AThousandLies

By condemn do you mean promote? Because I would think a religious leader condemning the crusades would have been very refreshing for the time the crusades were happening (and probably was existent, just kept out of the majority). Woops. I meant to say condone. I got the two mixed up. But, to my knowledge and recent study in RE classes, the church turned a blind eye during the crusades. I get the feeling that now, just under 500 hundred years since Martin Luther's reforms, the church is once again heading down the wrong track. Due to freedom of speech, there is a lot criticism of the church -- which I think is good. But I still feel we'll need another reformer to abolish such absurdity (in my opinion) such as contraception and homosexual prejudice.

Since when does time invalidate something? I'm sorry, this is illogical. There comes a *time* when a *2000 year old book* isn't valid anymore? Not only is that an oxymoron, it was proofless, unexplained, and you didn't even tell us why we should believe it. Sure, society is changed, but that's because we've strayed from it's teachings, not because it's no longer applicable. Evolution and revolution. Do you think making fire with rocks is applicable now? Not very. I doubt you're going to agree to me but as far as I'm concerned it means little to nothing now. What proof do I need to give? Things have changed from then. It's common sense! If you can't accept that the bible is not 100% applicable, I really do pity you. It may have some validity now, but honestly, do I need to spell it out? It shouldn't control the religion that bases everything it believes in it? That's absolutely ridiculous. Honestly, that's like saying a scientist shouldn't be governed by the laws of science. Hahah, that's actually really funny :P You don't quite understand what I'm getting at. Okay, the bible should of course have some power over Christianity. But we need to apply it realistically to modern society. We can't apply it to life the way people did 1900 years ago; not even 500 years ago. We've changed, and the interpretation and use of the bible has to change to. Incorrect. It's people using the book the justify their wrongs that has held us back. Application vs. Principle. My goodness people, when will you ever learn that because something is APPLIED wrong, doesn't make the PRINCIPLE less true. It's the most basic logical thought ever, yet no one ever gets it. Okay, you got me there. However, no matter what you say, the bible is indirectly responsible for that. That indirectness doesn't mean all that much, of course, but when religious leaders who are meant to be acting through the bible condemn such behaviour, there is a problem.

You think that it's not idea because You don't know what's feeling when some newbie who started since rs2 was launched, makes 150mill xp and 123 combat in 5 months and starts posting on forums with big mouth: ' haha owned ' and like that.... while you was working 6 months non stop to get 100 combat in rsc. and to stop it, some little icon, such as star, would solve everything. peace out. Don't you [bleep]ing dare think you have the right to tell me how to think or why I think that way. I used to play Runescape in the beginning of 2002. I played since before members was around. I now have a new account. I think this is a stupid idea mainly because it promotes elitism. People will say "I've been playing for longer so I'm better than you". People like you who need to have a way of feeling superior to other players are ruining Runescape. If you can't deal with people calling you a noob, who gives a [bleep]? That's your own fault; Jagex shouldn't have to adapt to your insecurities.

If you'll allow me to quote: The Devil is the church's best friend. He's kept them in business all these years. I'm sure there are some parts of the bible that are applicable to modern life, and that people should be treated with respect, and that you should remain loyal to your parents (provided they are the same to you). However, there comes a time when a 2000 year old book isn't valid anymore. Society has changed; we've had wars, revolutions, advancements ... the Bible no longer should control us, nor should it control what is meant to be the most powerful religion in the world. The book has been the cause of the death of millions. It has held us back scientifically. It's about time we started seeing things in perspective and realise it's not all true.

I think behaviour is a little too subjective for a guide.

I don't think it's a good idea. It's stupid and unnecessary. Jagex may not even have a way of keeping track of who has been playing since when. Such a system serves no purpose.

It's about ****ing time.

In my eyes, it seems like the RIAA is only doing this because they lacked the intiative and intelligence to actually capitolise on this whole downloading-music boom. Whereas, you have things like iTunes and similar organisations/programs, which saw the oppurtunity and potential here and made the most of it. The RIAA is just doing this out of spite, and so they can get money to make up for their failure.

Regarding PK's ... I don't know if Jagex have a way of recording PK's. And additionally, there's the issue of team PKing; would it be half HP, final hit, both or something else to determine who got it?

