mmmcannibalism

Jagex has implemented a lot of safeguards aganist common forms of 26king wind striking allows someone to pj you if the fight goes on too long, and some of the lower weapons have been banned.

[hide=] Evolution is completely random, given the exact same starting conditions, and the exact same major events, there is absolutely no guarantee that we'd be here at all. Remember that it is ultimately one freak individual that spawns a dynasty of species. The first creature to produce milk, (probably an echidna-like creature), would have been the first mammal, but if she had been eaten by a predator before producing offspring (random chance), no mammals would ever had existed. And even if at a later stage another similar animal had developed a milk production mutation (extremely unlikely) there's no guarantee that at that future time it would be an advantage. You could almost use that to argue that there is some kind of creator. Something as unlikely as life forming, which apparently requires a very specific environment (Earth being in a nearly perfect position in our solar system, for one. Every other planet we have found has been a gas giant or outside that range, or both), then that life developing to this point (your example) is almost too unlikely, and yet here we are. [/hide] That's the classic watchmaker argument; the counterpoint is the anthropic principle or the blind watchmaker arguments. While it is amazing that we got this "lucky" in existing, if we didnt exist we wouldnt be here going "wow why isn't there advanced life". The more anti creator argument is the blind watchmaker, if some being created everything then why are there so many flaws in nature. Link, look under examples

[hide=] I like the irony of the gramatical errors in a sentence that is calling someone "not smart". Its not that she isn't smart, she is just a a terrible orator and gives badly written speeches. She manages to fire up the republican base because that requires "hotwording" issues, but looks less then brilliant to a lot of people because her speeches are executed in a rather sub par manner. I really don't want to see her on the republican ticket, then again theres no one in either party I want to see as president in 2012. I also like the irony of the grammatical errors in YOUR sentences. Let's not be grammar Nazis any longer. Anyway, I don't have anything against her -- she seems nice and all, but the question is: Is she capable as president/vice president? She is a terrible speaker and is not very good with current world issues. Also, she's not exactly the brightest bulb in the bunch. [/hide] I just can not pass up an opportunity to point out someone made a gramatical error while insulting someones intellgence ;) I do agree with you though, shes not fit to be president. While I think she is mentally competant for the job, she would be a very poor leader and she seems far too ideologically based. Not that Im critiquing any specific policy, but she seems in my opinion the type that would fail miserably in an attempt to justify policy.

I like the irony of the gramatical errors in a sentence that is calling someone "not smart". Its not that she isn't smart, she is just a a terrible orator and gives badly written speeches. She manages to fire up the republican base because that requires "hotwording" issues, but looks less then brilliant to a lot of people because her speeches are executed in a rather sub par manner. I really don't want to see her on the republican ticket, then again theres no one in either party I want to see as president in 2012.

News coverage is confusing me a little right now, can someone confirm that she is resigning not just refusing to run for reelection. Honestly, this news doesn't effect anything except parts of the republican primaries in a few years.

When it comes to marriage tho, there isn't a separation of church and state because most marriage benefits only apply if it's a church recognized marriage... Which is something else that should change(though I think state marriages give full rights in most of the US); a government shouldn't be giving legal rights to people that they have to get through a church.

