Myweponsg00d

I'm not buyin this story for a split second, sorry. Unless in Canada there is an abundance of police who have nothing to do. In America we have a shortage of law enforcement and I couldn't imagine them being able to realistically investigate something like this.

I guess this sucks if anyone was stocking up on these. But for me it means that I'm about to buy TONS of them and use them for random things like slayer (if they go low enough)

Another DnD that is a complete bore? I'm shocked. Next.

I have always been an advocate of the RoW. No matter what you guys "theorize" is the "best" setup to use, I still think the RoW is better. Then again, I typically pick up all of my drops, including all gems. RoW is a cheap investment that gives you better luck. Zerker costs multiple millions and gives a slight stat boost that I dont even miss when its gone. I don't care if the only things it affects are gems, keys, and spears/shield. TBH I really like getting these items as drops.

Pretty decent items. The ZMI sweatshirt is probably the best thing so far. Has anyone bought the jagex items before? I was wondering how they actually look in real life. Are they real cheap quality (you know...like something your little league team would have made at a local store) or are they very professional quality?

BEFORE AFTER This is a dumbed-down version of whats above. Impossible to misunderstand hopefully.

You guys are right. I sure would rather get nothing than something! killing abyssal demons 1% faster with a berzerker ring makes a more noticeable impact on profit than this lol, plus more exp. there is literally no reason to ever use it. So if you are killing abyssal demons 1% faster, that means that for every 100 kills you get, you get 1 extra kill. If we take the drop rate to be 1 in 300 for a whip, which is what I have roughly found it to be, that means that for every 30,000 kills you get an extra 300 kills, which will give you an extra whip. How does an extra whip in 30,000 kills compare to all your "no drops" being eliminated for 30,000 kills? It's hard to say. But I can tell you that for the comparison of a ring with multiple million GP to a ring worth only several thousands, the ring of wealth is more efficent at gaining you wealth.

You guys are right. I sure would rather get nothing than something!

Hey bongo, been awhile since I checked in here and I was sad to see a lack of updates. How have you been doing? I hope your lack of updates is just because you have been spending too much time working out to find time to write on the computer. :thumbsup: Hope you haven't given up on your dreams/goals! It may seem hard at times but never give up, and never be afraid to get back on your program if you have fallen off.

Not sure if you are aware of this, but Blizzard may have completely jacked your idea for a skill. http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/cataclysm/features/ Archaeology. Yup, it is being released in the next expansion of WoW. Umm...I really think thats suspicous. Archaeology is a really goofy and creative idea, and I think it would be a huge coincidence if they ended up thinking of it on their own.

Not only is just the plot a little lackluster, but the sheer amount of adventuring is a disappointment. My favorite quests are the ones that send me from the mountains to the caves to the desert to an island and then back to the caves and then into the forest. And at each location there is a puzzle to solve or an object to attain or a monster to kill. This quest was like the temple of light quest. One boring trek to one area.

And I would tell him that a Boss fight alone does not make any quest worthy of a Grandmaster quest, but again, that's just my opinion. I'm going to have to agree with you, and I'd like to support your opinion so you don't feel alone with all the flamers. Runescape quests have always been creative and interesting. Especially the "important" ones. Heros, Legends, RFD, Dragon Slayer, WGS...they all take you on an adventure like no other. You travel from kingdom to kingdom slaying beasts, collecting items, solving riddles, and enjoying a great ride along the story line. Nomad's Requiem, in comparison, is quite a bore. Well...I mean, the fight is exciting I suppose. But that has never been what I liked about Runescape. This quest, to me, feels like a WoW quest. Go to one area, kill a boss, complete the quest. Okay okay, before you chime in and flame me, guys...I am aware that I am over simplifying it. There WERE some challenging puzzles...but I would be lying if I didn't say that the focus of the quest was just one single hard boss fight. This is quite a departure from the other "important" or "master/grandmaster" quests where you go on a 5 hour journey where each little leg of the quest is quite interesting in its own regard. Theres goods and bads, I suppose. A good thing is that this quest at least brings us a new type of thing for a quest: a fight which is truly a challenge, comparable to Jad and the likes. On the other hand, is this difference a good thing or a bad thing? For myself, Libs, and other people who have played this game forever and like the classic "formulae" for quests, it is a disappointment.

