MasterMarduk

I have a white and 4 mask sets and Im going to hold onto them until I really need cash.... which is never lol Actually that makes people that buy skill sell, which lowers the price.

sirhappy2002 - Illinois

I only hold rares to keep my cash away from my spending habits, and while at the same time Increasing in value as demand overtakes supplies. Rares used to be traded mostly with Items for the exchanged becuase the gp required especially for P hats was way more then most people carried ussually. With The updates this has made that impossible as people would also request additional funds for the trade having Items ussually. The rares market right now Is kinda in deep freeze until things get worked out, if they ever do. The GE isnt that great as its prices and such dont seem to be able to keep at the right place, Either to high or to low of what the market is, with the exception of commonly traded Items. Rares will eventually go back up but for now they will be down as there required funds are more then most people can manage, especially in the case of P hats.

If I was still a member Id buy up to lvl 80 for sure lol Just to have lvl 80 lol Ive always bought skills, but I also merchanted along the way the things I no longer needed, which is not impossible lol (my merchanting Involved buying everything and selling back the stuff I dont need in bulk for a little more then I paid to make a profit and cover the stuff I use)

Ill disagree with the meal part mcdonalds is cheap lol but still the point is true. Its already cheap enough, they just need to fix there mistakes.

why would auoters not over saturate the game?its not like a dozen people did it, hundreds of asians were being supported by autoing. why would they care? heres an example, lets say im a real chinese guy working in a PC sweat shop... i use an autoing program to run multiple accounts at once which as i believe is highly likely. (we will exclude a training to willows bot, and so on) WC, 1 cutting willows, 1 cutting magics 1 cutting yews mining, 1 mining iron, 1 P ess fish 1 fishing lobsters 1 fishing sharks flax 1 picking, 1 spinning. dragon killers, 1 green , maybe 1 @ blue. runecrafters maybe 1 doing natures. thats 10 autoers for every single sweatshop worker, now 1k sweat shop workers all around china/korea or just asia in general makes for 10k bots. and bots dont even have to conform to human patterns of, bodily functions. like sleep/eat/restroom. if they all did thise, 1 guy is simply making a variation so that his spots are not over run, he however cannot control other autoers comming to those spots. and some are not even effected by numbers of autoers. P ess doesnt matter how many are their, fishing doesnt really matter, flax is kind of in well supply, spinning bow strings doesnt matter.... also, since jagex would state that the banned 8k autoers one week and 10k some other week. and finally admitted that they banning 20k autoers weekly was simply not news worthy. it must mean their was ALOT of autoers. Just becuase they said they banned them dosent mean that they were always online, Bots like every other account would be used as needed. Once you have 100k yew logs you dont need anymore till you are atleast down to 30k in which case u turn the bots back on and start collecting agian. Bans dosent = acctivity, I also would say that I honestly dont think a farmer would have more then 5 bots going at a time. It would take a very fast computer to do that. Have you ever multied? I tired it once as an experiment, I had 5 or my pures online at once, My computer and Java didnt like it much. Its to hard on both the system and the java application.\ If you have 10 bots on 1 tree let say, the ammount of logs receieved from that tree will be far fewer the more bots you have on it. Thats one reason why you wouldnt see 50 bots on a tree ussually the most was around 5. Any more then that and it becomes redundant and the tree will produce less logs. Getting back to the activity issue, There were far more Bots that were not active then were active, Im saying that at any one time there was no more then 10k active and My guess is there were less. I personnally have around 100 accounts, Out of them 60 I never really used much, 30 of them pures of all kinds for pking and learning, and the other 10 for sellective tasks, mostly my great pure that owned and my main. Only 1 of my 100 was on at a time, even tho I had 100 dosent mean my count would be any higher.

If I was a vengeful gold farmer I wouldnt mess with rares but all the lower cost items, make it so the GE getting totally messed up. Buy all the resources up and sell lower and lower and make bots and have them sell the resources lower till the market and items are worthless.

My beliefs is that its a 3:2:1 ratio, 3 pkers, 2 regular 1 bot. For every 3 pkers that quit 2 regular player did and 1 bot was removed. I really dont think there were over 10k bots just by the areas they liked to use. Oversaturation would lead to a redundency. I also think its about 60k people that have quit/removed, On average when I look its about 60k lower about evey time I look then it used to before the updates. I personally quit because of trade restictions they have placed on me. I also know several people that pked most all the time that quit and they also had several members and non members pures.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

I think you are missing some big concepts here. You're talking about rules that people are breaking? He's talking about trying to live. Incase you don't get the big picture here, most adults can easily make $200 in a day. Not $180 in a month. Breaking rules isn't the big ussue here. I dont know were you live lol 200 a day? lol I make 280 a week lol thats 5 days a week at 7 an hour 8 hour days, thats before taxes.

