Leylen
-
Posts
93 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by Leylen
-
-
It's so easy to know who's botting if they don't reply after 5 mins there is approximately a 92% chance they are a bot (statistic is from thousands of tests I've conducted myself over the last 6 months) also you can tell because they are so much slower so if they are skilling like they have downs probably is a bot. (example rcing it takes them really long to empty the pouchs for the 2nd craft but normal people do it 3X faster)
If there alog is private that is also another sign there possibly botting I have reported 3186 bots since august and jagex has only banned/reset 28% of them
So based on this (^) i am a bot? I put my Public chat on the Friends only option for the specific reason to keep brainless [bleep]s (like you) from talking to me and over all just pissing me off for having a total lack of logic.
Have you never, in all your days of playing, ever, ever, ever heard of someone that puts his Public chat of while he does an AFK skills (whils probably doing something else too) which would easily affect his response time? Whatadouche.
If I'm trying to get a level fast before work or somthing I hate people being runescape police feeling the need to check that I'm there constantly, and really isn't a bot more likely to have "thank you oh supreme checker of my afk status for deeming to talk to me" coded in as an automatic response than a person is likely to say it?
-
I remember when I started playing in 1945 everything was perfect.
Really though, it's all one game following a progression, it's all good in certain ways, I'd be so bored by now if it had never changed.
-
Well, my dragon chainbody from dust devils, abyssal whip and 3 effigies in 2 days whereas I only had 2 from the release of effigies seem to differ.
I've also gotten more effigies lately, although it's far too early to make any kind of developed, educated opinion. People need to give things like this more time before the flood of rants come in.
We really need 100+ ROW drops from the same monster logged. Good Comment.
-
More to the point, what else are you going to equip in your ring slot that gives you better odds?
a ferocious ring in kuradal's dungeon increases your odds by 10%
a zerker i increases your odds by around 5%
Equip as required then. Simple. ROW is still better than anything else while just training and hoping to make slightly more wealth
-
More to the point, what else are you going to equip in your ring slot that gives you better odds?
-
Of couse now it's been repealed, you americans can force everyone out of the closet and throw it in their friends faces till they resent them, yay. :rolleyes:
Lol reading comprehension etc etc
Also a funny video
I don't get how it is funny, maybe it's an inside joke for people who search for videos about men showering.
-
Well yeah, the way the policy was designed it allowed gay people to serve in the army...a convenient loophole.
Loophole:
an ambiguity (especially one in the text of a law or contract) that makes it possible to evade a difficulty or obligation
DADT:
Don't ask, don't tell (DADT) is the common term for the policy restricting the United States military from efforts to discover or reveal closeted gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members or applicants.
Of couse now it's been repealed, you americans can force everyone out of the closet and throw it in their friends faces till they resent them, yay. :rolleyes:
-
The stupid thing is the front line troops voted for keeping DADT. Their the ones who the decision might actually effect and they get ignored cause some whiner sat in comfort on their expansive rear doesn't like somthing that's been working?
Discriminatory policies are like that. They tend to work for most and not for some. Tell me how this is going to negatively affect anyone aside from the homophobic military members, please. And wouldn't you think that it would be better for the same homophobic soldiers to actually know who is gay? Wouldn't that make them feel safer knowing who they should avoid in the shower? Or is the real issue here that there is some sort of underlying hatred for gays among military members? It seems like the people who aren't on the front lines might have a better perspective on this than the soldiers that have had homophobia driven into them by their superiors that support DADT.
Again if you read the results of the survey, over half of front line troops, especially marines, predicted problems arising from this. If you want to believe their all homophobes go for it, but the reality is they have to deal with more and more stupid PC nonsense every day, they'd rather just not think about it and get on with a difficult job.
Hi. So I'm pretty much the resident homosexual of tip.it.
And I'd have to say I find that premise is unfounded. And. Wait for it: I don't say that because I'm gay.
I say that because I have many loved ones who risk their lives protecting this company (I live in a conservative family) with many people in the military. Some people like my brother, who is simply an Airforce electrician stationed in DC (but is moving to Germany) is as you stated "sitting on his ass." I will admit to that point. But I also have a great many loved ones in the military who are perfectly fine with it. Especially the ones saving our asses over in the middle east. There logic? If a man (or woman) wants to fight, loves to fight, and well, is good at it: LET THEM FIGHT.
