muggiwhplar

There's a difference between setting a goal and guaranteeing/promising that you'll accomplish it. Still wouldn't really matter, though.

Wanna know what is impressive about his lead on the second player? Nothing. They both quit school and everything for RS, so they both had time. Both have more or less shown that they can stick to a skill/nolife (I'm sure that Jake has the dedication to do slow skills). But Suomi was the one who got the majority of the donations. Give Jake the Donations which Suomi was receiving, and he'd have put a same lead on Suomi like Suomi did on Jake. Maybe Jake should've asked for more donations then. Just a thought.

I'm just saying you're being irrational, that's all :P And that just because the majority holds a belief, doesn't mean the belief is correct. Right, and if you've donated cash and therefore hindered your gameplay, your gameplay has already been hindered regardless of how Suomi spends your money. So don't blame Suomi, blame yourself.

The majority of people are against you! I actually really hate when one person defends themselves against mutliple people because they always think they are right! http://en.wikipedia....ntum_ad_populum Right. Also right. And they don't deserve any sympathy. Please tell me you don't believe this actually makes sense.

Nobody said that it is bad for him. Actually, it is very good for him to quit RS, it is good for everyone to quit RS. But he quit RS in a very bad situation; Everyone wanted him to get 5b in all skills, people were even ready to donate millions of gps to him in order to achieve that goal, but then, he just quits. Everyone is upset about it, everyone was so excited about the first 5b xp, and now that dream has exploded like a bubble. And his excuse is so lame: "I cannot trust jambulex anymoar", Suomi, try to like Jagex for a few more months please, and stop talking bullshit "I can't trust jagex anymore"; "This game isn't like it was before", stop that bullshit, you've burned out, but you don't want to admit it. Lol, it's Suomi's life. Let him live it like he wants, not how you want.

Your post gave me cancer. I'll assume that means you reluctantly agree with me :D

I'm saying it would make sense if achieving 5B xp would actually "benefit" him in some way. Whether or not it'll benefit him is always debatable because it's very subjective. However, in Suomi's case, Suomi no longer believes it's a worthy pursuit. And you can't argue with him on that one. He's doing himself a favor by cutting his losses rather than subjecting himself to further labor. A better analogy would've been people who are unhappily together after 10 years and refuse to break up. But no analogy will be able to convey my point perfectly, since they'll all be similar situations at best, and not equivalent situations. Like I said, my point was that cutting his losses is the wisest decision given his circumstances.

This reminds me of when people get more drunk than they should, then order another drink at a bar. They finish half of that drink, and then the bar is closing. They could either throw away that drink or finish it to "justify" the money spent on it, even though finishing the drink would be a stupid decision since it would make them feel worse. In other words: cutting his losses is the right decision if he's no longer having fun playing.

You're free to complain all you want, yes. But you don't deserve any sympathy.

They don't have the right to complain about it because they willingly chose to donate their money, with nothing guaranteed in return. It's as simple as that.

Agreed, but then what are the logical reasons for not getting a pre-nup? Well it wouldn't really be a sacrifice then, would it? :P

I'm sorry but it it's irrational to be upset about something like this what is it rational to be upset about? Seriously this would be my text book definition of something to be upset about, you invested yourself emotionally in something you assumed to be a safe, rewarding investment, and it let you down. On a side note, I didn't donate to SUOMI and I don't really care if he quits, he has every right to, but it's definitely a rational response to be disappointed if you're one of the people who donated to hm. Is it a natural response to feel upset? Yes. Do you have the right to act complain about being upset? No.

And that's a "risk" you have to be willing to make by giving away your money. And you can't be rationally upset for losing on a risk that you willingly chose to make.

Because it's not an investment. That money's gone once it's been donated.

Glad you realize that everything is done for a selfish reason. Surely now you also realize that it's irrational to be upset with Suomi, then?

If your spouse can't understand why you would want a pre-nup, then wouldn't that raise some red flags? It puts you in a very bad position in the case of a divorce, though. Co-owned assets -> Her assets. More reason for a pre-nup :P But always putting your partner first means sacrificing your happiness.

You can't blame Suomi for that. Nobody forced them to donate anything. It's called "donating" for a reason. Nobody is forced to donate to charities but if the charities didn't do what they promised to do everyone would flip their shit. And rightfully so. You're comparing apples to oranges here. Suomi is not a charitable organization. He has no responsibility to honor those donations. An obligation? Maybe. But a responsibility? Definitely not. You're comparing apples to oranges here. Not to mention the reason people donate to charities is a selfish reason: donating to charities makes people feel better (or less bad) about themselves. But that's another discussion.

Why are you undecided? Why do you want to co-own your assets? You're assuming that she won't ever change once you've been married for several years. I'm not necessarily talking about her personality, I'm talking about her behavior towards you. This is something you won't know until years into the marriage, at which point you've already put your chips on the table.

You can't blame Suomi for that. Nobody forced them to donate anything; they willingly chose to donate money and they have no right to complain here. It's called "donating" for a reason. The fact that you're genuinely upset with someone for making a rational decision despite all of his commitment is nothing short of ridiculous.

I'm beginning to suspect that you're content with infrequent sex. Not that there's anything wrong with that... But if that's not the case, then what are you going to do when she isn't in the mood for sex? Are you still planning on traditional marriage? Are you still planning on living with someone for the rest of your life? Are you planning on getting a pre-nup? Are you planning on co-owning your assets? What are you going to do if you want to do something big such as move to a new city, but she doesn't want to? What are you going to do if she wants to move to a new city, but you don't want to? Those are the kinds of questions you (and everybody else with the same "goals" as you) need to consider before making such a critical life decision. That's basically one of the reasons fueling the transition from 50s to 70s marriages. Not really sure what the point your point is :P

I'm in the same boat :D Actually, regarding your RS comment, I've found that most of my hardcore lifting buddies are/were also obsessed with video games and MMORPGs. One of them told me about a study they read a while back, stating that people who are into MMORPGs have a tendency to become obsessed with lifting also. Just the whole concept of "leveling up" and "growing" basically. Interesting to think about.

In the sexually repressed 1950s, basically men would get married for sex and women would get married for security (marriage is a requirement for neither of those things in modern society). Women had to "put out" regardless of if she had a bad day or if she was in a bad mood. Then during the sexual revolution, if the wife didn't want to have sex, the husband could just go sleep with someone else since everyone was all "sexually liberated." But nowadays if the wife doesn't want to have sex, then the husband has to either go to bed with blue balls or resort to pleasuring himself in defeat :P Don't wanna retype everything, so here's these old posts :P http://forum.tip.it/...00#entry5212086 http://forum.tip.it/...80#entry5303129

"Milestone" to mark the beginning of modern traditional marriage. 1950s marriages were much different from 1970s marriages due to the sexual revolution. Things changed again by around 1990 after the Reagan years and haven't changed much since then. Thus, comparing marriages post-1990 to marriages from the 1950s and 1970s is like comparing apples to oranges.

I wonder if the people with "happy" marriages as a result of tons of work and compromise are just exaggerating their happiness due to cognitive dissonance

Lol obviously it didn't just happen over night. But some things that were acceptable prior to the current era are no longer acceptable, and vice versa... and I think we agree on that. My argument is that in terms of traditional monogamous marriage, things have changed for the worse.