Romy

I don't think anyone would complain for that. Perhaps suggest it, but that's already something I can see happening to other weapons in a few days.

Sorry to have offended you then, I didn't think you'd take it too personaly. You see, throughout our discussion, I have come to realize that you're a confident person. I just didn't think it would have offended you that much, and so didn't mind saying that. Even though it may not seem like it, I'm a very sensetive person, and feel pretty bad for offending you like that :/... My apologies.

It's true that the 2 statements contrafict each other if you are to take them literally. It's petty to point it out because I proved that as much as the right to pracitce religion is slightly hurt, it's not something that should even be calculated in the final result... because of what's quoted 2 lines up. Are you offended because I said I think you're arrogant? Is that it :S?

Is why I said you're petty. I have not taken the points to heart. Perhaps the cause, but not the points...

....

You did say it was nonsence...which kind of implies you don't get it. Up until then I thought you simply differed in your view point...Which would kind of point to you not understanding (Its great isn't it) I said it was nonsense because, for instance- Even by your own tongue you do not accept that no rights are damaged. You are just doing what the people you proclaim to be stopping are doing...Ignoring the inconvinent facts in the hopes that people will blindly follow your utopian view of the world, down the road to injustice. Pointing out that I said a right is slightly hurt (alongst cutting off the part where I explained why it's still "okay"), is petty, and insignificant. That, along with the fact that reading through your post makes me a bit discomfort (because I feel that your points have come down to personal lines. Whether it's true or not, doesn't matter), led me to say that I think it's nonesense.

^ Is apparently funny :P. < Am thinking too much. V Had tested the taste of his/her own ear wax....O_o....

Personaly, I can, and do. However, I'm aware to the fact that logic exists behind it, is all.

You missed the point. It wasn't because the quest had a lacking plot that we were upset. It was because it was a Grandmaster Quest and was lacking plot. GM quests should be up to their nipples in plot. Perhaps. It seems to me this has a lot more plot than you are giving it credit for though. It was a bit on the short side, but it seems to be just the tip of the iceberg. Anyways, the alternative would be to make it Master, which would make it an extremely difficult Master quest, so they would have to lower the combat stuffs, which would just make it lame. Plus it's important for Nomad to be powerful in this quest cause they can't randomly make him powerful in a sequel when they decide to add a nice story to it. I'm sure Jagex was having this discussion before the release. It really comes down to people's opinions on what a GMQ should have. It is my opinion that the story potential combined with the difficulty of this quest make it Grandmaster, but I understand why you would think otherwise. Just to clarify, a quest with a decent plot shouldn't be able to be summed up in two lines. "Kill nomad" "Ok" You got no reason why you were doing it and I honestly think it was just a fan service. A majority of people wanted nomad to turn out to be an enemy, and so he did. No, it was more like "Go see what he's doing there." And on your way he starts attacking you, and you kill him...

Jagex tried to put in a nice update. However, they were so obssesed with keeping it balanced and not over-powered, that they simply made it pointless.

Exactly. Also Well, I'm not going to give a detailed explenation, but- A. 'Love', as sad as it may sound, is only a few hormones in your brain, that, combined with memory- creates that unique feeling. B. Love (more than probably) exists because human beings need a "reason" to mate. C. As you probably already know, your heart is only a pump of blood, empty of feelings :).

I tried to join in at the very beginning and failed miserably after the second post. Anyway, archimage, you are failing to realise that homosexual marriage is already a reality in several countries in the world, and many more already have some kind of registered partnership or civil union, with large approval by the population. Also, the Church of Sweden itself was a promoter of marriage equality, if I'm not mistaken, so I'd say that there's no necessary link between it and the loss of freedoms you claim about. Unless your claim is that specifically the American culture is "not ready", then I see no basis for your fear and the necessity of working so slowly. After all, these movements have gathered strength for several decades now, at least in the West. And I still don't understand what's the point with arguing about moral relativism. I think he stated he's from Britain somewhere along the argument, so I think he's talking about the British population? As for the argument about righteousness... I said I think we should be fighting for what's right, Archimage asked who's to decide who is right... Tthat's about where it started.

That's sexist :P. Also, I could deduce from what you said that you think I don't get you, and is why I think you're arrogant. Wouldn't that further prove you are arrogant? (Lol, I just can't help arguing...)

I still see it as arrogance, but meh. I'm a girl by the way.

There's no link.

