muggiwhplar

NIS sucks. I can't figure out where anything is. But in Jagex's defense, I've spent less than 5 minutes trying to figure it out and I'm also retarded.

Made a post on the RSOF nerf thread. Glad people seem to agree with me. [qfc]317-318-481-65274155[/qfc] Page 86.

That is only true if you aren't carefree about the consequences of being carefree. And that is exactly why most people are afraid of being carefree. "If I stop caring about X, then A, B, and C will happen!" The person doesn't understand that if you wish to become carefree about X, then you must be carefree about A, B, and C too. You can't half-ass it. If that makes sense. >_> Honesty in such circumstances are adding an unnecessary layer of complexity to the situation. Best case scenario: girlfriend doesn't give a shit that you're feeling needy/jealous and things continue as normal. Worst case scenario (and most likely scenario): she becomes slightly less interested in you and becomes more likely to throw drama at you in the future. You guys are saying, "So what if she throws drama at you? Just replace her then!" I'm saying, how about I just don't get into this situation in the first place so I don't have to waste my time replacing her? What happens when a guy replaces her with a new girl? He still hasn't learned how to manage his jealousy/neediness. He just has a new girl and now he's going to shoot himself in the foot and make the same mistake again. The only real solution to this problem is to cut the girl out of the equation altogether and focus on yourself because you're the problem, not her. I get the feeling you guys are taking this example and running as far as you can with it, going as far as to say that there's no honesty in the relationship whatsoever, or that there's a huge problem with a relationship as long as something like this remains unaddressed. Remaining "dishonest" about certain things isn't being cowardly; it's being smart. You've said so yourselves that you're not honest about EVERYTHING; and we all know why that is. It's called common sense.

I suspect that it makes you "happier" in the same way that drama does >_>

I'm not "afraid" of it. I simply don't see the logic in doing something that has nothing but potentially negative or neutral consequences. You'll have to convince me why being open about such things can make me happier in order to change my mind.

Because being a pure was superior (back in like 2004) since people would just wander into the wilderness for shits and giggles, underestimating their pure opponents. It wasn't unbalanced; people just didn't know how to counter pures at the time because not many people built special accounts specifically for PK'ing purposes. Once pures became extremely popular and everyone made secondary accounts they were no longer superior. After they gave armor strength bonuses, only the idiots kept building 1 defense pures since rune pures and tanks were top of the food chain by then. Meanwhile, Jagex probably benefited from that extra revenue from everybody's secondary accounts so they could fund some of the stuff that you enjoy. Hope you learned something. :P Is it just me or were the high-risk pures/PK'ers/stakers basically the "jerks" of Runescape, and the skillers and PvMers were always the "nice guys" that finished last? :P

I know that society would like us to think that "REAL MEN are open with their feelings!" But I honestly can't see anything good that comes from that. It's only going to make her less attracted to you and cause more drama in your relationship, and it's completely unnecessary to discuss such a thing. If you're going to be 100% honest, you might as well tell her about how you'd love to [bleep] on her sister's face too and see how that goes :P

They should've just rebalanced combat styles/equipment (and give every piece of armor a proportional HP boost so Nex armor wasn't so ridiculously broken) and left out the whole adrenaline/ability system in the first place. Instead they just overcomplicated everything and ironically made things progressively less balanced than they originally were. I think it's good that they're recognizing that EoC sorta sucks though. But they're too stupid to realize it'd be wiser to either go 100% forward or completely revert altogether; now we're just going to get a half-assed legacy system AND a half-assed EoC.

Sorry-- replied to your post last night just before I went to bed and was tired as [bleep]. Forgot to address your point about honesty... I advocate "honesty" with yourself almost all the time; the only exception being when you're in a personal transformational period, doing the whole "fake it till you make it" thing until you've successfully integrated a new part of yourself. If that makes sense >_> Being honest with yourself is scary because it's painful having to admit that you've done something stupid or wrong, or that you might've wasted a significant part of your life on something. But as long as someone remains dishonest, then they will continue to remain less happy and make poor decisions. And I advocate honesty with significant others when it comes to the big stuff. If you're unhappy with your relationship, you should probably figure out why that is and do something about it. But if your girlfriend is doing something that's making you feel jealous or needy or something, then being honest with her about how you're feeling would probably be a bad idea :P Better to just keep it to yourself and figure out why you feel that way and fix that on your own. As far as my own personality goes, yes I can almost always tell when I'm being an idiot and when I'm making stupid decisions. By now my brain basically "knows" that if I'm making a decision based on fear (or any other negative emotion, such as laziness), then I'm probably being stupid and making a poor decision. The first half is actually being able to know when you're being stupid; the second half is changing your behavior so you make smarter decisions. So if I ever feel unhappy, I usually know exactly why that is-- it's because I did something (or didn't do something) based on my own fears or laziness or whatever. I never feel sorry for myself because I know it's my own fault that I'm feeling that way. And the only way for me to quit feeling that way is for me to change and do something about it. Hope that answers your questions >_>

