Binyam

Let me remind you of a word you seem very fond of using: Now, you have stated: How can you state empirically then: Are you trying to tell me that in all your years, with all of your experience, in a town of 565, that you have met every Christian ever?? That, sir, seems quite impossible. So then, it seems to be that you are making decisions about a religion that currently has approximately 2.1 billion followers, and exponentially more followers if you count every Christian throughout history, based on what is extremely limited experience. So, once again, you are qualifying your statements, based on your experience. Since we have now quantified your experience (19-20 years old living in a town of 565), your statements carry very little weight here. Once again, I point you to Dictionary.com: I thought you have never read the Bible? Are you trying to tell me now that you are a Bible scholar? I think you would be very hard pressed to find reputable genetic research that can empirically state that sexual orientation is solely caused by genetics. Most reports that I have read have leading researchers stating otherwise. Judging Christianity based on your experiences with Christians, while admittedly, very easy and natural to do, is actually wrong. Here is how I look at it: The Bible teaches that being a Christian is about a personal relationship with God. So, with that in mind, the only thing that I can judge is where I stand in my beliefs. I don't have the right to tell you or anyone else how you should or should not live your life. That is between you and God, whether you believe in Him or not. The way that I "tell" others about my beliefs, is how I live my life. It has to be that way, because I can tell you all I want about what I believe, but if you don't see that in the way I conduct myself, it is meaningless. Hence, the "controversial" statement from the book of James "Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself". Now, if asked, by all means, I will talk about my beliefs, but I won't go running about forcing my beliefs on others, because that does nothing but alienate people. Now, with that said, not every person that professes to be a Christian believes this way. The problem is when people fall into religiosity. Jesus spoke of this on numerous occasions when dealing with the Pharisees and warned of it frequently when speaking with his followers. Paul also spoke of it extensively in the book of Romans. The issue here is when people get so caught up in their religion that they lose focus of what the religion is all about. My feeling is that this is what you encountered as a youth in your home town. However, to make a blanket judgement on all Christians, based on this, does precisely the thing that you claim to hate about them. It alienates them based on unquantified experiences. On the contrary, I would argue that not a single Christian posted because they realized you were only trying to start a fight. Knowing that, it isn't worth it. What are you trying to say? That Christians cannot sin? Paul, who is, arguably, the greatest of the Apostles said: In my last post I told you: So you are telling me that Christians should have been drawn in when you posted "HEY LOOK EVERYONE, HERE IS A CHRISTIAN, A PASTOR EVEN, SINNING!!!" It seems you underestimated us. You know, you are absolutely right. Your relationship with God is yours and only yours. You shouldn't go to church with a bunch of phonies to prove it, that would be wrong. You would be surprised, however, how many churches there are that don't have a bunch of phonies in them. Sometimes you have to look though. The purpose for going to church should not be to prove anything. It should be to learn. Certainly you would agree that there are others with greater knowledge and experience than you. Having those people teach you is a good thing. This applies to any subject, not just religion. Nope, no labels required. Having zeal for what you believe is not a bad thing. Using that zeal to force your beliefs on others would be wrong though, so in this we are also in agreement. You're absolutely right, he does love you, and he does exist ;) Once again, absolutely correct. Joining a "freakin' cult" would not be advisable. Do I? See, I thought we were getting along so well there, then you started making assumptions about me again.

Really?

Ok, so you have been beating around the Harm Principle from John Stuart Mill's On Liberty for quite a while now, but why don't we drop the pretenses and call it what it really is. It's Wicca. Yes people, you heard it. It's religion. So now that the cat is out of the bag, why dont you explain to me how your beliefs, which are based on religion, is better than anyone else's beliefs, which are based on religion? Is it because you believe their beliefs to be wrong? If so, then how can you condem them for not agreeing with your beliefs because they believe them to be wrong? And Tigra: Considering how little you actually know about Christianity, how can you say, with such absolution, what Christianity teaches on any subject? You love to tell everyone how Christians are bigots bacause they hate homosexuals. This is absolutely incorrect. Someone who truly follows Christ does not hate homosexuals. We simply acknowledge that it is a sin, as are many, many, many other things. So where is the bigotry in that? We are bigots because we acknowledge that someone is a sinner? We are ALL sinners. Now, there is a passage in Romans, as well, where sin is described, including homosexuality, but no one ever bothers to keep reading when they want to find fault. (whether it be finding fault with the sinners, or finding fault with the beliefs). So where is the bigotry? Now, certainly, there are people that will use God, the Bible and Christianity to support their own bigotry, but that does not make the religion itself wrong, only the people that use it as an excuse to hate. True Christianity teaches: Please, can you explain to me how you can hate something that you, so clearly, do not understand?

