Lime_Mercury

Over My Head by the fray

27 females 22 males

Why? The main reason rc pkers pk there in the first place is the low risk and somewhat decent reward involved. If they can pick on us, why can't we give them a taste back? We don't need to run around in full mystic/ahrims to get our point across, as long as we make make an impresion that rcers aren't as weak as first thought. - I say 'we' as in the whole abyss rcer community, mainly 90 - 100s as they are hunted the most. It's not like most rc pkers sit and say owned lol when they do sixty points of damage on me before I get to the abyss.. It's also unlikely a RC pker will want to stick around if a person comes out in full blackhide and starts shooting. This is the case whether you are in 5 wild or 25 wild. I went out to the RC area in full rune/obsidian, and told the mages to lay off me for a moment, I wanted to attack whoever came back as a ranger. There were three that did this. Two ran from me when I attacked them, one teled on sight. So what I wonder is how you define weak. I mean if you're within 5 levels of your opponent, you are at least somewhere near them on the combat scale.

God, I knew one on that kids things when they were like all 12 and I was like 7... It was like 'What is it called when you put peanut butter and raisins on celery' and I was like 'OMG ITS ANTS ON A LOG!!!!' and nobody even buzzed in... :( It was as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced.

Yes, but I would bring 2500-3k racks per trip, and that's expensive too. I've gotten to jad in other outfits that had almost no barrows gear in them, in fact I think I could do it without any barrows armor or such. I finally got my fire cape like a few days ago, in the outfit I described to you.

It's always a bit bothersome to hear the stories of "lol i came back out there in blackhide with my bow and owned the ---- and he ran noob lol". The people that do this are just as guilty as the rc pkers of trying to get a free meal. Just as an RC Pker will use his armor and triangle advantage over a RCer, a person that comes out in range gear to fight someone who is most likely decked out in mage gear is not looking for a fair fight either. You wanna prove you're not scared of losing stuff? Go out there in what they're wearing and then fight them on an even ground. I really do tire of people acting like they are any less of a coward than the people trying to PK them.

On body: Initiate helm Blackhide top Blackhide legs Crystal bow Masters Gloves (or vambs, but masters gloves give a higher range bonus) Legends/Obsidian Cape Glory Amulet Rune Boots/Rangers Boots In Inventory 1. Guthans Helm 2. Guthans Body 3. Guthans Skirt 4. Guthans Spear 5. 2nd Crystal Bow 6,7. 4 dose range pots 8,9. 2 Sara Brews 10,11,12. 3 4 dose super restores 13-27. 15 4 dose prayer pots 28. Holy Wrench

I have had eight lvl 1 clues from hams but I was picking them up and dropping them in a pile and picking them up so they didn't disappear.

Or keeping CS from being flooded with quest queries, so they can finally address all your OMG HE SAID MSM HE SHUD BE BANNED!!!1111111111 reports.

The link LP provided said that GTA4 would be released for Xbox360 on October 16, not 17, as your taketwo quote says.

