stan18

I think its the first dragon item to have non-60 stats as requirements

sounds like the cyclossus is a one-monster in the cyclops room. UGH. It is going to be so packed in there. EDIT: Just read this: You will have a greater chance of fighting a cyclossus Seems like it will appear after you kill a certain amount of cylcops

Dragon defender sounds awesome, I really hope the monster you kill is individual (like an individual boss like Jad) and not multiple NPCs like the rune defender. Does anyone else remember when the rune defender came out? It was nearly impossible to get kills to get the defender. Also the damange absorbtion is nice, but it is still limited to 200+LP. In pvp that may be significant, but in PvP there are few monsters that hit over 200 (besides Bosses), effectively elimiinating the usefulness of a wide range of absorbing armor as the armors that would be useful to absorb damage are isolated to the best ones anyways used for boss pvm

Quick question - why are bloodragers so popular? I haven't seen them on w117 (nor do i use them) but it seems like they're a good fam to make, can someone explain why?

i'm the... noncombat sc player /whole other sc culture

Conquest isn't fun anymore. It was the first hour or so, when people were trying new things. But the past 6 or so games were _all_ 6 scouts, 2 archers, 2 champions. Camp until you can charge the long range enemies, then you win, because nothing can 1hit champs except for champs, which means you would be playing the same setup. I can't get my rank up because I can't do anything about this except play this cookie cutter setup, which is... lame.

I thought that too. With a couple of moves and then a charge it can be in someone's base and ripping them apart. I guess the minigame is less than 12 hours old so people might find a way to combat this or Jagex might use people's feedback to make the game better :unsure: I'd quite like the movement of the soldiers to be sped up a bit, it's painful watching a Knight move across the floor :P I found the best weapon is their own ego, I've only lost to this setup once so far and it was to a bad move. But it seems like most other people can't handle it,considering how often I see the setup in 1100+ rank games

The champion needs to be nerfed, it costs too little and moves too much. All I see are 2-3 champ setups, its really, really lame Also, how much does the shield cost?

Just had a weird bug. Played some guy with 3 champs and a scout, but took down two of his champs with one archer loss. Then, as i charge and war cry my knight to finish his third, the turn ends. I had a good 30s on clock because I knew exactly what I was doing, but it just ended. I wasn't even on the screen with end turn - i was on the commands page. Really pissed me off, because I ended up losing. What is this nonsense?

Deflector sounds iffy, it takes the place of a LOT of important items - defender, antifire, 2handed slot Would have preferred boots.

GWD BUGS (In order of discovery) Zamorak Boss - K'ril Tsutsaroth Discovered: First day The first teams to enter the Zam boss's room were all quick to find out that the mage and range bodyguards did not attack players standing on the east wall The yellow dot on the far right of the map (or to the west) is a stuck bodyguard Bandos Boss - General Graardor Discovered: At least second day The original doors at GWD had the door attached to the BASE side, instead of the BOSS side, so that there was a small indent in the boss room. With general graardor, standing in the indent with graardor's bottom -left side two or three squares south of the indent would make his range attack null (would not hit at all - no damage splat), making it possible to solo him without threat of range damage. The movement update that made NPCs move completely to their destination had not been updated yet, so entering the room while the range and mage bodyguards were on the nw side of the room would get them caught, making it possible to solo graardor without taking any damage at all. I do not know how well know this bug was initially, though I found the bug on the second day but played at night on german servers and I didn't see anyone use it until approximately 3ish weeks later, when everyone else found out about it. It was fixed soon afterwards without a system update. The pics I had were lost in a computer crash but I still have the video of the discovery somewhere, maybe ill put it up. Instead, heres a pic of my friend doing it: Saradomin Boss - Commander Zilyana There were two bugs involved: 1. Starlight's North wall bug Discovered: First day Standing on the north wall of the boss room prevented starlight from noticing you. Wasn't changed until the second bug was fixed. 2. Zilyana safespot Discovered: Unknown Zil's room was the only boss room to not have perfect corners - rather, they were jagged three tiers. Again, this was before the complete NPC movement update, so it was possible to get her stuck on the northern corners while you only took damage from bree or growler (usually bree). This wasn't so much a bug as much as it was just improper room design. I found out about the safespot long after graardor's bug was fixed; some emails show around middle december 2007. I know some other groups of monster hunters knew shortly before we did (I was inspired by Soma2035 to find the safespot), but it is entirely possible that it was discovered far before that. Credits: Fastforce, duo partner

i wonder what his 4th bind will be

I just got a random box without a lamp option - is that new?

