1230abcz

From the original video, which is removed. The dude cleaned his herbs in .9 seconds.

OK, dude, you're an idiot. You CAN'T click 31 buttons in .9 seconds. You can't even move your thumb back and froth in .9 seconds. And you definitely can't REACT to each row of herbs being cleaned in .9 seconds, unless you have, somehow, bypassed normal human reaction time and increased it by over 20 fold. This is obviously cheating.

D Hally is the best weapon at TD's for specials, but not very good for normal attacks. I suggest using Hally + GS. Whip also works, but expect a lot of 0's if you don't have extremes or turmoil.

It's impressive... But not even close to being the richest bank in all of Runescape. Pretty sure that is "close" anybody with that many party hats is considered close in my book Oh [cabbage], lol. Didn't even see those crackers. The phats alone doesn't make him rich, but the cracker gives him quite a bit of leverage. He's "close," but not by much.

Spectral is much better than DFS in any Armadyl GWD situation. Also, Infinity boots are > ranger boots. You don't need to worry about range attack bonus while you're there, since with your gear, you have more than enough. All you need to care about is a decent prayer and mage defense bonus. With your current gear + spectral, you'll have one of the best Armadyl GWD set-ups there are.

It's impressive... But not even close to being the richest bank in all of Runescape.

Hmmm... Nice... I'm feeling lazy, so I might as well ask, lol. How many specs per bar? Edit: Found out. 5 specs per bar. Thanks for the help, Smapla.

Oh, sorry, I meant with the scroll.

Sorry about making another thread, but what's Iron Titan's max hit with scrolls?

Don't bother yourself with clans. Just go to the RSOF and join a team. Contrary to popular beliefs, the RSOF is very good for things like this. You'll certainly find a team for anything you need to do.

He's joking, lol. Those stats are great for GWD, if you have good gear. You can easily join any Bandos team with those stats if you have AGS, or trio Armadyl team with karils+

94-97 Summ, 91-92 con, and 83-84 farming

I've always liked Ludacris. His lyrics are nice and actually make sense. Drake is cool, but way too generic. I agree he makes some catchy stuff, but it all gets really old really fast. Too much of the same ol' same ol'.

Oh. My. God. This.............................x100 Check his log. He went from 24M-58M summ exp so far... Lol.

No matter how you look at it, you can't clean herbs in .9 seconds using any sort of manual clicking. That's 28 clicks + 6 key on the keyboard, which is still a ton of keys to press in less than "1 Mississippi."

IRL...? We don't serve your kind here...

This is the internet. Logic won't get you anywhere :shame: Lol, there happens to be a difference, my evil/less good looking twin.

In the first level of the Multiverse, there exists Parallel Universes. I don't want to delve any deeper than that, but this is "kind of" proved by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. There are three other levels. In the first level (the Parallel Universes), the same physics that are present in the Universe we live in are present in all other parallel universes. If something is even remotely possible in our Universe, it's also possible in another Parallel Universe. Basically, if God exists in our Universe, it must exist in all of the other ones. But, considering that God is all powerful, you can also say that God exists everywhere, but that's where theism and strict science kind of diverge. In the hierarchy of the Multiverse, physics changes as quantum mechanics behaves in eccentric ways. God could be an entity that exists solely in our set of Parallel Universes (note, in the third domain, an infinite set of Parallel Universes exists, all with an infinite varying degree of different physics), or one that is present in all types. There's just no theory that can explain the connection. I guess we'll all have to wait for String Theory to bring it all together, lol.

That was epic, I wanted to see that movie too :( OMFG, lol. That was so legit. I love the creativity. The dude in Lunar, lol. Best part by far.