I would not accuse you of lying to advance your own case, but the only thing that I could fairly say is that I believe you to be saying things from which your information is not reliable... but this would rather turn into "believe in god/not believe in god" argument, if we went there. That part of my argument was not well thought out, and probably not applicable. I'll revisit it if it seems more relevant later on, but for now I'll leave it alone. I claim that the Bible is God's Word and is the absolute, universal standard by which everyone is to base their lives. I think this might be a good place of a clarification of terms. What I believe you mean when you use the Bible or God's Word, I address as the divine will, the universal will, the True, the Proper, the Right, etc... the thing that is independent of all our meddling and subjectivity, the rules, so to speak. I'm sorry but I missed your point. By saying anyone who understands God's Word has the same legitimacy as Jesus is completely unbased. If your standard IS Jesus, then He is above you, and you are merely submitting your will to His. I fail to understand where you're coming from. See below. My point is merely this: Jesus is the only universal truth that you can take at face value in all circumstances at all times without having exceptions or having to pick-and-choose which system to follow (utilitarianism in some cases, kantianism in others, common sense still in others). His view is stable and applicable at all times to all people. This is only because it is claimed to be the divine will of the universe. Any other will that claims itself as premiere and divine shares that characteristic. Imagine that I were to, at this moment, assemble a full doctrinal theology that assumes to know and be part of the divine order. Assume I were to advance cases on what I think is wrong and right, that was explicit in many cases, and vague enough to let future generations deal with things that they haven't come to yet. By the token that I claim it to be part of the divine order, I logically have to say that it is just as applicable to all, and just as transferable as yours. Again, the only reason that your philosophy "works" is because it claims to be the divine (universal, omniscient, etc...) moral code. So when I say it is not fit for transferrence, I guess I mean to say is that you have to accept a premise that lies outside the body of knowledge that we can test. I hope I do not get too tangential in my arguments, but let me go after this- Let us assume we adopt some sort of total moral code, Utilitarianism (this is simply for argument's sake, we could choose any other and I'm certain my following argument would apply). Let's also, for convenience sake, say that it is defined strictly as producing the greatest good for the greatest number. It matters not whether we can measure it or not, simply that it is our desirable end. Any action is accounted for in this philosophy. There is an action that provides the greatest good, and there are actions which do not. It is just as absolute, universal, and transferrable as any other theory. Notes: I'm looking now at the things that we agree upon, rather than the things we disagree upon. Obviously, we are both in agreement that there is (or certainly ought to be, if my case holds up), a Universal Will, those rules. Without that, we do indeed fall into complete relativism, which might get ugly. However, just like in commerce, if we are in relativism, it's the best systems (or products) that tend to survive. Marketplace of ideas metaphor at work. The existentialist in me says, "that's reasonable, the effective and legitimate systems will eventually be separated over time from the unproductive ones"... the wheat from the chaff. It doesn't mean that they are right, it just means that at that given point, they work.

Edit: haha, they announce it like two minutes after i notice it

On the main page, in the knowledge base section, you can view hints for quests you've started but not finished. How new is this? :D

A fair enough observation, I don't think I disagree. The empirical evidence to demonstrate that things that I've bolded we can agree is unlikely to be forthcoming. The problem, however, with giving you the benefit of the doubt at this point, comes with accepting other things I am still unwilling to accept. I guess we're not fans of Nietzche, then. But we have demonstrated multiple times in the thread that it is the case. Just as the Big Bang as a theory has phenomena that it predicts will happen later (if the theory is valid), so does your theory. It would require me to have a much more extensive knowledge of the scripture to see some of the contradictions (and I'm fairly sure there are some) in what we do vs. god's will because we deem to be ethically proper. I think homosexuality may be another case in which we attempt to determine what it is that God really wants. I think, at this point, though it sounds like I'm a Christian arguing against Christianity.-I think homosexuality may be another case in which we (American society, or just Christians/Catholics in general)attempt to determine what it is that God really wants. I think we both actually apply Util. to some degree on this. I said in my first post that I started out figuring out what my desirable end was, and then how to work towards it. I think on some level, you do the same. If the end is to be united with your lord in heaven (forgive my lack of capitalization) then logic ditates you do your part to achieve that end. This would hinge on the argument that getting into heaven qualifies as the greatest good for the greatest number, I think you would agree to this. I'm not sure how you would defend that statement, I hear about church works all the time, in fact it is the churches around here that never quite shut up about what they are doing. I think this is where we draw our line in the sand. If you accept that statement, you have to follow the requests he puts forward when it comes to morality. In this discussion, I have not argued that the notions are unsound, I have argued that they are not transferrable. If you claim to have the universal will and know the true absolute morality, then by token you have to say it should be applicable to all people at all times. The problem is that in doing this, you argue yourself into relativism. Anyone who claims to know part of that divine order has the same legitimacy (empirically) as Jesus. Would it be clicḫ̩̉̉ to say that my god works in mysterious ways? No, I don't really doubt there is something bigger than myself... but for now its nature and its want is still a mystery to me. I'm a Horned Frog. Notes: I see in this post that I'm pretty much forced to argue two different arguments. 1. I face your argument that Jesus is the universal truth. This argument, not matter how much empirical evidence or rational argument I bring to the table, I will not win. This means one thing. If the other person accepts the premise that Jesus is the all-knowing force you may claim him to be, you have to step forward and follow through by saying that since the system is absolute, it must be transferrable. This leads to 2. I have to demonstrate why someone should not accept that premise. I think, though, that I would pretty much have to argue you out of your own religion to advance my case any further... which at this point, I'm thinking is unlikely.

