snowager286

Prostitution? O_o thats one of the most random things I've ever heard, and completely pointless, cybering has been around in RS since I played and back then they just used GP. Also, I don't see how its a "business scam" what happens in a scenario are two things, A) people who had NOT been paying the P2P game beforehand, start so essential jagex gets more players to pay B) people who had been paying start just buying using Ingame money. So elaborate on your "business scam" idea a little.

Now, I have a feeling that this will be somewhat controversial. However, give me a chance to explain where I'm coming from and see what you think. This system is fairly simple, you enable purchase of in game time cards. These in game time cards can be sold by the person who bought for real money for gold. Enabling the person who spent money to exchange his cash for GP, and the buyer to pay for his membership with GP, a perfectly mutual relationship. What would make this crazy system function? well, This system was tried with great success in EVE online in the form of "concord pilots licences" or PLEX cards. Such a system can establish a moderately stable GP <--> money exchange rate, which MIGHT do something to stabilize the RS economy. Additionally, it allows for F2P players who don't feel like spending their own money to still be able to enjoy the members part of the game. However, it is VITAL to understand that while such a system functions well in a game like EVE there is no telling how it would work in RS. Would such a system function in a game like Runescape? Is it even acceptable? Discuss. *Note: I feel that for such a system to work in any system it should not have a firmly established rate created by the game company. excepting maybe an initial base rate.

I always found company while doing endlessly boring grinding nice. I hated having no one there to talk to. Then again... Its better to be alone then to be with an [wagon] the way I see it.

I've heard that there is a massive gulf between the difficulty for the PC and the difficulty for the consoles. From my experience on playing it for the PC its is a VERY hard game. But I might just be no good at it.

I grabbed a statistic off this site as well: http://www.earthtraces.com/godsodds.shtml The perpetuation of any theory along these lines seems insane to me. I just wanted to share these. I'm obviously not convincing you, and you are unable to convince me. I'm stepping out now, hopefully on friendly terms with you all. Thanks for all the time you dedicated. To further his point I would like to point out that the enzymes required for any functioning being to emerge would take exceedingly long times to form naturally. One of these enzymes is one that is needed for chlorophyll and it would have taken half the earths lifespan(including the years it was inhospitable) it have formed.

Exactly! Agnosticism is the only 'logical' argument. To be honest, I'm not "sure" that God exists, but I live my life like he does, and I assume that he does as the world is hopless without that assumption( to me at least.) I don't need logical proof to believe in God. Oh and you should capitlize God, not out of respect, but God is still a proper noun. Even if you believe he is pure fiction. Shouldn't you be capitalizing He, as well? Just curious... I never capitalize god. Only... uh, when I'm mocking the idea. You are right I should be capitalizing he when referring to God. But, yes you should capitlize God, It IS a proper noun whether or not you believe in him or not. Unless you enjoy mauling the English language to make an ideological point.

Exactly! Agnosticism is the only 'logical' argument. To be honest, I'm not "sure" that God exists, but I live my life like he does, and I assume that he does as the world is hopless without that assumption( to me at least.) I don't need logical proof to believe in God. Oh and you should capitlize God, not out of respect, but God is still a proper noun. Even if you believe he is pure fiction.

Well, if you agree that everything has to have a cause for it. Then you claim that the universe had to have been created by something. It then follows that everything needs to be caused, so that cause needs to have a cause. Then that cause needs a cause, ad infinitum. It's just infinite regression. If you argue that God isn't a part of this phenomenon, and doesn't need a cause, then that's special pleading, and destroys your argument that everything needs a cause. We could then easily argue that the Universe or the Big Bang or whatever didn't need a cause, it created itself or some other hogwash. Exactly, why should their ever be an end? The goal of science is to explain everything. Then it should be science's goal to explain why the universe exists. 'because' is not an acceptable answer from a scientist. The whole point of my argument is that I'm arguing from a scientific point of view,(or at least what I've been lead to believe a scientific view is) that science can explain everything. Because I don't feel that everything needs to proof I could potentially agree with you. But, if you hold that what science tells us is absolutely true, and that it's fundamental ideals are also true. Then wouldn't you be contradicting yourself.

Canada has a dictator? I thought Canada was just the 51st state. :shock: Honestly, if we wanted oil we would have actually... I don't know, taken it.

nah, I'd just use linux. Then we would have to figure our if we could create rocks we couldn't lift :uhh:

I get what your saying. But, everything else seems to have a reasonable explanation as to why it happened. We've found a source for everything.except for one thing, the universe and it's base components. We've found a reason for why most things are the way they are. Why should we think that the universe is somehow exempt from this? Why shouldn't the universe have an explicit reason to have these base components?

It is a logical thing to do. Only a fool or an ideologue would do otherwise. Props to Bush :thumbsup:

Maybe when you reposted the link you should of pulled some main points from it. Otherwise we could all just post links and not discuss anything. Well hell I'll copy and paste stuff if you really want. Maybe later though. Yeah I should have posted some made points, but still no reason to freak out over it and call me insecure and the like. Your right, but, your initial reaction should have been different and less defensive. You would have come off in a much better light. Also, Ginger was a little to aggressive, and inspired the defensive response from Dangeresque.

