Marco

Still snowing a little in Bristol. Got a couple of pictures from when it was heavier earlier today. [hide=] [/hide]

[hide=][/hide] Oh and bong is jail bait :lol: Hah! Do I really look that young? Well anyway, as of a couple of weeks ago I'm now 20, so I think you're safe lol. :lol:

Mmm... Tokyo. Did you bullet-train? Nah, I really wanted to but it was just to expensive. Just staying in Tokyo was far more costly than I thought it would be; spent about £800! I planned on going to Kyoto too but oh well, we did do a lot of things in Tokyo so I'm happy. :)

This is quite an old one, taken back in July when I went to Tokyo during my gap-year. Amazing trip. :D This wasa a 7 a-side football tournament I played in a couple of weeks ago. Got injured in the quarter-final, missed the semi due to pain lol, and came back in for the final which we ended up loosing! :lol: Good times.. good times..

I believe that this is the reason, and agree with the view put foreward by Dan, above. I don't understand why almost everyone else can't seem to understand this. Erichermit even showed Jagex explicity stating that you should take 'history' with a pinch of salt to say the least. Why would the average person know what happens in the hardest and longest quests? Only, what, like a handfull of people know what happened in the depths of Lumbridge in While Guthix Sleeps. Just as it is in real life; the truth from actions of old will only come with the deepest reseach into them.

The penguins have been re-released into the game. [quote name="Jagex Mod' date=' Mod Nancy on 29-Jan-2009 14] System Update- We've fixed the Penguin Hide and Seek Minigame. Penguins are now back roaming over RuneScape, for your spying enjoyment. Sorry for the inconvenience. Mod Nancy

The lecturers on my Law degree have stritcly prohibited us from using American spellings. Generel rule is, if there's a 'z' in anything you better make damn sure it's meant to have originally been there. Makes sense though. It doesn't really envoke a sense of assurance if, as a solicitor, you use the word 'color'/'realize' in a letter to a client rather than it's English spelling. I personally don't really care about the language difference. If they want a simplified version of some spellings then fine go ahead, no problem in having the spellings of certain words closer to how they are pronounced. The one thing that I wont take, however, is when a Yank corrects me when I use an English spelling/when they claim that they're spelling it in it's true form, and that I'm wrong for thinking that they've adopted a language and claiming it as their own exclusivly. Bugs the hell out of me, to the extent that if someone says that to me now I just walk away assuming they're an idiot and not worth talking to. :lol:

Yeah, frustratingly the board is coded in American instead of English (center, color etc).. -.- I remember spending ages trying to figure out how to get my sig to centre too #-o

I really like this idea, preferring it to the cape concept. I really don't see what the problem is with paying homage to the oringal game. Even if it's just a sort of recognition as to how far Runescape has come since the good ol' days. Although first starting this game (2005ish) long after RS2 was released, I can sympathise with the players that just want something to reminisce RSC over, as I've recently found myself, for some reason, having a desperate and frustrating nostalgia for some 'old school' games from my younger days - esp. Majora's Mask & Perfect Dark. :lol:

pffft. 90 degree pointy. My circly curved [wagon] ! 90 degrees is as sharp as a hippo in a fox suit. Its a sharp as getting a badger and putting a moustache on its face and a pipe in its mouth. Definitley not sharp ! I agree. In terms of sharpness, 90 degrees is nothing special. I was taught that the real essence of sharpness doesn't even start until around 65 degrees.

The basics to Farming are in the Tip.it Farming Guide. There are very few guides that discuss it further than that, but a guide which I remember using getting to 60 was Dr.Toxic's Easy guide to any level Farming!, however for some reason the apostrophe symbol has messed up which ruins the format, but the content is still ok. Right now I find myself having to push for 65 Farming (62 now) for a quest. I've found that, as DJay says, I'm getting decent Xp doing the best trees I can do (5 Yews every 4ish hours), the best fruit trees I can do (5 Papayas every 14 hours) and the best herbs I can do (5 Snaps every 75 mins). I also plant a load of Watermelons when I'm running low on Super Compost just to top it up.

Wooooah gosh! Consecutive staff posts. Good luck reaching '1'.

