tortilliachp

frm: Nutritionism's greatest failing is that of unacknowledged imperfection: people lie, break diets, and are just generally impossible to place in groups, control or otherwise. We're not germs in petri dishes, and you can't pretend that any evidence from unscientific studies can be considered fact. There ARE studies that refute the hyperlipid hypthesis. There are also studies that show prayer works. again, he outlines the two groups perfectly: vegetarians, and others. They have very similar behaviors, just as he outlines. if anything, that quote supports my statements. if anything, breaking diets would suggest that the vegetarians have even larger gains than 10 years added to their lifespans. you cannot deny the adventist studies and be taken seriously in a nutritonalist environment, they're that defining. you're trying to besmirch them by association because they "are studies" if you look at more than a hundred thousand individuals (!) as the adventist studies have all done, and follow them over decades, do you really think the vegetarians are going to eat less chocolate than the others? do you think these clearly religious people are going to lie when answering questioneers and participating in interviews? These factors are also all statistically taken into account, giving a margin of error, not 10 years, 123 days 12 hours, 34 minutes and 56 seconds longer longevity: rather a median with the highest uper and lower boundries given. the best studies, the largest studies, the most respected stuides, the studies the professionals rely on, these studies are more important than others. a study isn't a study. I'm sure we could find either a reasonable explanation for why prayer works (placebo effect) or a professional could find faults with the studies, the analysis or the conclusions drawn. It's a science, not a guessing game. my comment on the major points not being addressed by you still stands. do you refute the logic and evidence i've provided? do you choose to ignore it? or the third alternative (the unlikely one) changing your opinion based on new scientific evidence presented to you?

