Sly_Wizard

And that word is...?

Yeah I dont even know why they keep it now I did 1 click summer garden for like 1.2m thieve exp. Same, and still go there from time to time for thief xp. Hmmm, maybe I should try this. You just follow one of the bots?

If I spelled any of my usernames backwards they would... actually make sense to people. OMG IT MAKES SO MUCH SENSE NOW I feel dumb for not noticing until now :(

Man, I don't care about the armor. I'm just happy they're axing the 80 attack requirement :thumbsup:

Why do people like to announce that they're quitting? I've never understood that, actually.

Well, just saw this. 80 attack. Complete [cabbage].

Dang, I should have sold a p-hat like I started to a few months ago and bought it back for lower prices. Oh well.

Oh, I remember that! Iirc, it was for libel or something, though I don't remember the topic. Now I'm curious as to see if it's still on these boards.

I'm only 26 damnit! :angry: No offense, but I figured you were in your mid-30's. I'm 26, my boobs are perky, and my butt is still tight. So screw you. :shame: I was more talking about your penchant to complain about Runescape incessantly. Reminds me of a chick in her 30's/40's. ...But thank you for the information. That's cause I'm kinda pissy. Sorry. You'll just have to deal with it. After 7 years of Runescape and Jagex's various attempts to ruin it, I grow weary quickly. That and I'm very, very sarcastic. Now let's hush about my body parts before I get in trouble. :rolleyes: PS Anyone who wants to know more about my body can message me or ask Ezkaton. He's seen a lot of it. ;) It doesn't much matter to me if you're 36-24-36, Tyra Banks, Adele or that chick who weighs like 728 lbs but wants to get bigger nor does it matter to me what e-attitude you have. I was just saying that I figured you were in your mid-30's-- at least-- based on the amount of complaining you do. Sort of like Qeltar, though I figured that guy was probably in his 40's or 50's, at least. Edit: Okay, I lied. I do care if you're Tyra, in which case, message me :thumbsup: .

I'm only 26 damnit! :angry: No offense, but I figured you were in your mid-30's. I'm 26, my boobs are perky, and my butt is still tight. So screw you. :shame: I was more talking about your penchant to complain about Runescape incessantly. Reminds me of a chick in her 30's/40's. ...But thank you for the information.

I'm only 26 damnit! :angry: No offense, but I figured you were in your mid-30's.

I've never understood the "quit-once-you-go-to-college" mentality. When I went off the college, I played Runescape more, not less as I had more free time during the day (instead of going to school for 8+ hours a day, I only had class for maybe three hours a day plus maybe two work study) and could stay up as late as I wanted. Anyway, I play to fight boredom, just the same reason I play any other game.

I had the same problem. Either play in fixed mode or full screen; I switched to fixed. I've heard that using the RS client fixes the problems for resizeable, but I have yet to try it.

I gained around 150 ranks in magic and range and about 500K ranks in attack and strength. The latter made me lol a bit. Anyway, the one "good" thing about this update is we can kind of approximate the number of paid subscriptions. I looked at strength and there are about 529K players ranked for it. Even if you assumed there are an extra 71K paid subscriptions from people not ranked for strength, that means that there are approximately 600K paid subscriptions per month. I could have sworn Jagex said there were 1M paid subscriptions a few months ago? Has Runescape lost 400K+ subscriptions?