Fair enough. But I cannot in good conscience say that what is 100%-0% now will continue to stay that way, even in the Catholic Church. The cardinals and bishops are the ones that deliberate those things day by day until they come upon come to conclusions they are comfortable with becoming doctrine for future generations. Martin Luther didn't like the church selling off indulgences to get people out of purgatory, but someone else thought it was a great idea. Which is a bit of rambling, but there is something to it. Everybody in the church at some point feels that they know what God or Christ desires of them. And that's fine. Even letting those dictations become law is acceptable at times. Believing that you know what God wants is acceptable for an individual, but history and time bears out that people simply believe different things at different times. Believing you know God is not sufficient for the transferrable ethical system, though. Now, on the other hand if you were to truly know what God (and for fairness and arguments sake, let's call it the Universal Will) dictated, then yes, it would be fair to say that you had a perfectly transferrable ethical and moral standard to guide you. But to completely know that would make you all-knowing, and that's a problem, I'm sure you can see why. I'm not entirely comfortable with this statement, and perhaps the sentiment that comes with it. It would seem to indicate that in a Christian society, any attempt at Democracy would be only giving each person an equal opportunity to choose between something God wants and something God does not want. Certainly God would say there is a certain way that we ought to do things. Which comes back to my own upbringing and beliefs, which I have intentionally left out of this argument until now. I, for the moment, am undecided to exactly what it is I believe. I do hold to the belief, however, that organized religion, in which someone or some organization claims to hold a piece of that universal knowlege of what should be or what ought to be done, is not something I wish to be part of. I would much have a personal relationship not dictated by doctrine I did not write or advance. And if that means upsetting to some part that universal creator, whatever he she or it may be, I'm okay with that. Whatever he she or it is has also done things I'm not entirely cool with. I respect it, I expect it to be mutual. I do, however, attend a notoriously Christian university in Texas. I can very clearly see the difference in a person that believes from one that actually walks with that belief in their heart. I choose neither path. (but I am aware all of this is for another thread entirely)

Nukeing of crumble undead + Charge + Magic + Whip/Maul/Scim Spec + Range Spec + Farming Seeds And damnit, that's where I went and made all my wild pies... What and when was this? I can't remember this at all. :? The first day of farming they didn't like people getting xp by planting then digging up seeds. (even though i'm sure that had been in their office beta for a looooong time)

Nukeing of crumble undead + Charge + Magic + Whip/Maul/Scim Spec + Range Spec + Farming Seeds And damnit, that's where I went and made all my wild pies...

Getting cleaned out in the duel arena and hosting a drop party are two different things.