Say what? All scientific research? Who says there isn't positivic scientific results on saturated fats? As I see it, Ghee does pose a cardiovascular threat., BUT only if it is mixed with unhealthy foods. Allow me to explain.And please correct me if you see error in this reasoning. Ghee comes with hella lot of cholesterol. Which is good. Read that again. Cholesterol is good. It acts like a bandade to fix damages in cardiovascular system. Now, the problem arises when you eat too much foods which cause stress to your body, and damage the cardiovascular system, like exess carbs (insulin is a poison in large amounts) or vegetable oils. These are called inflammatory foods because they create inflammation in the body. The more you eat these stressful foods, the more your body tryes to fix the damage with cholesterol. See where this is leading? One day you wake up (or don't wake up) with clogged arteries, because there just is too much bandade! This is whats going on. You go to a doctor. Get your cholesterol levels measured, you got too high, which can cause you to get a hearth attack. Where does cholesterol come from? Foods with lots of saturated fats. So you cut the saturated fats. Now your risk of hearth attack is decreased. What have we done here? Answer: We have shot the messenger! This is not the cure! Because it causes another types of problems, like for example obesity. Cholesterol is a messenger, there is something wrong. And we shot that messenger. Instead we should have aimed our gun at the source of the problem, the real evil at the root. Inflammatory foods. one problem with that theory: vegetarians have lower cholesterol levels, healthier cardiovascular systems and lower rates of obesity. they eat more carbs and less saturated fat. . blood platelets are the fixers in the cardiovascular system, not cholesterol. the balance of HDL and LDL cholesterol in animalia increases cardiac risk. further issue: vegetarians live on average 10 years longer than others. their intake of the foods you label "stressful" you umbrella-term carbohydrates as inflammatory foods, when carbohydrate-intensive foods like sweet potatoes are anti-inflammatory. you're getting at sugars, not starches, which are the main source of energy in grains. http://www.metabolismadvice.com/anti_inflammatory_food/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbohydrate inflammatory foods include those with saturated fats: diary products, red-meats spring to mind. I haven't found plant oils under foods that increase inflammation, at least in my nutrition textbook. reducing the amount of animal fat (read: high degree of saturation) is indeed one of the main things to change in your diet to get a less inflammatory diet. Exactly! Vegetarians do live longer, have less heart disease, less cancer (except for colon, but that's a very complex subject all on its own: http://www.vegsource.com/harris/cancer_vegdiet.htm But that's because these are different people: one of the main failings of nutritionism is the idea that studies are perfect: the people that adhere to there results don't question, they accept. If you took a group of 100 Americans, "average" and all identical: non-smoking, identical diet, drinking habits, exercise routines - and made them all vegetarian, what would happen? Suddenly, they would be substituting vegetables, fruits, and massive amounts of grains for.... wait for it... a diet filled with industrial corn products, chemical filled pastries, pretend-meat hotdogs, and hydrogenated vegetable oils. Hell yea, they're going to do better than they were before! Vegetarians are more likely to be health conscious, to avoid carcinogens and sodium, and to exercise, care about their bodies, and make healthy choices (except in diet). As such, they compare favorably against the general population, who these days, is inclined to subsist on little else but beer and over-salted pretzels. // As for inflammation, I'm not very well-read on the subject, although I do have a fair bit of personal (anecdotal) evidence. Yes, I know that not much can be drawn from this, but enough that it's influenced my eating patterns. When I eat carbs (at times it is entirely unavoidable) my gums will bleed. They become so inflamed that when I brush my teeth, I will spit out blood. Literally. My knee inflammation is usually increased as well, although it's a very hard thing to track and I normally won't bother to record it. And the research that you posted is garbage: Wikipedia provides links to research, not actual research: for definitions, fine, but not for anything else. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18046594 and that's where the adventist studies come into the vegetarian question: their Christianity is based on eating healthily. the vegetarians in the group still do better, although they are as similar as any human population will get in terms of smoking, drinking, exercise etc. the link to wikipedia is only on the general, commonly knowledge that carbohydrates are divided in different groups with different properties. starches vs. disaccharides (sugars) , and their very different properties. sugar consumption isn't good, starches are. that's personal experience, not research or science. you may be allergic. And yet most studies draw from the pool of nurses, which is even worse evidence than vegetarians. They are, once again, being compared to the general public, whose health practices are not so impressively close-minded: many studies didn't and some still don't even account for smoking. What about fast food? Should we call everyone who eats burgers healthy? Of course not, it's "meat" dressed up in carbohydrates, a deadly combination. I am aware that it is anecdotal evidence; I presented it as such. How, exactly, though, can one be allergic to carbohydrates? There is intolerance, but inflammation is not a symptom of it. Intolerance itself is extremely rare, mostly misdiagnosed when the real culprit is gluten. http://www.preventcci.com/diagnosing/default.aspx the vegetarian adventists have their non-vegetarian counterparts as the perfect control group. that's what separates the studies on them from almost all other dietary statistics. that's why i mentioned that example in particular: it's too strong to ignore. inflammation and bleeding are not the same thing (which you know). you can basically be allergic to anything, it's just rare. however: this is the splitting of hairs. you haven't been able to respond to the major claims at hand the role of carbohydrates and fats.

I see where you're coming from, and largely agree, but is modifying the Lorentz force near the speed of light really controversial? I thought it was a fairly well accepted principle to account for the gamma function. well yes, it's modular physics, but what does that help? if the Higgs particle (but more importantly all the anti-particles) don't exist, that model falls apart. It may be a commonly accepted guess, but it's only an educated guess. That's why experimental physics is so powerful, why it's even worth spending the billions at CERN and similar facilities. You need evidence to check your model. Just look at background radiation and big bang theory: one seems absurd without the other; you need both. inferring too much on an unverified model will lead to false conclusions. but which conclusions are reasonable, which are not? that's incredibly hard to tell, especially when they all seem reasonable enough, because there is little to no evidence either way. If Lorentz force can be ignored close to the speed of light, we could theoretically observe vacuum Cherenkov radiation. find the radiation, and everyone will agree the Lorentz force model needs a revision. untill then, one may theorize, and publish interesting new research, but it's intelligent speculation at best. current theory dictates vacuum cherenkov radiation cannot exist: i'll wait for newer theory, or an observation of the phenomenon like all the physicists i've spoken about it with are also waiting for. However, lack of funding for sending the necessary detection equipment into space, where the vacuum radiation could theoretically be observed, means i'm not holding my breath. (I assume you know all of this even before my post)

