aspeeder

Wrong, just plain wrong. Medical textbooks say that an average woman is most fertile from 10 to 17 days after the first day of her menstrual cycle. But NIH researchers have shown what some women have long suspected: many women who think they can only become pregnant during this span become unexpectedly pregnant. For some women with irregular cycles there is hardly a day in the menstrual cycle when they are NOT potentially fertile. The window of fertility is most unpredictable for teenagers and women approaching menopause. Thyroid disease, which frequently causes irregular cycles, can also cause unpredictable fertility. Textbooks also usually say that women are fertile for several days after ovulation. Dr. Allen Wilcox of NIH's National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) has studied fertility extensively. "The basic problem is that ovulation is so unpredictable," he says. His fertility research has shown that women are fertile only on the day they ovulate and the five days prior to ovulation, not at all after ovulation. "On average it occurs around day 15," he says, "but it can happen anywhere from day 8 to day 60 or later." Most women don't know when they ovulate, however, and that's where it gets tricky. While women are likely to be fertile between days 10 and 17 of their cycle, 70 percent of women have at least one of their fertile days outside that window, he explains. http://thyroid.about.com/od/hormonepregnantmenopause1/a/fertility.htm First off, the same would be true of atheism, or Hinduism, or Unitarian Universalism, or Islam; why is your religion so different, unique and special that it should be the one that everyone should follow besides "I just know it's the right one"? And no, going against church teachings doesn't just mean psychological adjustment, it can also mean physical pain. For example, the Vatican is against the birth control bill, and many women take it not to prevent pregnancy but to reduce the pain of menstruation; following church teachings would literally cause pain (And it's not a pain that would be reduced over time or can be overcome by reading bible verses). As to finding a church document saying that they want to suppress women and homosexuals, that'd be like finding a document from the Guatemalan government that they were striving to kill thousands of villagers in order to achieve political domination(Yes, that happened). But fine, we can make some fairly logical connections, here's the general (American) Catholic view of homosexuality: U.S. Bishops Urge Constitutional Amendment to Protect Marriage The Catholic Church opposes gay marriage and the social acceptance of homosexuality and same-sex relationships, but teaches that homosexual persons deserve respect, justice and pastoral care. The Vatican and Pope John Paul II are speaking out against the growing number of places that recognize same-sex marriages. And that is directly harmful to homosexuals because: And yes they do treat women as second class citizens, they do not allow women into certain seats of power based solely on the fact that they are women, and your argument against them is simply saying "No they don't" with absolutely no evidence to bring it up. And from the supposed original source of the Church, the Bible, suppression of women is still abundant: http://files.meetup.com/317379/WomenReligion.pdf And responding to your last point, I called the church a monarchy based on its similar power structure not on the fact that it's a literal monarchy. And wouldn't a sudden obedience to the church be considered a kind of political rule? I am quite capable of reading the bible myself and deciding which passages contain a legitimate moral lesson and which ones are best left to the fire pits of 4000 year old farmers. EDIT: More stereotyping! Horray! • Eighteen percent of U.S. women obtaining abortions are teenagers; those aged 15–17 obtain 6% of all abortions, teens aged 18–19 obtain 11%, and teens younger than age 15 obtain 0.4%. • Women in their 20s account for more than half of all abortions; women aged 20–24 obtain 33% of all abortions, and women aged 25–29 obtain 24%. • About 61% of abortions are obtained by women who have one or more children. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/US-Abortion-Patients.pdf

