Assume Nothing

Makes the whip alot more like the Crapier and sets the CLS apart as the true accuracy weapon for tough to hit creatures. As for the hit soak, it sets apart weapons that can be good with a shield. Cmaul isn't one. Crapier/whip aren't one on tough creatures. CLS... BINGO. Why are you always defensive of a CLS? Playing the Devil's Advocate doesn't work on me, and it's pretty much accepted that bonuses affect faster weapons far more than slower weapons, even if it's only a game tick. Besides, you're ignoring the fact that damage soaking affects CLS more, safe PVP wise

[hide=Massive Quote Trains] Therefore CLS > Rapier is subjective to you. No, it's not subjective. It's been proven that it's better. Proven where Most monsters have so little defence that the Strength bonus doesn't matter. If speed doesn't matter, why not use a Chaotic Maul The last 50 pages. Slightly better then Rapier MHing, which is what I need it for. Don't even bother trying to make me regret it. How is it not subjective when you ignore most of the game? CLS might be better for you, but saying it's a better weapon is just showing how stupid you are. This thread clearly proves that if you are maxed/have turmoil/overloads, rapier is a much better overall weapon. There we go. It's subjective. Back to square one Then again, it COMPLETELY depends on what you do. Some people, like me, don't play on slaying long term. I plan to stop after 85, and getting 40k slayer exp with a whip sounds fine to me. Instead, I planned to play castle wars, so I got a cstaff, and rune fights at edge, so I got a maul (arguably, rapier is good at this too, but it's my preference). If at any time in the future I wanted to train slayer/in general, I'd train dungeoneering for a rapier. It's not like once you choose a CLS first, you can NEVER go back for a second or third item. There are many things a rapier can't do, for example, can you mage with it? Can you range with it? One more thing, for those who do intend on only getting 80 dungeoneering, wouldn't it be best to get a well rounded weapon? The cls is very good in pvp, and is probably better than the whip at slaying, and its also good at all those other things you said. So wouldn't it make sense for some people who hate dungeoneering to get the average (but better than other non-dg) weapon for most if not all things? That's just what I think. Uh.. Rapier is the most well-rounded chaotic weapon. I got CLS first (20 something pages back), and I was told I would regret it. I was of course stubborn because I thought I would only use it for TD's and bandos, 1 of which I realized Rapier is better anyway, and got my CLS. It worked fine at TD's, but they got boring really fast, and I wanted to slay, pvp and do frost dragons, 3 places where Rapier is a lot better. So I pulled myself together and lasted another week of w117 nightmares, and got a Rapier. Currently, my CLS has the same amount of charge since the day after I bought it, which is a few months ago, and I have recharged my Rapier from ~0-100 twice. Get Rapier first, no matter if you plan on slaying, TD'ing, PVP'ing, GWD'ing, DK'ing, safe PVP'ing, camp monsters, it's seriously the best weapon to get as first chaotic. Seriously. Don't make the same mistake as me, unless you plan on getting 100+ DG anyway. [/hide] All this discussion and I was still right in the end. Lol. To what extent does the Dragon Defender change things though?

Well those have to be one of the most useful advices I've read recently. Thanks for posting it. I thought I editted this post, turns out I quoted and replied. Uh, no problem I guess I'm annoyed at the fact I can never wake up properly in the morning, and always rushing for College :(