Say what? All scientific research? Who says there isn't positivic scientific results on saturated fats? As I see it, Ghee does pose a cardiovascular threat., BUT only if it is mixed with unhealthy foods. Allow me to explain.And please correct me if you see error in this reasoning. Ghee comes with hella lot of cholesterol. Which is good. Read that again. Cholesterol is good. It acts like a bandade to fix damages in cardiovascular system. Now, the problem arises when you eat too much foods which cause stress to your body, and damage the cardiovascular system, like exess carbs (insulin is a poison in large amounts) or vegetable oils. These are called inflammatory foods because they create inflammation in the body. The more you eat these stressful foods, the more your body tryes to fix the damage with cholesterol. See where this is leading? One day you wake up (or don't wake up) with clogged arteries, because there just is too much bandade! This is whats going on. You go to a doctor. Get your cholesterol levels measured, you got too high, which can cause you to get a hearth attack. Where does cholesterol come from? Foods with lots of saturated fats. So you cut the saturated fats. Now your risk of hearth attack is decreased. What have we done here? Answer: We have shot the messenger! This is not the cure! Because it causes another types of problems, like for example obesity. Cholesterol is a messenger, there is something wrong. And we shot that messenger. Instead we should have aimed our gun at the source of the problem, the real evil at the root. Inflammatory foods. one problem with that theory: vegetarians have lower cholesterol levels, healthier cardiovascular systems and lower rates of obesity. they eat more carbs and less saturated fat. . blood platelets are the fixers in the cardiovascular system, not cholesterol. the balance of HDL and LDL cholesterol in animalia increases cardiac risk. further issue: vegetarians live on average 10 years longer than others. their intake of the foods you label "stressful" you umbrella-term carbohydrates as inflammatory foods, when carbohydrate-intensive foods like sweet potatoes are anti-inflammatory. you're getting at sugars, not starches, which are the main source of energy in grains. http://www.metabolismadvice.com/anti_inflammatory_food/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbohydrate inflammatory foods include those with saturated fats: diary products, red-meats spring to mind. I haven't found plant oils under foods that increase inflammation, at least in my nutrition textbook. reducing the amount of animal fat (read: high degree of saturation) is indeed one of the main things to change in your diet to get a less inflammatory diet. Exactly! Vegetarians do live longer, have less heart disease, less cancer (except for colon, but that's a very complex subject all on its own: http://www.vegsource.com/harris/cancer_vegdiet.htm But that's because these are different people: one of the main failings of nutritionism is the idea that studies are perfect: the people that adhere to there results don't question, they accept. If you took a group of 100 Americans, "average" and all identical: non-smoking, identical diet, drinking habits, exercise routines - and made them all vegetarian, what would happen? Suddenly, they would be substituting vegetables, fruits, and massive amounts of grains for.... wait for it... a diet filled with industrial corn products, chemical filled pastries, pretend-meat hotdogs, and hydrogenated vegetable oils. Hell yea, they're going to do better than they were before! Vegetarians are more likely to be health conscious, to avoid carcinogens and sodium, and to exercise, care about their bodies, and make healthy choices (except in diet). As such, they compare favorably against the general population, who these days, is inclined to subsist on little else but beer and over-salted pretzels. // As for inflammation, I'm not very well-read on the subject, although I do have a fair bit of personal (anecdotal) evidence. Yes, I know that not much can be drawn from this, but enough that it's influenced my eating patterns. When I eat carbs (at times it is entirely unavoidable) my gums will bleed. They become so inflamed that when I brush my teeth, I will spit out blood. Literally. My knee inflammation is usually increased as well, although it's a very hard thing to track and I normally won't bother to record it. And the research that you posted is garbage: Wikipedia provides links to research, not actual research: for definitions, fine, but not for anything else. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18046594 and that's where the adventist studies come into the vegetarian question: their Christianity is based on eating healthily. the vegetarians in the group still do better, although they are as similar as any human population will get in terms of smoking, drinking, exercise etc. the link to wikipedia is only on the general, commonly knowledge that carbohydrates are divided in different groups with different properties. starches vs. disaccharides (sugars) , and their very different properties. sugar consumption isn't good, starches are. that's personal experience, not research or science. you may be allergic.