First up, I personally think that this is the best, and most useful guide I've seen. I've used it so many times I can't begin to count, and yet I keep coming back to read up on certain parts when I receive a task I'm not familiar with. So, kudos to just fitting so much important information into a guide. Although the presentation in certain parts could be improved to help the flow, this guide is a prime example of content over minor aesthetics :P On another note; thank you very much for all the work you put into re-doing the pictures, a truly mamoth task. I remember some of the pictures on the guide a couple of years ago were shocking! Some looked like the RSC days of old :lol: Anyway, congratulations on the guide and thank you for maintaining it, mate.

Please use the existing topic with regard to odd Runescape world map locations and such, pointed out here by the learned user, GaVaTi. Locked.

As said, please use the sticky pointed out by the esteemed Uular. Locked.

I don't really want to get too involved with the whole God(s) debate, as it seems more of a debate as to the wording of each user's posts than the actual possibility of gods. I personally see myself as an agnostic; I do not care whether or not God exists. There is a chance that He does, aswell as a chance that He doesn't. I don't like the idea of attributing a percentage chance on the existance of a God, because, in my mind, it doesn't work. I do, however, storngly disagree with the possibility that the chances between something existing and something not existing are even. If nothing more, the rise and fall of the hundreds of different religions and beliefs/superstitions in the past show quite clearly that, at best, it seems unlikely that there is a God, going by the various popular religions of today. Regarding the point of Zierro's (serious?) call for proof of tryto's comment; To be frank, I get the impression that Zierro wasn't posting in all seriousness. Going by his logic displayed in other topics I don't think that he meant to imply that the burden of proof should be switched, and that the universe may change with belief. Anyway, enough of distractions. My post here comes after reading the previous comment from Zierro & tryto. If anyone is interested in the idea of a god existing simply by proof alone, you should take a look at the satirical novel "Small Gods" by Terry Pratchett, part of (although a stand-alone book in) the Discworld series. The book gives an interesting take on the philosophy of the life and death of a god through belief as well as the co-dependancy of man and god, and is one of my favourite books having read several times now. [hide=Reader review from Amazon]This rare "stand-alone" Discworld novel (like Pyramids and Moving Pictures, it is not part of any previously defined sub-series of novels) sticks organized religion on a spit and broils it mercilessly. It follows a young priest named Brutha, who is the last true believer of the great god Om, in spite of it being the state religion of the theocratic dictatorship of Omnia. On Discworld, gods can manifest to the proportion of their true believers, and because only Brutha is left, Om can only manifest as a one-eyed tortoise. Brutha discovers Om, literally, and carries Om in tortoise form with him through his journeys. His commander is Lord Vorbis, a blackly pious inquisioner who has no difficulties with torturing unbelievers. The Omnian priests openly pity those who have not accepted Om, though they unknowningly betray the fact that they themselves don't believe in Om so much as the Religion of Om. Therein lies the problem. As Brutha and Vorbis travel, they encounter many nations and religions, with Vorbis the matter-of-fact executioner restrained only by diplomacy. When disaster befalls them, and Vorbis spends most of the rest of the trip unconscious, it is Brutha who selflessly drags Vorbis along, hoping to find safety, because it is just the right thing to do. Ultimately, Vorbis sees Brutha conversing with Om, and predictably does not see it for what it is, and he persecutes Brutha for heresy, leading to a typical Discworld story ending. ... Terry Pratchett's Discworld series includes stories that are cynical, funny, satirical, occasionally deeply moving, and very entertaining. Like many of his fans, I believe "Small Gods" ranks at the top. It examines religion in society and manages simultaneously to condemn and endorse religion; deeply critical of religion as a tool of oppression yet supportive of religion as a path to goodness and self-enlightenment. The story takes place in Omnia, a country tyrannized by high priests in a theocracy patterned on the Spanish Inquisition. The society is so relentlessly oppressed by the dictators claiming to speak in the name of their god that the religion itself has been lost, buried in tyranny and bureaucracy. In fact, paradoxically in a country ruled by "The Church", there is almost no one left who really follows the religion. Enter Brutha, a simply country boy who is the last person in the entire country who actually believes in their god. The devout Brutha is the hero of the story, and the interaction between him, the Grand Inquisitor, and especially the abandoned god that only Brutha worships makes a very entertaining and thought-provoking novel with a terrific and moving ending.[/hide] Probably not a book for the fundamentalist Christians/Muslims/Jews though, as I can't imagine it'd be nice to look into a mirror to see mainstream religion for what it really is.. Anyone with an atleast slightly open and philosophical mind, though, should really give it a read.

