ktmcf121

my mom's in the CWA, she works for AT&T and I give her [cabbage] about it all the time. she knows I'm right too, because of all the corruption. There are many problems with Unions, and I'm sure there are some good things, but I never hear about them. Also, striking does NOT help anyone!!! The one time her union actually did go on strike it hurt our family more than helped us. The lost wages from the weeks of being on strike was worse than the (barely) benefits that came as a result of the strike. (this was a long time ago so i don't remember details exactly, just her complaining about it) There are so many people in her workplace that are totally useless, if not detrimental to the company, people who abuse the union's support to slack off, endanger co-workers, even listen to people's phone conversations(yes there is someone there who actually does that for fun) without getting fired. so before you go saying that unions are all great and help the poor working man, you need to look at the whole story. I will never work with or for a union. =; at least until something is done to get rid of the corruption.

yes and i will buy them from you lol also, red chins are great, i made over 20m getting 99 hunter :D

barrows is super easy, just use one of the great guides in the archive of wisdom here. also, you don't NEED slayer dart, it just makes things go much faster if you're maging.

yep, you can buy it pretty cheap in the dorgesh kan city which is unlocked in "another slice of HAM" i think.

Hunter: [img=http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/240/dragonhunterjg2.png] i might get one for a quest cape later

ooh, i wanna play. if we're getting techincal here, then wood isn't flammable. it's combustable. flammability refers to how easy to ignite the substance is, and how rapidly it burns. therefore, gasoline vapors are flammable, wood is not. :!: but, on topic, i was in an f2p pking world today and everyone there was eating and every .5 seconds someone yelled "safer!" or something to that extent. what are you supposed to do, just stand there while you die? :-s

Yep, unfortunately lots of guns are stolen in the U.S. One source claims that "Cook et al. (1995) estimated that some 500,000 guns are stolen each year."[1] Like I said in my earlier posts, gun laws alone wouldn't do much. In my opinion the best way to minimize violence is to really change the public's opinion on firearms. Currently, a lot of American citizens see guns as items for protection or sport. If the public saw them purely as "killing machines" then there would be no demand for them. When citizens stop demanding firearms, implementing gun laws will be a piece of cake. you can't just go around changing people's opinions on things like that... people are too stubborn. just like most of the people here are too stubborn to believe that there are thousands of people who actually are responsible with guns, teach gun saftey to kids, and use guns for something OTHER than killing other humans. I'm not here to change your opinion. If you want to know my opinion on the matter, I posted it about 2 pages ago. But until there is some sort of compromise, I'm going to keep voting against gun control laws, and I'm going to continue using my firearms safely and responsibly. but know this: IF by some crazy turn of events guns actually DO become outlawed, then true criminals will not be affected, but thousands of "good" people, such as myself my friends, and my family, will become outlaws.

yep, because i started that one. either way, i'm really glad hamilton didn't win. =D>

Relative frequency means comparing two sets of causes and effects, not just two effects. If you only compare two effects, then there were 29569 deaths by firearms in 2004 and 16885 deaths by drunk driving in 2005. However, that is not why firearms should be regulated over alcohol. Once you consider relative frequency by inputing the cause: 24.2% of the population own guns compared to 80% that drink alcohol, the relative frequency of a gun user harming someone is much higher than the relative frequency of an alcohol user harming someone. Alcohol is designed to hurt oneself, which is different from being designed to hurt others. Those incidents harm the alcohol drinkers themselves and are accidents performed in inebriation. please take the time to think through your arguments next time before posting. Majority of drunk drivings are accidental and majority of gun shootings are malicious. don't think that we're done here. i don't have time to write a response yet, and i'm going to be gone to see my gf all weekend so i probably won't be able to reply until monday. gf >> arguing with idiots.