Partial eclipses happen only because sun earth and moon are slightly out of alignment at that spot on the Earth. North America may be getting partial, but Cuba may be getting total. The fact remains that the relative sizes of Sun and Moon in the sky are identical or very very near-identical (withing a fraction of a percent). And that for this to happen accidentally is extremely unlikely. This setup hasn't always been so (the moon is moving steadily further away due to tidal friction, at about the same rate your fingernails grow), so it may be that this particular conifiguration leads to a particularly stable balance of gravitational effects of sun and moon, allowing a more stable climate, allowing complex and sentient life to evolve.... pure speculation, but it would mean that being astounded by this would be inappropriate, seeing as this setup would have been necessary for us to even see it. Oh, I see what you are saying now. That is an interesting thing to consider, one area I would look into is if larger tides would have made it harder for life to get onto land from the ocean. It is interesting, but Im going to have to side with being interested by this; it doesnt seem like something that is a create or destroy life thing(bear in mind the ratio is only important as the density where gravity is concerned). Well, also the fact that we live on this planet. I've always thought of it like this: Out of 1 billion planets, only 1 could ever possibly support human life. That planet is Earth. So, wouldn't the same human life spring up on any planet that could support life? If you know what I'm saying, I realize that wasn't very clear... at all. Your thinking of the anthropic principle I believe. But on that line, the basic thing is that humans would appear on any planet identical to earth, and possibly some creatures very close to humans could show up if another planet is very similair to earth. Most likely, when we find life it will be from a different planet and probably be vastly different in structure.

Partial eclipses happen only because sun earth and moon are slightly out of alignment at that spot on the Earth. North America may be getting partial, but Cuba may be getting total. The fact remains that the relative sizes of Sun and Moon in the sky are identical or very very near-identical (withing a fraction of a percent). And that for this to happen accidentally is extremely unlikely. This setup hasn't always been so (the moon is moving steadily further away due to tidal friction, at about the same rate your fingernails grow), so it may be that this particular conifiguration leads to a particularly stable balance of gravitational effects of sun and moon, allowing a more stable climate, allowing complex and sentient life to evolve.... pure speculation, but it would mean that being astounded by this would be inappropriate, seeing as this setup would have been necessary for us to even see it. Oh, I see what you are saying now. That is an interesting thing to consider, one area I would look into is if larger tides would have made it harder for life to get onto land from the ocean. It is interesting, but Im going to have to side with being interested by this; it doesnt seem like something that is a create or destroy life thing(bear in mind the ratio is only important as the density where gravity is concerned).

His attack level and boosts are all that matter for the hits; str then determines how hard said hits are. Bad luck though.

this is not true; the eerie has quite a few spots that spawn multiple low level aviansie.

Just finished 1984 on the will to go without sleep. Not sure if I liked it or brave new world more, ironically I think they are so different that I can't decide. I have to admit though, that book really got to me; I think certain parts of the plot are a little unrealistic(interrogator is too far beyond sociopathic) but dang...

Yes, but that doesnt mean it is possible to find or understand.

As to 2, bear in mind that only happens at certain parts of the world; for instance much of north america experiences partial eclipses most of the time.

Which means he is wantonly allowing people who have become remorseful to be burned in hell for all eternity. Sorry to bring that back up, I havent been on for 24 hours.

If you are still involving eternal damnation(even if its after final judgement) you are still punishing some people an infinite amount for a finite amount of sin.

Which means he is now ignoring you free will in your choise to be remorseful. If god won't forgive someone once they are in hell then he is permiting infinite punishment for a finite crime. Even someone who murdered 100 people has commited a measurable amount of evil; burning them for hell in eternity even if they show remorse after a few years is being cruel and unjust.

Aren't sara and arma both harder to solo?