Please use the existing thread, pointed out by the esteemed 'l0rd'. Locked.

Yeah.. and only one of us can keep it.. :? Unfortunatly for you I'm a mod which means that I'm going to interpret it as you trying to impersonate a member of staff = IP ban. Hope you had a good time on Tip.it. Bye. ... Just kidding :lol: Always nice to see a Calvin & Hobbes fan. ;)

I'd love to move back to London. Right now I'm stuck in Bristol because of Uni, but once I'm I don't think I'll be able to resist going back. I'd love to try out New York, simply because it always conjures up such amazing images in my mind which I'm sure are over-romantisied from films. I used to think that Tokyo would be amazing to live in but, after staying there for a couple of months back in July, I don't think I could take living there forever. As good as Japan was, there were too many things I was missing, although I'm sure that if my Japanese was a better I would have enjoyed it a lot more.

Regarding the legal issues.. Firstly, is this all taking place in the UK? If so, then I would strongly advise speaking to a solicitor before taking any action yourself (which I object to anyway). I don't know about other countries, but if you're in the UK you can get free legal advice from hundreds of firms offering '"Pro Bono" Publico' (for the good of the public = free legal assistance). All the information you'll need can be found: http://www.probonouk.net/index.php?id=assist_pub & http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/index/ ... ce_bureaux Regarding other issues.. No matter where you are, yes, go see a psychologist, or at least your local GP. It sounds like a little more than just a 'tricky situation', and you should try and take any help you can get. If you're having problems then see someone about it because issues like this are often very difficult to get through on your own. The edit: You wont get banned for discussing this by the way. There are no rules against people who are in search of help. I think that there are much better places to go than Tip.it though, but if you honestly feel as though this is the last place you can turn then go ahead and start with TIp.it. If there are any other issues which you are unsure of and do not want to discuss publically then I advise you to PM myself, another member of staff or a user in which you confide with. If, after reading this, you still want it locked then report your original message and we'll lock it for you.

Badly! Seriously though, for secondary school and sixth-form I literally wouldn't study for anything apart from Business Studies at GCSE & Law at A-Level. Even then I would leave it until the day/night before my exams until I would just power-read my way through the text book, not taking notes at all. This would last right up to the START of my exams, and the first time I'd stop reading would be when I sat down to take the paper. Unfortunatly in Uni it's not possible to do that anymore. There's just too much depth in what I'm studying to fit it into a night, and everything has to be done properly and comprehensively too. Our Law lecturers have (all) gone so far as to ban us from using Wikipedia for anything involving UK law because, to be tactless, it is mostly a load of crap. Right now I've luckily found a very good method for revising for my Contract law exam next week using highlighters, although it completely ruins the look of the textbook :P Highlighting Blue: general important information Pink: Ratios of cases/extrreamly clear & important parts of text (stating a principle, a major criticism/justification etc) Yellow: All authorities (case names, judgments in cases, names of judges & laws themselves) It seems to work pretty well for me right now. At the start of every page I'll quickly skim over the text and highlight in yellow every authority so it's easier to find. Then I'll thoroughly read through the text highlighting medium important bits in blue, and very important bits in pink. Once I get to the end of a page I'll go back and next to every paragraph I'll write a summary of what it says in the margin. Eg. "B must take reasonable steps to bring withdrawl to A's notice before acceptance arrives" After all that (!), at the end of each chapter I'll write up notes of everything that was in the text, using the sub-titles in the book/making up my own sub-titles to seperate it. #-o Takes me hours to prepare for courseworks now, but at least I'll be happy knowing that it's a comprehensive answer.