Now, as a gay man I do foresee one issue with it, which as I mentioned in the last page is making me slightly hesitant. If this falls through into disaster, as Leylen predicts it will, I fear it will set back the LGBT equality movement a bit.
But besides that, I see nothing wrong with having more hunky gay dudes risking their lives and making America a great place to be.
You're saying what the survey already told us, they don't give a damn what their co-workers are doing in their spare time, they just don't want to hear about it. Most of the gay soldiers won't even be coming out to their co-workers;
The report says that many gay troops would be likely to keep their sexual orientation quiet even after the ban was lifted. That discretion would probably be more common in the military than in the civilian world, the report's authors said.Of those respondents who said they were gay, only 15 percent said they would want that known to everyone in their unit.
Despite the lack of interest from either sexuality on this issue they kept forcing and forcing it through so that they could win a few points with their mostly unwilling extra special rainbow soldiers.
-
Even though they are in the army, how do they know it will cause negative effects? It doesnt in foreign armies that allowed gay members to join. You have to understand soldiers are also average joes, lets say that it is evenly split, 50% of soldiers are liberal and 50% are conservative, plenty of conservative people were born and raised with angrily avoiding any feminine men and calling them "gay" or other jeers. Just because they are soldiers doesnt mean that their values 100% change.
I have lots of friends in the army/navy/airforce and they are the same people as when they left, besides being a little skinnier, or buffer, and experienced with the job they perform.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5964655/ns/politics/
A poll conducted late last year by the Military Times found that 57 percent of those surveyed consider themselves Republican, while 13 percent identified with the Democrats. Among the officer corps the numbers were different. Nearly 66 percent of officers considered themselves Republican compared with 9 percent Democratic. Nearly 30 percent of those surveyed by the Military Times declined to answer the questions or said they were independent.Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Illinois and New Jersey have all gained republican senators with the recent hilarious/embarassing/train wreck of American top leadership over the last year or so.
Also for every few dozen Administrive staff re-enlisting that got caught with their pants down on office time, hundreds of thousands of front line staff may be considering their re-enlistment options.
-
I don't see how asking someone not to talk about their sexual orientation whilst on the job affects any of these points? Also if they majority of front line troops would rather keep DADT, then the goverment does not have the consent of the goverened, Jefferson would surely protest that point?
Can you please link me to the survey that said half predicted problems? I wonder if there was a question if they had problems with it... I'd be willing to guess that 95% of all troops don't care the sexual orientation of their peers, and that the half that predicted there would be problems know one of those 5% of homophobes...
DADT inherently discriminated against gays, just like "separate but equal" inherently discriminated against minorities. If DADT was a private business's policy, I'd have more problem with a law against that than I do with Congress repealing the federal government's stance.
http://www.mlive.com/opinion/muskegon/index.ssf/2010/12/david_kolb_do_ask_ill_tell_who.html
But 70 percent wasnt unanimous. Some 30 percent predicted negative effects. Among combat troops, 40 percent were opposed to the idea. And that figure climbed to 46 percent among U.S. Marines who answered the survey.Note that this is including non-front line staff, this article not mentioning how big the gap really was as it comes from a fairly liberal source, which I chose specifically to show that the dissent isn't able to be covered up even by those who would want to make everything bunny and rainbows.
In answer to your frequently repeated argument "it's mean!!", I'll direct you to this article;
http://techblogs.mit.edu/opinion/2010/12/dadt-repeal-will-weaken-our-military/
Im a fairly big supporter of gay rights in no way am I praising or supporting the personal opinions of those 1-in-4 servicemen who say they will cut their duty short in response to repeal. But our military is not meant to be a vehicle for social change. Our military is tasked with one purpose to defend our nation. To subordinate it to any other aim, to politicize it in the service of some sort of social goal, shows reckless disregard for our security. -
The stupid thing is the front line troops voted for keeping DADT. Their the ones who the decision might actually effect and they get ignored cause some whiner sat in comfort on their expansive rear doesn't like somthing that's been working?
Discriminatory policies are like that. They tend to work for most and not for some. Tell me how this is going to negatively affect anyone aside from the homophobic military members, please. And wouldn't you think that it would be better for the same homophobic soldiers to actually know who is gay? Wouldn't that make them feel safer knowing who they should avoid in the shower? Or is the real issue here that there is some sort of underlying hatred for gays among military members? It seems like the people who aren't on the front lines might have a better perspective on this than the soldiers that have had homophobia driven into them by their superiors that support DADT.
