death666bl00ms

Pessimist or realist? I repeat, explain the world today. Heck, if you are more comfortable, explain RS today. It has been COMPLETELY changed from the beginning. How many of those changes have been in response to scanners, hackers, and cheaters?

Actually, I'd probably bend that guy's arm backwards at the elbow so that he couldn't hurt John. I don't think I'd trust anyone to save John if they'd already shot me. We do do things for society. It's what makes us social. Buy your friends a drink? yep, you'll do that. Give a friend a kidney? Sure, all that second one is doing is making you drunk half as long anyways. Give a dollar to someone who claims to be getting fresh water to haitian orphans.... well, don't want somebody to see us not doing that. Take a bullet for a compleate strange in the heat of the moment? Maybe. Offer your suicide in the form of political protest? Heck damn no, that's crazy talk. As per these examples, the magnitude of the sacrifice does count. We? You got a mouse in your pocket? :lol: While that may be great, reality is humans as a whole are selfish. People do not do thinks for society, they do it for themselves. It is capitalism at it's best. It is what America was built off of. Doubt it? Explain the current economy then.....

That logic is fallacious. Flipping is not an "all or nothing" event. If I choose to flip, there is one more flipper, so more items are flipped. Flipping increases as does the inconvenience to others. You are the one at fault, and your try is creative, abeit disregards some vital factors. you cannot selectively apply your theory to only a few events, for any logic or reasoning to function it must be applied unilaterally. Flipping is here to stay, but the effects of flipping are highly variable. That is where your theory is completely invalid, and your logic falls on its own premise. My first statement makes COMPLETE sense, I must not have explained it clearly enough: you are selectively applying the theory. For every individual that chooses to flip, or not to flip, the overall societal effects of flipping change. If I put 3 billion into flipping rune plates, 3 billion gp more is spent on flipping rune plates, and the economic impact on rune plates is significant. With the GE system and individuals with capital, me flipping influences the prices and how they will update. I as an individual have a measurable efffect on that. I am not doing anything for the good for society, I perform an action, and it reflects upon society and how society develops. *facepalm* You clearly missed both points. Doing things for the good of society makes no sense and goes against everything that makes us human. So, if someone held a gun to your head, and told you that you must die so John can live, you would say "ok, I'll die" b/c John is doing more good for society? BS. You would fight to survive. To say that people do things for society and not for themselves is ignorant at best. "That logic is fallacious. Flipping is not an "all or nothing" event. If I choose to flip, there is one more flipper, so more items are flipped. Flipping increases as does the inconvenience to others. You are the one at fault, and your try is creative, abeit disregards some vital factors." Once again, you failed to miss what I was saying. The "all or nothing" means that flipping is either here, or it is not here. THAT was the comment I was referring to. Someone mentioned earlier that flipping is "here to stay", insinuating that it is, once again, all or nothing. Your example was something that is ALWAYS present, just in varying degrees. Now, keep in mind I am not saying that I agree that flipping is an all or nothing event. My comment was merely in retort to the comment that flipping is here to stay.

Would you apply wasted vote theory to the global warming issue? No, because it is not an all or nothing result. It is not "If the majority of people go green, then Global Warming will not occur. Conversely, if the majority emit excess greenhouse gases, Global Warming will occur." It is more "Each person contributes to global warming in one way or another." It does not function on a macro-demographic level, only on an individual basis. Agreed. However, my point still stands.Otherwise the conclusion is that everything is inevitable based on the size of the human population. Not following you on this one. I am looking solely at the individual level, not the macro level. And my point still stands. You can't tell someone to "vote for Obama, and he will be elected." That is flawed; your voting of Obama will have absolutely no effect to his being elected, as I will cancel out your vote. This conclusion is clearly flawed, as individuals such as Nobel, Einstein, Keppler, Freud, Bush and Tiger Woods influence humanity as a whole to some extent. In keeping with the "wasted vote" concept, their votes are worth much more than yours or mine. So you basically said you're only applying the theory on the individual level, not so the overall societal effects may be observed. That makes little to no sense. Actually, doing things for the good of society makes little to no sense. "not an all or nothing result" ---> i chose my example with care. Flipping is not an all or nothing result either, every person's individual choice has a slight macro-economic impact. thus all my conclusions remain valid. :D Wrong. Good try though. Once again, my statement is in regards to the "flipping is here to stay" concept. It is an all or nothing result.

