aspeeder

Fun quest, though funnily enough my favorite part of this was walking around all the new lands east of Hallowvale. Also, did anyone else notice the book in the cave towards the beginning? It reads: [spoiler=Quest Book Contents]Page 1: With -- I am weak. My fellow -- spread and sparse. Vampyrium -- lost to me. I am much -- weak to enter. -- I still sense it, Zamorak's bane. -- It must be mine. -- The Icyene -- me. must [sic] rest -- recover. Page 2: I do not know how long I have slept, but I feel my powers rebuilt and my wounds healed[sic] The darkness consumes me and gives me life once more. I must -- open -- recover -- -- bring back my brothers and sisters. I will retake these lands. EDIT: Oh yeah, and it got me to 75 rcing, any quest that can do that get's an A+ in my book.

Still, the thing that I've noticed about martial arts is that it focuses on learning about the strengths and weaknesses of the human body. We need weapons, because no matter how many pressure points I learn about, I still need a freaking sword to kill a dragon. And to be honest I think the attack still is already supposed to do something like this, it's just that the amount of dedicated animations something like this would take up would be enormous especially since it would probably need to vary for enemies with different body types. I suppose this might work in some kind of pvp exclusive combat but at that point it'll probably become to niche to justify the enormous amount of dev time that would need to be sunk in order to make this effective.

Personally I hate the desert and elf areas a lot more than Meryditch, mostly because the elf and desert areas actually cause you damage almost all the time unless you come prepared, but in Meryditch you can just time things well and even if you screw up you can either go to the mines or try and distract the vyres, or heck even just run away if they attack you. As long as I don't have to bring a certain kind of item to avoid damage I don't hate areas, plus the kind of tension (Whether from fear or anger) is quite accurate for the tone of the quest and it's not like they force you to go there when you're not questing for skills or anything...

The game already has loads of easter eggs, and yeah I enjoy seeing them every now and then too, but I'd rather that they not break the tone of one of the only atmospheric areas in the entire world just to say, "Hey, remember this [X]? Sure is a cool [X]."

Can you say mood-killer? I wouldn't mind a little black comedy in the dialogue or something but stupid, lighthearted pop culture references have no place in the Myreque quests.

Rofl, this. It especially sucks when I use up pots, and I have to drop the vials, which empties up inventory spaces at the top. Then I have to move each pot up to make it look nice. Yeah, especially if it messes up orders of other pots too, I also like to keep certain things in the top 4/6 spots and I'll bring things I don't really need just so there isn't an extra empty space.

Unless I've checked on the price on something beforehand for a big transaction I always sell at -5% and buy at +5%. Probably my weirdest habit is making sure that my inventory is sorted, as in all of the herbs/armor/charms/whatever are next to each other and in some kind of group or pattern so that it looks nice, slows my tasks down quite a bit but oh well.

No? Well I have one that might tide you over then :smile:

I wish that they sped up the ticks temporarily to give us more content right away, they did that when they had the loyalty points sale and I think that helped that program a lot. As it stands I'm basically done with this for the week, which is pretty disappointing.

I burn, peel, and stay the exact same shade.

Probably because he sees your arguments that the welfare system is "so misguided" as quaint compared to the ineffectual spending of the military. To put it more another way: And yeah that doesn't directly answer your questions, but why are you investing so much goddamn energy into this when there are other much more harmful problems in the US budget? More on topic though, my thoughts on the subject are pretty much as follows: And, with a spike of comedy: http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-things-nobody-tells-you-about-being-poor/ Not the most, ahem, professional sources I'll admit but I don't really think an argument this absurd deserves one. Kicking all extraneous things like tv, internet, a cell phone, unnecessary food, etc might save you what, a few hundred dollars a month? Not even considering that you need a lot of those things in order to be deemed worthy of being hired, a few hundred dollars a month is not enough to lift anyone out of (Relative US) poverty. EDIT: Here's an analysis of the report that focuses more on the technical failings and laughably slanted manner in which it was conducted.

But there is a bit of exp to be had, I know they said it won't be comparable to the best activities on the main world but hopefully it's decent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aq_nCTGSfWE&feature=feedu Thought this video was pertinent, have fun.

Anyone else notice this? Month 1 500 Loyalty Points 500 Loyalty Points Month 2 3,000 Loyalty Points 3,500 Loyalty Points Month 3 5,000 Loyalty Points 8,500 Loyalty Points Month 4 7,000 Loyalty Points 15,500 Loyalty Points Month 5 3,000 Loyalty Points 18,500 Loyalty Points The amount you earn for being "loyal" decreases from month 4-5. Now it is the KB, and it's notorious for typos, but this could some kind of scheme for long-paying fans to cancel their lower-rate subscriptions just to earn more loyalty points per month...

I like how you didn't actually respond to anything. Yeah, I raged but that does not make the points I raised any less valid

I'm quite aware, I'm just sick of the unscientific and unexamined views of psychology, sociology, and gender studies that they are forcing on us. I am Twilight Sparkle, see me rage at their lack of reason and evidence.

Loving the irony of this post Weight does play a part in being healthy, although extra pounds aren't what kills you usually, it's the fat buildup causing arteries to fail. And that's not a good thing. ^Agreed. Body weight and healthiness does go hand in hand in most cases BUT not all the time. A man who's 7 ft tall should weigh about 250 pounds. To most people, 250 pounds is a lot. You won't think that a girl who's only 5 foot 4 inches and weighs 250 pounds is as healthy as the latter. If weight is originating from body fat, it is usually more "unhealthy" than weight originating from height or (maybe) muscles. Indeed, that's why the BMI is very flawed, it only takes height and weight into account not body fat content or muscle mass. Besides, generally a healthy body fat percentage is anywhere from the low twenties to the mid thirties depending on your age/sex. Also, I can pretty much eat whatever I want and not gain any weight, and I'm around 5'6" and 130 lbs.