but HOW is he fighting it? making a movie and doing a lot of [bleep]ing doesn't do ANYTHING! it just proves you have a lot of time on your hands. its not like he sold his house and car and private jet to invest all his money in non-polluting technology, instead he makes it worse by traveling the country trying to get average people to do the same things he ISN'T doing. i don't understand how anyone can take this guy seriously.... :wall:

the point is, what has al gore done to promote peace? made a movie about a controversial topic and pissed a bunch of people off? wow, what a sacrifice. he'll probably be canonized when he dies. :roll: Global warming exists. The controversy among the scientific community is only regarding its speed and methods. The Dalai Lama pissed off the chinese government, but he still got a nobel peace prize. Activism will always have opposition, but that should not affect people being rewarded for it. i never said that global warming didn't exist, and you didn't answer my question. i also never said that al gore was the ONLY person who didn't deserve an award, it just so happens that it's the topic at hand. plus i just hate al gore. mess with dirt bikes and you are automatically on my [cabbage]-list.

Not injuries due to drunk driving. Frequency of injuries due to alcohol. Because guns are designed to hurt people but alcohol isn't, it's obvious that a person who picks up a gun will have a higher frequency of hurting others than a person who picks up a bottle of alcohol. this is just wrong... 1. you bolding out the worlds "frequency" and "alcohol" are only making my argument stronger, since i was comparing ONLY drunk driving to ALL gun injuries. either way you still haven't proven to me that guns are more deadly than alcohol. the article you quoted has nothing to do with what i was arguing, since i never argued that guns were only meant for self-defense. i'm not so naive to think that guns are the best method of defending oneself 2. "guns are designed to hurt people" - yes it's true that they were originally designed to kill people(and animals for food) in war-time, but they have been adapted to sports and recreational shooting. alcohol is basically just poison, so you can't even begin to argue that it isn't designed to hurt people. 3. you've obviously never been to a party with a bunch of drunk people. someone invaraibly trips and sprains an ankle, breaks a window and cuts themself, or snowboards down the driveway into the street, hitting a moving car(yes, i've seen this happen) and your "death by falling vs. death by bomb" analogy is also flawed since falling deaths are accidental(the majority of the time) and bomb deaths are malicious(in the context you're using the example). also, i said the post that you originally quoted was a joke. i don't seriously believe that alcohol should be outlawed. please take the time to think through your arguments next time before posting.

Not injuries due to drunk driving. Frequency of injuries due to alcohol. Because guns are designed to hurt people but alcohol isn't, it's obvious that a person who picks up a gun will have a higher frequency of hurting others than a person who picks up a bottle of alcohol. this is just wrong... 1. you bolding out the worlds "frequency" and "alcohol" are only making my argument stronger, since i was comparing ONLY drunk driving to ALL gun injuries. either way you still haven't proven to me that guns are more deadly than alcohol. the article you quoted has nothing to do with what i was arguing, since i never argued that guns were only meant for self-defense. i'm not so naive to think that guns are the best method of defending oneself 2. "guns are designed to hurt people" - yes it's true that they were originally designed to kill people(and animals for food) in war-time, but they have been adapted to sports and recreational shooting. alcohol is basically just poison, so you can't even begin to argue that it isn't designed to hurt people. 3. you've obviously never been to a party with a bunch of drunk people. someone invaraibly trips and sprains an ankle, breaks a window and cuts themself, or snowboards down the driveway into the street, hitting a moving car(yes, i've seen this happen) and your "death by falling vs. death by bomb" analogy is also flawed since falling deaths are accidental(the majority of the time) and bomb deaths are malicious(in the context you're using the example). also, i said the post that you originally quoted was a joke. i don't seriously believe that alcohol should be outlawed.

the point is, what has al gore done to promote peace? made a movie about a controversial topic and pissed a bunch of people off? wow, what a sacrifice. he'll probably be canonized when he dies. :roll:

"ban guns, they kill people!" well, in that case we should ban alcohol because it causes drunk driving and food because it causes obesity. #-o The relative frequency of alcohol causing drunk driving is much lower than guns causing injury. The purpose of alcohol is not to cause drunk driving, but the purpose of guns is to cause injury. That is why guns should be restricted but alcohol should not. Food is irrelevant because food and obesity only harm yourself, not others. obviously, that post was a joke. and i would really like to see a complete report of the study you did comparing the injuries due to drunk driving and the injuries due to firearms before i take your words to be the complete truth. i highly doubt that guns cause more human injury than alchohol does. in my 20 years on this earth i've been around guns and alchohol a LOT because they both run in my family, and i've known several people personally who were injured/killed by drunk drivers and only ONE injury with a firearm. my uncle was crossing a fence while rabbit hunting and his gun accidentally went off, clipping the end of his thumb.

Yea the 9mm is the pistol. Hunting is a grey area; I tend to be picky on that and would seriously like to see hunting rifles limited to single-shot bolt action rifles with standard scopes (at most) - not some of these ones which are practically used for sniper rifles. That's at least a start. my single shot pump action 30-06 with a 3-9x scope(pretty "standard" as scopes go) that i use for deer hunting would easily make a good sniper rifle with proper training. however, i have it sighted in for about 100 yards as that's the farthest shot i'll probably ever get on a deer. people who live elsewhere who hunt antelope, elk and larger game sometimes don't ever get a shot UNDER 300 yards. so your idea won't work very well. i hunt, sport shoot, and own several rifles, shotguns, and pistols, and yet i've never gone and shot someone up, thought about killing someone, or even so much as pointed a real gun at someone(i do play arsoft though), loaded or unloaded. why is it that so many people can live with guns and not use them for harming other humans, while a few people feel the need to kill people? it's not as simple as some people make it out to be. parents, the environment you live in, the school you go to, who you choose as your friends, previous experience with guns, and mental health are probably the biggest contributors to gun violence or injury. taking away one of these variables might reduce crime by a very small fraction, but it will hardly eliminate gun violence entirely. this is why extensive background checks(the ones they do now don't cover nearly enough) should be required for all gun purchases, and don't give me any of this liberal "right to privacy" bs. you can't have privacy and safety at the same time. it's impossible.

Here's a video of me driving our school's formula car at an autocross in st louis.

people play minigames for fun or rewards, but they also take into consideration how easy the game is to access. like people have said before, trouble brewing would be much more popular if it were easier to access. castle wars and fight pits are fun because it's like pking without the risk and with a lesser reward. personally i'm not a huge fan of either, but i really enjoy trouble brewing(with a good team) and barrows, as well as the impetuous impulses minigame. i like them the best because they are entertaining AND have good or decent rewards.

ugh, just listened to a few of them and it's just irritating noise. :?

to those people saying it's a placebo effect, here's a test. change all the names of the tracks, then have a friend listen to them and see if the effect changes. off-topic: adrenaline is a great way to get high without using drugs also. try some extreme sports. 8-)

haha i thought i was the only one who this happened to... except i have like a million songs and it's happened several times. usually adair, toys that kill, brand new, and a few other bands that i used to listen to over and over again.

"ban guns, they kill people!" well, in that case we should ban alcohol because it causes drunk driving and food because it causes obesity. #-o

i hate the word "noob." people use it as an insult all the time. you know what it says to me if you call me a "noob?" translation in my head: "my vocabulary isn't large enough to properly insult you."

Thrice. The Alchemy Index, Vol2: Water. simply amazing.

1.Brand New - Jesus Christ 2.Brand New - The Archer's Bows Have Broken 3.Thrice - Red Sky 4.Brand New - Ok, I Belive You, But My Tommy Gun Don't 5.Brand New - Millstone 6.Brand New - Degausser 7.Anberlin - Paperthin Hymn 8.Tool - Aenima 9.Stone Sour - Through Glass 10.Acceptance - So Contagious 10.Eve6 - Promise 10.Thrice - Stare at the Sun