the level 79 tortoise does as well. so far, all my wergali seed drops have come along with a herb.

if you're bored of rs atm: i'd invest in rares or furies (they can't really crash, without a jagex update). then i'd leave the game for a while and do something more fun. so that when you come back, as most people do) you have a massive profit to realize, and have all options open then. it seems like a waste of hard earned gp to use it on something just to spend it. up to you in the end though, if you want to play, i'd try dungeoneering if you haven't already. it's really different from many other features of the game. in dungeoneering, you'll find skills that limit your ability to open doors, make your own gear etc. that give you real goals, rather than just doing something. my humble opinion

furies wouldn't be a bad idea, if you ask me. they're basically retired as it is. I haven't heard of Jagex plans to reduce amount of tokkul for onyx' either, so i think it's reasonably low risk, with a change of significant profit.

because i can do homework / studying while using my left hand to pickpocket, and my right hand (and brain) to work with. I thus gain about 90k theiving exp more per hour, than by any other method :) good question though Wow, I never realized people multitasked like that :shock: Why dont you just do you homework, finish it almost twice as fast w/o distractions, then use the extra hour to play pp/ blackjack, which is way over 200k/hr at 90 thieve, so you'd actually get more exp. because it barely slows me down. some of us have to be lucky you know :P I think the coordination aspect of doing one thing with your head and one hand, something else with the other comes from playing a string instrument since i was 4. not everyone's average, some of us get lucky breaks :D

Say what? All scientific research? Who says there isn't positivic scientific results on saturated fats? As I see it, Ghee does pose a cardiovascular threat., BUT only if it is mixed with unhealthy foods. Allow me to explain.And please correct me if you see error in this reasoning. Ghee comes with hella lot of cholesterol. Which is good. Read that again. Cholesterol is good. It acts like a bandade to fix damages in cardiovascular system. Now, the problem arises when you eat too much foods which cause stress to your body, and damage the cardiovascular system, like exess carbs (insulin is a poison in large amounts) or vegetable oils. These are called inflammatory foods because they create inflammation in the body. The more you eat these stressful foods, the more your body tryes to fix the damage with cholesterol. See where this is leading? One day you wake up (or don't wake up) with clogged arteries, because there just is too much bandade! This is whats going on. You go to a doctor. Get your cholesterol levels measured, you got too high, which can cause you to get a hearth attack. Where does cholesterol come from? Foods with lots of saturated fats. So you cut the saturated fats. Now your risk of hearth attack is decreased. What have we done here? Answer: We have shot the messenger! This is not the cure! Because it causes another types of problems, like for example obesity. Cholesterol is a messenger, there is something wrong. And we shot that messenger. Instead we should have aimed our gun at the source of the problem, the real evil at the root. Inflammatory foods. one problem with that theory: vegetarians have lower cholesterol levels, healthier cardiovascular systems and lower rates of obesity. they eat more carbs and less saturated fat. . blood platelets are the fixers in the cardiovascular system, not cholesterol. the balance of HDL and LDL cholesterol in animalia increases cardiac risk. further issue: vegetarians live on average 10 years longer than others. their intake of the foods you label "stressful" you umbrella-term carbohydrates as inflammatory foods, when carbohydrate-intensive foods like sweet potatoes are anti-inflammatory. you're getting at sugars, not starches, which are the main source of energy in grains. http://www.metabolismadvice.com/anti_inflammatory_food/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbohydrate inflammatory foods include those with saturated fats: diary products, red-meats spring to mind. I haven't found plant oils under foods that increase inflammation, at least in my nutrition textbook. reducing the amount of animal fat (read: high degree of saturation) is indeed one of the main things to change in your diet to get a less inflammatory diet.