But that's, basically, the perspective I'm trying to disprove. I know for certain that I cannot disprove God, and I don't mind the agnostic perspective. It's the theist ones I care about. Edit: I meant that both theism and atheism make rash assumptions about how the universe was created. In no way are they any different; just in how we perceive their reality. Whether it is that there is an infinite number of realities, each holding the precence of a different decision, or there's only 1, either free will is canceled or an omniscient God. I'm not claiming that free will is wrong and neither that it is right, only that an omniscient God couldn't exist along with free will. To point, I never said if free will was right or wrong. Also, I'm arguing that infinite Parallel Universes basically proves the notion that free will exists at some point, whether or not God exists along with it. The notion I stated can also apply in the opposite direction, in that you could argue that free will doesn't exist. If you didn't catch on, I'm trying to point out that, with our horribly inadequate intelligence (humans in general), we cannot argue either way when it comes to free will. It could be, as Vonnegut put it, that only humans believe in free will, but it could also be that free will is just a given fact that we cannot fully comprehend. Multiple theories contend for and go against this concept, with or without the existence of God. That was my point in that long and confusing section. Note, in my responses to these, I'm going to assume that I understood what it was you were trying to say... It's not very clear the way you wrote it... 1.) Agreed. Mankind has always pursued the dream of indulging themselves with the secrets of the masses, en masse. 2.) I really don't know what you're trying to say here... The last part is confusing, and the first part makes little sense. I think you're taking into account Man's interpretation of God, not the idea of God itself. On both sides of the debate, it's pretty widely accepted that Man is fairly stupid, and attempting to counter the idea of God by criticizing Man's views on it is idiotic at best. 3.) Sure. 4.) I'll agree it is, but only if everyone comes to the conclusion that arguing for/against the idea of God is completely inane. We have no perception of anything past our minuscule 3-dimensional field of view... Which is pretty pathetic if you consider some of the things that science is uncovering in the field of String Theory. 4.) Apparently I can't count... 5.) Sure. 6.) OK, this is where you really started to piss me off. You bring up some good points (granted, your "good" points are only relative to what I've seen on teh intrawebs thus far), but your assumption here is entirely ungrounded. You might be stating your opinion, but even opinions can be wrong. You say that the world would be a better place without religion, but fail to notice all the things that religion has given us. Morals, for example, stem from religious gospels of Man and Woman being punished by God for their crimes. Sure, you could argue that these laws would eventually develop with the "discovery" of the social contract, but, IMO, nothing hits as hard as the fear of being eternally damned. The social contract might apply to small communities, but if you're surrounded by 6 billion people, 5.999999 billion of those people wont give a [cabbage] if you randomly stabbed someone to death. If the fear of consequences hadn't been drilled into our heads for the past few millenia, we'd be no closer to the idea of God than we would be to the animals. Religion taught humanity to actually give a damn about what they do, and you can't ever take that away from history. 2. What I was trying to say is that a religion has to protect it's truth if it believes only 1 truth exists. Obviously, 2 contradicting truths cannot be correct at the same time. It can't be that both theists and atheists are right, so one side must be wrong. Furthermore, different religions contradict each other (even if by very small differences). A religous person that believes his truth is the only truth, sees other truths as false (other truths could be other religions, atheism, deism, agnoticism, etc), and thus should protect his own truth. 4. No, not that insane. I assume by insane you mean that since God couldn't be proved and neither disproved, trying to prove one side is right is impossible. But that does not mean that we shouldn't believe in what, logically, is closest to the truth. If, for example, I presented Russell's teapot analogy, in a way, I made 1 truth seem a little bit more likely. 6. I never said religion doesn't do good. I actualy believe the contrary. Religion had given people morals and thus had helped quite a bit throughout human history. I completely agree that logically, being punished for immorality, is a much better incentive to be a moral person. And yet I believe religion had caused more harm than good. 2.) Well, that goes back to Man's interpretation of God. Just because corrupt holy books contradict each other doesn't mean that the concept of theism does. And just so you know, my religion does not go against any of the mainstream religion. I'm a Sikh, and, still, none o your arguments against Man's interpretations of religion challenges mine. There are religions out there that encompass a vast array of beliefs, and "attacking", for a lack of words, a specific religion does nothing special. It doesn't prove/disprove anything. 4.) I meant inane, btw. There's a difference. Also, you mentioned the word "believe", which, in an of itself, is a contradiction in trying to prove something existence. Not to metaphysically beat an existential horse to death, but when there's clear doubt, there's no clear solution. It applies to all fields of science, including those of religion. 6.) Alright, that's your belief. But I'll note that it contradicts everything we've viewed in history. You can't put a pin down on religion and label it the cause of all sins, when, in fact, it's done the opposite. It might be causing conflicts in some parts of the world today, and some in the past, but they're nowhere close as atrocious as crimes that have been committed without the influence of religion. Don't differentiate crazy people with crazy religious people. They're the same thing and they exist on both sides of the spectrum.

I think they wanted to nerf it... They couldn't even do a system update to bump the graph up a bit to counter the rounding loss, which couldn't have taken more than a few minutes at the very longest. But if Jagex did nerf it, I wouldn't blame them. It was way too OP to begin with.