Its needed to limit any degridation to society. who says there hasnt been forms of marriage since the begining? theres no evidence either way, or current "thoughts" on "normal" marriage maybe not.

but outside of marriage conditions exist for less then a stable life. Very few societies are able to pull off kids without marriage, and as you see im our societies it leads to state sponcered aid which causes harm to everyone in the form of taxes and money spend on things that could be put to better use if that didnt exist.

Where'd you get that number? for a start the homo genus (no pun intended) has been around for roughly 4 million years. Homo sapien sapiens first showed up less then 100000 years ago. If you meant any type of life, that's also wrong. For animalia showed up around 300 million years ago (may be off by a bit, i took this course a while ago) Earths current human population is over 6 billion. Thousands starve each day, thousands die of diseases we already have cures for, but they can't afford, countries are massively overpopulated, and you're saying that gays will essentially ruin life. It's not like the percentage of homosexuals have gone up, and it seems like humans are one of the most successful animals on the planet, in terms of growth. another thing is is if the homosexuals were straight, and did produce even one child in their lifetime then the population of the world would go up even more. Joy. You and a few other people were saying you hate how all gays are outspoken and flamboyant and whatever, well that's a stereotype. I'm an atheist, and if i were to think that all catholics are like you, just because of a few people, well, then i would think all catholics are ignorant [wagons]. This is where I need to touch on trends, The spartans were one of the greek states that had gay relationships, there tho started when the boys were under 10. Those boys would grow up have kids, but the whole time remain in the military and with there gay compatriots. Paedophilia is something thats present in society, giving gay rights would only encourge this more. No, im not saying all gay men are paedophiles and im not stating all straight men are. Im saying that It will increase the numbers and the chances of someone finally making to seem like its acceptable. So marrying women is acceptable? does that mean the amount of rapes are increased? does that mean we should make it illegal to marry women, so it is more socially unacceptable, so that way there won't be people raping women? This may be a bad comparison, but if drugs were made legal, all the crimes relating to them would cease to exist. Im saying theres evils no matter what, but Marriage with a man and women is needed for out society and species to survive. Anything that isnt that is unneeded and only causes more problems.

i agree rares are silly, and the owners and shallow and pedantic. Did you thesaurus that word (pedantic)? It isn't really used right. It's more related to learning, rather than wealth. Ostentatious would be better. And more generalizations? Rares have sentimental value for some people, rather than just showing off wealth. Others genuinely think they look cool, more so in masks and santas. I personally own a white, and 4 mask sets. I dont think there silly at all, they tend to look rather cool. Though id have to say the prices at which they have hit are rather high. there is a limited number out there but I believe people push it more then demand. I got my white at 155M mask sets at 15M at 30M at 40M at 50M Rares are a status symbol and a why to keep cash you couldnt otherise. There is a GP limit and once you reach it thats it lol Rare both hold value from that and keep money away for when you need it. Think of it like bank interest only you can wear it lol Is bank interest silly? no it smart, people invest in the bank and you get money back Win win.

Where'd you get that number? for a start the homo genus (no pun intended) has been around for roughly 4 million years. Homo sapien sapiens first showed up less then 100000 years ago. If you meant any type of life, that's also wrong. For animalia showed up around 300 million years ago (may be off by a bit, i took this course a while ago) Earths current human population is over 6 billion. Thousands starve each day, thousands die of diseases we already have cures for, but they can't afford, countries are massively overpopulated, and you're saying that gays will essentially ruin life. It's not like the percentage of homosexuals have gone up, and it seems like humans are one of the most successful animals on the planet, in terms of growth. another thing is is if the homosexuals were straight, and did produce even one child in their lifetime then the population of the world would go up even more. Joy. You and a few other people were saying you hate how all gays are outspoken and flamboyant and whatever, well that's a stereotype. I'm an atheist, and if i were to think that all catholics are like you, just because of a few people, well, then i would think all catholics are ignorant [wagons]. This is where I need to touch on trends, The spartans were one of the greek states that had gay relationships, there tho started when the boys were under 10. Those boys would grow up have kids, but the whole time remain in the military and with there gay compatriots. Paedophilia is something thats present in society, giving gay rights would only encourge this more. No, im not saying all gay men are paedophiles and im not stating all straight men are. Im saying that It will increase the numbers and the chances of someone finally making to seem like its acceptable.