Probably because we are afraid that Jagex will start saying "OMG HERE COMES THE NEXT GRANSMASTER QUEST!!!" and then the quest is short and boring, and the rewards are boring, and then boring updates become our new "grandmaster" updates. And nobody wants to pay for boring updates.

What a scam to get people to play Soul Wars.

Hair. I have some type of obsession. I cut my own because any time someone else touches it, I feel like there are parts "out of place". I was paying 20 dollars for a haircut then coming home and spending 30 minutes touching it up myself. So I just decided to teach myself to do the whole thing. Not sure if it was a good idea because I usually cut it now like 2 times a week because I am so obsessed with things not feeling in place. The sad thing is, it isnt like I really spend a lot of time syling my hair...I dont even gel it or put any product in on like 50% of days. The length just really bothers me though. Also other hair things bother me. I trim my armpit hair (lol.....i know :blink: ) I shave my chest and various other parts. Chest hair is the worst IMO....CANNOT stand it. I shave my face and neck every day. If I get a hair in my food, we leave the restaurant. It doesn't matter who I am with. If they don't wanna leave then I just go sit outside by myself till they are done. Its really rough.

What do you need, and what do you want? What I need would be like a new pair of vans. Something I want would be like Uggs slippers or like a pen tablet. Hmmm, ask for the Vans. Similar advice: ask for PF Flyers. Get the same look, but stand out from everyone and their brother who wears Vans. Win-win situation :thumbsup:

Hey man, noticed you haven't updated in awhile. Hope you keep up with this. The hardest part is keeping consistent past the first 4 weeks, after that you'll HATE the days you don't get to work out! Just wondering how you were doin and hoping you still are keeping with your goal.

Or perhaps the "fix" is actually caused by another bug in an unrelated area of the code. Seen this happen in programs before.

Blizzard just introduced a system in World of Warcraft where it shows you where you need to go for each part of a quest. Runescape, in comparison, seems like a Mensa genius exam problem.

How old are you? If you are a male with no health problems and under 20 years of age, theres a very good chance that you can just eat whatever you want and never see bad effects. Also, "whatever you want" could very well be within healthy limits. The whole "watch your carbs" thing is for people who just want to build muscle and cut fat. Athletes such as yourself need a diet that is more like 60 or even 70% carbs, or else you won't have enough energy to compete. Just because you aren't watching your diet doesnt mean you are necessarily eating unhealthy for your body. Also, if "whatever you feel like" eating is delicious stuff like strawberries, bananas, graps, etc...then I would say you are a normal case and I wouldn't worry about your diet. If you are eating "whatever you want" and your diet is full of chips, cookies, saturated fats, etc...then my bets are that your metabolism is just very high at the moment. As you age, you might need to start watching what you eat. But, if you keep involved in athletics, you will never have to worry about eating a few cookies every day or anything like that. As long as the majority of your diet consists of whole grain carbs, fruits and veggies, and low fat proteins (and a smaller ammount of healthy omega rich fats) your body SHOULDNT put on weight.

Derbies>oxfords>loafers Haha, I agree, that style of shoe is sexy as hell. But I also think 3 piece suits are sexy as hell, that doesnt mean I wear them on a daily basis. I have a nice pair of light brown derbies that I like to wear with my blue suit. Also you rank loafers as the worst. =( I used to be the kind of guy who wore new balance running shoes every day. Then I bought my first pair of really nice loafers and never looked back. I see a lot of men walkin around with running shoes on their feet, probably because they thought like I did "I want my feet to feel comfortable, I dont care how it looks" But then you try on your first pair of very nicely made REAL shoes...and you realize the true meaning of comfort. For all those guys who look down right now and see a white pair of New Balance shoes on your feet (and if you havent just come back from the gym), I offer you my words of wisdom: Nice "dressy" shoes are really not uncomfortable. In fact, youll probably find them more comfortable than those "built for comfort" running shoes you have on. Oh...and theyll look about 500000000 times better.