If you arenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t you going buy the song in the first place then what gives you the right to download it and play it? It's pretty obvious that if you have downloaded a song and it remains on your hard drive then you enjoy it (remember most companies offer samples of songs, so you can't say your just trying out the song), so why are you not paying for it like every other thing in the universe? Back in the days if you were too poor to afford a luxury you didn't own it, simple. Now people think luxuries such as music are necessities but music has always been something you owned if you had spare money. Young people especially have the view that technology is a necessity not the three important ones: food, water and shelter, anything else if a luxury. What you seem to be forgetting that people who make music for ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâartÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ are not apart of RIAA; RIAA is a collection of businesses out to make money by selling music, not art. No artist would willingly join a RIAA label but would rather release albums through independent or a non-RIAA label (there are surely ones out there). The reason RIAA sues people for copyright infringement is not because they are evil but because thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s what its members want. The record labels and the artists on those record labels want to sue you. Without artists and therefore without labels that have artists, the RIAA is nothing because they wont have a music collection to monitor for copyright infringement. The RIAA are not suing you for owing your friends album on mp3, they are suing you for downloading Britney Spears or Nelly illegally. They are protecting their members and not music in general; music for art and music for RIAA are two different things. Oh really? I strongly suggest you read the following article. http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html

But in that case they'd probably have to change smithing entirely to maintian consistancy; meaning you'd have to smith handles fow swords out of gold, make the wooden part of maces, use the feather for full helmets and so forth. Maybe it'll happen down the future, but I don't think a huge change wouldn't be welcome quickly.

We can smith items such as hatchets, swords and armour, so why can't we smith pickaxes? They could be smithable at the same level or close to the same of hatchets. Any opinions?

Make-up is for the purpose of making people look more glamorous, more presentable and in general, better. It allows people to come off in a better light and for them to be seen at their best. Save from some hazardous chemicals in certain forms of make-up, and some cruel testings of cosmetic products on animals, I think make-up is a good thing. Others will probably argue that it is super-ficual, though. Regarding men wearing make-up; I don't see a problem with it. I've worn make-up before (nail-polish, eye-liner, lip-stick) if I'm going to a costume, fancy dress party or sometimes if I just feel like looking spiffy when I go out. All the penis-envious macho men who think they're tough and hardcore will argue that "make-up is for [bleep]s" or some such crap. But reasoning with a redneck is like masturbating to a picture of the queen; it gets you nowhere and leaves you tired and sore.

He said it'd be a mini-game in the same way as the blast furnace, but instead using bars. The moulds would be for making certain weapons/armour/accessories. What about people who want ores and not bars? That'd make the Blast Furnace redundant.

yes, downloading is stealing. yes it is hurting someone. yes. yes. would it hurt me if you took a few cents out of my paycheck each week? change adds up after a while. id be angry if someone got into my car and took the handful of change i got in there. its still my property, that no one except me had the right too. i dont want to be anyone elses slave, working just so that they can steal from me. they didnt get the 15 dollars, so they arent getting as much money. maybe the record company was going to give this one guy a big christmas bonus, but instead gave him a fruit of the month subscription because the profit was $15 less than the line (i know $15 wouldnt make that big of difference, but it still does). I haven't got time to reply to all of this so I'll just reply to this one point. Although the artist may not be getting the $15, who is to say they were going to? Who is to say the downloader was going to buy the CD? That's the main basis for the RIAA's argument -- speculation.

In case that was directed at me, I was saying that I think it's hypocritical.

Quoted for truth.

Regardless of whether it has been over-hyped and dramatised or not, there's little we can do about it. You could also get hit by a bus or have a satellite fall onto your house (if you're very lucky). Unless it becomes incredibly dangerous and is affecting surrounding areas (as in, other states within Australia), then I'll start worrying and stocking up. But for now there it's just another one of the potentially fatal risks that we brave every single day.

My oh my, aren't you the optimist! What if they didn't believe in a god, but were nice and didn't hurt/kill/steal? Sadly enough, they still die. It states too clearly that whover doesn't believe in him, although is the world's biggest saint, will still spend eternity in hell. For example, a murderer who confessed his sins and truly repents and gives his life to God, then he will be saved, where as a guy, who gave his entire fortune to charity, but does not believe in Christ then...... Oh and willy, God forgive if you repent. Don't take his love and compassion for granted. Yeah .. it's things like that which make me see Christianity as flawed and hypocritical.

Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. Unless you include Muse's Absolutiot; released in Australia in 2003 but US in 2004.

2004 would have to have been one of the [cabbage]tiest years in music in recent times. Very few decent releases (IMO). There was APC, COF, Fear Factory, Placebo's best of, Orgy (which was kinda crap) and ... that's it.