Would you apply wasted vote theory to the global warming issue? No, because it is not an all or nothing result. It is not "If the majority of people go green, then Global Warming will not occur. Conversely, if the majority emit excess greenhouse gases, Global Warming will occur." It is more "Each person contributes to global warming in one way or another." It does not function on a macro-demographic level, only on an individual basis. Agreed. However, my point still stands.Otherwise the conclusion is that everything is inevitable based on the size of the human population. Not following you on this one. I am looking solely at the individual level, not the macro level. And my point still stands. You can't tell someone to "vote for Obama, and he will be elected." That is flawed; your voting of Obama will have absolutely no effect to his being elected, as I will cancel out your vote. This conclusion is clearly flawed, as individuals such as Nobel, Einstein, Keppler, Freud, Bush and Tiger Woods influence humanity as a whole to some extent. In keeping with the "wasted vote" concept, their votes are worth much more than yours or mine.

Wasted vote theory. My not selling at min/max won't change jack. I am not telling you to try to change [cabbage]. I am saying if you don't LIKE flipping then don't sell to them or buy from them. Your two sentences taken together suggest that if I stop selling at min/max, then item flipping stops. If that isn't what you were implying, then I apologize.

Wasted vote theory. My not selling at min/max won't change jack.

Anyone know the current prices on Santa's and Blue H'weens? I think santa's are around 60m, but not sure....

Any items I should keep for sure? I know the rares and the Fury. Anything else?

Yes, you're crazy if you're not quitting. Not quitting, and I have enough left in my bank to still do the things I enjoy. Am I crazy about the offer though? I.E., is there any chance I will be able to get a purple for this? There's always a chance but I don't think most people selling p hats are looking for large amounts of random things sadly. Yea, that is a problem. Do I sell the more stable items to raise that cash pile a bit?

Yes, you're crazy if you're not quitting. Not quitting, and I have enough left in my bank to still do the things I enjoy. Am I crazy about the offer though? I.E., is there any chance I will be able to get a purple for this?

Just posted this on RSOF. Am I crazy, or do I have a shot? Ok guys, I am breaking my bank for a purple.... Here is what I have to offer: 1 X Blue H'ween 4 X Santas 1 * Hexcrest 1 X Amulet of Fury 15 * Dragon Boots 1 * Berserker ring 1 X Guthan Set 1 * Verac Set 1 * Whip 1 X Archers' Ring 1 X Torag Legs 1 * Dragon Legs 1 * Dragon Hatchet 36 X Amulet of Glory 1250 X Super Attacks 500 X Super Defence 300 X Super Strength 7000 X Pure Essence 16000 X Coal 1000 X Toadflax 500 X Irit 8000 X Blood Runes 12000 X Nature Runes 5500 X Yew Logs 3.5 Million geepees This comes out to a total of 298,711,225. Let me know if you are looking for anything else, I can see what I have in the bank.

Just got a hexcrest. Any idea on the worth of it?

So, I have 4 santas and a blue h'ween mask. How close am I to having a Phat again? God, I wish I didn't sell my red phat back in the day....

Maserati MC-12

im hoping that merchants do chose it, then it forces jagex to adress the broken tzhaar shop problem Mind expanding on that? I haven't heard about that before....

Slayer, lol.

Any news on h'ween masks? Should I dump my blue, and buy back later? Also, what about santas?

