fakeitormakeit2

Exactly, there's no national language in the United States, people get way too pissed. I dislike people who get so upset when I speak Arabic in public and they're like "z0mg t4rr0r335t! 4hhhhhhh!!!!11!!!1!!eleven!!! 4r3 j00 60nn4 b0mb u5 4 aleh?". Seriously, extremely annoying. I want to use my knowledge of Arabic to work for the FBI but ironically people say I must be a terrorist, for "ah-laah", whoever that is, which is a strange name seeing as how it means on top of in Arabic.

Fads annoy me. Especially the plaid shorts fad...

Dogmas are generally either extremely specific or too vague to have any affect on one's open-mindedness. It has to do with being a drone who follows what one person says as a dogma. For instance the Catholic dogma on creation is so reconcilable with science all the conditions needing to be met are just that God is the prime and source. It doesn't matter if the universe was created by the Big Bang or some unexplainable occurrence, however people misinterpreted the dogma in their own close-mindedness and said God directly and literally molded the earth himself 6000years ago. Most religious persons' inability to reconcile religion with reason and science is out of their own egotism, self-desire or stupidity. But dogmas have nothing to do with close-mindedness really. My grandmother who is a strict Catholic and all that who went to school when nuns and priests taught and she knows all the dogmas and stances of the major theologians yet believes in Evolution and the "glory and marvels of science" as she puts it. And to romy saying you are told what you should do is not completely correct. The canon means rules in Greek. It is not called laws, they are guidelines. Anything in the canon can be dispensed in a certain instance. Dogmatic items cannot be broken, and they're reasonable things, like one should follow what they believe in as long as it does not infringe or effect others ability and is in accordance with their conscience.

We do? http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Shadow_silk_hood "The Shadow silk hood is a mage/range hood found within the Daemonheim dungeons. The hood cannot be crafted, and must be found as a monster drop. The player wearing the hood is invisible to any humanoids, provided they are not a mage or a boss. If you are detected by one of these, you will become visible to any other enemies. This ability does not affect non-humanoid enemies. It should be noted that when attacking a humanoid enemy from an invisible state you will become visible to all humanoid enemies in the same room and they will be able to attack you. "

Then the company annoys me for making it possible to play them at such a volume that breaks them. It's really your fault for playing them too loud. Sure, they make it possible, but it's going to damage the headphones over time, and it'll be worse for your hearing. As for things that annoy me, people who play music too loudly with headphones on, on a public bus. What's the [bleep]ing point of the headphones if I hear it anyway? And as an extension, those who play their [cabbage]ty music loudly on a public bus, knowing everyone else is going to hear it. I hate that too. It's one of the many reasons I hate taking the bus. I don't need to hear your damn hardcore techno music, nor do I have to see your damn [wagon] crack, so pull up your pants. On that note, I hate wannabe-gangsters, the ones wearing white baseball caps crooked and walking around with their pants around their ankles. Agreed :thumbup: There's this one really really really annoying freshman on my bus to school and he always blasts his music, worse he sings to it and he's so fat when he starts his bloody fist pumping and dancing he shakes the bus.

1. I can't disagree with you there. There are a lot of bigoted religious people. Mind you, they spit on their own policy, as the "religious" are normally so blinded by their fervor they violate basic policies of their Church. 2. I know you're talking about religion in general. Pope John Paul II (as did Pius X, Pius XII and Benedict XVII) made specific declarations on the non-conflicting natures of science and religion, which is one instance in which a few billions of adherents were told religion does not answer the physical questions. And God does not fill in the gap of knowledge for the ways we should act, etc. because those are a product of our own mental deductions which are just outlined in by things such as Catholic dogma. As I said, the reason why a belief in God does not excuse one from morality is that have consciousness and the ability to make moral deductions therefore with their own ability they should be able to reach the same conclusions of morals as one who takes them from Dogma. To be blunt, a disbelief in God is not damning, it is only considered being blind and one is not damned for being blind. 3. And I know questioning beliefs is hard to do. I use to not believe in God because I only heard dogmatic beliefs literally and therefore reached the logical assumption that reason and a belief in God could not exist. However, I was uneducated theologically and through a greater understanding and clarity I was able to see both reason and God. If people had the type of theological study I've had there would be a lot more believers, but it would be too costly and time consuming. Modern day mainstream presentation of religion has a lot to do with its reception, I greatly dislike the idea atheism 100% of the time is derived from reason. 4. It is an unfair comparison. In all the studies I saw it was like atheists/agnostics and than fundamentalists. It also doesn't take into account the modern phenomenon of the death of religion. I'm sure if you took the same statistic in the 1500's it would be extremely different and in favor of the religious. The high rate of dismissal of religion is an occurrence of modernity not intelligence. Obivously if one associates the fundamentalists with the moderate theists intelligence with drop as many fundamentalists do not care about the rationale of things. I'm sure there are many atheists who are not self-proclaimed atheists but are incredibly illogical. Terminology is also a factor as one may be something but the term itself is a deterrent to identify with and as such results are inaccurate. But need I remind you of people like Monsignor Georges Lemaître? The Jesuits? Etc. The Catholic Church funds and runs the largest non-governmental education system in the world and I would say our education systems are better than publicly supplied schools [at least in the US] and I say that in New Jersey, which is suppose to be the state with the best public school system.