You're not emphasizing anything so much as you're being disingenuous. Your argument has very little-- nothing, in fact-- to do with whether or not pregnancy is, as you put it, a "dubious prospect", for both you and I know (as you've stated) that you would not disallow a woman from having an abortion even if we know with absolute certainty that the pregnancy poses absolutely no risks to the mother's health or life. Of course, you ignored this point earlier, and I doubt you'll respond to it this time, but it's worth rementioning. You do realize that the majority of women obtain an abortion for reasons which can and do affect men equally, correct? I figured this was pretty much well known but, apparently, it's not. I suppose I shouldn't assume things in the future. Anyway, just to reiterate, the majority of women obtain an abortion for reason which can and do affect men equally. Before you tell someone to mistakenly "try again", you should at the very least come to understand what it is you're trying to argue against. False. Perhaps you should open up a dictionary at some point in time. Just because you want to play the "It's not a child game!" doesn't mean it's not. Words have meaning and, no matter how much some people wish to believe differently, the concept of an unborn child has meaning within society as a whole. Definition of child #1 Definition of child #2 Definition of child #3 False. Reread what I wrote and you'll find that I didn't compare the two. What I said, and the point you seemingly missed, is that the morality, or justifiability, of an action is not dictated by the number of children a woman has prior. So you believe abortion is a matter of self-defense? And explain to me again why you don't rationalize infanticide under the same rationale? Thus far, you've provided no reasoning as to why it cannot be applied as equally to infanticide as you have applied it to abortion. You said, and I quote, "[women] were often doing the most to prevent pregnancy". No matter what way you slice it or how much you obfuscate, it's simply untrue. Number one, the overwhelming majority of women don't have abortions because they don't want to be pregnant or because pregnancy would affect their body in some way, but because they don't want to or don't feel as if they can take care of a child. The only part "her body" plays into the decision to abort is that she can abort because it's "her body". Number two, and probably more importantly, this is precisely the point I was making above which you missed. If I were to impregnate some chick, no court of law would give two [cabbages] about whether or not taking care of a child would affect my ability to go to college, or to have a certain career, or to travel abroad or even whether or not paying for a child would affect my current livelihood or even negatively impact my ability to provide for any other children I have. All of these are common reasons women have abortions, however. In essence, you're arguing a double standard in which a man is held to a higher standard than is the woman, and where his "hopes and dreams" are considered to be immaterial while the woman's important, all under the basis that a woman shouldn't have to subject herself to "the physical demands of pregnancy" if she doesn't want to, which isn't even the reason she's probably having an abortion in the first place (the reason she's having an abortion is probably the same reason why the man wouldn't want to care for a child). It's nonsensical and quite laughable if you think about it. But I doubt you will. A legal abortion in a country without access to the latest in medical technology will be as safe or unsafe as an illegal abortion in that same country. Conversely, an illegal abortion in a country with access to the latest in medical technology will be as safe or unsafe as a legal abortion in that same country. Just look at the U.S. for example. Abortions "safety" was directly tied to advancements in medical technology, not it's legal status. As it is, I'd bet that, if you were a woman, you'd rather have an illegal abortion in the U.S. than a legal abortion in, say, Ghana. No, I mean like those things which are part of a human versus those things which are a human. And yet, it's not true. Who doesn't recognize a newborn as "a human"? I'd be interested to know.