thing is, max cash isn't even the limit. you can store many times max cash on the ge. max cash in each offer to be exact. noone needs more than 10b cash. investing in items is always better.

I know we've been discussing about this before but saturated fat has got a bad name for no reason at all. except for as good as all research on the subject, i guess there is no reason. If you choose to deny science, few things have reason. If you choose to apply scientific principles only in some cases, they're not science at all. if all nutritional information is wrong, why would our governments all over the world still have the same advice? the lobbies in one country aren't the same as another. the money to be made in one country (if you believe the conspiracies) isn't the same as another. sorry, you're argument makes little rational sense. it makes no scientific sense, it makes no statistical sense (in terms of survivability and heart disease). you cannot deny science This is what Michael Pollan discussed in Easters Manifesto: it's the blind, unquestioning dedication to anything you're told. You consider authority absolute, scientists gods, and the doctors that manipulate their work un-erring dem-gods: to question is dangerous, to be paranoid is naive, and trusting necessary. How well do you think it would go over in these institutions, governmental or otherwise, to say that the sermons that they've delivered, the demands for blind obedience, were all wrong? That the very foundations of their work was a mistake, propagated by circular reasoning and fallacies that a 10 year-old could see through? Really, they have no choice, and bad science is experimentation influenced by emotion - what they've created is a monster of propaganda, corruption, and confusing and conflicting information. Saturated fat is not bad for your. Industrial seed oils, are. Olive oil isn't as bad for you, but butter is better. Ghee is about the same, although it's hard to find products to the same level of purity. http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2010/03/leave-your-brain-at-door.html hahahahahahahahahahahahahhahaha when you call Ghee or butter a health product, you ignore all scientific research. do you believe in the mathematical formulation of gravity? It was found with the same scientific methods as evaluating the cardiac risks of ingesting ghee. want to see some of the numbers for yourself, or do you distrust them, because a scientist did the work? http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/ayurveda-health-wellbeing/399907-butter-vs-ghee.html I don't accept science unquestioningly, rather, with a reasonable level of skepticims. However, when thousands of surveys confirm the same trend over and over again, when I've physically SEEN the testing in for instance the norwegian HUNT 3 project, when i've SEEN the same raw data cataloged later, when i've seen these things, you ask me to ignore them because they are science? skepticism is arguably important. However, it's a lot easier to be unilaterally over-skeptic than accepting fact as fact without considering possible, yet extremely rare cases of bias that may occur. there's a balance to be found before skepticism becomes over-skepticism. I happen to have parents, family and friends who work in the sciences. I happen to see how science works on a personal level. I happen to see how not all authority is bad authority (as you conveniently label it), because I've sat through board meetings as part of my regular schooling, without them knowing we were going to be there prior to us showing up. this is getting ridiculous. how can anyone dare to give dietary advice with no knowledge of science. food science cannot simply be ignored. statistics don't lie, even to a food scientist, publications don't publish junk if they can check it.