I've never tried them. Black pepper on chips is great. Not being able to get to sleep has to be one of the things that most annoys me. <_< I've never understood how people are unable to sleep. Do you guys actually try to sleep or do you just keep your eyes open and think about stuff? I envy you for not even knowing what it's like. Basically, you spend hours with your eyes closed, turning in your bed every 10 minutes, and even though your eyes feel tired and you try as hard as you can to ignore all of that, every little thing seems to distract you and prevent you from sleeping. Until you actually fall asleep, and then 2 hours later you alarm clock wakes you up. Or, your brain is just moving too fast to settle down, and you just think, or look out the window, or roll around, or talk to yourself, and wonder why you aren't asleep yet. Personally, I think the more you try to -not- think about stuff, the more you actually do. I'm pretty sure I typed something up in relation to 'sleep hygiene' actually, I'll pull it up. One of the annoyances of today; Alarm clock not waking me up. I use my computer for alarm (mIRC), and first time in half a year, Norton Liveupdate/Windows Update has rebooted my computer, meaning that I woke up 5 hours late for College -.- Oh, and here's the sleep hygiene thing; [hide=Sleep Hygiene] 1. Reduce light, noise and extremes of temperature in the bedroom 2. Avoid caffeine, nicotine and alcohol before bedtime 3. Avoid a heavy meal within two hours of bedtime, however a light snack may help if you are hungry 4. Regular exercise late in the afternoon or in the early evening may deepen sleep but do not exercise vigorously within three hours of bedtime 5. In order to achieve relaxation at bedtime, allow about one hour of quiet activity prior to bedtime, such as reading, watching television or listening to music 6. Develop a bedtime ritual such as reading or listening to relaxing music, clean your teeth etc. so that your body knows that you are getting ready to go to sleep. 7. Don’t go to bed too early. That is, don’t go to bed unless you are feeling sleep. If you try to go to sleep too early before falling sleepy you will have difficulty getting to sleep. This may make you feel irritated and frustrated about not feeling sleepy, not falling asleep and anxious about how you will cope the next day. 8. Do not stay in bed if you are awake. If you go to bed when you are feeling tired and sleep but do not fall asleep within 15-20 minutes (estimated time only, do not use a clock), get out of bed, go to another room and do something mundane until you feel sleepy again. Repeat this procedure until you fall asleep quickly. 9. Get up at the same time in the morning as this will help train your body clock. Do not sleep in on weekends or after a late night. 10. Try not to nap during the day as this tends to reduce your sleepiness at night and results in poorer quality sleep during the night. 11. Do not worry if you can’t get to sleep at night because worry and anxiety will delay sleep even more. The harder you try the worse it will be. If you get very little sleep one night you will still function the next day although you may be a little more irritable and tired than usual.[/hide]

No. If nothing can be impossible, then impossibility isn't possible, therefore not anything can be possible. You're using language wrong. "Can be" does not mean "is". Also, you're using Boolean operators incorrectly. I think he means, can impossibility be possible in a world where anything is possible? Like this, I am immortal therefor it is impossible for me to die, however if its impossible for me to die then how can I live in a world where ANYTHING is possible? Conversely, I am mortal therefor it is impossible for me to live forever, however if it is impossible for me to live forever then how can I live in a world where ANYTHING is possible? Exactly what I meant. It's basically an altered version of the Omnipotence paradox, which goes "Could an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that even that being could not lift it?"

The way I interpreted the rules were 'It's okay to repeat messages of trade requests, as long as you put a little discussion in between.'

Biting the inside of my cheeks because of a wisdom tooth coming out. -.-

Water + Grease Fire = Even bigger fire!

No. If nothing can be impossible, then impossibility isn't possible, therefore not anything can be possible.

Impossibility would be impossible - and, therefore, possible. If impossibility is impossible, it is no longer possible.

If anything is possible, can anything be impossible?

Yesterday, 4 police cars and a party van turned up at my doorstep. A neighbour got arrested for possessing a gas powered paint-ball gun (imitation of a firearm). I lol'd. Today, I just woke up, because it's 8:40

It's nice that people can learn maturity and find themselves whilst studying history, but that benefit to society is not as direct as learning applicable skills and you haven't convinced me that with a massive deficit taxpayers should still be paying for people to learn more about themselves. I don't doubt that people do learn skills studying arts and humanities, but the benefit is hard to quantify and the link between GDP and education levels could be correlation not causation. Even if they don't go to university they'll still have had many years of education and will be still adults. People can learn all the essential life skills that uni might teach them in a job that might be better suited to them in the first place. I don't buy the link between subsidising arts and humanities and government paying less in the long run. I'm not saying all funding to universities should be cut, that's a separate argument. I think the government should subsidise these kind of courses whenever possible for their own sake, but in the current economic argument it's pretty hard to justify. The argument about tuition fees however is separate. You're looking at what I said from a purely economical model yet still, and seeing college as a place where you learn how to be a good worker. That's not its only purpose. So you more or less missed my point, or don't think it's very important; the mere environment gives college a solid advantage over any real life experience. Perhaps I didn't articulate it well enough, implying that you learn how to balance a checkbook or something. Here's a start on the correlation thing, where the correlation strongly suggests causation: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/what-happened-to-argentina/ In addition, for the theoretical basis, we have a bunch of endogenous growth models that describe the role education and R&D have in growth. http://econ.la.psu.edu/~bickes/endogrow.pdf How can you even think it might be only a correlation and not necessarily a causation? It seems so intuitive - why would your parents want you to go to school if it didn't improve your income? "Why would your parents want you to go to school if it didn't improve your income?" doesn't justify what you said, because there are so many factors to why people want to go to school or College, that income or projected income isn't necessarily one of them. Personally, I think the economy and society itself would change around the price rise on tuition fees. Currently, people without degrees face almost no chance of a job, and those with a degree can't find a job if their degree isn't a good one. Perhaps, in future, those without a degree can then find a job quite easily. People would then be given a choice of getting a good Major, or go straight into work after A levels; because people will no longer be able to afford getting a degree that isn't worthwhile (Philosophy and History, for example). Hmmmmmmm