The bible isnt ment to be taken litteral and you shouldnt anymore becuase of the alterations made. There were alot of other books left outta the bible by its creaters. The people that created the bible were not the ones that had anything to do with any profits or revolaters. That said, Its full of stories about morals and what happens or what one can expect on some cases if not all if someone does something. Its about how one should behave to keep society sound, strong and in less conflcit with itself. There will always be people that say what the bible says it what it means, but theres meny places were thats clearly not the case, but to ignore the morals of it brings the truth of the stated to life. as i said the bible is also made of meny books so that might not be true throught, alot of people think it was always a book, but meny of the books in the bible were made of meny centuries. Some could be literal while others theological and phychological. Have faith If you wish, but dont have so much faith you cant see the sky as the sky, the ground as the ground and the sea as the sea.

When did I say that? :-k How can you replace gay rights with polygamous rights and have the same situation? Huh? :-s The side effects are nowhere near the same -- just like polygamous and gay rights movements are nowhere near the same. Caffeine and heroin are both addicting -- does that mean we should lump them both into the same legal and social "acceptance" categories? Should a caffeine user be as "bad" as a heroin user solely because potential for addiction exists in both drugs? What I'm saying is that you can't put all of these concepts into the same category solely because of a few similarities. In this case, you can't put gay rights into the same category as polygamous rights just because the concept of love and relationship exists in both gay/polygamous movements. Rights movements have specified roles and can be "all universally changed". (same goes for drugs, of course, but that isn't the subject of this discussion) How are they not the same? People should have the right to marry who or how ever meny people as they want if they have the right to marry a person of the same sex. Agian, Caffine and Heroin arent interchangeable. You cant stick heroin in a can of pop and get the same effects. Caffine also isnt as addictive as Heroin by a long shot. should we ban TV? thats addictive. If a drugs a drug label it a drug, but also dont forget what its uses are. There not just a few similarities they fill the same exact role. Polygamist and gay marriage are exactly the same roles. the same with Gay marriage and arranged marriage. Anything that is used to fill the same role isnt just a few similarities they are the same. Just because they dont hold the same ideals and theres stigmas agianst them dosent make them any differant. Its like saying a black man is not the same as white man. Or a apple tree is not the same as an orange tree, they are both trees that fill the same role.

Main reason there so cheap is becuase before most people would trade Items + cash for rares, now thats near impossible since most items prices are jacked around making person to person trading near impossible. Most people when they accepted Items wanted more value then the rare was worth to offset there being items involved. Ive quit the game for now, But if I start agian ill be buying up all rares so theres none avalible.

Im anti gang, I dont see why people keep in cycles. Im sure your not a bad person, or atleast it dont seem like it. I know real gang people, ones that shoot each other ones that kill others and ones that sell drugs to whoever has the cash. I wouldnt be Proud to be a gangster anymore. Back when gangs were for the people it was something but now its all about greed, power and money. In mexico, I watched people gun down a guy, I watched people drag a guy outta his house kick the crap outta him then take him away. I was told by the people I was staying with that He was found dead. Theres no good in being gangster anymore.

A few similarities isn't enough to give the two equal standing. A lot of rights (women's, black, divorce, abortion, etc) concern relationships and love, to consider them all on equal ground because of those two similarities would be ridiculous. You say polygamy is about love but arranged marriages are not, yet you call them equal? :roll: You're comparing apples and oranges here, and you're dead wrong in considering them equal. What the hell are you going on about? If we allowed "all rights" in our society, then people would have the right to kill, rape, abuse, enslave, discriminate, etc. For example, I'll use a drug analogy. Caffeine is a recreational drug that is legally and socially allowed in the West. Because caffeine is allowed, should we also allow heroin, cocaine, ketamine, speed, etc.? And vice versa? Heroin is not allowed -- does that mean caffeine should not be allowed? Does that mean that morphine, Advil, and other "medical" drugs should also not be allowed because heroin is not? There are a variety of valid arguments as to why drugs should be allowed or not, but using the argument that "One is allowed, so all others should be too" is a moot point and will get you nowhere. Same goes for people's rights. They are all different, and each must be accepted individually. We cannot simply accept all rights blindly and hope for the best. So your saying love isnt love if its with more then one person? There in exactly the same roles, and do exactly what the other one would. Fill a person personal relationship with others. Same thing as above, the take the same roles. You cant say there totally differant when you can replace one with the other and have the same situation. Just because they dont have the same Ideals doesnt make it not the same thing. Same with your fruit analogy there, there fruits they fill the same role as fruit! That was in refferance to the things mentioned, but no it wasnt just limited to them, and we already had this disicion a while back that we would only put things that didnt hurt others into this catagory. And drugs are hypocritical, If we ban one we should ban them all if the side effects are similar. Cigarettes and pot, Mostly all the same side effects yet cigarettes arent illegal, I think thats wrong Either make them both Illegal or legal. Also drugs have specified roles, they cant be all universally changed.

