Jump to content

Lensare

Members
  • Content Count

    29
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Lensare

  • Rank
    Rat Meat

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

RuneScape Information

  • RuneScape Status
    None
  1. They recently appointed a new CMO which makes me think that they are interested in promoting their game - I think they want to make more money, which is not always in the interest of the players, as recent updates have shown.
  2. And so begins the Reign of SUOMI. Long live The King!
  3. On another note, the greatest RS player of all time is near 1,5B exp! Richard & kngkyle are about to reach 2,1B xp - stiff competition; as with Tezz & Elvis soon, presumably. Go Suomi go! Less than 50m off the very deserved rank 1 :) Should be done in no time!
  4. I guess it can be agreed on, then, that efficiency is by no means the only factor in RS, or in the top 15. I think Green deserves much credit for being consistent and not giving up. And I don't see you, Maka, criticizing and being constantly belligerent about all those fine players you named for not having had the stamina to be efficient over long periods of time. The methods she uses may not be the best or (the most) efficient, but they are the best for her... It's much like a meal: some people will eat healthy food, because it's good for them, others will eat fatty foods, because they want to. And sure, if both of the people want to keep in shape, the fatty-food eating person will have to do a lot more to achieve what the healthy eating person will take for granted. But with the time (and yes, here, too, all you need is "time") spent doing sports even the unhealthy person will achieve the slim body line they desire - even whilst enjoying a nice, fatty burger which to healthy-eating persons such as yourself is despicable, laughable and "wrong". Discuss, yes. Disregard, yes. Criticize, yes. Constantly condemn: not necessary.
  5. Do you call Suomi's gains irrelevant? I think they're rather nice :)
  6. Thank you for your view, dear Sona! However, you take up a sociological point of view - which, I might add, is totally correct - and I didn't argue from that point of view when commenting on Blyaunte's (what I interpreted as being a *psychological*) view of normalcy. I concur that society does indeed create the norms and values to which we - "normally" - adhere. It is what we percieve as being right and wrong, brought forth to us by (moral) education and justice. It is through this that we are able to objectively judge others - and, by extent, ourselves. In saying this I am inspired by Adam Smith who wrote of the "impartial spectator" - a neutral, informed spectator who is simultaneously a part of everything and yet a mere observer. Through him we judge ourselves and are able to refine our previous positions, impressions, feelings and create a moral(ly acceptable) sentiment. What I was getting at is that, at times, this is not possible for some people. The impartial spectator, to stick to that image, is asleep so to speak. Yet these people are no less normal that we ("we" is already a generalisation perhaps not applicable to "us") are. This is what Blyaunte was implying and I am adamantly against this thought. We are all normal - doing something that is wrong, doing something that goes against our principles, that is im- or amoral doesn't make us any less human. Surely, we should be regarded in a different light because of it. I agree, it is something that deserves consequences. I am also of the opinion that the person who works against humanity should be subjected to our resentment and condemned most severely. The person might be deaf (as Blayaunte suggested, or, in fact, I added to his metaphor of "the voice") but we who take away the humanity of the person are in turn blind! We fail to see that we are harming him as he harmed others. We must understand that people can and do change. Those are my last, optimistic, words on this subject. Thank you :)
  7. You forget in your haste to explain what is "normal" those select people who are by nature deaf, or in a certain state of mind at a certain point in time unable by the forces guiding them and their actions to hear that little voice you presently formed. A woman who murders the rapist of her daughter can certainly be deemed immoral or "abnormal" by your definition, yet in the state of mind she was in at the time she grabbed that knife and stabbed the man in the chest after had done the horrible thing to her daughter, she was in no frame of mind to understand what she was doing. According to you, however, even this is deemed morally objectionable, thus not normal and even something - to put it in your terms - animalistic. Granted, the woman I described was not a sexual offender, but like him, she was not normal. However, you could say that she was born that way. It was inherent in her to defend her offspring; the love for her daughter brought her to that state of mind which justified even the worst and most extreme action imaginable: taking the life of another human being. It has been proven over the past years by neurologists and psychologists that we do have dispositions in which we are incapable of controlling our decision-making process rationally. Scholars of jurisprudence acknowledge this. It is "normal" for us to do things in a certain way, we are born with this "normality". It may be that the things which to us are at a certain point "normal" are not justifiable, as in this case, but it doesn't change the fact that they are a part of who we are. I don't mean to say what this person did was in any way right, nor do I support it. What he did was a criminal act, it was dispicable and he was punished by a court of law. But so many things people do are criminal - take a cleptomaniac, for example, or a drunkard, a child abuser, and so forth - the list is seemling endless. Many of these things can be treated, and have explanations for their nature of which we cannot know until we delve deeper into the human psyche than just judging things from the outside: by generalising, and "assuming" to know what is. The most abnormal thing one can do is to assume to know what is normal. Normality is a fallacy, a mere creation, subjective and subject to change with time. People with the acumen of an ant take their own opinions and claim them to be "normal" and "truths," when, truly and normally, they are nothing more than opinions. I am reminded of the Holocaust. I agree, this person did make a mistake. He has repented and regretted, and he will live with his mistake forever. WE don't have to make it any worse for him than it already is. We have to show acceptance, and stretch out that hand, give him another chance and tell him that yes, he did do something that we don't think is right or morally correct, but we still want to make out of him a decent human being. By spitting on him and labelling him abnormal, we will only intensify his anger and perhaps even his willingness to again commit a crime.
  8. Do we - i.e. Rune Tips? - really NEED to do anything at all? I don't think we have to meddle in others' private problems, as long as they don't concern us. I don't see how we are primary participants in the issue; if RV or Jagex see a need to do it, then I guess it's their right.
  9. Am I dense or is Jagex hypocritical when they speak of a "moral and social obligation" to remove the gold status of a site run by a convicted sex offender (whatever that really implies) who has apparently done nothing to harm the users of his site, and who could have stepped down freely if this had been handled privately instead of openly in a very degrading and impolite manner? This company removed the censor on harmful words and so enabled immoral contact between its players. They aren't doing all too much - visibly - against autotalkers promoting real-world trade in a game played by children. And so forth.
  10. Pro account? Pro at failing to be cautious, oh yes!
  11. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeA7j3gcPY4 Foot ftw btw :)
  12. 19s/hr - how is that not substantial? :grin: That's 166,440s a year = 2,774 mins/yr = 46.233 hrs/yr = 1 day, 22 hours, 4 minutes and 48 seconds a year! :blink: But nobody is going to wc for a whole year, that would be 1.2b wc xp. If 1,2b xp saves nearly 2 days then for 120m xp it would save around 4-5 hours. (SUOMI needs 109,5m xp and I rounded up so it should get closer to 4 hours then 5). ...and +-4 hours of pure fm is, clearly, worth using a d-hatchet over an adze!
  13. 19s/hr - how is that not substantial? :grin: That's 166,440s a year = 2,774 mins/yr = 46.233 hrs/yr = 1 day, 22 hours, 4 minutes and 48 seconds a year! :blink:
  14. More logs retained -> more logs split -> more WC exp FMing and WCing separately saves a substantial amount of time, as the WC rates are a fraction of the FM rates, and the FM exp/hr rate with adze is minimal in comparison.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.