Sorry, but you're wrong. Doing extended periods of medium intensity cardio is going to do nothing for fat burning. I know, its hard to believe that so many people are wrong, but they are. If you jog at a 5-7 intensity for an hour or more, all you are doing is endurance training. When you do steady-state cardio all that is getting stronger is your heart and your lungs. Also, your body just "learns" how to burn off energy better. If you, an unprofessional athlete, for for a 60 minute run, you might burn off 200 calories of your fat stores. But, a marathon runner, his body has learned to make better use of his energy stores, so it will burn off calories at a much lower rate so that he can run for 5+ hours without harming his body. If you just job for longer and longer periods of time eventually you start burning calories at a slower and slower rate. Also, a long term medium intensity cardio workout will only burn calories during the workout. When you do high intensity interval training, you burn during the workout, but more importantly it also gives a kick start to your metabolism. If you train effectively in intervals, you will turn your body into a fat burning machine, even when you arent working out. Think about it this way: imagine the body of a marathon runner, and imagine the body of an olymic sprinter. The marathon runner sure is skinny, but his muscles are not large or well defined. Running for long durations just trains your body to survive on burning all of its energy, INCLUDING your muscles! Olymic sprinters train in short burts of extreme intensity. These athletes are typically very muscular. Why? They burn the fat without losing muscle. If you do tons and tons of jogging you might be able to see a "six pack" in the form of being able to see your ab muscles. But in my mind I dont think this is what most people think of when they see the words "six pack". They think of a well defined, huge set of muscles. In order to build these muscles AND lose fat on your body, you really cannot be doing long-duration running. Also I know I restated things that other people already said, but really I just wanted to sum up in one post what the OP wanted to know. As far as saying nothing but "eat right and exercise" well, sorry, but this is the truth. There are no tricks to "getting a six pack". You wont have large muscles in your abs and small muscles everywhere else. You cant burn fat on your stomach by doing tons and tons of crunches. Its just a blatant lie. Your body decides where to burn fat off, not you. Also "lifting" does not help give you a six pack? Yes it does. You use your abs in basically every exercise you do. If you do nothing but a few "ab specific" exercises, you are gonna end up with a pretty weird set of ab muscles. Doing a wide variety of excercises helps define every part of your ab muscles. Also, if you are building muscle in all parts of your body, your body is going to be burning more calories and this will help get rid of your body fat. The biggest part of being able to see your ab muscles is just to burn off the fat. Everybody has a "decent" set of abs as long as you are not someone who has been in bed for 5 years. If you walk around every day, you have a set of ab muscles that can be seen if you had no fat on your midsection. Merged posts ~ Jimmy_Jim I forgot to mention that when you are doing something like jogging, your body must first burn the carbohydrates you ate today as part of its energy before you can start burning off fat stores. When you are sprinting, you are doing anaerobic exercise which can cut directly into fat stores without having used up your excess carb energy.

This has truths to it beyond their stance on abortion. A lot of women are angry at men for the fact that they have to shave and wear female cloths to attract a mate. They think its a problem with body image. Well, guess what, its not the men who are pressuring people to look like that. They are all competing with each other and trying to look better than the other ones. Also I think this argument sucks because it also happens with men. We compete over attracting females just as much as females compete over attracting men. We change our body image, and get this, we even adapt our personalities. I really don't think women have to deal with the social pressures of adapting our personalities to find a mate. You might read this and think "No thats wrong! Guys should be themselves!" Well let me tell you that if every guy was being his true self he would walk around playing with his balls, farting, belching, hitting on every woman he sees, making dirty jokes...I understand that not all men are like this, but the majority of us are all comfortable with this type of behavior. Women don't like that kind of abraisiveness and we have to pretend we are a more gentle person to attract the average woman.

