qeltar

I very much hope they do NOT do anything about this. They've said for years that they dislike the money obssession that drives too much of the game. And many recent updates reflect that, not the least of which is an entire new skill where you pretty much can't buy or sell *anything*. This would be sending the wrong message to people, especially the manipulator clan leaders and other scumbags, who are generally the only ones who worry about this stuff. "Without a doubt this is a good idea"? Hardly. Increasing the quantity storage limit from 32 bits to 64 bits would result in massive bloat and serve no purpose whatsoever to 99.999% of people who have or ever will play RS. I can't imagine a bigger waste of time or resources.

There was a time when Christians were every bit as fanatical and violent as Islamic fundamentalists. Their religion has just been around longer. A few hundred years ago people were routinely imprisoned or killed for "blasphemy". Only a few decades ago Catholics and Protestants were blowing each other up over issues very marginally less silly than cartoons. The censorship in this thread is somewhat amusing. It illustrates the inherent tension in this issue, and the difficulty where reasonable people don't *want* to mock a religion, but want the *right* to mock a religion. It also shows how some groups are able to control a population simply by whining that they are "offended", and the people in charge bend over backwards to their will. Never mind that these same individuals have absolutely no concern over the people *they* offend. For example, in another thread I got censored for making derogatory remarks about religion, likely because of complaints from people who made what I consider to be very offensive derogatory remarks about women -- which are still there. The best solution is to tell those who are offended by something to read/watch/view something else. To their credit, this is what Wikipedia does with pretty much everything, *including* depictions of Muhammed.

I think they have listened better than you have. You've been reduced to chasing your tail with one asinine analogy after another. You didn't even reply to my last direct response to your points, and are now just repeating the same claims over and over again. That's not much of a basis for a discussion. So you want people to assess why cell phones are "necessary", but you're unhappy when people tell you how they are "useful". Um... huh?! The utility of something often creates a necessity for it, because the alternative is viewed as worse. I also *gave* you *specific* examples of when and how cell phones can be a necessity, and you completely ignored them. I think most of the people here (correctly) believe you're engaging in silly navel-gazing about a non-issue. Another analogy so completely irrelevant and silly that I can't even respond to it. How carrying a cell phone is in any way comparable to *theft* is utterly beyond me. So? You have yet to make ONE cogent argument for why this is a problem. Every post you repeat the same hand-wringing about the horrors of "having to carry the phone with you!" but you haven't told anyone any reason why this is anything more than a figment of your imagination. (By the way, in case you weren't aware, they don't surgically implant cell phones. You *can* decide when to take them with you and when not. You can even turn them *off*, by golly! :) ) Yes, that would be silly -- if it were true. I don't own a cell phone to be "caught up" with anyone. I don't know anyone else who does either. Again, it's the same fallacy you used before: you're presuming the very thing you're worrying about when it isn't true. Asked and answered. WTF? Um. Cell phones are tools. They should be used wisely, and not used by those who are not competent with them. Same with guns. Same with analogies. You, my friend, need to step away from the analogy before someone gets hurt.

Yep, to all of those complaints. I could add a dozen more. This is the ultimate problem with Jagex's crusade to make everything team-based in RS: 80%+ of RS players are not worth teaming with. Even at high levels, finding 4 reliable teammates without at least one dud is very difficult. It's a tough nut to crack, because soloing gives awful XP. But one way to at least minimize the pain is to only do teams for the large floors.

Actually, you get given a complete set of gear for all combat styles right in your backpack at the lower complexities. At complexity 6 there is just random armor and weapons on the starting table. The tiers of the items depend on the levels of the players, but you never get anything above tier 8 on the starting tables (except fish).

Katagon is as good as it gets in the starting room.

My problem with this is simple: it's a lie. This is a common pattern with Jagex. They make a perfectly valid gameplay decision -- like "we don't want you switching servers instantly and hogging resources" -- but instead of just being open about it, they come up with BS like "your profile is being transferred". It's bullcrap. Period. It doesn't take 40 seconds to transfer a small bit of information from their home servers to any of the local servers. Not even close. The servers are in constant communication or the game wouldn't even work. Try this. Load your hiscores, then log in and get some XP in any skill. Now log out, and then refresh your hiscores. The new totals will be there instantly.

And you don't think you're doing that at least as much yourself? I think most of the folks here have listened. They just don't agree.

Well, I suppose you could come up with an example of an invention that only has negative uses and therefore could be rightly viewed as being morally repugnant. But cell phones and guns? Not even close. Come now. You didn't just ask for peoples' thoughts: you put forth your own opinion. And rather strongly at that. So people responded, and it just happens that most disagree with you on this. Can you really expect not to get strong reactions when your opening post says "This technology is destroying life as we know it."? :lol:

I think that if Bobby can get ahold of Timmy whenever he wants to, then Bobby doesn't learn the full lesson that other people live seperate lives and you can't have everything every time that YOU want it. I'm sure you probably will disagree with this, but you should realize that we are disagreeing on it. I more than disagree with it -- I think it is laughable. You're assigning motives to people and then using that as if it supports your claim; it doesn't. A cell phone has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether or not Bobby and Timmy understand the notions of privacy and respecting others' time and space. If anything, giving a kid a cell phone is a good opportunity to *teach* them those lessons. But in the end, it's about parenting, not cell phones. Honestly, you are just inventing utter nonsense out of whole cloth now. It's getting a bit silly. And you didn't answer the question anyway: how does having a cell phone make a kid "spoiled"? Bobby and Timmy are "spoiled" because they can call each other? Huh? Really. So when I go out shopping and my wife calls me to tell me to remember to get X because she forgot to mention it, that means we appreciate each other less? Hadn't realized that. When my wife and I were younger and a cell phone allowed her to feel comfortable enough about leaving the kids with a babysitter that we could get a rare night out, that was actually harming our relationship? Gosh, didn't realize that either. When my wife goes out of town on business and is able to call me from anywhere so we can touch base and tell each other we miss each other, that's a bad thing? And when one of my kids is sick and we need to contact the doctor on call, and he's carrying a cell phone so *he* can go out with *his* wife, and so I can reach him in 10 minutes instead of 6 hours, I'm actually making *all* of us appreciate each other less? Good grief. Where do you come up with this garbage? Because I have had held this discussion with some of my good friends, and we had a lively enjoyable discussion on the effect that technology has had on our social lives. That's not what I asked you. You are basing part of your cell phone phobia on the claim that a "lack of a challenge can do terrible things to the human spirit". Yet you are using *exactly* the same sort of convenient, easy, fast, high-speed communication here that cell phones enable. You're being an "Internet Luddite", in other words -- using the very latest in modern communications technology to argue against modern communications technology. Sorry, but it really, really doesn't make much sense. Yes, we get that you don't think it's a good idea. You just don't seem able to explain *why* it's not a good idea. Especially when the person claiming such negative effects exhibits no ability to specify what they are, lol. Okay, so now you've turned to guns, and then to chickens. Boggle. I have no comments on your foray into agriculture, do find it amusing that you are using the same bogus argument with respect to guns that you are with cell phones. There is nothing "morally reprehensible" about guns, just as there is nothing "morally reprehensible" about cell phones, or cars, or chain saws. They are all tools that can yield tremendous benefits if used properly, and disastrous horrors if abused.

No, my reaction is mostly confusion. How are kids "spoiled on" cell phones? I don't get it. Seriously. Not in all things. But in communication? Yeah, faster and easier are pretty much the definition of what makes one form of communication better than another. I think part of why you are so hung up on this is that you don't consider real-time communication important. But many people do. So why are we having this debate in near-real-time on the Internet instead of using carrier pigeons?

But it *is* better than everything else, for many people in many situations. There's nothing that really compares with it. Why do you consider it "lazy" to use a cell phone?

There's a clan chat called "Dannni" (I think that's it). But most of the people in it are in W117 anyway. Most people seem to just sit in the CC and not use it for anything.

I've been informed that my opinions are treading on some peoples' tender sensitivities, and I will not pull punches on this subject, so I am not participating further in this thread.

People like this guy are dangerous. That's why I have no patience for them. Anyone who thinks it's fine to prohibit all abortion, and doesn't have any problem with the consequences of this up to and including thousands of women dying as a result, is a lunatic. And everyone who values freedom is at risk when these people are allowed to shape or influence public policy. And yes, I do believe that abortion is never the preferred option. But prohibiting it in all circumstances is not consistent with a free society.

A human being is whatever people define it to be. Abortion is unique among debates because it is a situation where there are two conflicting rights. Extremists on both sides try to pretend that this is not the case, and that either the mother's right to freedom over her body or the fetus's right to continue existing in her body are absolute. Reasonable people understand that compromise is needed because of the inherent conflict that exists between these two rights. One reasonable compromise is to allow early abortion but to forbid it past the point of viability. I believe that life begins at conception, but that it is contrary to a free society to force women to bear fetuses to term if they are not willing to do so. The fetus does not have the right to demand that a woman place her life and well-being below its own. When a fetus can be brought out of the womb and have a reasonable chance of surviving *without* harming the mother, then abortion is no longer a reasonable procedure. When the fetus is nothing more than a blastocyst, forbidding abortion on the grounds of what it "might be" is tantamous to imposed slavery.

No, it's morally right that a women should have to give birth to an innocent child. So your answer is yes, you support women being made into slaves with no control over their own bodies. A very convenient position to hold since we all know that will never be possible. Very convenient indeed. You missed the point entirely. :rolleyes: Maybe not, but you're still pretty badly programmed.

A perfectly valid position to hold if you think a lump of cells should have the same rights to life and freedom as a full-grown woman. I don't. Most reasonable people don't. A blastocyst is not a "child". It has the potential to become one. That's not the same thing. Your position is a scary combination of religious brainwashing and flat out misogyny.

Lobsters are very slightly faster, but much slower than other options.

I think it used to be possible to poison on a hit of zero, because this was actually a fractional HP hit that got rounded down. Now that we have life points, I don't believe it is possible to get a 0 hit -- a 0 is a miss now. Not 100% sure on that. There are monsters that poison on contact, and some that poison on a successful hit. Players are always the latter.

Breast cancer? Congenital deformities? Problems related to puberty onset? Psychological issues? http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Breast-implants/Pages/When-should-it-be-done.aspx Took me 30 seconds to find that.

That stuff always does it to me. There are very valid reasons why many women get breast implants. They *should* be covered in most cases, and singling that out as some sort of example of horrible waste or corruption is ignorant nonsense. And what's worse, it spreads around the Internet from one person to another, with 99% of people not even bothering to find out if it is true. I guarantee he didn't.

Somebody give this man an award. There's an award given out for reactionary, oversimplified, ignorant statements? What is it? Maybe the Golden Dog Turd?

Only if the government forces me to use it at gunpoint. I'm sure you're aware that there are people who don't even use *20th* century technology, much less 21st. Everyone has choices.

The ibis is definitely worth using. You get more XP from a slightly faster catch rate, and you also get a small amount of free XP from the fish it catches. Plus the value of the fish.