The blastbox is intended for nonmembers, and the herbacide you can toggle to burn only specific herbs

The setup currently is really nice, but I think an option to right-click a room and then select from a selection of colors that expands to a selection of keys would be a quicker interface. I don't know if it is possible, but just a suggestion

Puzzle Boxes are huge on the screen now, but still laggy (but less so) :( EDIT: Heres an example, there are a few new ones and they have a "hint" option that shows the result do you have confirmation in any way? I can't find the stats.

I am having no success finding the druidic third age gear on the RS manual, any luck? Also, there are five animal staves, but four elemental runes, and six animal masks...

I am having no success finding the druidic third age gear on the RS manual, any luck? Also, there are five animal staves, but four elemental runes, and six animal masks...

that there hasn't been a system update yet to change this worries me

I don't know you personally, but your attitude seems very militant, so it seems you put emotions over logic. I say that because I don't agree with what you say and how you reason it out. Experience with a diverse crowd does not make you diverse in experience. I am referring specifically to your siblings. You may have a different set of experiences than others in terms of race because of how you grew up (with your siblings), but what makes you diverse will be how you understand their experiences, not the fact that you had more black people in your life than others. I say that because the experience of growing up for a non-white child is not even remotely close to that of an equivalent white child (if I can say that). They have different expectations of themselves, as well as expectations from others. They have a different motivation to fit in, and more difficulty doing so. If you understood this and felt this, I don't think you'd have the same attitude as you do now. I have to personally ask you how those who notice racism are spreading racism, and more importantly, how you define racism My last point is, personally, the most important one to me. You say, "People are too damn sensitive. In America, you have the right to freedom of speech, not the freedom to not be offended. " I agree that we absolutely need free speech. But you also say we do not have the right to be offended. And I hear this a lot. And I have to say, why is that what you focus on? The *other* person being offended, instead of why that person is offended? Why being offended is not a viable emotion to feel? Why can't you just own up to what you say? Let me put this from my perspective. I am racially asian. The rest of my history is relevant but I will not give more details for fear of blurring my intent. My white friends joke to me and say, "all asians look the same, right, Stan? (or any other stereotype followed by right, stan? as to affirm their statement)" I tell them, "no, I don't think so". That is, literally, all I say. Why so little? Because I've been asked this before, and I know that if I elaborate my disagreement any more, I will be labeled oversensitive. But its not over yet. Because with just that statement, sometimes I get, from the entire group, a mix of: "way to ruin it(the joke)", "you've ruined the mood" or, "dude its just a joke, stop being so sensitive", or any other trend of statements putting the blame on me. I "ruined" the "joke". Did I really? Or was I the joke itself? Not that they were all going to walk away and laugh at me when I'm out of earshot. No, I mean, the joke centered around my response to their stereotype. Its funny when I agree with it, because hey, an asian guy agrees with the stereotype and no one feels bad. But if I don't agree, if I think their joke is stupid, then I'm calling them out, and then I am the only one losing out. Either I give in and make fun of my own race at the expense of perpetuating a stereotype while giving them the resource to tell other asians that they tell the stereotype to that "stan thinks its funny, why can't you be like him", or I disagree, in even the most banal and uncharged way, and I get labeled as the fun-ruiner, the oversensitive guy, the asian who can't laugh at himself. Is it fair to me, to be put in this situation? Is it really an issue of my not having a right to be offended, or is it your right to get called out for being a [puncture] and putting me in a situation like that? The above happens most of the time. Sometimes, though, the response I get after expressing my disagreement is,"but you know we're just kidding, right?", as if they were caught by surprise by my response, having expected me to agree with them. The couple times this happened it happened shortly after I met someone for the first time. They're worried they're going to be labeled racist, and they want to save themselve(s) lest that asian guy tells everyone else how that white kid down the hall told an asian kid he looks like the rest of his continent. Did you just read that last sentence? Tell me, who looks, feels, like the victim? The asian kid, or the white kid shaking in fear of being written up for a bias incident the second day of freshman year in college? To a white kid straight out of a white high school in a white town who has never met a person darker than himself and learns about the bias policy during college orientation and gets told horror stories of ethnic minorities reporting other students for little things like name calling and playing on stereotypes, who will look like the victim? It was probably by accident, right, the asians-look-alike joke? He didn't mean any harm, but now hes on academic probation? If only that asian kid weren't so sensitive! Thats how this fear develops. I have access to all the reported bias incidents reported at my University. Do a lot happen freshman year? Yes. Are they because of first experiences with different people? No, they're about death threats being written on your door's whiteboard, or being given nicknames like "[racist term]y". Is that too oversensitive? The point of my story is that it is absolutely cowardly to call others out on their response because they don't match with what you expect from them. Did my white friends know why I would get offended by their statement? I could tell them, if they asked. It has a very emotional and personal history that spans to kindergarden, when I first started learning english. But do they know that? Do you know other people's full context when they get offended? You don't. Because if you did, you probably wouldn't say it. But its easier to call them out as oversensitive than for you to own up to your words, isn't it? So when people tout their right to free speech, its not actually about free speech at all. Its about people being [wagon] because they want to or they realize they might be labeled one, and defending (if you could even call it that) their actions with free speech while putting the blame on the other. I'm not calling you an [wagon]. But I am going to call you out for your actions. Are people oversensitive, or do you just say that because you would be insensitive otherwise?