What on earth...? Arranged marriages is a form of slavery. You can't put it in the same line with adult peoples own choice of marrying someone, be it polygamic marriage or monigamic marriage. Rebdragon, I thought that banning raven was a bit extreme.. but then I read his post him calling homosexuals "nothing but a feral, worthless animals" I bet the guy is a rasist too.. Arrange marriages is most cases is for the benifit of all parties involved, This is an outside concept to people here in the us and Europe that believe love is the most important thing. Arrange marriages has a far less divorce rate then regualr marriages. And just becuase a marriage is arranged doesnt mean someones being treated unfairly, both parties are pushed into this, Neither side says oh I want that girl make her marry me. In most all cases its desided even before the children are born.

Gay rights argue to treat homosexual/bisexual relationships just as well as the way the West treats heterosexual relationships. Polygamous rights are completely different and to use them as an argument would be equally as useless as, say, attempting to compare gay rights to drug-use rights. You can't simply assume that because gay rights is fine all other right activists must also be fine. Anyways, how does polygamy harm society or people any more than monogamy? A poor relationship (with jealousy, fighting, etc) can be harmful but that occurs in both poly and monogamous marriages. PS: I support polygamous rights and drug-use rights, but I highly doubt that the rest of Western society is ready to accept either (yet). Let's try and take things one step at a time... :) I find polygamy to be on an equal standing with gay rights, There both about ones relationship with others And both concern the idea of love. Polygamy and arranged marriages are both also equal in my eyes. Polygamy im most cases was becuase of love, were as arranged marriages arent, but they cant turn into love. They both stand on equal footing to me with relationships. If you allow one you should allow them all.

Well. Its just as ironic that they helped the Taliban get Afghanistan back in the 1980's. Trained them, supplied them, and reinstated them into power. Acctually they trained afghanistan's mujahideen, most were not taliban. But yes there were enough to cause trouble when we desided we needed to come in. The muhahideen are the same people who later formed the Taleban, I thought this was common knowledge, therefore I didn't feel it was necessary to give a serious history backdrop. The best-known mujahideen, various loosely-aligned Afghan opposition groups, initially fought against the incumbent pro-Soviet Afghan government during the 1980s. At the Afghan government's request, the Soviet Union became involved in the war. The mujahideen insurgency then fought against the Soviet troops during the Soviet war in Afghanistan. After the Soviet Union pulled out of the conflict in the late 1980s the mujahideen fought each other in the subsequent Afghan Civil War. The mujahideen won when the Soviet Union pulled troops out of Afghanistan in 1989, followed by the fall of the Mohammad Najibullah regime in 1992. However, the mujahideen did not establish a united government, and many of the larger mujahideen groups began to fight each other over the power in Kabul. After several years of devastating infighting, a village mullah organized a new armed movement with the backing of Pakistan. This movement became known as the Taliban, meaning "students", and referring to the Saudi-backed religious schools known for producing extremism. Veteran mujahideen were confronted by this radical splinter group in 1996. By 2001, the Taliban, with backing from the Pakistani ISI (military intelligence) and possibly even the regular Pakistan Army, as well as al-Qaeda which found a refuge in Afghanistan, had largely defeated the militias and controlled most of the country. The opposition factions allied themselves together again and became known as the United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan (Northern Alliance). In 2001 with U.S. help and international military aid, they ousted the Taliban from power and formed the new government, and gradually militias were either incorporated into the new national army and police forces or demobilized.

That isnt and occupation, we arent there to stay and make sure things go our way forever. We came there to correct past mistakes created by past foreign policy No one cared about the palestinians feelings when they kicked them out in 1960.. TBH I don't care about the israeli feelings, and this is meant in absolutely NO racist way. I just don't sympathize with the israeli's look on things, and the way they've treated their closest neighbours for the past 60 years. --- And to get things straight, the BRITISH helped reinstate the country Israel, not so much ameriaca-. Israel has been attacked several times by its Arab neighbours even since its creation. That in and of itself would cause the tension needed to make things unresolvable, especially since most arab nations dont even recongnize Israel.

Well. Its just as ironic that they helped the Taliban get Afghanistan back in the 1980's. Trained them, supplied them, and reinstated them into power. Acctually they trained afghanistan's mujahideen, most were not taliban. But yes there were enough to cause trouble when we desided we needed to come in.