You actually can't compare an addiction which will leave you with no state of mind, completely unaware of life, with an addiction to playing RuneScape. That's just madness. Her playing RuneScape 9 hours a day won't kill her - if someone was on drugs for 5 years, that might leave them with nothing in life. Do you see? Yes, I have actually worked with people with drug and alcohol addictions. They don't particularly "enjoy" it, at all. But it's something they can't live without. If this persons internet went out, I'm sure they could live without RuneScape and won't go to any extremes. You can't compare drug or alcohol addiction with RuneScape, you can agree that they are "addictions", but being addicted to RuneScape will not kill you, unless you're depriving yourself of the basics which one actually needs to survive. You won't end up 5 years later not being able to construct a sentence - or doing basic things in life. There are crazy records, you and I both know that. But there's noteable ones which people actually care about, just like this one. If we didn't care, we wouldn't be posting. If people didn't care for the most hours playing an MMO, they wouldn't have released it, or any the "Gamers edition" of the Guinness Records. If shes spending 9+ hours a day on Runescape she probably doesnt get much excercise and probably doesnt have too strong of relationships with people outside the game. She probably neglects her family (or whoever takes care of her...) doing the math its near impossible for her to play runescape as much as she does, get a healthy ammount of sleep AND hold a job. And if she does this then theres no way she has time for excersise talking with family or even EATING or going to bathroom. The more likely case is that she IS addicted to Runescape like a heroin addict. And contrary to what you say 5 years of inactivity and over eating CAN kill you. Granted its not runescape doing the damage its her lifestyle BUT Runescape is the reason for her inactivity so it is the cause. She probably doesnt have a healthy heart, is over weight, and who knows might have a range of health problems because of it. My example is Vandrilla, Runescape IS NOT the reason she was sick, but if you look at her thread for Ellebreyals, when she finally quit her legs were so weak from lack of use she got hurt from walking down the block. tl;dr Runescape CAN be as bad as heroin as this lady needs help. Hate me for saying it but i find this acheivement to be disgusting, its like congraduating a Heroin adict or someone that abuses vicoden for 5 years straight Holy [cabbage]....I don't know why I keep trying. People: JUST BECAUSE YOU LIVE YOUR LIFE ONE WAY DOES NOT MEAN EVERYONE LIVES THEIR LIVES THAT SAME WAY. For instance: This person is a construction worker, in a family run business. He/she is 18 y/o. Construction (if any of you have actually worked it) pays extremely well. It is entirely possible to live working construction, working less then 30 hours a week. In this case, you have someone who A) Exercises daily, B ) Works with their family, and C) Make enough money to live, while still having a lot of free time to play RS. Once again, you guys should really stfu about other people. You know nothing about their lifestyle. I have already done the math earlier in the thread showing that it is plausible for me to be averaging over 10 hours a day, while still holding a job. Conversely, I could average 7 hours a day, while holding a job and "having a life". Its possible but unlikely. You CAN average 7 hours a day but DO you average 7 hours a day EVERYDAY for 5 years. Thats not even the same as 9+ hours a day EVERYDAY for years. Other websites have said her daily average is closer to 9 and a half hours a day. i doubt you COULD do this. if you did it would eat away at your life. I guarantee it. This isnt about lifestyles this is about whether such an unhealthy amount of time spent on an online game is considered an achievement. You say yes and i say its like celebrating a drug addict. Lets agree to disagree because clearly were not going to change eachothers opinions Even better, let's agree to not put words into each others mouth's. I NEVER said that it is an achievement. I am simply saying that until you know this person, you can't say it is ruining his/her life. From 5th grade until about 12th grade, I rode dirt bikes about 5 hours every day after school, and rode the entire weekend. One could make a pretty strong argument that I was "addicted". However, I was still able to balance the rest of my life. Until you have met this person, and seen him/her not be able to balance his/her life, you have no basis to say that this is "eating away at his/her life".

You actually can't compare an addiction which will leave you with no state of mind, completely unaware of life, with an addiction to playing RuneScape. That's just madness. Her playing RuneScape 9 hours a day won't kill her - if someone was on drugs for 5 years, that might leave them with nothing in life. Do you see? Yes, I have actually worked with people with drug and alcohol addictions. They don't particularly "enjoy" it, at all. But it's something they can't live without. If this persons internet went out, I'm sure they could live without RuneScape and won't go to any extremes. You can't compare drug or alcohol addiction with RuneScape, you can agree that they are "addictions", but being addicted to RuneScape will not kill you, unless you're depriving yourself of the basics which one actually needs to survive. You won't end up 5 years later not being able to construct a sentence - or doing basic things in life. There are crazy records, you and I both know that. But there's noteable ones which people actually care about, just like this one. If we didn't care, we wouldn't be posting. If people didn't care for the most hours playing an MMO, they wouldn't have released it, or any the "Gamers edition" of the Guinness Records. If shes spending 9+ hours a day on Runescape she probably doesnt get much excercise and probably doesnt have too strong of relationships with people outside the game. She probably neglects her family (or whoever takes care of her...) doing the math its near impossible for her to play runescape as much as she does, get a healthy ammount of sleep AND hold a job. And if she does this then theres no way she has time for excersise talking with family or even EATING or going to bathroom. The more likely case is that she IS addicted to Runescape like a heroin addict. And contrary to what you say 5 years of inactivity and over eating CAN kill you. Granted its not runescape doing the damage its her lifestyle BUT Runescape is the reason for her inactivity so it is the cause. She probably doesnt have a healthy heart, is over weight, and who knows might have a range of health problems because of it. My example is Vandrilla, Runescape IS NOT the reason she was sick, but if you look at her thread for Ellebreyals, when she finally quit her legs were so weak from lack of use she got hurt from walking down the block. tl;dr Runescape CAN be as bad as heroin as this lady needs help. Hate me for saying it but i find this acheivement to be disgusting, its like congraduating a Heroin adict or someone that abuses vicoden for 5 years straight Holy [cabbage]....I don't know why I keep trying. People: JUST BECAUSE YOU LIVE YOUR LIFE ONE WAY DOES NOT MEAN EVERYONE LIVES THEIR LIVES THAT SAME WAY. For instance: This person is a construction worker, in a family run business. He/she is 18 y/o. Construction (if any of you have actually worked it) pays extremely well. It is entirely possible to live working construction, working less then 30 hours a week. In this case, you have someone who A) Exercises daily, B ) Works with their family, and C) Make enough money to live, while still having a lot of free time to play RS. Once again, you guys should really stfu about other people. You know nothing about their lifestyle. I have already done the math earlier in the thread showing that it is plausible for me to be averaging over 10 hours a day, while still holding a job. Conversely, I could average 7 hours a day, while holding a job and "having a life".