I can can show many different people that will tell you that if it wasn't for a sidewalk counselor, they wouldn't be here today. From one campaign, I can point to 2,811 verified individuals that are here on earth only because of the efforts of sidewalk counselors, and their mothers having a change of heart at the last second. Ever hear the story of the starfish on the beach? This is the exact same thing, except these are human's lives. I'm not in a contest with you to see who can make the biggest difference (and if we were, I'd hope you win: I plan on having a huge impact). But this is something that is happening locally which I have to power to influence. I also have this space that I can explain and defend my position. this does NOT reduce down to the starfish problem. These are human lives. I would like to save as many as possible, per unit time i spend saving lives. I'd say throwing the starfish effectively back into the sea so you save more of them is of greater value to everyone involved. Even those individuals why invariably die, whose deaths have saved more than a single life. this is about efficiency, not about spending more time saving more starfish. 3000 people is nothing in the grand scheme of things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation#Hunger_mortality_statistics cites: Ah thanks for that bold statement. you can influence this local phenomenon, but you can also influence the global phenomenon more. therefore you are (again indirectly, you don't seem to want to admit it outright) saying that the lives you see locally are more valuable to you than the lives you can save globally. Now i would call that valuing human life unequally. Do you defend that belief, or apply it only selectively? either way, i find it morally despicable, quite simply racist in the denotation of the word.

Objectively, I would agree with you, triquos. I don't care much for rares (I don't spend that much time lounging around or in any capacity to be wearing a rare anyway). To me, rares are merely serve as an alternative currency. However, since the topic is alive again here, I don't see the harm in discussing/debating possible solutions*. * I say solutions because of the quote seen in the OP regarding Jagex's original intentions for the items. Please, don't try to argue that there isn't a problem, as I think this topic is approaching the problem that Jagex perceives, not that the community as a whole sees. no. the "community" (read: rare haters) are perceiving a problem where Jagex have recognized that what they in the past would call the "mistake" of retired items fills a niche they otherwise wouldn't fulfill. I haven't seen anyone at Jagex advocate the need for a change, other than when the items were released (which is obviously now too late). there is no problem.

you're ignoring the structural flaws that have been pointed out in this topic. like how RWT would roam completely free with even a 500k free trade, in such ways that Jagex couldn't dream of banning the perpetrators. duels etc. are very easy to fake.

it boils down to efficiency: it takes a ton longer to clear all rooms, but the exp is only slightly higher. you gain less exp per hour killing everything. That's the information that matters to most of your fellow players.

guilt: that's what all pro-life publications that are liberally distributed in my area advocate: guilt for even contemplating abortion. smearing guilt liberally, where their views are illiberal and, you said it, absolutist. once you ignore the "individual background" of a woman, and condemn all abortion, i'm not going to infer you're a hypocrite, i'm going to assert the contradiction of your emotive views and your reasoned argument. you may call that whatever you want. I call that self-deception, or moral conviction overriding reason: Every dollar you have raised for pro-life organizations would save more lives if it were raised to feed those currently living, dying of starvation, malnutrition and easily curable disease. Is it about saving as many lives as you can? you've found your cause, I've found mine, which going by all statistics, i can help more people with than you are with yours. I don't think you can argue your cause as being more righteous than mine, more effective, more morally important, more effective or time better spent unless, of course, you assert life in a developed society as more valuable than the lives in less developed society. That is an assertion you indirectly make every time you raise money for a pro-life organization, and not a world-feeding one based on return-on-investment. we can't save everyone, but i'm saving more people than you are, following an even more basic moral tenet: applying yourself where it matters most. My argument does, however, demand that you believe that the value of human life is equal.

you could do the math on making wergs? dunno if herbs buy, but they're still about 20-35k street depending on who you meet. you could always get yourself an onyx for tens of millions in street (should take about 25 hours going by this other help and advice topic)

I know we've been discussing about this before but saturated fat has got a bad name for no reason at all. except for as good as all research on the subject, i guess there is no reason. If you choose to deny science, few things have reason. If you choose to apply scientific principles only in some cases, they're not science at all. if all nutritional information is wrong, why would our governments all over the world still have the same advice? the lobbies in one country aren't the same as another. the money to be made in one country (if you believe the conspiracies) isn't the same as another. sorry, you're argument makes little rational sense. it makes no scientific sense, it makes no statistical sense (in terms of survivability and heart disease). you cannot deny science What the hell are you rambling on about now? NorthernHero was agreeing with you... saturated fats are the "dangerous" type of fat. he's directly contradicting the advice that oils such as olive oil, which is largely unsaturated, is more healthy for cooking than butter, which is saturated. he's disagreeing with me, unless "written irony" has yet again been used.