This one doesn't hold much meat besides for the fact that people care about religion. Fishing is a hobby, and not one that would make you anywhere near a bigot, a homophobe, a chauvinist, a racist... To make sure no one misunderstands this, I'm not saying all religous are, I'm saying religion brought some people to be 1 or more of the above. I don't think it matters. The truth is the truth whether no one believes in it, and whether everyone does. Saying that religion is believeable because of the amount of people following it, is like saying I shouldn't question it because no one else does. The fact that many believe, is not a ground for the truthfulness of the matter. Romy, that statement is bizarre. The people who follow the Bible that are racist, homophobic, chauvinistic, etc. CHOOSE to be racist, homophobic and chauvinistic, the Bible doesn't make them do it. 1. You have to admit the Bible encourages it, especially chauvinism and homophobia. You also have to admit we'd have less chauvinist, homophobic, racist, etc. people, without the Bible. Ofcourse, there are homophobic(/chauvinist/racist) atheists too, and there are religous people who are not, but the stats show the average of each group is more inclined to go one way. Also, you cannot choose to be any of those, it's not that simple. Just like you cannot choose you likes and dislikes, you cannot choose to like cheese cake, you cannot choose to be homophobic. 2. No, because there's no "point" in believing in unicorns. Unicorns don't explain the unexplainable (such as why we're here, how we got here, where we're going to, etc), and a God does. I see religion as comfort. It explains what we cannot understand, it hands over some guidelines, it gives meaning to life, etc. That's why there are so many believers, not necessarily because there's "evidence". 3. I wouldn't got for "a lot more", especially since there are less atheists than Christians to begin with. 4. Not to be petty, but atheists are statistically more educated and smarter. Ofcourse, that does not mean all atheists are smart, and neither does it mean that being religous makes you dumb. Yes, it is an analogy. What I was pointing out is that this analogy only stands for fishing as a hobby, or even a way of life, rather than fishing as dictating morals and encourging bigottry. 1. You say the Bible instigates bigotry against several groups. I would have to disagree. One of the most well known Jesus quotes "love your enemy". Jesus is considered the final prophet and completes the word of God so His commands finalize all instructions of God. He also says not to judge least you're judged 7 x 7 times (which is emphatic language to mean a lot). Now there might be people like the WBC who distort the Bible and spread messages of hate, but the WBC are also denounced by every church who I have heard give a statement on them. The Catholic Church doesn't even acknowledge them as a church. 2. God does not explain why we are here, the physical processes of how we were created, etc. as those can all be scientifically explained. The existence of God deals with the study of the interior disposition and our international unity. And religion does not explain the unexplainable because every single confirmation, the bishop of my diocese always says the same cliche when he explains all this unexplainable stuff which fundamentalist religion says the Bible answers and he goes so now do you understand it? Usually everyone says yes and he goes good, cuz I don't and than rants on and on about how we can't and will not. 3. I think he means percentage. And there are a lot of gullible and stupid atheists. I have no statistic that compares the religiously education measurement to atheist, but I know of many atheist who are so because it is "cool" and the like. I'm not saying many atheists are like this, I just know of this type. Gullible and submissive has little to do with religious or atheistic affiliation more with personal inclination. 4. I simply disagree with that. That's your own baseless feeling of superiority.