I want to take this opportunity to define for most people the most common way of looking at racism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism) 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others. 2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. Or, in short, an institutionalized system of advantage. Being racist means that one is, in some way, keeping the status quo. I, as with others who talk about racism, like this definition because it is a practical and flexible way to look at things that people debate over. The disadvantage of this definition is it really is all-encompassing, and thus there generally will be always one group at the top with the rest at the bottom, so discretion and common sense is needed in agreeing on what "difference" is acceptable In this case, the "advantage" is safety. If australia is racist, then it, in the form of communities, or the government, or the police, isn't trying to alleviate the safety issue with indians in australia. Being racist would include not acknowledging it is a racial issue when data suggests it is, and not doing anything about this issue. It could also be the communities fault, not for participating in the racially motivated attacks, but by not doing anything (which defines passive racism) to help. Or it could simply be individual racism, where racist individuals happen to decide to attack indians because they hate them.

This is true. A question I hear a lot is, "if they can say the N word, why can't I?". And this generally comes from whites. The thing that bothers me is that these people have this sense that they're entitled to the right to call anyone they want the N word. But thats contrasted by the fact that there are white people who can call a black person the N word without an issue. The reason the N word can be thrown around in a community while someone not involved in the community can't is because the members of that community use it amongst themselves as a term of endearment. The word itself isn't attached to black people (because some people don't use it), its more of a lifestyle thing, lower class, poor education systems, etc. It acknowledges that others understand it. For some rich white guy to come in and complain that he is entitled to that right without earning it or understanding it is insulting and defines the term "racist" For the reader's sake, the definition of racism is any system intended to put down minorities, or keep a dominant majority dominant. The white man above lives in a system where everything caters to him. A joke that a lot of college students say when the issue of racism comes up and they think its silly or overblown is, "Why isn't there a white club? Isn't that racist??" My answer to that is, "there already is one, its called ____ University", or whatever university it is. The point is that, whether a white person acknowledges it or not, a white majority place is going to be catered to white people. When something isn't catered to them anymore, it seems weird, because they're used to not being questioned about "where you really come from" or how much financial aid they're on. When something isn't given right to them, such as the right to call someone else the N word, they find it unfair. Its not unfair, they just haven't earned it If thats too confusing to you, then being called the N word by some random white guy if you were black is like having some random person hear some inside joke amongst your friends and try to act like they have the right to use that joke amongst you. If you say the same back to the kids at my school in the same way as a friendly greeting, they get extremely serious about it they act very offended about it and how "You aren't allowed to use our word". Why would you use it as a friendly greeting in the first place? Just because you can? I hear this a lot. "its not harassment because its true", "I only mentioned the stereotype because its true for him/her", "i'm not being mean, I'm just stating fact". The issue has never been whether or not a statement was true. It was why that statement was said in the first place. The excuse of "its okay because