Irrelevant to the question asked, which I'm sure you know. Oh, boy. Here goes a doozy of a response. 1.) So a woman should be allowed to have an abortion because not doing so affects her personal and financial dependence? That is the most ridiculous argument I've ever read. If you haven't figured out by now, I'm a male. If I were to impregnate some chick and tried to go before a court and argue that I should have no responsibility for that child, because doing so would negatively affect my personal and financial dependence or even affect my ability to provide for any other children I might already have, I would be laughed straight out of court, be called a deadbeat and be told that I should have kept it in my pants or that I shouldn't have done the deed if I was unprepared for a child. Point being, if the argument isn't going to fly for a man, it most certainly shouldn't fly for a woman. 2.) The fact that the woman in question has preexisting children is irrelevant to the morality of abortion. I'm going to assume you're not going to argue that infanticide is justifiable if the mother is killing one child to better the lives of the her other children. 3.) Perhaps you should learn to fully read what you post. A simple fact of the matter is that the majority of women who obtain abortions absolutely were not doing "the most" to prevent pregnancy. According to the Guttmacher Institute, the three most used contraceptive methods for people obtaining abortions are the male condom, the pill and the withdrawal method (lol). Also according to the Guttmacher Institute, 46.3% of women who obtain an abortion were using no contraceptive method at all. However, it's important to note that 53.7% of women who obtain abortion don't become pregnant despite using contraceptives. In fact, a large portion of that 53.7% weren't using contraceptives at the time they became pregnant. For example, 75.9% of pill users reported inconsistent use at the time they got pregnant: -45.1% simply forgot to take pills -15.9% were away from home and didn't have pills -10.3% ran out of supplies -7.7% were sick -2.1% didn't think they would have sex again -1.6% didn't feel like taking pills -0.3% reported their partner didn't want them to take any pill -0.2% thought they might have wanted to get pregnant -3.6% report some other, undisclosed reason On the other hand, 49.3% of condom users reported inconsistent use at the time they got pregnant: -20.4% didn't use because they didn't think they'd get pregnant -14.3% didn't have one -12.8% didn't expect to have sex -7.1% simply forgot about it -5.6% didn't feel like using one -3.5% reported their partner didn't feel like using one -1.0% reported that their partner was supposed to bring one, though they still had sex -1.0% said their partner wanted them to get pregnant -0.5% were forced to have sex -0.5% thought they wanted to get pregnant -0.5% didn't care if they got pregnant Linky linky So stop and think about that for a second. Close to a full 76% of pill users who were on the pill and obtained an abortion and a full 50% of women using condoms who are included in the "were-using-contraceptive" category weren't using contraceptives at the time they became pregnant. If you were to add them to the "not-using-contraceptives" category, along with those women who obtain abortions while using the withdrawal method (which is pretty much not a contraceptive method as fas as I'm concerned), you'd get something like 80%+ of women obtaining abortions not using contraceptives at the time they got pregnant. That's a staggering number, and completely cuts at the BS rhetoric thrown out by pro-choicers. Yes, I'll wait. Adjective versus noun.

I did the typing test and got 89 WPM (92 - 3). I know I can type 100 WPM if I really concentrate, but I'm too lazy to try it again.

To put it kindly, the above given link by Nomrombom a load of crap and I seriously could write paragraphs upon paragraphs as to why this is, but I won't. Instead, I pose the following (rhetorical) question; what if the pregnancy poses no threat to the mother's physical health, and we know this with absolute certainty? Would the author argue that abortion is thereby impermissible?

No, because (1) it's a bald-faced lie to say that pro-lifers don't care about the fetus once it's born (good luck proving this assertion, as it's very easy to disprove) and (2) some of that stuff, i.e. the death penalty, has nothing to do with abortion.

It's greedy to want to draw more people into the member game? I hope that some of you guys and gals never go into business. Special promotional offers are not new within the MMO market, nor a foreign business practice. I really do think that some of you would prefer Jagex not do anything to try to increase membership.

Oh. My apologies then :mrgreen:

There is only a problem when you argue that personhood is not synonymous with human. At that point, you're burdened with coming up with a definition fo personhood which either doesn't lead to extreme conclusions or a definition which does not excuse a group you want to include. Why can't I use the mirror test? Some people in this thread aren't arguing that it's permissible to kill humans, as a species, because they're not self-aware, but that it's permissable to kill a human at a specific stage of development or time because it isn't self-aware. Therefore, the use of the mirror test to show that if Human A at stage of development X can be killed on the basis that it's not self-aware (or, more specifically, it has no right to not be killed), then Human B at stage of development Y can be killed under the same rationale is perfectly justified. I'm not putting words in your mouth. You said that newborns, and people under the age of two, were "probably not people". If they're not persons, then what right do they have to not be killed? What's the point of pointing out that they're "probably not people" if not to insinuate that it's okay to kill them?