For 3 Prayer points a minute? Nope, not really.

So... is there a reason everyone is ignoring me :S? I think they removed the torso Str Bonus to upgrade the Defence Bonus. Now alot off people are panic buying BCP's and they go for 50m+ at world 2. They are probs hiding the rants. Thanks.

So... is there a reason everyone is ignoring me :S?

Wait, what happend? :S, I wasn't paying attention and suddenly everyone is saying Jagex screwed something up and is trying to hide posts on RSOF of anyone discussing it? What happens Oo?

Weird :unsure: ...

460, we're getting somewhere...!

No offence, but most of what you said is nonesense. However, I'm tired of that discussion and also think you're too arrogant to even have a 100% proper discussion. I'm also aware of how unreliable it sounds. I don't care much for that though, both because I think we've come down to personal lines, and because I know (and assume you probably do aswell) that this discussion wouldn't lead to a change).

See sense... He did something. He consciencly did something. He did something which he deemed to be right. If he did not deem it to be right then he could not have done it. This is a FACT. Maybe he was influenced by his body but he made the choice to rape this person. No one else made the choice. He made the choice and he deemed it to be right for him to do it. ...I deem it wrong to rape someone and lo I don't rape someone. I deem it right to have sex with a guy, if we both want to, and lo I do it. Its a very simple concept...Right and Wrong. I just take responsiblity for my actions as opposed to make excuses. ...If we accept your view then clearly it is wrong for us to punish him because he had no choice over the incident. He was an innocent bystander. Or you go back in time, kill Hitler and Stalin invades Europe and over 50 million people die in the ensuing combat, followed by billions more in the eventual nuclear holocaust as nuclear weapons are discovered. You don't cancel the injustice, you dwarf it. Your reasoning is flawed because you have't thought out the implications. All you have done is make a defacto statement 'I think Hitler is bad. Therefore killing Hitler is good.' and it's statements like that that really screw the world up because they forgo substative logical and pschyological process and instead rely on animal like instinct. I agree...There is a chance that things will turn out for the best. But its a gamble...and, like a vegas slot machine, the odds are stacked against you achieving the grand prize. I believe it is better to take five generations of hard work and get the bounty at the end of that, than to make one heap of all our winnings and bet it on one turn of pitch and toss. Its used to describe, not to explain.... For the way you describe the Right and Wrong cases, as shown in many examples both of mine and yours, I can simply deduce that we have different definitions as to right and wrong. You believe that when someone decides anything, based on weighing the possibilities- whatever his decision is, is right for him. I, however, believe (and the specific person to turn himself in believes like me) that Right and Wrong are terms of moral. According to my terms, one could perform an action he/she does not think is morally right. Each individual's moral degrees can guide him, but not choose for him. That being said, we can conlude that further arguing in the matter is pointless, simply because our definitions don't match. As for Hitler- It actualy did pop to my mind that killing him could bring more injustices (I didn't think it would be an act of the Soviet Union, more of something Hitler-alike to come from Germany, or some other country. not that it matters). I decided not to talk about these possibilities because I figured it's pointless. First of all, because you can't know for sure whether or not Stalin would do that. Secondly, because considering I do have that imaginary time machine, I could decide to kidnap Stalin. Here you may say that another leader would fulfill his role but, once again- A. That's not necessarily true, and B. There's a limited number of people who could take this role. With said time machine I could eventually rid the world of such deeds. Other than that, I'd like to add that- efnrocing gay marriage is in no way the same as killing Hitler because it truthfuly wouldn't have as much impact. You're forgetting that it's simply a new right empowered with a formal frame, is all. Also, it is not a gamble, and the odds are not against you. If you really want to name it, I'd call it an educated guess, even though I believe the name still doesn't quite hit the target. For some reason, I have the impression that you expect the world to enrage itself over gay marriage implemention, that we'd see riots everywhere, people burning down governments and whatnot. If we don't add the dazzle around it, I doubt people would still talk about it in two weeks, and I think that time frame is still too much. I also doubt the world would laregly and entiely accept gays as equals in any way in 5 generation, if we stick to our current approach. To sum up- Injustice is standing straight. We could decide we want to try and bend it 1/10 of a millimeter at a time, and hope it won't fight back. Or we could simply make it disappear at a cost lower than you seem to think of. Deminishing that injustice also does not create new injustices- gays are getting their right to marry, no other rights are taken away. Simply put.