Well no, like BD mentioned in those links I posted a few posts back, women do desire betas at certain points in their lives. They like having someone to be able to control, especially if their current/previous partner was an alpha whom she couldn't control. They like betas because beta will give them lots of attention, spend money on them, listen to their problems, give them babies, etc. Keep in mind alphas could do all those things too I guess... but just not really to the degree that a beta will be willing to do it. Pretty much yup. The whole alpha beta thing sort of is a pecking order, depending on where your priorities are. If you want to be consistently happy (and basically everybody does, whether they realize it or not), then it'd be insane not to pursue "alphadom." And again, all that means is being confident and carefree. No harm in that. As far as therapy goes, unless they have a seriously legitimate disorder, I don't think it's really necessary. These kinds of things can be fixed by reading forums and self-help books and then putting the advice into action. Most people in this thread just haven't been pushed enough to want to break the cycle so they keep repeating the same behaviors. I've said before that I had social anxiety when I was in high school, but it went away pretty quickly when I joined my fraternity and spent all of my time around guys who had very strong social skills; as opposed to spending all of my time in my room by myself.

Also... it's funny how the only way to present a strong argument in here is to argue as logically as possible. Yet in doing so, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people here think I'm just an insensitive [wagon] :lol: As much as I'd love to appeal to emotions, and have people be more open to my ideas, my ideas would no longer be as valid and rational if I were to do that, unfortunately. #INxJ-problems

No that's not true at all. Just because I don't get depressed if someone I care about exits my life doesn't mean I'm afraid of becoming close to people. And just because I'm close to someone doesn't mean that I'm going to become depressed if something happens to them. I just view the world differently than most people do. So I react to things differently than most people do too. I think you're falling into the trap of thinking that in order to be "close" to someone, you have to put your heart (happiness) on the line or else you're somehow cold/shallow/immature/afraid/lonely/selfish... which is actually the opposite of how you should be dealing with these kinds of things. And I think you're assuming that since I do my best to view things as rationally as possible without emotional interference, that I also am completely emotionless in my relationships too. Which isn't true either. Your emotions have a very specific purpose in your life, and so does your rational mind. Use your rationality for long-term decision making and planning, and then use your emotions to enjoy the process of working towards those plans and enjoying the rewards of doing so. Most people use their emotions for long term planning and then can't figure out why their lives are so chaotic. The friendships and relationships that I have with others are by far my greatest source of happiness. But just because I put a high value on my relationships doesn't mean I'm going to bend over backwards for them or sacrifice my happiness and wellbeing for them. As much as I love my friends, family, and women, my number one priority in life is myself; my own happiness and wellbeing. Some people will call that selfish. But the people that call that selfish are usually the same people who get their hearts broken and live emotional rollercoasters, going in and out of depression. No thanks. I'd rather be happy and judged by unhappy people than be unhappy and validated by other unhappy people. I'd also argue that I would be a worse friend/family member/son/sibling/lover if I wasn't so happy. That's part of the reason why people enjoy my presence-- I'm different from other people. I make people forget about their problems when they're around me because I'm so carefree. And I make my friends feel really special and good about themselves. All that I ask is that people treat me with respect and don't bring drama/negativity into my life; and I will return the favor. :P

a cool guy that people get along with... he just isn't really confident or experienced with women so he's susceptible to all the usual things that being a beta entails. being beta doesn't mean you're a loser or anything. it just means you're not confident and not carefree when it comes to women. you avoid taking risks.

Yeah just sounds like a "cool" beta

You might want to read this and this if I'm still not making sense. Hopefully you'll understand his articulation of the concept better than mine >_>

I'm not talking about caring about someone in the sense of "this person means a lot to me." I'm talking about caring in the sense that, your relationship and this woman hold extreme weight over your own happiness. Alphas are happy regardless of their relationship status and their women's behavior. Betas and needy alphas depend on their partners to behave in a certain way in order to remain happy. If you depend on luck to get laid and meet women, you're a beta by default because you lack confidence. If you have control over your sex/dating life, then you're either a needy alpha or an alpha because you're confident. When you're in a relationship, if you worry about what your girlfriend does when she's not around you, or if you worry about what would happen if you two broke up, or if she cheated on you, etc; then you're either a beta or a needy alpha because you're not carefree. I'm talking about relationships. You're talking about careers, which is irrelevant to the discussion. I think you're just underestimating how predictable human beings are in modern relationships.