Here's a story about a dad standing up for, not his gender-norm defying son, but his transgendered daughter (Meaning she was born with a boy's body). Believe it or not, most parents only want their children to be happy. That's it. Besides, men's gender stereotypes cause just as much harm as women's gender stereotypes do. Further, all this machismo [cabbage] is what leads to men committing over 90% of all violent crimes. And you know what, even if you don't believe that men and women should have the right to act in opposition to their gender stereotypes and that how we act is determined biologically, then I can say I should then act more feminine than you (In all likelihood anyway). According to the Digit Ratio Theory the ratio of your pointer finger to your ring finger is a sexually dimorphic quality: a longer ring finger to shorter pointer finger (A lower ratio) points to more testosterone in the womb, and visa-versa a higher ratio points to more estrogen in the womb. For men the average ratio is .94 and for women it's around one, my ratio is 1.04. Things aren't just black and white, and biological components don't tell the whole story, but one set of accepted values is far too narrow for our society. In short, [bleep] your harmful 50's era gender norm bull[cabbage]. EDIT: Before anyone else talks about these kind of gender issues, I want you to watch this documentary about traditionally violent masculinity and the incredible harm it does to men, women, and society at large; all 7 parts no excuses. If you don't want to fine, just don't do your macho trolling.

I could see how the community could make this into a big troll, but I like that this will be an official way to expand the universe too. In the press release she said that apparently you can interact with people and objects, getting more backstory about the world of HP.

Fair concern. Why? I can understand that it's not targeted at him, but why would watching a show make someone become lustful to the target audience? How would you react if you had a son and walked in on him playing with Barbies? Same thing. Sadly, it's true. Although I wish people didn't think like this, I can see why it would be a problem. Why? Why?? WHY??? I fail to see the problem here. Son playing with barbies? Oh well, I wouldn't care. I certainly won't make presumptions that he'll rape a child off of it.

Indeed. @Ring_World Also, thinking about the "I meet a lot of women like that" a bit more, I think your problem might be where you meet certain kinds of women. Now from your posts elsewhere you said you're mostly conservative, nothing wrong with that, but it probably also means that the women you meet socially tend to be more conservative and thus don't react against societal gender roles as much. Then, when you meet other women who might be more liberal in other scenarios, like the workplace, when they complain about, for example, their economic oppression you might take that as a double standard since you lump both of these kinds of women together as just women and assume that they have similar ideologies. From that comic, who's to say that brunette wouldn't have insisted that she pay for half of the dinner date? EDIT: Yeah, back to the OT I do agree with you that this legal inequality is a problem. I suppose all of our disagreements are because you both think that this system is "feminist" when I believe that it's chauvinistic and actually quite sexist.

But they do lie and deceive. My point is that kids do whatever they can to get the things that they want, that is their "natural state." And I think you and I would both agree that this state, unchanged, is not what should be an ideal base for society. Lying is important, strange as that may seem, but learned and conditioned behaviors aren't evil by default. Sorry about nitpicking about the not natural thing, I just try to discourage its use since it's a silly turn of phrase (And that the idea of something being "unnatural" as inherently bad is often used to defend homophobia, but I digress). Kids are not the same, psychologically, as adults. Our nature as humans and the ways our brains works changes dramatically as we get older and learn concepts like empathy that small children often lack; without being able to empathize and know what others are feeling it's difficult for us to share. Besides one of the only ways for society to evolve is to work against our nature using our primary weapon as humans: our consciousness. Here'd be an example about morality not only being natural, but something beneficial to work against. Actually no, in the case of capitalism the jerk not only has the toys but also buys off the teacher to defend his ownership of them, and loans them to the stronger kids to make sure that you don't get any of them.

You're right, thoughts aren't policed and I should phrase it differently, the situation I described above does not give me ample justification for racist presumptions. 3.6% are male. That is 96.4% of alimony receivers being female. 964 of 1000 receivers are female. If that is not gender bias, kittens are ugly. I'm not denying there's gender bias, I'm saying that the bias rises out of sexist origins and actually only serves to further subjugate women. We are in agreeance on the actions, that this precedent should be abolished, but for different reasons. You focus on the direct and readily apparent financial/parenting problems it causes men, and I'm focusing on the less readily-apparent effect it has on women's place in society, their self-esteem, and the unfair double-bind they are put in. Perhaps during conversation you could ask them why they act that way, learning a bit of feminist theory might help you avoid paying for the bill every single time haha. Instead of just blaming them and allowing the system to perpetuate, work to change their minds on both ends. And I do know women who aren't like that. My best friend for example hadn't eaten in over 30 hours, yet when I tried to give her money for food she wouldn't accept it; people in any group are very diverse. Also, for the record, I am a guy. Sorry if my sig confused you, my account was a gift from a female friend and I've opted not to change its gender.

Here's where I believe you went wrong: you turned to the most obvious and readily apparent way to put those people into a group. How do you know that all the women you interact with have no differences in the way that they were brought up or the conditions surrounding them besides their gender?

Me again :rolleyes: As babies we also know how to lie to get what we want, even before we are able to speak. That means that we have to condition children to value the truth in order to value the truth. Does that mean that we should make a society based on lying and devalue the truth since it must be learned? Oh, and everything is natural in that there is nothing that exists outside of nature, since nature consists of everything that obeys the natural laws which govern our reality; you're just using the phrase "isn't natural" as a scary substitute for learned. Just because some attribute is our born instinct doesn't make it the best thing to base a society on. Also towards the end you seem to suggest that we should just let the jerk be and not let the other kids have a chance at the toys (That would be socialism). I'd be surprised if you weren't be directly sponsored by Friedman himself.