Hey, you said it buddy, not me ;)

Google it :roll:

I think that people are really misunderstanding the facts here, including the OP. There are three (possibly more) completely different issues here that are being discussed, and I have seen many instances where the three are, intentionally and unintentionally, being combined. 1. The Second Sudanese Civil War which "officially" took place in Southern Sudan from 1983 until the peace treaty was signed in 2005, whereby the Southern Sudan rebels and the Sudan government agreed to: -=The south will have autonomy for six years, followed by a referendum on secession. -=Both sides of the conflict will merge their armed forces into a 39,000-strong force after six years, if the secession referendum should turn out negative. -=Income from oilfields is to be shared 50 to 50. -=Jobs are to be split according to varying ratios (central administration: 70 to 30, Abyei/Blue Nile State/Nuba mountains: 55 to 45, both in favour of the government). -=Islamic law is to remain in the north, while continued use of the sharia in the south is to be decided by the elected assembly. This conflict was essentially a continuation of the First Sudanese Civil War which occured from 1955 to 1972. There were approximately 1.9 million civilians killed in this war and an estimated 4 million civilians displaced in the Second Sudanese Civil War. This is, reportedly, the most civilian deaths since WWII. 2. The conflict between Lord's Resistance Army and the Ugandan government, led by Joseph Kony, where the LRA was until 2006 engaged in a violent campaign to establish a theocratic government in Uganda. (Kony's "religion" reportedly a mesh of several different beliefs, including Christian, Islam and Witchcraft). In 2005, the ICC issued arrest warrants for several leaders of the LRA for crimes against humanity and war crimes, including murder, sexual assault, sexual slavery, and enlisting of children as combatants. In August 2006, the LRA and Ugandan government declared a unilateral cease-fire. 3. The Darfur Conflict, which has, in reality, been ongoing since the 1970s, but was reignited in February 2003 (some say as early as June 2001, however). The primary combatants in this conflict are the rebel JEM, SLA and recently numerous Darfur Arab group against the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Sudanese government backed Janjaweed militias. The Janjaweed have been accused of systematically targeting the Fur, Zaghawa, and Massaleit ethnic groups in Darfur, killing men, women and children and burning villages. An estimated 450,000 have been the victims of the genocidal attacks with an estimated 2.5 million more displaced. Darfur is in the western/northwestern part of Sudan and all involved parties are Muslim. Those are the facts. If you are willing to get behind this movement to stop the atrocities in Darfur, you should at least know the related facts. Watching a video, while emotional, will likely not give you all of the facts and will not enable you to successfully convey the reality of the situation to curious parties. Believe it or not, resources like Wikipedia (which I used as a source for my information here), while not always totally accurate, have a pretty good system in place for citing sources and letting the user know what type of article they are veiwing and whether it may be biased or not. Yes, the atrocities are real and yes, they are horrific and yes, something needs to be done. Even if it means invading the Sudan, it needs to be stopped. Something is being done, however, and it has been for a few years now. The problem with diplomacy is that it involves bureaucracy, and that takes time. While it would be much easier for the President of the US to send in 25,000 Marines (which he technically does not need the approval of Congress to deploy) and wipe out these Janjaweed, I would imagine, that while diplomatic means appear to be working (including plans for a 17,300 man UN peacekeeping force to supplement the 7,000 man AU force currently there), then that will be the first method used. The trajedy is that people are still dying while the bureaucrats talk.

