiting jaywalking. The suggestion that Israel's security trumps international law reflects a lack of understanding of why those laws exist. This is not about politics. Those laws are in place, among other things, to *prevent wars*. Because if Israel can choose to ignore them for her own self-interest, so can everyone else, and that's how wars get started. I've already answered this multiple times. They could have stopped the ship from landing, or inspected the cargo upon its arrival. Please stop pretending that the only options here were "let the ships land without seeing the cargo" or "send in armed stormtroopers". There were many other alternatives. Gee, then that's another good reason why they should not have boarded the ships. Are you seriously going to try to tell us that the Israelis had *no idea* of the reaction they would get? They couldn't see the people swarming around the deck as they were coming down off the helicopters? Come on. And all of this really underscores the true problem, which is how Israel is handling Gaza in general. I have to say that my eyes have been opened for certain: I never realized just how bad things were over there. This has backfired for Israel in every way imagineable.

Already have, several times. All they had to do was stop the ship from docking, or insist that they supervise and inspect all items. Problem solved. I'm sorry, but your posts belittle themselves. They are a sad combination of self-serving elitism ("We're Israel and our security is more important than anything else!") and flat out dishonesty (continuing to maintain that assaulting the ship was "obligatory" when everyone knows it wasn't). Sorry that you didn't understand my analogy. I never said the person was a doctor, nor that they were innocent. The point is that you do not shoot someone based on what they *might* have or what they *might* do, when they pose no imminent threat to you. This ship posed no imminent threat to anyone. Period. I think the point he's trying to make is that posting cherry-picked anecdotes is not convincing. Does it really matter that you found one anonymous Israeli who feels one way or another? Who cares?