You will not get anywhere close to 2.7m tokkul in 10m slayer xp. it takes (according to the help and advice forum) about 25 hours if you're maxed. you get about 5k tokkul a minute apprently

it would be easier for you get get acceptance to a university, yes that's how most education system i know of work. in that situation, qualifications count at least. (this is not a parallel to abortion, necessarily, however it's how almost all tiers of society function that way. wanna change the rest of society too?)

because i can do homework / studying while using my left hand to pickpocket, and my right hand (and brain) to work with. I thus gain about 90k theiving exp more per hour, than by any other method :) good question though

You forget one point I think. Because of unlimited trades, GE values will become the market values very fast. This way merchanting will be a lot harder. However, you do have a point about merchanting. I'm sure there is a solution to that as well, but that needs more thinking from my side. for rares, which is where merchanting is the most profitable, it won't. the expensive rares are only traded via trades, not the GE. only GE trades change GE price. if anything, GE prices will adjust a lot more slowly. manipulation would continue. Item flipping isn't affected by the relationship of GE values vs. real values (which is already merchanting based ONLY on daily fluctuations in things like armour and other expensive items), flipping would be even easier with the new system, as you could GE buy, and w2 sell or vice versa, GE prices changing more seldom. RWT will not be risky, people will fake duels, and not get banned. Just like in the past. they could even use dice-rolls from the gaming tools, or "find the bush placed by a third party first" or whatever. it'd be even easier to get away with it from before.

sadly, this seems as a waste of time: look at merchanting. rich merchants have high total. these players also tend to quit, or in the past, have had a tendency to sell off all their money to "start over" in terms of merchanting. This is also where the major RWT can happen: merchanting. it's so much more effective than botting it's not even funny. even just item flipping, you can easily make a 1% increase in wealth every single day. Say i start with 3 billion (not a far call for an experienced merchant). If i were happy with my 3 billion, that's 30m profit to RWT with every single day. converts to at least $30 a day, which would tempt a LOT of people. A few traders like this could saturate the market for high level players to buy their expensive 99s. I could easily save time overall, by mowing the neighbor's then RWTing to get 99 prayer, or herblore or whatever, and it'd be more sastisfying than actual rs. 500k a trade means 500k every 15 minutes. that is already basically limitless in terms of RWT, but very restrictive in terms of partyhat trades. majorly flawed system. please continue thinking though :) high lvl rwt, when done right, never got you banned in the past. Scythe used to prosper off high level traders. I don't know of anyone who got banned for selling cash, only foolish stuff. faking a stake etc. then trading the "stake" over and things made it impossible for jagex to see what was real and fake

do you want the fastest exp, or fastest money?

sorry, that's directly wrong. http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html That isn't our problem now. It may be a problem in the future, but that isn't our problem now. There are many many more things that you haven't accounted for, such as parents that would give birth and decide to keep their children, or people that wouldn't have sex if they knew there'd be consequences. But even if everyone that would have had an abortion put their child up for adoption, I'd much prefer to have a bunch of parent-less babies than a bunch of dead babies. either way, who's going to pay? Who's going to supply EVERYTHING for thousands of children, every year, until they turn 18? How much is the average american willing to pay? I don't think your new "anti-abortion tax" would get much support. you'd need a social democracy to pay for it all, with the associated tax hikes. how do you ensure they don't become b-class citizens, who have the bare necessities, but nothing more? who is going to take care of them all? where are you going to find qualified staff? Who's going to pay for their housing? your argument is based on changing the entire behavior of everyone who takes an abortion. again, it seems ideology solves all the practical problems.