sees_all1

I think before this incident, relations between Turkey and Israel were tense at best. I also think that had this incident occurred in Israeli waters, Turkey would still be ticked off even though Israel would've been justified. I still doubt that this will change the world's opinion of Israel - those that were against Israel before will add this to their list of grievances, those that were for Israel will shake their head, maybe slap Israel on this wrist, but ultimately ignore it.

sounds like he's in bed with mason, pixiiii, d ungeoneer, and imbued luck. :wink:

lvl 3? :grin:

Call this the evolution of botting. All the bad programs get banned. Bots don't need to be amazing, just good enough. Botting violates the Terms of Service, so legally you're breaking your contract with Jagex.

Israeli troops got shot, that's a fact. There's at least one soldier in the hospital right now with serious wounds - a gunshot to the stomach and a gunshot to the knee. That's also a fact. Which means either their guns were wrestled away from them, or the people on board the ship had guns. The first troops in weren't armed (from the video footage), but that's not to say they didn't have pistols holstered (which would make sense). At this point I'm speculating, but at the very least its plausible. I believe when the others saw things were getting hairy, they took paintball guns. When that didn't work, they took other guns. It also appears from the video that there were more than just helicopters dropping troops onto the ship, and there were spotlights on the ship from speedboats/inflatable rafts. Why go through all that trouble if they were in compliance?

Israeli toadies? <_< How is that unbiased? If Israel didn't intend for this to be a peaceful mission, they wouldn't have sent their troops in with paintball guns. Heck, they wouldn't have even sent their troops in. They could have just as easily taken pot shots from their helicopters. I'm absolutely certain the people on board the ship had the full intention of killing the soldiers. They threw the soldiers to the ground and beat them with clubs and sticks, wrestled away their guns and shot them. After that, they tossed them overboard. After the first couple of soldiers zip lined in, I'm sure the troops realized the magnitude of the blunder. The incident then wouldn't have been an attack, but a rescue mission. After all, if you saw one of your friends getting beaten by clubs and sticks, what would you do? At this point, I wouldn't even label them as civilians. There was nothing civil about what was going on that ship.

Primary? Maybe. Contributory? Of course. :huh: That was a very quick edit from the "no" you had before. The entire point I'm trying to make is the only reason Israel takes the blame for this is because it was in international waters. As misguided as their attempt was to stop the ship, and as disastrous the outcome, rational people will agree that if this occurred in Israel's waters the only people to blame for this are the protesters. If you rob a bank and someone gets shot and dies during the robbery, you'll be charged with murder even if you didn't pull the trigger. I think everything else is just gravy.

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. Do you agree that the primary wrong doing in this incident is the location it was carried out? I.E. if the exact same thing happened ~10 km off the coast of Israel, Israel would not be at fault?

You even going to bother to try to find an unbiased source to form an opinion? EDIT: missed this -- Um, no, that would effectively be a war crime. A plane is different because it poses a more obvious clear and present danger and there aren't many ways of stopping one other than shooting it down. Stopping a slow moving ship is an entirely different matter, especially when the ship had been checked in Turkey under the Customs Act and was known to be delivering humanitarian aid. The fact remains that Israel repeatedly sent them messages to stop. The other 5 ships did stop. Does this seem odd to you? A ship that doesn't acknowledge your communications and doesn't respect your sovereignty as a nation is a threat. I'll maintain that Israel's only fault in the matter is not doing this within their national waters.

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: "All they had to do was stop the ship from docking" How do you stop a ship? Disable it? Kill everyone on board? Blow it out of the water? Wrest control of the ship's helm? You can do any of those, and the only difference between being fully justified and being chastised is the location, which was about 60 km away from their national waters. Had they "stopped" the ship in their "national" waters, they would've be completely justified in whatever manner they chose, including blowing the damn thing out of the water. If an unauthorized plane flies within 10 miles of the US capital, you'd better believe there will be jets scrambled into the air, and if the thing refuses to acknowledge communications it will be shot down. If that happens, its justified. If it happened 5 miles further than that, its scrutinized. Its the exact same thing. 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. You're not seeing the forest for the trees. The blockade is absolutely necessary for Israel's self preservation, and anyone is obtuse to think otherwise. We've already acknowledged that Israel muffed this up, but I sincerely doubt they'll apologize for it. Their only fault was the location of boarding. If you can't acknowledge that, there's no point discussing it anymore. 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. Do you think the United States will change their position towards Israel solely for this incident? No, long term they won't. They might give them a slap on the wrist, but that's it. Do you think Hamas will change their position towards Isreal solely for this incident? Of course not. They'll use the incident as fodder for their indignation, but in reality they don't care. If you truly had no opinion of Israel before, you were in the minority.