You do realize that women can have unwanted pregnancies when they're married, right? She could have been chaste before marriage, had as many kids as she wanted (Even none if she didn't want any children), and then she'd have to either use contraception (Which is against some Catholic doctrine), continue to squirt out babies against her wishes, or never have sex again despite having fulfilled all of God's expectations. Ever heard of Natural Family Planning? Married couples can have sex (save for maybe a week every month) without having to worry about the wife getting pregnant. That is an easy way to avoid unwanted pregnancies when they are married. And it's completely natural. It just involves charting when her time of the month is so you can find out what does she'll be fertile and which days she won't be (or something like that, don't fuss at me over the lingo, I don't know it :P). Ever heard that [cabbage] happens? Even if you take every precaution possible pregnancy is always a risk, and believing in Jesus and following teachings of x or y church won't reduce the likelihood anymore. And seriously? Scheduling sex around a woman's menstruation cycle might reduce the possibility of pregnancy, but there's only a few days every month where there is no egg to fertilize (And apparently you're not big on the idea of having sex with them during that time), and even then it's still possible; [cabbage] happens. Besides, it's not like natural family planning is exclusive to married couples, just probably wouldn't be as ideal for people having casual sex (And even then all the woman has to do is figure out when it'd be least optimal to have sex and just get everything done herself in the meantime). Your argument that, "They would not have to worry about abortion because they wouldn't have sex until marriage," is completely displaced from reality; marriage does nothing to change the possibility of unwanted pregnancy besides having a long-term sexual partner to discuss and plan with. So by being Catholic for ~5 generations we can take away the central nervous system's reaction to stimuli? I'm being a bit facetious, but there is no life without pain. And no offense, but we (Europeans) did follow the Catholic Church's teachings for many generations; it was called the Dark Ages, and I'm pretty sure there was an insane amount of misfortune, pain, and suffering even under the most benevolent of Popes. Diversity and division of power helps to minimize the tyranny that ALL earthly organizations create with enough influence and power. You completely missed an important part of that statement. Look at the bold. Of course they would continue to feel pain if they stubbed their toe or accidentally scraped their arm. Those pains aren't due to Church teachings. And the Dark Ages were a probably at a time during which the papacy was rather corrupt (as I hinted to Nomrom). The papacy now is very stable. Even if there was a benevolent Pope who actually was chosen for his merit, you cannot blame the disease and horribleness of the Dark Ages on the teachings of the Church (those teachings that were actually credible, as opposed to ones that were made for political gain, etc). Ok, to use debate jargon you're in the affirmative but your plan has no solvency whatsoever. In other terms, you are supporting a plan (In this case everyone becomes a catholic and stays like that for several generations), and the only defense of said plan is that the plan would not physically harm them. Does it actually help them? Not according to what you said, it just doesn't make things worse. Not only that, but apparently it will only start becoming non-harmful after a while, is it harmful in the beginning? Now that's all just bad grammar, but even the so called credible teachings are still detrimental to, let's say, 60% of the population. And yeah, 60%, from the estimate that 10% of the population is gay and half of them are women. It's harmful to at least these groups because: Negating women is at the heart of the churchs hideous and criminal indifference to the welfare of boys and girls in its priests care. Lisa Miller writes in Newsweeks cover story about the danger of continuing to marginalize women in a disgraced church that has Mary at the center of its founding story: In the Roman Catholic corporation, the senior executives live and work, as they have for a thousand years, eschewing not just marriage, but intimacy with women ... not to mention any chance to familiarize themselves with the earthy, primal messiness of families and children. No wonder that, having closed themselves off from women and everything maternal, they treated children as collateral damage, a necessary sacrifice to save face for Mother Church. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/opinion/11dowd.html?th&emc=th Because same-sex couples will be able to get married, and because Catholic Charities are not allowed to offer health care coverage to spouses in mixed-sex marriages only, they have the choice of denying health care to all spouses who become eligible to join the plan after 2nd March which will bar all couples in same-sex marriages, as they wont be able to get married until after that date or continue to offer health-care coverage to all spouses, even if that means some lurking closety gay spouse of an employee of Catholic Charities finds himself the recipient of health care that the Catholic Church believes he does not deserve. Lastly, do you think it's a coincidence that the church was more corrupt during the Dark Ages, when it was the only organized political force in much of Europe. It became so corrupt by having a complete monopoly on power, giving them that again wouldn't yield vastly different results. And no, the church will not be able to convince a generation of followers, every new generation is less religious than the last. I'm fine with you being catholic, go right ahead, but the world would not run better under that monarchic organization.

Some good reading on the subject, you might enjoy it.

What parts? I don't see it, but if there's something that's bugging you I'd be interested to hear.