Pseudo-knowledge kinds of pisses me off... Just putting that out there, to whomever it might apply. If you don't know the physics behind a certain principle, don't attempt to paraphrase it to counter another argument. Just makes the argument that much more horrible. I think you don't quite understand the reasoning behind proving free will as false/true. A man without free will cannot really sin, because it wasn't his choice. If someone steals, for example, and the concept of free will is false, it wasn't him who decided to steal whatever it is that he stole, but the future that was set for him. For that reason, if free will is false, humans cannot&should not be punished for what they do (religously that is). If, however, the concept of free will is true, an omniscient God cannot exist. If someone (anyone, not necessarily a God) knows the future, that means the future is set, and is unchangeable (if something is changed, that change was foreseen by God, and thus wasn't really a change but rather the future as it is supposed to be). For example, long before you were born, God knew whether you'd belong to Heaven or Hell, whether you'd steal and murder, and even when, how, and why you'll die. So, it's either free will, or an omniscient God. The existence of both creates a paradox that cannot be solved. If free will doesn't exist, men cannot sin, and thus shouldn't be punished for their sins. If an omniscient God doesn't exist, that means the God many religions created isn't as people thought, and if they were wrong about one thing related to God (and as acute as whether God is omniscient or not), they could be wrong about more. They could even be wrong about whether or not God exists. OK, I'm going to express my argument with the least amount of flaming that I can endure. You don't know the pain I'm going through right now... Not being able to flame... It's... Like there's an Australian Bull Frog slowly making its way up my [wagon]... Slowly... For your first wall of words, I counter with my own: The paradox you mentioned doesn't make any sense because you're only taking into perspective the idea of theism. I'm going to quote my original response to Local's question: Expanding on that, the Multiverse theory explains how, even in the presence of God, free will can in fact exist. This is because even though God knows which decision you will make (assuming the existence of God), the infinite number of parallel universes dictates that the decision one makes is entirely randomized. In one universe, yes, you might be predetermined to make one set of decisions, but your "existence" (note: this is very abstract; as in a parallel universe, you are essentially you, but in another, you aren't, even though you are) in another universe is randomized so that those sets of decisions you make span infinity, therefore making it so that free will has to exist within any specific set. Taking a step back, this can also mean that since every possible set of combinations has already been determined in the Multiverse (there are different levels of Multiverse, so I'm not covering anything over the first level, which are Parallel Universes), then there is actually no free will. Everything that can happen, will and already has happened an infinite number of times. Considering this, one can assume that no one has any free will to begin with (this concept applies both with or without the presence of God). But, as I mentioned before, in any given set, an infinite number of outcomes can occur, so at only one set of values, free will does exist because probability assumes that that set of values can contain any possible outcome. Note, in my responses to these, I'm going to assume that I understood what it was you were trying to say... It's not very clear the way you wrote it... 1.) Agreed. Mankind has always pursued the dream of indulging themselves with the secrets of the masses, en masse. 2.) I really don't know what you're trying to say here... The last part is confusing, and the first part makes little sense. I think you're taking into account Man's interpretation of God, not the idea of God itself. On both sides of the debate, it's pretty widely accepted that Man is fairly stupid, and attempting to counter the idea of God by criticizing Man's views on it is idiotic at best. 3.) Sure. 4.) I'll agree it is, but only if everyone comes to the conclusion that arguing for/against the idea of God is completely inane. We have no perception of anything past our minuscule 3-dimensional field of view... Which is pretty pathetic if you consider some of the things that science is uncovering in the field of String Theory. 4.) Apparently I can't count... 5.) Sure. 6.) OK, this is where you really started to piss me off. You bring up some good points (granted, your "good" points are only relative to what I've seen on teh intrawebs thus far), but your assumption here is entirely ungrounded. You might be stating your opinion, but even opinions can be wrong. You say that the world would be a better place without religion, but fail to notice all the things that religion has given us. Morals, for example, stem from religious gospels of Man and Woman being punished by God for their crimes. Sure, you could argue that these laws would eventually develop with the "discovery" of the social contract, but, IMO, nothing hits as hard as the fear of being eternally damned. The social contract might apply to small communities, but if you're surrounded by 6 billion people, 5.999999 billion of those people wont give a [cabbage] if you randomly stabbed someone to death. If the fear of consequences hadn't been drilled into our heads for the past few millenia, we'd be no closer to the idea of God than we would be to the animals. Religion taught humanity to actually give a damn about what they do, and you can't ever take that away from history.

ROW only works for gem drops/d spear/left halves and stuff like that. Basically, only drops that every monster in Runescape has a chance to drop. Hand cannons aren't dropped by other monsters, so ROW has no effect. Also, I'm pretty sure it's a fairly rare drop, and that Dwogres have a higher chance of dropping them. However, I suggest killing mainly cannoneers, as they give you some hand cannons, which are worth quite a bit more than they were when they first came out.

Awesome, but does the defense bonus stack with Turmoil? Or anything for that matter?

Basically, over the next weekend, I'll have 97 summoning, and I just want to know a few things about Iron Titan and Yak. First of all, does the defense boost from Iron Titan stay on you as long as the Iron Titan is out (aka, is it a hidden (constant) boost, or is it right-click special activated), and do other defense boosting prayers stack with it (e.g. Turmoil)? For the Yak, does the scroll special bank anything in your inventory to your bank? How many uses per bar? I'm asking these questions because I wont be able to use either Yak or Iron Titan until the weekend is over... So I'm kind of frustrated/happy at the same time, lol. I just want to try them out :(