magekillr, I am sad that you feel the need to pointlessly flame my post. First of all, I am not asserting this view point to anyone, and I am not even claiming this to be MY viewpoint. In my class, we present arguments to eachother. Regardless of what our "presonal" opinion is, we devise ways of looking at things to give an interesting perspective on something that most people hadnt even considered before. You also seem to be missing the key questions in the orignal thread. The key theme in the original thread is a logical confusion over what the word "Feminism" means. When we speak of "feminine" qualities, we are referring to the qualities that women have. So if you take the word "feminine" and then examine what is known as "feminism", are the two actually related? Or do the words intended to referr to entirely different things? Let me try to rebuild the original thought in a shorter, more concise manner: Let's say I start with the knowledge of the word "feminine". Feminine qualities are qualities of loving, caring, emotion, nuturing, etc. Now if you have only knowledge of this word, and no previous knowledge, imagine you are asked to define a word such as "feminism" or "feminist". Would you not say that the logical association to that word would give a response such as "Well, I assume that a feminist would be one who strongly supports feminine qualities." The problem that I am trying to point out is that many radical feminists, indeed, act LIKE MEN. To me this is saying "Men are better than women, so I need to act like a man." Also, "feminism" seems to have little concern with upholding the qualities of "feminine" life. "Feminism" starts as a desire to obtain the things that typically were exclusively for men. To me, this says: "Women are great, men are no better than us, but for us to become better people, we need to have the things that men have." Do you understand what this post is about now? It is simply an attempt to point out how confusing the concept of "feminism" is. I am not saying women are bad, I am not saying men are bad, I am just trying to generate discussion about this subject that doesn't quite make sense in a "boolian logic" point of view. I don't think that feminists are fighting for women's strength, I think they are fighting to make there be no difference between a man and a woman. As a previous poster said, the term "feminism" should perhaps more accurately be called "equalism" When it comes down to facts, men and women ARE different, on more than just their reproductive anatomy. They think differently and feel different emotions. So what is "right" for us to do? Is it wrong for us to look at a man and say "well, he is likely a rational person" or at a woman and say "she would probably be a better caregiver for that child than her husband."? Why should it be WRONG to say these things? Statistically speaking, most females have typical "feminine" qualities and most males have typical "masculine" qualities. So why is it wrong to make generalizations? Statistically speaking, if you pick a random man walking down the street, it is highly probable that he will exibit classic masculine qualities. Why? Because thats how statistics work! I've said this before, but I'll reiterate. I think there is a problem because we are looking at this in the same way we look at racism. A black man and a white man being treated different is wrong because there is no significant statistical data that shows these two men would naturally behave differently from each other. However, we try to apply the same thing to man vs woman, and I really do not think it is working. Mother nature makes our brains differently, and gives us different hormones. We behave, STATISTICALLY, way different from eachother. But the main question I am asking is: what SHOULD be the right thing to do? Should society learn to celebrate the differences between men and women? Similar to the way that we are striving for homosexuality to be treated as a normal human condition? Or, like our violent urges that come from nature, should we learn to OVERCOME our "instinctual" man vs woman behaviors, and erase the line between man and woman behavior? I am not asserting either point, because I feel this problem is too difficult to pretend like I have the answer to it. I am merely trying to create discussion and ask people whether they think that society is viewing men and women in the "right way" Also please answer this guys post. I'm also interested in a clarification on what you meant.

pokemama, I like your insight. How exactly do you feel about "glass ceilings"? I am in a psychology class and our book shows that research suggests men are, ON AVERAGE, better at doing certain tasks that involve logic and unemotional decision making. What does this "average" do to society? And what response would a female who is concerned with her femininity say? If we are hiring someone to do a job that requires these traits that have been researched to be more pronounced in men, is it right or wrong to search for your employee thinking that it will likely end up being a man? If you approach it saying "we are equally likely to find a man or woman to fill this job to the best of their abilities" does this ignore psychological research? Even if it does ignore this research though...is this a bad thing? Perhaps it is necessary to ignore the "average" qualities of people, just so that you don't end up overlooking the woman who would outperform every man in this job. It certainly is not an easy question to answer...The problem is that we approach sexism like we do racism. Racism, however, never has scientific founding. It is common belief that minorities are more likey to commit crimes. While it is true that there are more minorities that commit crimes, the problem is that minorities live in worse neighborhoods. In other words, there is a direct correlation between quality of neighborhood and liklihood to commit crime. However, there is no direct correlation between the race of a person and their crime rate. But the story is different for sexes. Many of the "unfair stereotypes" have foundations in facts about how male and female brains/hormones function differently. It is hard to say whether or not this gives us any more viability in judgements made toward an individual person, though.