Lime_Mercury

I think even without direct evidence we might use a chain of reasoning to come up with a convincing argument as to why he's right. If we do imagine he's right, we could work our way back and figure out where we get it from. Starting with the observation that it is common to avoid upper body nudity for females, and that those things might be "censored" on public television, we must assume it is done so for a reason (i.e. that it isn't completely arbitrary). If we accept that, then we work our way through the other material that is also treated the same way. If we do that, we find that restricted content includes gratuitous violence, hateful material, and content of a sexual nature. Since the nudity doesn't fall in the first two categories, we really have to put it in the third- sexual nature. Now while we haven't proven that breasts are biologically sexual in nature, we have demonstrated that it is a commonly held belief that it is so.

Aside from the increased risk of alcoholism and other health issues, I'd always seen it as voluntary risky behavior, like driving without a safety belt. For the record, I did not drink until I was 21.

Breasts, and what connotation they have is very different for every culture. What you say doesn't make any sense, simply because if it was true, then breasts would have a sexual connotation in every culture, which they don't, what you claim is [cabbage]. Not necessarily, for instance- sex itself is biologically desirable and pleasurable, but there are a number of large cultures in which is viewed in quite the opposite light.

Feminists will cry that the "male gaze" (wiki it) has the tendency to objectify women. I can only assume that exposing the organs most closely related to sex and reproduction will exacerbate the problem of men viewing women as only sex objects. It is difficult, though, to make the case that the social constructs that we've built in order to dampen those drives are healthy in any sense of the word. So, in answer to your question- not particularly, but women hold enough of the cards in the game to make a good play at it.

I think Jagex is done with the Merlin's Crystal / Camelot storyline. I don't suspect we'll be seeing more of Throne of Miscellania/Royal trouble anytime soon either.

Currently, in the 6,000s for both attack and fishing- Ever, it appears that I am the only other person here to have ever had a #1 stat. I'll see if I can dig up the picture.

I wouldn't mind something like One More Small Favour, or A Soul's Redemption (the sequel to a soul's bane). The gnome and the plague city plots are kind of weak, maybe a continuation of Regicide, or another white knight quest is in order.

Well, in my ever so humble opinion, there's probably a couple of problems layered upon one another, and I'll hazard a guess as to what they are. I don't particularly relish looking up the statistics, but I'd assume there is a large enough number of sex offenders in Miami that creating a halfway progam for them is unfeasible; this is probably because the police force is either too small or underpaid, or doesn't have the technology to keep up with the number of parolees that they have to (sure they have GPS, but most likely the coverage of them is thin). So with a police force that can't really handle the problem, I'm sure the media would be quick to label the situation as out of control, or an epidemic, basically trying to panic the population into believing that predation is a very real and immediate threat. As soon as a careless media does that, and the civilians go into panic mode, they pressure the city council to make ordinances like the one earlier described, basically saying "you can't live/work/play here". Now this brings out a fork of problems. If you believe that someone is genetically predisposed to predatory behavior, then you'd be infringing on anti-discrimination laws by setting those ordinances, if not more. All very well, you say, but they are criminals. Very true. As this case takes place in the United States, you have to make some difficult interpretations of the Bill of Rights. The eighth amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Now, I'm by no means a Constitutional scholar, but it seems that writing an ordinance restricting where a person can live may be unconstitutional on a couple of levels. If a paroled criminal found a place further than 2500 feet from a place where children congregate, and someone built an arcade within that range, the person would have to move or be in violation of the ordinance. Such a punishment is arbitrary, one of the tests of cruel and unusual punishment. Keeping them within the county also may pose problems if they committed the crime within a certain area of the county, because there is no way to protect them from discrimination in trying to get a job or housing to fulfill the requirements of their parole. Even though we have a responsibility to protect the communities we live in, we also have the responsiblity to ensure that all the individuals in that community are equally protected. Crime of a sexual nature is a problem nobody wants to touch. The line between sexual assault and consentual sex can be so razor thin that an adept lawyer could get a desired verdict by judicious jury selection. It's also unfortunate that sex itself is stigmatized and taboo in American society. If my employment can be terminated by my drawing a picture a co-worker considers obscene, or if I look at someone in a manner that appears lewd, or perhaps leer at them, then i think the point is well made that the entire system is just as unclear. So, where do I stand? State or government certified psychiatrists should be the ones determining sentences based on the individual's perceived threat to society. Making the offenders jump through hoops and be homeless does less to deter the recidivism that everyone's worried about than just incarcerating them to fulfill their full sentence and letting them go free once they are done. I think it's the only way to balance the rights of the individual (criminal or otherwise) with the needs of the community for protection.

The ability to poison food!

I'd trade my 85 cooking for my 81 slayer, or perhaps for my 55 construction.

How do you maintain your discipline?

I'm on now, you could pick it up if you want, priv is on. Tell you guys what, come to my house in rellekka and i'll drop the god pages and some other random stuff. World 31, my house is in rellekka.

Sijan has solved the puzzle :D

There it is!

Is that a clue?! *goes insane* XD "Just the right thing to make me drop it"? o_o I swear, when the answer's found out, we're all going to hit ourselves for not thinking of it first. -.- No, that's not a clue. Almera is not the answer.

I got like 5 i stole them from the stall.

Y'all are stretching this a bit far.

Look at the logic in Eon's post, then go back over what you've already gone over.

Right track, right train, wrong station.

Still not correct...

I guess it's only a matter of time now.

This is still a runescape puzzle, guys.

Okay:

It's going to click for someone, I just don't know which one of you it will be. I'm going to edit this post with the posts I think are the most helpful.