Never heard of them ... but damn, that's awful. Best wishes to them.

In my several years on the internet; in my approximate two years of forumming, this is the best post I have ever come across. Brilliantly written, and I could not agree more. I congratulate you. Art is beauty, and should not become based on monetary gain. I admire you for coming up with something such as this.

It doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t matter if IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m selling it; the argument still stands even if IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m giving it away. The company will sue me for misrepresentation and use of their trademarks regardless if I make a profit or not. Do you really think they will leave you alone if youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re giving it away? The point here was that you pay for the intangible product at a movie theatre. I didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t mean that you solely pay to watch the movie, of course you pay for use of seats and building rent etc. but the point is you also pay money for something intangible (the movie itself). The movie theatre does not get movies for free and in return charges you for this intangible product but when you suddenly get an intangible product from the internet it doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t count. The cost of the movie reel or c.d. is insignificant compared to what it stores; shouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t you be willing to pay for the price of a c.d. minus the cost of c.d. and packaging instead of completely refusing to pay? There are services that offer mp3ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s like Itunes, they offer the same thing as P2P so how come they expect you to pay for the songs? What are you talking about? All the samples (within reason, sure there might be a few that were misplaced but you know what I mean) work on Amazon.com and the quality is in general ALMOST as good as an mp3. Most mp3ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s (non lossless) are horrible anyway so something a bit worse doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t hurt as much as the initial quality hit of 192kbit. I could probably find 5 or 6 albums I can stream by artists I listen to and probably get a whole bunch of mp3ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s legally from them and the quality is just as good as the 128kbit or 192kbit songs you download and listen with your horrible Ipod earphones. Like the samples, the mp3ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s you download are like an advert without colourÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâæ because it is inferior to the c.d. version. When does an advert ever play a song from an album in full and offer you a copy for personal use? In a matter of fact when do you ever see a company give away their complete product and say you can pay for it if you like it? Never otherwise people would just take the product and not pay; surely this isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t a smart way to make money. How about not paying a doctor or lawyer for their service? Not all stores sell tangible products and I bet you that you will be chased and have the cops called on you if you try to make a runner. WhatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s the difference between this and something ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâvirtualÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢, the doctor spent the time talking to you much in the same way an artist spent their time making a song for you. No I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t see the difference; you are still violating their property rights by the fact that the owner does not have control (which access is a part of) of his/her work. Your example doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t work because this is a public forum which you signed an agreement and understood the rules in which this forum operates. So long as I quote to you within this forum and under the rules we agreed to it is perfectly fine. Now if I reproduced your article elsewhere without permission then it is stealing. ThatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s exactly what I said, read the quote. They should be taking it from the perspective that people who steal physical things have no problems downloading songs rather then the other way around. In this case it would be somewhat factual and point out that thieves donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t discriminate between the things they steal; they just take advantage of a situation. Much like what you are doing except they do it far more often and on a wider variety of things. Okay, I'll level with you; it's the holidays and I'm not prepared for long and winding debates. We obviously have different opinions on this. You think it's stealing in the same league as taking a product or not paying a practicioner for their servies; I think it's in a different league. You bring up some good points which I cannot argue, but I still stand by the fact that the RIAA or whomever is in charge here in Australia has received more of my money due to P2P programs. Whether that's applicable for others is not my business.

That's an unfair comparison. I'm not making money from downloading music. I'm not selling it. At the movies I don't just pay to see the movie -- I'm paying to see it in the special format it is presented in (surround sound, large screen, luxury seats etc). So ... no. A [cabbage]ty quality sample that doesn't always work isn't the type of thing that makes me want to buy a product. It's like an advertisement on TV without colour, sound or proper spelling -- you wouldn't want to buy that product would you? Stealing is stealing, yeah, fine. But taking something from a shop is different to downloading music. Actually, it is quite different. You see, in this case, the people still have access to their intellectual property. Perhaps tangible or intangible it is still stealing, but then I guess you quoting my post is stealing isn't it? I didn't give permission for you to quote my post, did I now? The post is my intellectual property so technically you're stealing it by using the same logic. If I download music, the artist still has access to their own music. If I steal their car, they don't have access to their car. See the difference? Maybe if you steal goods you wouldn't have a problem downloading music. But if you download music you won't necessarily be more likely to take a tangible object from a shop. A rectangle is a square, but a square is not a rectangle.