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? Its very easy to stand on the sideline and criticize a country's decisions. I'd like to point out that more important than international "law" is self preservation. Who cares what a bureaucrat a thousand miles away thinks when you've got an issue of your own sovereignty and of life and death inside and around your territory? From what I understand, the facts of this situation are pretty straight forward: -Israel had a well established blockade of Gaza, and while controversial, is legal. -Israel sent a clear and repeated message to the flotilla that it was to stop before reaching territorial waters. -All of the ships in the flotilla except one followed Israel's instructions, and were searched without incident. -The largest ship, the Mavi Marmara, had no intention of following instructions. -Israel had no intention of violence when boarding the ship, and was ill equipped to deal with the mob they encountered. -The only crime that was committed was where they boarded the ship. To put this in context with everything that is going on right now: unless this triggers a war, this incident will have no historical significance in as little as a year. How many people would remember the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand had it not ignited World War I? Everyone who had their stance on Israel before this incident won't have changed their minds as a result of it. People that hated Israel before will still hate them, people that liked Israel before will still like them. The few people without an opinion of Israel will probably see them in a negative light, but that number is very very few.

It gives a slight bonus to experience rates, because it drops your team combat average. If your team combat average drops below a certain point you get double the experience because of the F2P high level cap failure (It's not 90. We once tested on 89, and it didn't work). The level 3 gets even more though... And it's not fair. Sometimes the bonus is offset by the extra time it takes. This is a hard thing to test because we've got no idea how they calculate Base XP / Prestige XP (funnily enough, these vary greatly with the rooms in the dungeon that are unlocked). I know with certainty, however, that pairing with a level 3 gives several advantages to ALL players, regardless of level: -A bonus percentage for more people in the group (2:2) -A lower monster cap tailored to average combat (rarely do I see monsters above lvl 50 when I'm paired with a lvl 3, versus the typical lvl 67 or higher monster when I solo) -An ability to play a larger dungeon (medium bonus) To players with a combat level of 90 or above, a level 3 gives twice as much experience as they'd normally receive, in addition to the benefits stated above. Lower leveled players also get more experience than their higher level counterparts. The difference is about 2-3% from my experience, but I haven't had a chance to fully record all the data. Its also a pain because it requires them to tell you their xp, even though they're usually AFK. EDIT: the downside to having a level 3 is more monsters in the mob. This can be especially frustrating when there is a monolith, and when teaming 3 high / 2 low, as you'll have more effort on more monsters. Follow the Leader and switches are also a pain when they AFK.

Your just asking to get banned if you use an auto clicker, he probably used something more advanced. doubt it. Did anyone know that S Diamant Y has a nub account, Pixiiii, to help train dungeoneering? I'm wondering how many high level F2Pers are doing that now...

people with a lower post count are noobs, people with a higher post count have no life. :rolleyes: To be completely honest, I try not to look at it.

This is a tricky situation on the surface, and a difficult choice to make, but the answer is very simple. Abortion does not cure any medical condition or disease. If the mother has cancer, aborting her child will not cure her cancer. So, abortion is always wrong. The decision that matters is treatment of the disease. The mother has cancer; chemotherapy may have detrimental affects to her baby. What does she do? There isn't a wrong answer. The life of the mother and the life of the child are both valued, but the key to the decision is intent. Do everything in your power to save the life of the mother, and if a miscarriage is a result, that's unfortunate. Its unfortunate, but its not the same as intentionally ending the life of the child. Another more common situation is an etopic pregnacy: the baby implants itself in the fallopian tube. This causes the mother extreme pain. The correct procedure is not considered to be an abortion, but the child will probably not survive. If the mother does not miscarriage, and development continues, neither will survive. You can't save them both, but you can save one. On the topic of war: there is such a thing as a just war. World War II was a just war. The Gulf War was a just war. An underlying theme in these is that people were suffering at the hands of dictators (including genocide). As a nation, you do everything in your power to stop it; if that leads to war, so be it.

:blink: Narwhals crossed runescape and the drawf invasion is born. Except it looks like this came first... If it wasn't purely runescape, I'm sure it'd be an internet sensation.

We know you're still reading this topic... I can see you as an active user. Turn off your internet, and get working on your paper. And be perfectly honest with your teacher tomorrow about why it isn't done - lying won't help you. And I guess, inb4lock.

i think he is misread that and we suddenly talking about subscribe membership. hahaha I've prepared myself to accept that floors 36+ will be P2P only.... And I'll probably quit if they don't lift the XP nerf and those floors *are* P2P only. If the floors are for everyone, I'll probly stick around. Today was fun, I got to chat with S Diamant Y, and Syzygy (Syz and I even did a couple dungeons together, we ripped through them like nobody's business). I upload pictures of it later.

Yay college.