its true" is a front to hide your intention of getting that point across. That, of course, doesn't even touch upon whether or not its true. Example: Elementary school student gets called into principle's office for making fun of a fellow student because he is overweight. His reasoning? "because he is". Yes, I chose an example from an elementary school student for a reason. I disagree with this logic. A former philosophy teacher called this the "quitter logic" - it starts with them and ends with you. Things aren't meaningful because you make them meaningful, they are meaningful because they had some meaning some point in history (this does not say it ever lost it). That meaning was perpetuated by some other force. So trying to not giving it meaning acknowledges its meaning. But the important part is that it happens repeatedly - every time you hear some negative word about your race, you know that it was said with some meaning before and is still being said, and that you have to change it yourself. So every time you tell yourself it doesn't mean anything, you acknowledge that it does. The point is that because the meaning started with some factor that you did not control, and in order to control it you have to acknowledge it, it will never go away unless the source does. They're more than just words. Its like hearing someone say, "Help me", or, "I'm hungry", or, "You look nice today", and interpreting it as jibberish. It has meaning because it has context. So no, they're not just words The issue isn't that they're not true. Its that you need to explain that they're not true. While most of them are seemingly harmless, stereotypes that put expectations upon children growing up are unhealthy. And stereotypes that invoke fear (esp. those of religion) cause hate, even to those who try to acknowledge they are not true. So if you say anything with hate, it seems to me that it's racist. If you're just kidding around, I think it's fine. Honestly, I wholeheartedly agree with the whole Americans are Fat stereotype, because honestly it's kind of true. Seriously the seniors of my high school my freshman year were pretty healthy looking, and the freshman my senior year were about...75% chubby. So america it seems is getting bigger and bigger. And seriously, why does it matter if we call ourselves Americans? It's where we live...and honestly we should totally take over Canada and Mexico, cause I'm sick of hearing of this illegal immigration, and that way they'd all be citizens, and they'd all be where they want to :P See now, only a true jack [wagon] would embarrass himself with being offended with that statement, it wasn't racist at all because I don't hate mexicans or canadians. And I actually EXPECT people to make fun of me and everything about me, makes life easier. And that yogurt joke was hilarious!!! so freakin true :P BTW you can't spell embarrassed with out [wagon], just like you won't be embarrassed unless you make yourself look like an [wagon] >.< I agree. The issue with racism isn't with the words themselves, but with context. Things said in different scenarios influence people in different ways. I don't see that as white men being overly sensitive as much as people just trying to be respectful of each other

I like arguing, i better understand what I think, the other person (usually) does, too. But as I grew up with tip.it's OT, I slowly realized "arguing" with people through some forum rather than in real-time is useless. For some unknown reason to me (and some other people on this forum realize too, i'm sure), you will _always_ encounter someone who not only disagrees with you, but isn't smart enough, in some way, to understand you (and more importantly, the topic at hand). For some reason, there will be one or two people who will ignore every legitimate point you make, misconstrue what you say, make poor or unjustified assumptions, and do a myriad of other things that make discussion impossible. If you argue in real-life, people can't do that, you can confront people about what they say and make them explain it, or insist that what they say isn't possible because of x or y reason.