I will work backwards as it is my preference for issuing a response. 1. Instead of making bigoted comments like you, I will mathematically disprove your statement on 1/10th of time dedication to church. Hours in a day: 24hrs x 7days = 168hrs x 60min = 10,080min a week Monday-Friday Schedule: 6:30-12:30 x 5days = 90hrs awake x 60min = 5400min Saturday Schedule: 11:00-1:00 = 14hrs awake x 60min = 840min Sunday Schedule: 10:00-11:00 = 13hrs awake x 60min = 780min Total time awake per week: 7,020min Time attending mass each week: 1hr x 60min = 60min Working time: 6,000min Free time: 7,020min - 6,000min = 1,020min 60min/1,020min = 6% of free time (And I was pretty generous with my "Working Time" because it figures around 2.4hrs a day of free time, while I probably have about 6hrs a day, which would make church constitute 2.3% of my free time) 60min/7,020min= 0.85% of time awake 60min/10,080min= 0.59% of the week Logical conclusions: (1) You have no ability to logically estimate, (2) you probably pleasure yourself for 2.3x longer in your weekly schedule than one attends mass. [Time active per day is based on my own life] 2. Logic is the study of reasoning. You're particularly ignorant if you think everyone is a fundamentalist protestant. My religion affirms all mainstream scientific theories such as the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution. It is assured in my religion that moral conclusions can be reached through reasoning, hence the belief of our God is not needed for the acquiring of a state of eternal peace if one is in accordance with logical moral conclusions. Religion as described by my faith is the study of the interior disposition and ways to proliferate our universal unity through charitable and kind acts and avoid those that goes against those. God is an incomprehensible being which is our overarching unity which each of us are connected by. Tell me what is illogical in that. 3. You say easily >50% of the religiously people are uneducated. You are uneducated for fabricating information like that. Please find me a study that concludes that.

1. People who use the incorrect term. I was talking about elitism and meritocracy and how technically how the richest people have shown their ability through their financial capacity and probably more educated than averagely funded individuals because they have the funds to purchase an expensive education that they would be more competent to assume a public office. A freshman was like "z0mfg, u r a friggn razizt, 5tfu." 2. People who stereotype the religious to be uneducated, illogical and submissive. 3. People who think they know about the Middle East and yet they lack the ability to point to Iraq on a map, as well as believe the Arab-Israeli conflict is because Al Qaeda is trying to kill all Jews. 4. People who want excessive personal freedoms to be granted. 5. People who say they are versed in politics but believe fascism and communism are the same thing. 6. Pragmatism, moral relativism, post-modernism, Zionism, liberalism, anarchism, populism. 7. The UN 8. When you keep picking something up and it keeps falling back on the floor. 9. When you date a girl and she ends being a completely different person than when you originally started going out.

I disagree. They have the right to voice their opinion and we have the right to tell them they are idiots and to stfu. All someone would have to do is say "OMFG! LOOK THEYZ AREZ HATE PREACHINZZZZZZ!!!" and goodbye freedom of speech. I may disagree with what they have to say, but they need to be allowed to say it. We have a free speech law here in norway. However, we have laws against public defamation, false advertising, alcohol and tobacco advertising etc. Does that mean anything constructive is barred from being publicly uttered? no. Do you deem the bleeps (censoring, limitation of free speech) in american media as a breach of your principle of free speech? I hate to sound condemning, but consider reality, rather than being blinded by grand ideals. What's the pragmatic value of NOT limiting speech rights within reasonable values that more than 99% of the population support? Why choose to mould terrorists because people should have a right to manipulation? We have4 similar laws here. I personally think some of them are stupid. For instance alcohol commercials are not allowed to show the drinking of alcohol. What are they hoping for, kids won't know what to do when they encounter alcohol, come on. As for the false advertising, they shouldn't be allowed to say that their cookies can cure cancer. I don't think that is free speech that is scamming. As for the defamation what do you mean? Like graffiti, or by saying bad things about people? I believe he means like the WBC.

It is in the Hadith Narrated ‘Aishah: "Allah’s Messenger said, “Allah is Kind and He loves kindness, and confers upon kindness which He does not confer upon severity, and does not confer upon any thing besides it (kindness)." [Allah's Messenger is Muhammad] Aisha narrated: "The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: "Allah loves kindliness in all matters." Baihaqani narrated: "Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said: "Allah is kind and gentle (to others)." Quran verse: "Truly, Allah loves Al-Muhsinun (the good-doers)." (Quran: 2:195) There are more instances in the Quran and Hadith but for practical reasons which you understand I won't find them all. Nor am I a Muslim so I find no interest in reading more than I have already in regard to what the prophet Muhammad has said to find them.