And no generally believers think that though god is omnipotnent and basically knows what you're going to do you still have the total free will to make those choices, if there was no free will there'd be no justification for punishing those who misbehaved on earth. My thoughts on this generally

You do realize that women can have unwanted pregnancies when they're married, right? She could have been chaste before marriage, had as many kids as she wanted (Even none if she didn't want any children), and then she'd have to either use contraception (Which is against some Catholic doctrine), continue to squirt out babies against her wishes, or never have sex again despite having fulfilled all of God's expectations. So by being Catholic for ~5 generations we can take away the central nervous system's reaction to stimuli? I'm being a bit facetious, but there is no life without pain. And no offense, but we (Europeans) did follow the Catholic Church's teachings for many generations; it was called the Dark Ages, and I'm pretty sure there was an insane amount of misfortune, pain, and suffering even under the most benevolent of Popes. Diversity and division of power helps to minimize the tyranny that ALL earthly organizations create with enough influence and power.

That was my mistake then, I thought it was something Hasbro unveiled not a fan-made website :oops: .

I'm skeptical... To say the least. I'm interested, and it might be able to answer some backstory questions but games and tv shows are two completely different ballparks. It makes me think that they're trying to jump on to the Pottermore bandwagon ie. franchise and exploration driven mmo's. EDIT:

Well Season 2 is underway (Next new episode will be Oct. 15th), and I have a few things to post. One: Here's a really good retrospective and summary of the show from one of the tgwtg contributors. He also did a summary about the previous generations in another episode, and yeah I can get where the MLP stigma comes from now, but I think that it's a very good summation of what a lot of us have been saying so far. Two: What's everyone think of season 2 so far? [spoiler=Spoilers] Mostly I'm talking about the second of the two part beginning; I didn't think the first part was that good but looking back it gave a good setup for the next part. I honestly found that it was one of the strangest ones to watch, there were parts that made me happier than almost any other episode in the series and parts that made me shake my head. My favorite parts were definitely the humor, Rarity's reaction to Tom, Pinkie Pie savoring a last bit of chaos chocolate, and of course John de Lancie doing what he does best were all amazing to watch. Probably my biggest problem with it was the pacing, especially for bringing back the ponies from their grey states: I really liked how Applejack explained why she started lying and betraying her element, and I wished they had done that for all/most of the others but instead we get almost no explanation for the other 4 and a prolonged action sequence for Rainbow Dash which I honestly didn't like that much. It all just seemed very rushed once Twilight figured out how to bring her friends back, and the Star Wars reference at the end was just out-of-place (At least for me). I'm curious as to whether we're gonna start seeing an overarching storyline this season or if it'll go back to episodic and character driven stories. What's everyone else's thoughts?

The only way glacors evolved from icefiends would be if Luciens's spellbook was On the Origin of Species.

It just make things cost less due to increased supply. Right, it doesn't literally bring money in or take it out of existence, just shuffles it around.

Vyrelady Natalidae Belamorta Thorton Far-strider (Probably the most normal sounding fremmy name ever) and I'm a Ket

I don't really follow this logic, here or on the other thread. Yes it makes raw resources less expensive than they were before meaning that you can buy them for a lesser amount of gp than before. But if these resources were also your source of revenue then then your income is dropping at the same time. It doesn't matter if living costs becomes less expensive if you make less than amount you did before. And I wouldn't have as much of an issue with it if EVERYTHING dropped down in price roughly evenly, but since bosses are (I assume) not botted and their valuable drops take a loooooong time to saturate the market they've remained high in value. And it's true they have been dropping a bit of late, probably partially due to bxpw dumping, but they're still in a whole other bracket in terms of cost. Once again, it's been this way for a long time, gathering skiills except for rc were not decent ways to make money, but at least people could gather through mid to low level combat. But now that's gone, and the gear required to boss usually includes gear from other bosses which still takes starting capitol that is excruciatingly hard to get nowadays. And for people like me who just aren't good at bossing or pking alternatives are becoming few and far between.