Fair point, but what about hospitals? If tobacco and unhealthy eating were banned, don't you think hospitals would have a lot less on their chests too? If they wanted to minimize pressure on emergency services, why do they allow millions of people to get cancer and heart disease? I think the difference between killing yourself from smoking and killing yourself from getting in a crash is money. They get money from letting you smoke. They get money from making you wear your seat belt. When you argue these things, you can't nitpick. Why X when theres Y? Well, are X and Y the same thing? No, there are things to consider for everything, you consider some things more because there are large factors to consider, some things less because there are minor things to consider. Seatbelts, the reasons are clear. There are fines to enforce them. The purpose of laws aren't to restrict every action, but to take out the big ones. Which ones are big? Thats subjective. Maybe we'll invent cars that, in an accident, only the person not wearing a seatbelt would ever be injured, and blame is always rightly placed afterwards. Tobacco and unhealthy eating only have minimal government intervention because the things that back them lobby like hell. Thats what you want, though: little government control, right? Of course, thats another issue (which you should bring up in your government topic, should that ever happen)

See the bolded part? Guess what: We're in a economic issue as well! Maybe I should start stealing children and selling them to the rich, making midgets fight each other to the death in an arena and while we're at it, hell, I'll marry my sister because it's an economic issue we're in! That was sarcasm by the way. The point is We are not in those time zones anymore, so for the good of the future, people need to accept "Yes, we HUMANS, not white/black people, made a mistake. Now we must LEARN from it and move on" not dwell on minor issues like the Red Faces incident. It was an economic issue because they were given two choices: get enslaved themselves, or help the whites enslave their own. Either way, I don't get your point. How would we "move on"? I agree that the "red faces incident" was minor and blown out of proportion by the media. How would we move on, though, if stereotypes are still propagated? "hey, I'm going to make fun of your eyes because you're asian. What, you're offended? Why don't you move on? So what if everybody made fun of you all your life for it? so what if your children will also be made fun of for the same reasons?" How would me move on from this? Why and how so? (to your latter sentence) Thats a totally different boat - thats discusses whether or not its reasonable, fair or justifiable to make amends now for wrongs made in the past. I think there might be a word for what you're looking at, but its counterproductive to argue for it (this excludes affirmative action - that does merit discussion) - instances of "counter racism" comments usually boil down to a privileged person complaining about why they can't do "something", when they have access to most "things". Why can't I use the N word? Why can't I (as a male) participate in a women's group for rape victims? There was a racial incident against asians and asian americans at my university recently - there were two meetings open to the students, one was open to all students, the other was open just to asian students. White students purposely sat in at the latter discussion. Why? They thought it wasn't fair that they couldn't participate. My statement was made to a statement that Bluelancer made. He brings up a related issue, I answer. You bring up a related issue, I will also answer: Romans enslaving "white people" isn't as simple as that. From what I learned in high school it was a social/economic class issue. Blacks selling off other blacks when slavery was accepted was also a economic issue. But whats your point? Does a black man selling slaves to white men make it okay? Does it take the blame off the ones who started and promoted the act? The only difference is that people seem to have forgotten that black people would sell each other as slaves, or that white people have been slaves too, it just seems to be that in this day and age black people can take advantage of that, and then call anyone who question why they can get this special treatment racist. If I wanted to start a college fund program for white people, I'd be call racist, if I started one for black people I'd be congratulated for helping make the world a fairer place. :wall: No one really notices that black people sold each other off because when thats learned in high school, its coupled with the whole issue of slavery and who started it. Once again, it was an economic issue. It'd be more useful to understand why slavery happened rather than point fingers and say, "hey, white people were enslaved too! enslaving blacks and the treatment they received as slaves wasn't that bad!". Anyways, I distinctly remember my teacher emphasizing the fact that white "slaves" (usually indentured servants) had a ton more rights than black slaves. I understand why its unfair in the literal sense that you can't make a college fund for whites. But the reasoning behind why funds go to underprivileged hispanic or black students is because... they're underprivileged. If population A has better schools, supplies, teachers, and campus safety than population B, wouldn't some funds be better of in population B? And its not even like its given randomly. The college funds are for students who come from poor homes who made it through the crap that they live through but wouldn't have enough money to make it out anyways. So you say some poor white students could benefit from those funds too? Yea, but as a majority whole, white students are helluva better off.