Alright that's enough.. :| killer9823: There are already several topics discussing charms becoming tradable as well as attributing a price them & there is no need for another. Before creating a topic which you think may be quite popular, try using the search bar on the top right to make sure there isn't one already on the board. OT: What is with this inb4lock craze.. :roll: Locked.

If you are suggesting that the death penalty is an unnecessary measure, then I agree. If neither the threat of life in prison nor the death penalty is enough to deter these people, then using the irreversible punishment of death as punishment exceeds what is necessary. Yep. Which is why I said that a death penalty is pretty much exactly the same as life imprisonment. No better. No worse. I disagree that death (/=/life imprisonment also) exeeds what is necessary because that implies that there is a lesser measure which would work. The aim of both is to stop the person from ever harming society again. As far as I can see, there is no lesser measure which would achieve the same effect.

My post was directed at Zierro's statements. Zierro argued that it is safer for society to eliminate such convicts (murderers, etc) rather than let them "go free" (i.e. be released) as to ensure that they can no longer re-offend in a way that directly harms society. Obviously, if Zierro was referring only to true life in prison, there would be no problem of recividism (except in the extremely rare cases of escape) and thus his argument would be moot. Fair enough. I'm not going to interpret & speak for Zierro so I don't know if he meant that either. Could you try to address the person you're directing a comment towards, so we don't end up rebutting the wrong arguments unnecessarily #-o What? It's a phrase used to basically say; You show me [X], and I'll show you what I think [X] is. An example, from an old Garfield comic strip: "Show me a good mouser, and I'll show you a cat with bad breath ." Which is why the defendant is tried by their peers. Not meaning to be pedantic as I know what you mean, but it is a defendant's peers that will give his actions a label (Murder, Volunt. Manslaughter, Gross Neg. Manslaughter etc), and it is the judicary (different, [almost indifferent] to the state)which pass sentence. @ TheTrueNoob: It'd be nice if you would read more than just the title of a topic before posting, otherwise why bother; it's not a vote. Although I get the impression that you probably wont even look into this thread again anyway..

I understand you point, mate. I think we just seem to differ on the reasoning for the punishment, be it death or life incarceration. To me, making sure the offender suffers is not a priority, the point of the punishment is to make sure they will never do it again. I understand that they should not in any way be let off 'easy' for what they did, but I don't agree that death is an easy way out. I agree with you in that, in the long term, the offender will suffer more if he is incarcerated for the rest of his life. 2.3 Regarding retribution In my view, which as far as I can see Zierro concurs, this has nothing to do with retribution. The death penalty is a means to remove an individual from society permanently, just as is the aim of imprisonment. It is not an act to 'get back' at an individual. It just feels redundant to try and cause as much harm and pain as you possibly can to an offender. These people have, mentally, gone past the point of no return. After giving them the death sentance/life incarceration it doesn't matter what you do to them - everything would be, as you said just instant shallow gratification. For all I care, you could incarcerate them and then go on to torture them every single day until they die, it makes no difference. It wont bring anyone back. I neither condone nor condemn using death as a punishment. It is just the same as locking someone up for life. If death could ever be cheaper than incarceration then I would strongly advocate using it over imprisonment. The issue of stoping them from re-offending has no bearing. Understand how few people recieve the punishment of being incarcerated for life (read: never having the opportunity to come out). I could use your argument that imprisoning someone for life is just the same as 'brushing the problem under the carpet', but hopefully by now you can see that it's a technicality which renders your original idea redundant. If someone is sentanced to, say 30 years imprisonment, then let them serve it, what they do when they come out is of no relevance in this discussion. The death penalty is currently used as an alternative for life imprisonment. I do agree that capital punishment is most likely no more a deterrent than life imprisonment, although I would argue that this is partly due to the mental state of the offenders. Show me what you can do to deter someone who is so far out of it that they're willing to kill another person, and I'll show you a redundant measure. In this discussion I care not for whether it deters anyone or not. I am just slightly fed up with the amount of people (not aimed at you) that claim death is inhumane, barbaric, immoral etc, when to me, it is just a different method to the same effect as life imprisonment: "Oh no! You can't kill them! That's so cruel. Let's just let them rot in prison for the rest of their life."