If you enjoy it and want to make a career out of it, then I have no problem with that. I don't really have a problem with just doing any degree you want, It's just that at £3290 a year for tuition, it's not really a lot of money, so many people will put themselves in £10,000+ of debt doing a course they don't like and for no reason. They are cutting university funding. My university for instance is receiving 70% cuts, which is one of the 'medium' levels. Another university is receiving 85% cuts. It's not improving University quality, it's shutting out and prohibiting entry for those less well off. The poor still remain protected, with up to 2 years free education for anyone who could receive free school meals (weird Conservative logic). From the government's perspective, it would solve the Higher Education funding problem, and could also encourage people to make more informed choices of what to study. Courses that could encourage economic growth would be one of the government's objectives, such as Economics, Science and Maths. Whereas courses like History, Sociology, and Philosophy are quite useless, and is considered a 'waste', for the government. Maybe it isn't such a bad thing..

Saleen S7 from Bruce Almighty. Oh yeah

Well, in the UK, the bill has passed, and the University Top-up fees are going to be raised from £3,000 per annum to £9,000 per annum from 2012. I've been wondering; If the same happened in America, what would be the reaction from the public, and what would the effects be on the economy/society? Is there a better way? What would be the better way? Discuss

It has one, but it only hides the ads, I don't think it actually blocks them. That's actually good for legitimate websites, because you wouldn't get banned from those sites that require you to see those ads

A "Noob" is anyone who is too ignorant/arrogant to understand any simple concept, or simply extremely irritating. A "Newb" is a new player, or Carl Dublin ;)

That's a strange place to realise how incredible I am. That's why I always go to the toilet when I do an exam. I suddenly get the answers in my head

Yesterday I had long conversations with teachers. Would it be a good idea to do a Economics degree?

Christmas barbecue! At least that's what I'm going to be doing when I celebrate Christmas on my own/with my own family. A secular Christmas with hamburgers, hot dogs, kabassi, barbecue chicken, ribs, steaks, pulled pork, shish kebab, corn on the cob, pasta salad, and the obligatory baked beans. And don't forget the red wine. Christmas Eve will be the traditional turkey and stuffing dinner. No ham. [hide][/hide] EDIT: How the hell do you do hide tags now??? Like this? Hmm, I think I want surf 'n' turf for Christmas. Steak and Lobster. BBQ's in the cold is uncool though

I get epiphanies on the toilet. Is that normal?

Chrome or FF. I use FF at College with no problems, but I prefer to use Chrome at home. I just like the way it looks and feels, to be honest. I don't like going directly into a website when I type something into the search bar, sometimes you don't always get what you were looking for... EDIT - Hmm, I think I like Chrome because it's very easy to understand everything, it's just like IE, except with the features of FF. Plus it handles Java great

What would be the ultimate of Christmas dining? EDIT - Oh, and don't forget to post pics. And don't have Kevin in your name

The Lib Dem vote on Tuition fees. I mean, seriously, a 28 vs 27 majority? -.- EDIT - Oh, and maybe this I'll drink to that ;) The bears are on me. :shades: *cracks one open* Thats pretty grizzly. No, it's actually the polar opposite. Bear jokes suck. I can hardly bear it.