*rolls eyes* You do realize you contradict yourself, right?

The point is not "who should be treated", rather, it is at what point they should be treated. You are setting an arbitrary number at which someone should be treated for addiction, which simply is not reasonable. There are gaming addiction clinics, just like their are drugs and alcohol clinics. The difference is the people who are being admitted are either A) Admitting they have a problem or B) Have family/friends who have identified the problem. Now, unless you can identify that this person has a problem (Sick, missing work, dehydrated, etc), you cannot possibly say he/she needs help. The equivalent would be me saying that you need to be treated since you play a *gasp* 3 hours a day. I wouldn't have minded if someone would have stopped me from playing this game 5 years ago. Would have left me with a lot of time to do other stuff, allthough it would probably be some useless thing too (tv, another game, books, ... ). Strawman argument. You have already agreed that people's lifestyles are different.

We all have our own personal limits, and thus, our own personal definition of "addiction". Personally, 4 hours a day would be addiction for me. However, I shouldn't shake my finger at you, since you play 4.5 hours a day. I just want to be clear about something: I don't agree with that amount of hours. I could never play that much, I would think it would be unhealthy for me to play that much. Nevertheless, that's not to say that it is unhealthy for the person next to me. Until you can actually see it negatively affecting this person's life, you (tip.it, not just you) have no real business claiming it is unhealthy. Arguably, even when you see it is "unhealthy", you still don't have any business. Well in that case, I consider 10 beers, throwing up, getting completely wasted and waking up the next morning in someone's front yard, then doing it again the next day completely normal and an average lifestyle. That is not an addiction to alcohol. However, I can only assume someone else out there disagrees. The point is, everyone can have their opinion, however there is always a line between unhealthy and healthy. There is always a line of equilibrium, between what people averagely say is normal and not. In a criminals mind stealing and robbing is the lifestyle they choose and is the way life has always been, however in the eyes of a hard-working adult, the criminal is completely out of sync between the norm of society. The medium of people, in mathematical terms, believe the criminal is wrong. The same could be said for gamers who spend 10 hours a day in front of a monitor. "However there is always a line between unhealthy and healthy". ABSOLUTELY! I could not agree more. However, before we go sharpen our pitchforks, answer a question for me: How is this affecting this person's life?

The point is not "who should be treated", rather, it is at what point they should be treated. You are setting an arbitrary number at which someone should be treated for addiction, which simply is not reasonable. There are gaming addiction clinics, just like their are drugs and alcohol clinics. The difference is the people who are being admitted are either A) Admitting they have a problem or B) Have family/friends who have identified the problem. Now, unless you can identify that this person has a problem (Sick, missing work, dehydrated, etc), you cannot possibly say he/she needs help. The equivalent would be me saying that you need to be treated since you play a *gasp* 3 hours a day.

We all have our own personal limits, and thus, our own personal definition of "addiction". Personally, 4 hours a day would be addiction for me. However, I shouldn't shake my finger at you, since you play 4.5 hours a day. I just want to be clear about something: I don't agree with that amount of hours. I could never play that much, I would think it would be unhealthy for me to play that much. Nevertheless, that's not to say that it is unhealthy for the person next to me. Until you can actually see it negatively affecting this person's life, you (tip.it, not just you) have no real business claiming it is unhealthy. Arguably, even when you see it is "unhealthy", you still don't have any business.