Read through all of this, seems mostly a flame about Israel. Putting the incident in terms I can relate to - If I'm in my house, and the FBI or police officers busted down my doors, I would not grab a metal pipe and start attacking them. I would probably put my hands up and slowly kneel on the ground, or I'd follow their directions. That seems like a very rational decision, especially since I'm not trying to get shot. The people on that ship probably suffered from a mob mentality - There's only one soldier at a time, we can take care of them! At best, this was all a big misunderstanding or miscommunication; at worst there was ill intent. Israel definitely should have waited until the ship was in their waters, but one thing I haven't heard is how far away the ship was from that. Any insight would be helpful. If the ship was a mile or two out, I'd put less fault on Israel for the incident. The individuals on the ship should have known they would be boarded, it was irrational for them to fight the soldiers off. I put little blame on the soldiers: they did as they were told and they reacted to a bad situation. As far as how the rest of the world will react to this, I think their positions are already well established. Most Arab nations hate Israel for being Israel, so there's no question where they'll put the fault. The only question that remains is how they'll react. The US is in a sticky spot; Arab nations hate us for everything but our money. Israel is a lone ally to us, which makes me think we'll stand strong with them. I'll be interested in seeing how this turns out.

If I'm not mistaken, the Catholic church wouldn't recognize the status of Anglican bishops and priests. That's a major turnoff, even for the conservatives. Part of our diocese took up the Pope's offer, but our bishop held steadfast and stayed loyal to the Anglican Communion. However, I think that if the Pope changes the Roman church's stance on clerical marriage and offers to recognize our bishops, then the Anglican Communion would not exist any longer. Anglicans are already very similar to the Catholic church as it is. Oh, and there's also the issue of paedophilia among priests in the Roman Church. I doubt that our diocese/Anglican organization would want to be affiliated with that. Marriage status is only a problem for bishops, as I am part of an Eastern Catholic Church rite and our priests are allowed to marry, in fact in North America the Roman Catholic bishops tried to put a ban on our priests marriage which worked for like 2years and than they lifted it because like a third of our priests were so offended they became orthodox. Marriage is only withheld from already ordained priests under Catholic teaching. As for bishops, a priest cannot be married to be ordained a bishop in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church does recognize priest ordinations if they announce their belief in all the dogma of the Church. I believe marital status is a non-issue. There's a process for married priests of other denominations to become recognized by the Roman Catholic Church, and it involves petitioning the pope. I'm pretty sure the Roman Catholic Church would gladly have any Anglican priests, regardless of their marital status, convert to Catholicism. I think there was an open invite at one point or another, but I could be remembering wrong. As a fun side note, the Pope can be any Roman Catholic male (married, unmarried, age doesn't affect eligibility). So when Benedict XVI dies, I'm a candidate for pope :mrgreen:

to be honest, i'm a little starstruck. Check out my new siggy :D

I'll take the position of being "anti-abortion" if people on the other side acknowledge that their position is "pro-abortion". If you were really "pro-choice", you'd do everything in your power to make it just as easy to carry to term and give birth as it is to procure an abortion. Funny we never see this from "pro-choice" organizations. But being pro-life means much more than the abortion debate. Pro-life is against euthanasia, Pro-life is against the death penalty. Pro-life is from conception to natural death. I'm pro-life, I have all these beliefs.

I've been busy. I updated my RSOF rant on dungeoneering to include like-threads: Easier to get XP on a LVL 3!!! QFC:149-150-960-60962766 by Sees All1 Why am I being penalized? QFC:149-150-172-61022754 by Animorph 2 F2P Dungeoneering XP Penalty. QFC: 149-150-390-60793827 by: Th3 Warri0r The 5% of F2p Dungeoneering! QFC: 149-150-20-60980056 by: Quirk X What's broken in dungeoneering QFC: 149-150-966-60894115 by: Minno726 F2P Dungeoneering is F2P QFC: 149-150-42-60847504 by: Guerrilla 34 Members doors in f2p Dungeons QFC: 149-150-875-60964461 by: Sycllo P2p doors in F2p worlds? Why? QFC: 149-150-381-60916725 by: Dracomet Ace no members doors for f2p QFC: 149-150-376-60782535 by: Eddwiux Almost a month now.. and nada. 149-150-903-61023229 by: Drake W If any of you have a RSOF thread like these, please PM me them. Cross-referencing these threads is a good idea because it enables people to bump them all :P

It takes me on average 30 minutes to do a 2:2 medium sized dungeon *soloing* (with a lvl 3 friend that likes to AFK). I clear out everything too - all the rooms I can do, kill all the monsters. Its just my style of play. When I start a dungeon, I ALWAYS take everything off the table, and sell those items until I get ~4500 gp (saving rune essence, then tier 5 items down). I then ALWAYS buy a tier 3 hatchet, pickaxe, a hammer, a tinderbox, a rod and feathers. I also ALWAYS make 10 gatestone spells (10x ess into laws, 5x ess into cosmics, 3x ess into earth, 2x ess into airs). I use the remaining ess to craft death runes and air runes - I make sure to mage anything in melee armour. When I kill monsters, I ALWAYS ignore drops other than food. I ALWAYS eat to full HP when moving from room to room, and I like to try and keep my inv filled with food. Other than being F2P partying with a leech, I'm not sure why it takes people that much more time than me. I don't see how it could take anyone more than 20 minutes to complete a small dungeon, unless they're *completely* clearing it out, exhausting all resources.