mmmcannibalism

I know there are greaters lessers ankous hellhounds(90% sure they are ftp now)

this is all idealization(your gear is really good so don't fret over any of these except gloves and boot) hunt in the eeryei as said, change body to zammy dhide and get barrows gloves change granite shield to fully charged dragonfire change torag leg to bandos tasset(+1 def and no degrading) get snakeskin or ranger boots. Again, just the gloves and boots are important, other stuff is just if you have tons of money.

Thanks for the note on prayer Yes, I will be chinning at ape atoll.

I think turning auto retaliate off will let you mine through the hobgoblin attacks. Not sure if you knew this and not sure if it is true, but its worth a shot.

I am planning on chinning from 89 to 99 ranged soon. I was wondering about a few details on chinning based on the intent to make it as efficient as possible. I will be using grey chins, full void and the best gear possible in each slot(except no archer ring imbued) 1. With 70 prayer which ranged prayer should I use for the best efficiency? I figure it will either be +10 or +15 but I don't know which is better 2. Is a god cloak a better choice then ava's accumulator? The +3 prayer would seem more useful then +4 ranged but I'm not sure. 3. Is the fury better then the new ranging ammy? I figure the fury is better since 5 prayer is worth more then 5 range but just wanted to ask.

Care to elaborate on how an inanimate and genderless object in a video game can have a preference for a certain gender? I like the whip, haven't seen any other weapons.

Log out? That resets the tt puzzles.

If you want it to be really good training you will.

I don't think it is advisable for chinning, you sacrifice 5 pray bonus for a 5 range bonus(compared to fury). For regular safespotting this will be invaluable for rangers, other then that its uses will be limited.

They would fall apart rather quickly due to muscular decay from running around. They would be more dangerous, but would become immobile rather quickly.

arr-muh-dill or ar as in arm without the m muh as in uh with an m on it dill is self explanitory.

I call the insignifigant islands around Japan and okinawa. I'll just chill; I think its established the Japanese can handle themselves.

I'm not sure how this is against the rules but the important thing is

i might as the alter are technically only defined as a pp bonus while the stew works with the level The problem is that if your prayer level is 83; the stew will show for instance 85/83. I think for the blessing you will need the bottom stat to be 85 which is impossible to gain.

Stew won't work if the special alters didn't.

Switch your chest and leg piece into your best dhide and you will be fine. if you use a metal shield switch it for a god book or elemental shield.(defender is fine since its for attack boosts).

Attack that chains from player to player but can't hit anyone more then once? Wouldn't make soloing more rewarding but it would counteract massing.

Varrock armor 1 is fine After you have a varrock armor talk to one of the people you talk to to start it(it may change with level). They will offer the option in dialogue somewhere

I would call the bat and trench [bleep]e a tie as a primary. Remember, if you are forced into combat it will probably be close range. At close range the 1 hit lethality of a trench [bleep]e along with the structural weakness of the bat makes them nearly equal. While a bat is more useful in a 1v1 situation, a trench [bleep]e will do better if you have to take out a group of zombies.

I have to say halo; I do think it is a very good fps, but I don't think its better then any other good fps.

team it; remember to stand on opposite sides of it so it has to spin.

This is probably more about individuals merchanting then clans; the multiple pvp changes caused market chaos. Seriously though, why not just check the ge database?

If you really want to use bone bolts then yes; if you want to train effectively no.

If your ever in moundsville...go look at the burial mound...thats about it.

[hide=] This is misleading/wrong. An insurance company can't discriminate against someone if they have say a gene which gives them a much higher chance of getting prostate cancer, but they can discriminate against people who have actual diseases/problems caused by genetics. I think calling that discrimination is implying the wrong thing. The point of an insurance company is to make money. If they are forced to insure people with conditions that will always cause a loss, then they won't make money. Of course, insurance companies shouldn't be able to scan your genes and deny you based upon slight risk genes; but if someone is already affected by a disease the company can't profit and as such won't insure them. It would be like making the insurance company give you fire insurance after your house is torched. That's a fundamental problem with our health care system in America. Born with a disease that will cost you and your family a large amount of money over a life time, well sucks for you. The other problem is that insurance companies should not be out there to make huge profits. Insurance exists for the purpose to spread risk among a large group of people. If you can afford health insurance you could just as well afford checkups and minor health issues which arise from time to time, but you likely can't afford a catastrophic health issue, which is what insurance exists to protect you from. Insurance companies should not have to take an overall loss, but there is no reason health insurance should be run as a for profit business. [/hide] Insurance companies being for profit is a good system; it makes them compete to offer the best services at the best price.(remember even a government system has a cost in taxes/lost income for taxpayers, however you want to look at that). I think both sides agree on a large amount of the issues here; something needs to be done to protect those who are born with diseases, reform is needed to focus on preventitive treatment etc. What I think the main issue is a debate over whether a private company or the government should be in charge of the health care industry. Personally, I want to see a private system that is regulated by government people who know what they are dealing with. It is better for a company to be trying to gain profit while it is regulated to have to do certain things, then for the government(in terms of US) which manages to screw up just about everything to try and control the entire business. To me, it comes down to a matter of faith in the American government(or government where you are debating health care); I have more faith in a company trying to earn a profit through insurance then I do in the government managing the same system. Finally, reform is better then complete overall. We should be looking into fixing every problem in private healthcare before we throw in the towel; after all what message does it send if we just give up when things are difficult? edit--except for the cigarrette tax I agree with barihawk(uncertain how I feel about cigarette taxes)