Unless you have proof that the Pakistani government is sanctioning the actions of the group of extremists I would say that's a very ignorant assumption indeed. The strange device in Pittsburgh was a pipe bomb that failed to go off. They had to divert the marathon route that went downtown because of it. My college had a group running to raise money for my Adviser's ovarian cancer treatments during this marathon, so it was a small shock when they switched things up like that. It would be somewhat shocking if this fellow who was responsible for the car bomb had just flown from Pittsburgh to Times Square...Seems unlikely. Like a terrorist attempting to maximize the, pardon the pun, terror. Conspiracies are more threatening than a single person acting alone. Wha? Taliban are not a "group of extremists" while they may be a group they are very much the true gov't force in most of those countries. Not ignorant at all, I've done my research.... have you? I don't know if we're thinking about the same Students (Taliban). Last I checked an anti-modernist, prohibitions imposing [without Koranic validity] to establish an idealistic Muslim state, titling your leader with a name only for people of high pedigree and relation to Muhammad when he is little more then uneducated, claiming right to the use of jihad bil saif with an aggressive and belligerent intent, the illegal seizure gem mines to fund themselves, guerilla attacks funding and openly announced by their leaders against their own ethnic people. It's interpretation of the Sharia is heavily extremist alone. And they do not constitute legitimate governments in the countries they periodically take over, they operate based on fear and they are leeches to the people who cannot repel them. Have you see the Taliban police towards women and the punishments for not following in accordance? I believe it was last year an Italian news writer [female] was in Pakistan in revealing clothing and smoking and she was shot in the head for her offense by the Taliban. Yes, completely normal. If they were true to their name, I wasn't aware students carry AK47s and throw women down flights of stairs for teaching children. Anyway, it is a shame these ignorant people disgrace themselves and tarnish the names of their people by these [potentially] violent actions. I don't understand what would be accomplished by detonating a bomb and killing the innocent in a major city. Even in the Quran were there is a Jew who tells Muhammad As Samu Alaika [it is a pun, as As Salaam Alaika is a common greeting peace be upon you, as samu alaika is death be upon you], Muhammad's "peeps" are like should we kill him for being a jerk and Muhammad replies no, Allah is kind and when a Person of the Book [Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism] greets you, you say Wa Alaikum [its a pun, which is the respectful conjugation of 'and also with you' normally used for the granting of peace]. These people contradict their own teachings, when one wishes you evil you basically scoff at it. Instead they kill innocents.

Unless you find prayer really expensive, as I do, spend a lot of time Slaying (drop tons of bones) and don't care about chaotic weapons. Agreed. I have no interest in the chaotic weapons and I want all my lvls to be minimally 65 so I might as well purchase the bonecrusher as I do frequently slay and not pick up bones. I never train prayer but I recognize it as something I need to train, while not having the money to train it (I'm trying to save up GPz and I only haz 52m)

How many hours does anyone think it will take me to get to 61 Dungeoneering? I'm a bit intent on just getting the bone crusher and then just quitting Dungeoneering completely :P

Maturity is the ability to understand, analyze and respond accordingly to a situation. People who are always serious in a sense can be immature in this definition as there are times to be serious, but there are also times to laugh and make jokes.

I've been soloing from lv16-44. The random people are normally very uncooperative and all they care about is picking up drops. So even if in a perfect theoretical way teams earn faster xp, I'm sure soloing is faster and more enjoyable, unless you know your team.

Thanks a lot

I'm currently on Floor 19 and the Complexity is on 6, but after I completed Floor 16 I can no longer make pouches because I still get charm drops but the smuggler no longer sells pouches and shards. I'm sure I'm on complexity 6, I use to summon in Daemonheim but I don't know why I cannot anymore. Thanks in advance.

Oops, I originally wrote .5kg but I backspaced and wrote it out but made it half a gram hahaha. I meant 500g but I want to retract that statement because that is a bit too much.

Well possession should be decriminalized. The maximum one can have on their person should be half a gram. Tax it 70%. I'm just contemplating how the DUI rates would go. DUI should constitute a suspension of ability to purchase marijuana and a second offense would warrant rehabilitation. Then again if this were allowed, other drugs should be more heavily regulated and a steady minimal increase of 1% tax per year on non-essential drugs should be issued, which I presume would eventually lead to the asphyxiation of the market.