......... Well, first off, I think you mean self-aware, not sentient. If you poke a newborn with a needle, it will cry. Newborns, however, fail the mirror test, meaning they have no concept of themselves as individuals (which is what I think you mean). But regardless, did you really just say that it's okay to kill a newborn because (s)he might not be a person? I... I don't really even know what to say to you., aside from saying that these are the kinds of conclusions you reach when you start trying to justify why some subset of the population are persons and why others are not.

You're not making any sense. On one hand, you say that people should be allowed to choose the morality of an issue for themselves regardless of how another feels about it but then, on the other hand, you turn around and say that it doesn't apply to rape because (1) there are no medical benefits to rape and (2) because not allowing one to rape doesn't take away their rights. (1) I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the "personally opposed to" line is not constrained by whether or not an action has medical benefits. For example, I'm going to assume that you're not going to refrain from using that line in the instances where someone wants to drink themselves into a coma or give themselves lung cancer by smoking twelve packs of cigarettes per day. Whether or not an action has medical benefits or not is immaterial to the issue of legality. (2) A few people in this thread have claimed that disallowing a woman from having an abortion restricts her rights to liberty and happiness (I'm not even going to talk about life). Following that chain of logic, then disallowing a rapist from raping someone could also be argued to be restricting his/her right to liberty and happiness. Number one, any restrictions on an action that the individual would otherwise engage in are a restriction on liberty, as liberty is defined as the ability of an individual to act according to their own will. And if, as you're arguing, that it's wrong to restrict one's liberty, then how can you argue against a restriction on rape? Number two, if engaging in rape would make someone happy, and everyone has a right to happiness, then why shouldn't one be allowed to engage in rape? Remember, everyone has the right to decide the morality of an action for themselves, even if you wouldn't engage in it yourself. (Now, there's a bit of facetiousness in the above post, but it's useful to highlight the ridiculousness of your position.) Because as I said, rape takes away the rape victim's right to their own body. And one person's right to their own body (especially in the case of rape) outstrip the rights of someone to be "happy" because they can rape people freely. Not to mention that rape sometimes ends in murder. And yet, you seem to have no qualms with taking away the unborn's rights to their own bodies. Presumably, this is because you're using some form of the "Because it's not a person it has no right to not be killed!" argument, but then you are burdened with explaining why the unborn are not. Any justification you can try to come up with will either lead to 'abortion-at-any-time-for-any-reason' (i.e., you'll base your argument on location) or you will put yourself on a slippery slope to where you also define some born individual out of rights based on some arbitrary quality (i.e., self-awareness). Unless you're going to take either position, you're going to have to play a liberal amount of mental gymnastics to even begin to justify your argument.

You're not making any sense. On one hand, you say that people should be allowed to choose the morality of an issue for themselves regardless of how another feels about it but then, on the other hand, you turn around and say that it doesn't apply to rape because (1) there are no medical benefits to rape and (2) because not allowing one to rape doesn't take away their rights. (1) I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the "personally opposed to" line is not constrained by whether or not an action has medical benefits. For example, I'm going to assume that you're not going to refrain from using that line in the instances where someone wants to drink themselves into a coma or give themselves lung cancer by smoking twelve packs of cigarettes per day. Whether or not an action has medical benefits or not is immaterial to the issue of legality. (2) A few people in this thread have claimed that disallowing a woman from having an abortion restricts her rights to liberty and happiness (I'm not even going to talk about life). Following that chain of logic, then disallowing a rapist from raping someone could also be argued to be restricting his/her right to liberty and happiness. Number one, any restrictions on an action that the individual would otherwise engage in are a restriction on liberty, as liberty is defined as the ability of an individual to act according to their own will. And if, as you're arguing, that it's wrong to restrict one's liberty, then how can you argue against a restriction on rape? Number two, if engaging in rape would make someone happy, and everyone has a right to happiness, then why shouldn't one be allowed to engage in rape? Remember, everyone has the right to decide the morality of an action for themselves, even if you wouldn't engage in it yourself. (Now, there's a bit of facetiousness in the above post, but it's useful to highlight the ridiculousness of your position.)