Kael'thas (PVE) Binyam 60 Human Priest Strykkr 60 Night Elf Hunter

I wouldn't call them victims. They were enemy soldiers. I really don't think it was about my friend thinking it was cool or fun, but being a new soldier with nothing more than his training to draw from, it was very easy to not understand the reality of the situation. It's a very valuable lesson that every young soldier that has to take a life should learn.

Microsoft can't sue FF for the site, but there is a process where they could gain control of the domain name if they can show that the site is being used for the wrong purpose (there have been instances of this, where presidential candidates, including Hillary Clinton, have gained control of the web site using their name)

A very good friend of mine told me a story once of his first combat experience. He was fresh out of Ranger training and assigned to 1st Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment. Being an 11B, he drew sniper duty and before he knew it, he was on his way to Panama to participate in an operation to capture Manuel Noriega, called "Operation Just Cause". During the course of this operation, he had his first two confirmed kills. Being the "Hooah!" soldier that he was, my friend was more than likely excited about this. (I am not saying this to infer that he was some sort of sociopath or psycho, but the type of training that infantrymen, Rangers and other special ops units in particular, get is geared to desensitize them to the act of killing, to a certain extent. Everything you do is geared around killing, and without the reality of the situation staring you in the face it your training becomes as close to second nature as possible.) My friend's platoon leader knew this, knew my friend was a good kid, but also knew he was getting caught up in something that was not healthy for him. This Lieutenant's remedy to my friend's excitement was to have him take polaroids of those 2 young men and write their name, rank and DOB in the white area under those photos. While this may seem, gruesome, unthinkable, whatever to many of you, it served a very real purpose. In battle, every person on both sides of the line is a real person. They have a real name, a real family, a real age, a real life. The reality of war is that you have a duty to fulfill, that you have sworn to fulfill, sometimes many, many years before you are actually asked to fulfill that duty. The soldiers that have this required of them do not revel in the fact that they may be required to travel thousands of miles away from everything they know and love, to someone elses home, to ultimately give their life, if it is required of them. I know I didn't. I had a wife who was three months pregnant with our first child and I tried everything I could to be able to stay with her. It all came down to the bottom line though. Duty. I went and I served for 18 months. 12 in Baghdad, at a camp very close to Sadr City and 6 more months in Ad Diwaniyah, a town very close to Najaf. Ultimately, this was very costly to me, but I did get a very real sense of why we are there. Yes, many things were done wrong. From day one. The biggest challenge was learning how to fight a new kind of war, where your enemy would rarely, if ever, face you. Through all of the mistakes, however, the purpose always remained very clear. We knew that, the Iraqis we trained knew that, the average Iraqi citizen knew that and believe me, nearly every Iraqi I had contact with was thankful we were there. Has this changed? Sure, I have no doubt that it has. Tens of thousands of Iraqis, most innocents, have died so that a few power hungry individuals could put us in a place where everyone wants us out. It was a good plan, apparently, because it has worked. Now, we may end up pulling out soon, but I pray that it is not before the new Iraqi goverment is ready. Perhaps our leadership had mishandled many things. I certainly believe there are things that should have been handled differently, foremost of those being the time we handed control of the street back over to the Iraqis. We should have waited a couple years on that, IMO, to allow us to better train them. Particularly their leadership. The bottom line though, through all of the successes and the failures is that freedom is never free. People want to talk about how many people have died and that they were "safer" under Saddam Hussein. I, personally, disagree with this, very strongly. Yes, many have died, but when has freedom never been costly? To pack up and go home now, would likely ensure that Iraq's new government fails. Do the leaders in Iraq need to take a more active role in persuing their freedom? Absolutely!! It may end up costing them 10s of thousands more lives before they find peace. What worries me, however, is how easily society forgets the price of freedom. For Americans, we have not had to fight for our freedom for a very long time. Europe, however, has a much more recent memory of the cost of freedom, though they seem to be the quickest to wish it away from others, it seems. A man named Patrick Henry gave a speech in March of 1775 in Richmond, Virginia successfully convincing the Virginia House of Burgesses to join a quest for freedom. This speech's last paragraph culminated in one of the most famous quotes in American history and, to me, it still rings true, regardless of WHO it is applied to. Personally, I would do it all again, damn the costs, to help those people escape tyranny.