Let me start by saying straight away that cultural relativism, adopted to an extreme point of view where all theories have equal weight and legitimacy is a dangerous thing. I am fully aware of this. However, there are notions predicted by relativism that we ought to take note of. For my women's rights argument, Jesus had the ability to direct pretty much whatever social change he desired, since he was already considered a zealot anyway. He could have put anything he wanted in his legacy, just by making it important enough to preach about. But that is not the point I'm directly trying to make. What I am trying to address is- All members of any given theology or religious system do not share the same social desires. According to a poll by CBS, people in the United States support stem cell research, with a 58% majority. Those that attend religious services weekly do not support stem cell research by a margin of 10 percentage points, 49 against, 39 for. If the text of what you are describing is so absolute and clear, those numbers ought to be overwhelmingly different, say, 95 percent to 5 percent. Other polls, including one done by Cornell University, and a more dated one by ABC news have similar numbers. If they all believe in the same source of universal truth, they should have vastly similar social beliefs and desires as to what ought to be done at any given time. For the most part (women's rights, slavery, evolution), they do. Until some come along and say "well, perhaps we don't really know so absolutely what God wants." Your standard of "Truth" is not transferrable across time or across a population at any given time. If it were, everyone that believes in Christ as the all-knowing ought to be for and against everything you are for or against. It also predicts that what is right at one point will continue to stay right and what is wrong will continue to stay wrong. These two phenomena are not borne out by the statistics. It's very beneficial for some to walk with Jesus in their hearts. But it's not so beneficial when they walk with Jesus in place of their hearts.

And so we are at the point where I make the point I've been waiting to make again from the beginning of the argument. Utilitarianism can't intstantly make the best possible choice apparent. You have to go on your sleeve and make those decisions that are time-sensitive. Your last piece of your argument falls in line with this. Your truth of what Jesus wishes may not ever change, but your discovery of it is predicated by what society deems responsible. This is why women can vote, slavery is illegal in the United States, it is legal for a Christian person to loan money and charge interest on it, and why evolution is taught as a tentative theory in schools. When you look at that, you must concede that our snapshots of that univeral truth at any given point in time are just as relative as what you claim any atheist philosophy to be. In that sense, the closest you'll get to absolute in your doctrine is your own absolutely relative view of it. This is to say that not everybody that believes that they know what Jesus wants can be right at the same time. Someone's got to be wrong. Say, someone believes that gay marriage would be endorsed by Jesus and you don't. Well, you can say they are just twisting Jesus' will. That's fair, but their argument is the same for you. Which one is truly endowed with the correct slice of the universal truth? Is either of you?

That's not correct. The notions that follow from the teachings of say, Muhammad are predicated by the belief, first and foremost, that he is the unquestioning source of the value of what is right and what is wrong. If you accept that at the outset, you are forcibly held to whatever doctrine is set before you. This is why you cannot later on and say, well even though God's words say "Thou shall not kill" it's not immoral to go ahead and do it because it's best for society... If that was the premise the scripture might say "Don't kill unless it's good for society". I also sorely disagree with your position on the athiest "doctrine" or how one is to follow their own teachings. I would probably be more inclined to view them as reserving their moral judgements to follow from whatever ethical system appeals to them the most. You portray them making it up as they go along, which for many, is not the case. When an atheist says lying is wrong it is not based on moral, but ethical standards.. that it is to say it doesn't fall under the good/bad (good/evil, divine/sinful) spectrum, but rather under the desirable/undesirable, productive/unproductive one. Unlike the moral standards that one would adhere to in an organized religion, it does not have to be blithely accepted. And to clarify, I was simply clarifying for Ghostranger the difference between their depictions of Kant, mainly Hannibal's attention to the CI, not that I follow it in its entirety.

If Jagex wanted us to be able to buy items they could have just set up their own shops, more secure, more reliable. The reason they haven't is because that's not how they want players to play. The demand for the items may be natural, the means to satisfy that demand are not.

Except for the obvious fact that it is not fit for transferrence to all other people. What exactly do you mean by that? Exactly? The notion that all other people cannot (and should not?) blithely accept the dogma that comes with the acceptance of the standards of the religious individual, or any other of the sort, in question. I mean to say that unless each person has miraculously (pun intended) tapped into that knowledge base, declaring it fit for use by all is laughable at best. This would be the case with any arbitrary doctrinal standards set forth by any mortal or immortal.