Saved? Nahh. You just turned all population into no-life supernerds. :ohnoes: Curse you! You uncovered my plot! :evil: But, the sticky part of my plan comes when we have to figure out a way to A) power the computer B) maintain the computer. and C) protect the computer. Personally I think most of those could be solved simply enough.

Fine I will admit that I misread your sentence, but, it was somewhat ambiguously worded. In light of that I realize what you meant to say and I understand how you managed to get upset at the other person. However, I would like to point that he might have also misinterpreted your statement. On a more annoyed note, why one earth did you say you wanted a civil discourse if you planned on becoming uncivil? You could clearly tell that I had misinterpreted your post and that I was being rude because I thought what you said was utter nonsense. Despite this, I did not truly respond in a kind manner,etc etc. You get the point? It was a misunderstanding. Hold on, are you trying to tell me that it is logical for something to exist for no reason? That It is logical for everything but the universe to have a beginning and an end? It seems somewhat silly to me. Although it is not beyond comprehension I would like to think that if science is the sole source of truth about our universe, then it would at least be able to explain why the universe even exists.

Of course I would want to live forever! I could use my ever growing wisdom and the reactions of everybody else(hey that guys immortal!) to take over the world then force it convert all of our minds into data. I will then seal all of our consciousness in a massive computer that is maintained by a massive force of robots who we can still directly control in order to conduct experiments. While inside of side 30 exabyte computer where our consciousnesses will be seperate but communicate through avatars our minds have created. In short I will have saved humanity. 8-)

No, what Northern hero said was a load of crap,It didn't even make sense! (How in the hell do you create nothingness? :| ) Because I find it difficult to believe that stuff just happens to exist. Unless science can give me a solid good reason as to why stuff exists for no good reason then I will remain skeptical.

I'm not insulting you, I insulted your argument... .Which was terrible. The reason it was so terrible and looked at first to be sarcasm is because the ancient Greeks had prophets, they had TONS of stories that quite a few believed.(the numbers might have fallen later on in Greek culture.) I think your right personally, but your argument was pathetic.

I have no Idea if your being sarcastic or not. If you are being sarcastic, then you should make your sarcasm slightly more obvious. If your aren't, then you just made a terrible argument that a 4th grader shouldn't be proud of.

He argued with you over that? yes. edit: fine, I'll elaborate. First of all It wasn't like some silly contrived misunderstanding that lasted for 20 minutes before either of us figured out that it was all just a misunderstanding. I was simply chatting with a man on a bus ride when he asked me if i believed in god or not. I responded, and told him that I was "a theist" he got somewhat upset about that and asked why I felt that way. I told him that their was no proof and he cut me off mid sentence and told me "You don't need proof, just faith!". At that I realized that he was also an theist which cleared up that mess.

I've never seen any proof that God exists. I've also never seen any proof that God doesn't exist. In my personal opinion I think neither one of them could ever prove that they are right (except possibly theists if God suddenly showed up.). Thus I think that one "logical" belief to be agnosticism. However, I feel that life would be truly crappy If I based everything I believed in off of logic, thus I am an theist. (I switched the 'a' to 'an' to make sure that their were no confusions. I once got in an argument with a man because I told him I was 'a theist' but he thought I said 'atheist'. #-o )

Wow! that is one hell of a tough question.... I don't think it will be atheism though, as trading in one logical fallacy for another isn't very likely. Personally, I have no clue, the world is so unpredictable in the situation could change at any time that there is no way to make an accurate guess. However, if I had to say, I would say it would likely be a universalist branch of a preexisting religion. Or perhaps one like Baha'i, or something like that.

Oh ya? Karl Marx would have a great laugh over that one. If want to follow pure communism you'd have to lead a revolt of the lower class (and you would have to be a part of the lower class.) Overthrow the presidents and leaders of all the nations in the world and then let the world be ruled by some quasi anarchist commune thing. Or something like that (To be honest I have no idea what communism really is seeing as their are at least 5 different ways of defining it.)

Okay, what I wanna know here is what the heck really happened. I don't trust the news because local news stations almost always play up minor things like that. I don't trust the parents or family because there is isn't a more biased source out there. Finally, I don't even trust the cops because they are likely going to try and down play anything they did. Personally, I think its just plain bizarre that the cops could even hope to get away with that, so why did they do it?

But what I'm saying is that the money supply can be changed in large amounts. It could be doubled in a day. I think you're saying something else, but money can be changed in a great amount. So, what do you mean? Edit: I think I know what you're saying. Something involving the terms real and nominal, perhaps? ;) Yes! thats the point I've been trying to get at all this time. Just because the rich seem to be getting richer doesn't mean they actually are. They may have more money in terms of nominal value but not really have more money (assuming the poor and middle class stay the same) but not if it is accurately adjusted for inflation.