[hide=] Well to be perfectly honest, everyone has their own beliefs. You've asked questions and I've done my best to answer. No need to start the "you're stuck in your own religion" stuff. It's fairly easy to understand the reasoning. The whole thing revolves from a central idea. God is happiness (Bear with me, lol). How could Hell be Hell with God's existence in it? Hell that isn't completely sad or cut-off from God isn't Hell, it's called LIFE. You can't enjoy Hell at all, because there's no happiness to be happy about it! And if you died and wound up in another life, it's called re-incarnation. My faith believes you are not re-incarnated. Now, the reasoning behind "Hell is a one-way ticket." are sent to Hell when they make a remorseless (remorseless being that they truly have no guilt whatsoever of committing their sins) decision to choose Hell over God. They go to Hell because 1. They reject Heaven and 2. The only other place there is, is Hell. It's either you are worthy now, not worthy, but will be, or not worthy, and never will be. Why does God not simply destroy them and end their suffering? Because they chose the suffering. To destroy them would be to deny them of their free will. And their choice would have been to reject God, therefore they reject happiness. That is what they truly wished for. An eternity without happiness (Getting repetitive, I know.) And God did not create Hell. Sin, Satan's action, created Hell. He resides there as there is nowhere else he can reside. In the beginning, life was perfect. That basically was Heaven. Sin tarnished the perfect world, so, thus Heaven's existence. It makes sense in a reasonable manner. If you were to punch an old helpless lady and not feel sorry for it, then you're probably going to hell. If you would feel sorry, or, not even do it, then you're basically safe. And this is true remorse, not that silly childish "I'm sorry, now don't take away the video games, please." Wow, that was a really long-winded one. Sorry for the massive text blocks. [/hide] Of course there is still one serious flaw here a. you said god cannot hear you in hell b. you said god accepts forgiveness So, your basically saying that once you end up in hell; even if you become remorseful later god is still going to let you burn forever.

since an elemental staff costs like 1k why not get one and then get the talisman staff if you need it?

First I would like to say that I dont feel like arguing a lot of the points between you and zierro; but the only person to blame for a crime are those who commited said crime. There are times when someones behavior made them the target of a crime(I think this is where you are mistaken), but the criminal is still to blame for the crime. Without science we would be dying left and right from disease, without religion we would probably never have developed such vast interconnected societies; with science we create the power to destroy ourselves, with religion we find reasons to kill each other. You have to take the good with the bad sometimes, its never science that threatens humanity, its people using science to threaten humanity.

So, when I choose to go to heaven and spend all eternity blaspheming god for creating hell it will be a blast right? To be perfectly honest, I think your just stuck in your blind ideology. Its rather obvious your "faith" is based solely on defending itself against all reasonable objection. God doesn't punish anyone yet people are in hell; hmm it would seem if god sends them to hell for eternal punishment he is punishing them. If you parents sent you to the corner when you were little for not apologizing it would be considered punishing you, yet when god does it he is "forced to". Of course, its even more amusing that your loving god would rather send someone to eternal torment then simply end their apparently miserable existence; or is he just forced to torture people? edit--your sig gets more and more ironic each time I look at it.

I declare that all people who believe in god are burnt in an eternal fire after death; and it works, so don't question it. Also, unless you wish to claim that eating pizza and playing chess are equivilant to god Ive managed to be happy in something that didnt involve god. Obviously you don't know true happiness because you have never known God. In actuality, Im having a blast right now.

Secondly, nuclear power isnt unsafe because nuclear weapons are True, but the actual risks of a meltdown are so painfully small after we learned from chernobyll and 3 mile Island. Your mistaking a religious people for their religion; paganism for instance didnt invent the straight road, it was the work of pagans. In many cases the churches contributed to science, but thats because the societies were highly based on religious structure and public funding was bound to come through the church. We dont say Al Gore invented the internet just because he funded it. While science always has the same perfect goal, to understand the nature of reality. The specific aims of scientific research are varied, but it will always move unbiasedly toward the truth(albeit on a winding course). Religion, however, will always try to adapt in a way that covers itself; the bible was the literal word of god until we realized there was a problem with 2 people creating the human race while condeming incest. This sounds too ranty What I mean to say is; science wants the truth, religion wants itself to be correct.

I declare that all people who believe in god are burnt in an eternal fire after death; and it works, so don't question it. Also, unless you wish to claim that eating pizza and playing chess are equivilant to god Ive managed to be happy in something that didnt involve god.

Ive been interested in doing some solo killing lately and Im looking for a good method for the kbd/giant mole/any suggestions? stats range--89 def--81 summon--68 pray--63 The mole I basically have down, my main question is should I just stick with broad bolts since diamond (e) arent that much stronger? For the kbd, Im really unfamiliar with how to solo range him; I need full help from equipment to inven.