If America didn't exist I think the world would be a similar place. There are going to be the fanatical "patriots" who say America is so great so it produced every invention since 1776 and there will be the people who are anti-American and say the world would be paradise. Well they're both wrong. Many inventions attributed to America were actually items being widely researched and chances are prototypes of said item were already invented in most instances, or at least the idea was not new. If America didn't improve upon the things produced by other countries, surely another country would do the same. As for the people who say the world would be not so war filled and such, I believe that another power would probably just have taken America's place. Large countries usually flourish for 600 or so years and then start to decay so it wouldn't be that big of a loss for the world if America did not exist because there would be a vacuum which would be assumed by someone else. Think about it, the mighty Roman, Greek, Persian, Ottoman, Russian, Chinese, English, French, etc. empires throughout the ages came to an end no matter how great they were or how aggrandized we make them in history. Time still progressed and new nations were created after their falls. Everything comes to an end, and with an end comes a beginning.

Well disregarding my religion and looking at my culture as well as my own judgment, such an agreement is considered zift which is basically taboo. The contract of marriage should be formed without prior reservations in regards to earthly possessions and as such a marriage made in purpose for or in the mindset of one's retention of belongings is wrong. In marriage you bind yourself to another and form one which should include earthly possessions as well. If in the event that a mistake is realized, it is unpreventable, unresolvable and you must annul or restrict your contract of marriage than it is up to the civility of both parties to give to each other what belongs to each other through a diplomatic means. A similar event actually occurred prior to my sister's marriage [ I don't know how others detail with inheritance and marriages and things of the sort but this is how my family and culture handle things]. So before the death of a person, the person gradually gives heirlooms and anything of worth to their children, grandchildren, nieces, cousins, etc. so that minimal amount of things will be left for arbitrary division with the matriarch or patriarch of the generation left to ref discussions for where inheritance should go, but the siblings of said arbitrator can in a sense overrule them by recall of absolute majority. My sister being the eldest of my generation has birth to what she was given, the first and most expensive heirloom [the appraisal is approx. $70k], by my grandmother as a nuptial gift at the pre-wedding feast the day before the wedding. My mother who is not that in line with the way we handle things suggested for my sister to have a pre-nuptial agreement written on it which she refused, good thing as we would have probably withdrawn the inheritance if she had. Why? Because her husband was being welcomed and made a brother and son of our family and to do such would have been such a tremendous insult to a new member of the family that the only way to rectify such an insult would be remove the element. I don't care if anyone has criticisms of this system nor do I care if you find it primitive, it is a logical method of doing things and I consent to it. I would never insult my wife like that because as soon as I married her and formulated whatever wealth and received whatever heirloom, it is hers as is mine. I would not conceive the thought of the divorce but in such an event the simple material possessions would be the least of my worries and if she uncivilly takes what is not hers, let it be on her own conscience. A marriage is not just the binding of two families, when you marry you marry a family and you join families as well. [Then again culturally our concept of marriage is completely different, seeing as how the marriage is completed with being crowned and not the exchanging of rings]

Exactly, thats why we should wear National ID cards but that would be "unconstitutional" because you can be tracked or whatever the hell paranoid "rights" advocates claim. People who are "rights crazy" think its like the only way you can be tracked hahaha, I guess none of them have a computer, cellphone, credit card, car with navigation system, etc. Why would anyone want to wear a National ID card? And why would I have to prove my citizenship to anyone by wearing a badge? Also are national security is the least of our problems right now. National security would keep people who aren't suppose to be in the US out. Furthermore workers visas should made easy for Mexican and Canadian nationals to apply for which will insure them minimum wage as long as they pay taxes.

Exactly, thats why we should wear National ID cards but that would be "unconstitutional" because you can be tracked or whatever the hell paranoid "rights" advocates claim. People who are "rights crazy" think its like the only way you can be tracked hahaha, I guess none of them have a computer, cellphone, credit card, car with navigation system, etc. If the American right wing convinced a huge part of the country that they couldn't afford the Healthcare reform that was passed how could the government ever justify spending huge amounts on a biometric ID card system that would be unfeasably expensive, difficult to enforce and which would just cause a general hassle to people going about their everyday lives. Because it is for the purpose of security and great many new jobs while social healthcare is basically an inefficient transfer of someone who has health care paying to a firm to someone paying increased taxes for an inefficient government program so they also decide to have private insurance and now the people who don't work have more incentive to work as now they have free money and health care given to them while effectively reducing competition, jobs and our status as a capitalist nation.