I'd rather have it the other way around, personally. Goldfarmers are the ones that are currently making the game unplayable. ^ Player bots only matter if you care about other people's achievements compared to yours, which I really don't. Goldfarming bots on the other hand have been wreaking havoc on the way I play for the past few months.

You can check my siggy for all of them, but my first was strength. Did the bulk of it through slayer, still remember getting it on a waterfiends task...

^^^ Same, I was so disappointed by that outfit. I also wish jagex would let us have a little more time before releasing new items, I hate not being able to use all of these new emotes and seeing their icons darkened.

Plank Make also takes out a fair amount of coins, since it's a popular method of training magic, but that might fall under the construction umbrella that's already been stated.

That would make runecrafting a complete novelty skill (like smithing is now). What should be done is make armour also expensive to use: make everything degrade and the prices about 10-20 times as high. But alas, runescapians hate it when a feature gets "nerfed" even if it would balance the game. My idea would be to give all monsters in game some kind of elemental weakness that makes specific spells hit a % harder on them like Icestrykes already have with firesurge. Fire giants weak to water spells but resistant to fire spells, for example. If you can kill monsters by casting less spells, magic becomes economical for PVM without having to change anything else in game. SoA seems like a powerful but unnecessary addition to magic. A powerful spell powered by an unusual rune. Zaros Rune pls... But not everything is so elemental, what would elves be weak to for instance? Not to mention the insane number of monsters they'd have to go through, change, and catalog (Plus I don't think the people who handle the bestiary here would be too pleased). I suppose you could only add these weaknesses to monsters that "matter", ie bosses, monsters assigned for slayer tasks, killed for some secondary, etc. but it'd still be fairly obtuse.

^ I really wish that they'd release new loyalty content to coincide with more points for those of us who've been accumulating since the beginning. I have been getting all the emotes I can and now I can't try anything out.

Yeah, I agree with this. I don't see how all of a sudden this could have changed - as it was probably their #1 reason for taking out free trade originally. It makes me think there's something we're not being told - hence the conspiracy theory. Well the world of finance has certainly changed since 07, maybe the banks aren't as actively pursuing low-profile stolen credit cards as they were 4 years ago. Buying off national governments does take a lot of effort after all.

How do you get that?

Except the reason they got rid of them in the first place is still there. The gold farmers most likely don't bring jagex any money at all and cost them money and these are the main ones they're unable to handle as there's just far too many of them. The "legit" players who bot are the ones they make money off and ones that'll come back after being rolled back and buying their account back hence why that option is there so they can continue to make money off those people. They have absolutely no reason to leave gold farmers in the game as they do more harm than good to both the community and to Jagex themselves and I honestly don't believe Jagex would purposely leave them in the game they're just unable to handle the volume of them. But then I question why they bothered re-adding free trade at all? They were quite clear that the december 07 changes were the only realistic solution when they implemented them... From what I remember the main problem JaGeX was facing back in 07 was that gold farmers were using stolen credit card numbers which was getting them in a lot of trouble with banks and the financial sector. It would seem like that problem is no longer there so isn't as much of a reason to control them; all we can do right now is whine at them on the internet about how the game is broken and maybe stop our subscriptions, before they could be sued for thousands if not millions of dollars.

Well what I'm getting at is that perhaps the investors feel that RS is no longer the best way for Jagex to make money, and they would prefer Jagex focuses on their other products. The ones that haven't even been released to the public and haven't proven that they are viable money makers? EDIT: I'm not sure the connection to Sherlock Holmes is entirely appropriate, Conan Doyle had total creative control over what he wrote and published and didn't appear to need to make a lot of money from the books. With investors owning rs they want it to continue to be profitable for as long as possible.

83-84 farm, 77-80 agil, 74-75 thief, 79-80 fish (Wasn't planning on either of those, just time wasters), and 96-99 summon. Me gusta.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cR9qtgIi3Rw&feature=player_embedded http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qfHY29eIUg&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc_IHSg6-1E&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTKRRf85vZ4&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL Anyone else pumped? :mrgreen: (Also Twilight Sparkle seems a bit op compared to Applejack, but she's my favorite so that's fine by me).