No you're making this too complicated. It's as simple as a yes or a no, on the following qualities: carefreeness; confidence. Beta: not confident; not carefree traditional needy alpha: confident; not carefree Alpha: confident, carefree That's it. Depending on a woman's current circumstances, she will either prefer a lover (needy alpha or alpha) or a provider (beta). Ideally, she'll have both at the same time. The problem is: 1. Monogamy means women cannot have both. 2. Alpha and beta traits are mutually exclusive; therefore one man cannot be both a lover and a provider and fulfill both of her needs (not for an extended period of time, at least). She needs multiple men to accomplish this. If she's smart, she'll have both in her life at once, as opposed to constantly bouncing back and forth between the two extremes via monogamy. You already seem to realize this though, even if you seem reluctant to further examine the implications of it. The "middle ground" in a relationship is polyamory; with one night stands on one end of the spectrum and traditional monogamous marriage on the other end. And the best type of man to be for polyamory is an alpha, because it is the only type that can handle it. The other types are far too needy and controlling.

If you can find a man who is capable of fitting the "job description" of #4 forever (not just for a few years); and you can develop a reliable, tested system to teach other men how to become a permanent #4, you'd become the richest person in the world. :P there's a reason why women are the ones who initiate the vast majority of breakups...

I can't really think of any ways in which legitimate alphas are flawed (as far as he's concerned) Betas are [kitties] who, if they're lucky, will get laid and get into a relationship and pedestalize their girlfriends. Their girlfriends will get bored quickly and eventually want someone more confident and exciting. The stereotypical "nice guy." There's the "traditional alpha" who's confident and gets laid a lot, but he's super needy and territorial and needs to control everyone in his life and needs to be heard and respected by everyone, or else he'll fly into hysterics and create massive drama. The stereotypical "jerk." As I've said before, the vast majority of men belong to one of those two categories, so women are led to believe that men are either nice guys or jerks; black and white. So they bounce back and forth between those two types, wondering, "Where are all the good men?" And finally there's the "real" alpha who's confident and carefree. He gets laid easily whenever he wants and women never have to worry about getting bored of him or being controlled by him because he doesn't give a shit about controlling other people. He has bigger fish to fry and women are not the center of his universe. The only "flaw" that an alpha has is that he cannot be monogamous without slowly regressing into a needy alpha or a beta. Which is why women eventually (but temporarily) leave this guy to go date nice guys or jerks; because at least those guys will promise exclusivity, even if deep down they know it's a promise that is impossible to keep. Everybody wishes that there was another type of man-- a man who's confident, carefree, and who will always remain exclusive and loyal to his one special woman and never bore her or cheat on her or boss her around. But that man does not exist because it is impossible for such a man to exist. Exclusivity demands neediness and control. So women have to choose between: 1. dating a guy who will treat her very nicely, but will be way too needy eventually bore the shit out of her 2. dating a guy who will turn her on, but will treat her poorly and eventually become too overbearing for her 3. dating a guy who will turn her on and treat her very nicely, but will never stop seeing other women too

They all have more or less the same biological functions, thoughts, and desires. That concept makes some people uncomfortable though since it conflicts with the idea that there's a perfect little angel out there somewhere that's not like the rest

Not sure why people would vote for double drops since most people will eventually spend their money and profits on XP anyways

He's going to have a hard time getting to know things from a female perspective without having a sexual relationship with a girl. The "female perspective" you're referring to is just going to confuse him. Girls telling him what they "want" and then having their actions completely contradict everything they tell him. e.g. "I just want a nice boyfriend!" *goes and hooks up with a jerk and starts dating him*

IDK if that's necessarily a good idea. Developing a "close" friendship with a woman whom you're not having sex with is playing with fire. Even if she's unattractive, sooner or later he's probably going to develop feelings for her.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/351263?uid=3739920&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21103354754177 http://jfi.sagepub.com/content/7/2/131.short http://opr.princeton.edu/seminars/KohlerF03.pdf Just do a Google search if you want more. You could also ask your own parents if you want. :P I'll never forget when I was in college, my roommate and I visited his aunt and uncle for some party. His aunt had a few drinks in her, and started crying when she lamented about how after she had kids, her life was no longer about her; it was about them. Not necessarily true, but it does reinforce the fact that blindly following societal programming makes you very unhappy.

Bought supreme jack of trades... still have 236k loyalty points. are any of the tier 5 auras worth buying