Again if you read the results of the survey, over half of front line troops, especially marines, predicted problems arising from this. If you want to believe their all homophobes go for it, but the reality is they have to deal with more and more stupid PC nonsense every day, they'd rather just not think about it and get on with a difficult job.
Good for them. Let them predict all they want, but it's not going to change anything. And this is not "PC nonsense", this is blatant discrimination. "All men are created equal." Yeah, except for gays in the military. We don't want them. Just like we didn't want blacks or women either. How can a military upholding the constitution and statements such as "all men are created equal" not allow "all men" to protect the country they live in. The idiocy is truly beyond me.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governedI don't see how asking someone not to talk about their sexual orientation whilst on the job affects any of these points? Also if they majority of front line troops would rather keep DADT, then the goverment does not have the consent of the goverened, Jefferson would surely protest that point?
-
The stupid thing is the front line troops voted for keeping DADT. Their the ones who the decision might actually effect and they get ignored cause some whiner sat in comfort on their expansive rear doesn't like somthing that's been working?
Discriminatory policies are like that. They tend to work for most and not for some. Tell me how this is going to negatively affect anyone aside from the homophobic military members, please. And wouldn't you think that it would be better for the same homophobic soldiers to actually know who is gay? Wouldn't that make them feel safer knowing who they should avoid in the shower? Or is the real issue here that there is some sort of underlying hatred for gays among military members? It seems like the people who aren't on the front lines might have a better perspective on this than the soldiers that have had homophobia driven into them by their superiors that support DADT.
Again if you read the results of the survey, over half of front line troops, especially marines, predicted problems arising from this. If you want to believe their all homophobes go for it, but the reality is they have to deal with more and more stupid PC nonsense every day, they'd rather just not think about it and get on with a difficult job.
-
The stupid thing is the front line troops voted for keeping DADT. Their the ones who the decision might actually effect and they get ignored cause some whiner sat in comfort on their expansive rear doesn't like somthing that's been working?
Yes, it's been working great for the thousands of gay soldiers who've either been dismissed from the military for being gay or who live with harassment and abuse due to not being able to complain.
If they followed DADT as instructed it wouldn't be a problem would it :rolleyes:
Don't ask, don't tell.
If they can't follow an instruction that simple they probably had no place in the military anyway.
-
The stupid thing is the front line troops voted for keeping DADT. Their the ones who the decision might actually effect and they get ignored cause some whiner sat in comfort on their expansive rear doesn't like somthing that's been working?
-
its just a name, people need to calm down
-
I also found this arcticle amusing
http://www.oxfordmail.net/news/headlines/display.var.1857427.0.0.php
Mr Bennett said: "The vote is a disaster for democracy."
which says it all really.
-
Why should they be given the right to publicy speak when they abuse the freedom of it for others, themselves?
give an example of either of those men not giving someone a chance for a fair open debate?
Uhh, Lol? Way to take my statement completely out of context.
It's not a debate, it's about the right to speak for who you are. These people use the right to speak for who you are, to incite violence to prevent other people, mainly Muslims, the right to speak, be, live and breathe for who they are, both physically and mentally.
That unfair enough, for you?
You are denying both these men the right to be who they are physically and mentally. Nick Griffin has also debated with muslims on televised debates before, and usually been shouted down, and Irving has never displayed an opinion on them that I am aware of... being a simple historian trying to present a point of view and having groups of violent protesters try to stop him. You might want to consider the irony of having a large group of people at a freech speech event protesting trying to correct an error in history (if it exists) because it is not popular.
Also muslims have no bearing on someones right to present their opinions and views. Which we all have, stick to the point.
-
Why should they be given the right to publicy speak when they abuse the freedom of it for others, themselves?
give an example of either of those men not giving someone a chance for a fair open debate?
-
nuke the communist bucketheads
-
"why did you grab my breast?"
-
isn't marek polish or somthing?
88
-
Better them than labour :wink:Heh, I kinda knew Matt would use this topic to try and sway peoples opinions :P It wont be working on me Matt :wink:Its because im tired, if i tried id convince anyone against voting Tory. ;)
*cough* fawklands
*cough* poll tax
*cough* privatisation of public services (transport, electric, water etc)
*cough* miners
why do you say your not tory then name good things they've done?
-
my sig option in my profile got deleted several months ago for some reason, how do I get it back
-
I'll end up voting conservative , BNP don't run in my area any more :(
Remember the days when...
in General Discussion
Posted
remember when amnesia