The situation is vastly more complicated than Iran "Supporting" Shi'a groups. The TRUTH is that the US should never have gone into Iraq, and Iran poses no threat to the US, at all. Really? The US shouldn't have gone into Iraq based on what?? Don't give me that WMD crap, because we all know that is a bunch of garbage, unless, of course this WMD lie conspiracy was the whole world against the US people. What a joke. Or ae you saying that we shouldnt have went to Iraq because we didnt have the support of the UN, namely Russia and France and, to some extent, China?? Wow!! Because those are the same exact countries that made BILLIONS off of the OFF Program, at the same time providing MORE BILIONS in kickbacks to Saddam Hussein and calling far sanctions to be lifted against Iraq. Why?? THEY WERE GETTING RICH OFF OF HIM SO, tell me again how we did not have justification to invade Iraq and remove Saddam from power. Explain to me how he should have been allowed to continue with his crimes against humanity. Explain to me how he should have been allowed to invade more countries. Explain to me how he should have been allowed to continue to persue WMDs. Explain to me how he should have been allowed to continue violating UN resolution after UN resolution even after 1141, which included: So please, start explaining your truth

Wow, you didn't read much in this thread did you? There is no proof the insurgents are getting IEDs (or any other kind of support) from Iran. Watch the Daily Show clip to be educated on the IED issue (and for a humorous take on the whole situation). Find me a source that shows that insurgents in Iraq are getting any support from Iran, you will have trouble, because Iran in fact is helping groups that are part of the pro-US coalition in Iraq. Iran also helped the US take down the taliban in Afghanistan. Countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE actually fund jihad alot more than Iran. You just dont get it, do you? Just because it was said here, or because some guy talked about it on his blog, or whatever, and made it sound believable, DOES NOT make it true. The TRUTH is, that Iran has been one of the world's leading statet sponsors of terrorism since the Shah was overthrown in 1979 and the Ayatollah took power. Why would they change that now, when things are just getting interesting for them? While I doubt that Iran would supply Al'Qaeda, since it is primarily a Sunni group, I would not doubt in the least that they support groups such as the Mahdi Army, given that they are militant Shi'a groups.

Ok, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that your sources may be viable here until you referred to the Daily Show as if it were a credible news source. The alone pretty much debunked everything quoted/said. :lol: You so funny BoBo!!

First of all, I think by now (after the almost daily attacks on coalition troops) that its pretty clear that Iraqi's dont want them there. They may have liked it when Saddam was removed but now they seem to be making the problem worse in the eyes of the Iraqi population. Secondly do you think that soldiers are phsychopaths? Yes they may be trained to kill but do you really think that most soldiers dream of having to kill somebody, I dont think so. If they've or their comrades have been been attacked then maybe they'll want to fight but most people now see this bs war for what it is, and therefore dont want be put into harms way for no reason. I think that if all, most or even a majority of the 28 million Iraqis hated Americans, there would be far far more than 3000 dead going into our 5th year there. I think, that with 55,000 Iraqis dead, that they hate each other far more than they hate us. People that claim that the US is responsible for the Iraqi deaths, really have no understanding of the history of Islam or Iraq. Additionally, to say that Iraq was better off or more stable with Saddam Hussein in power is akin to saying Germany was better off and more stable with Adolf Hitler in power. 75-80% of the country's population was oppressed and lived in fear of their lives every day, because of their ethnicity or their religion. Sure! Everything was peachy. Sunni's werent fighting because they received anything they wanted. Kurds werent fighting because Saddam had already killed a couple hundred thousand of them and destroyed a couple thousand villages, displacing huge numbers of Kurds from their homes. Shi'a weren't fighting because, after losing the Persian Gulf War, where Saddam had invaded Kuwait, he slaughtered a couple hundred thousand of them and tortured countless more because he blamed them for losing the war. So yah, they were safe, as long as they weren't Shi'a or Kurd. Peachy. The fact is, that the types of attacks that are being made all over Iraq can be fairly easily done by a few thousand insurgents. For these kinds of attacks, the fewer people involved the better. That is what makes them so effective. They are a very well funded and small network.

You just dont get it do you?? We are not fighting Iraq, or Iraqis. They are fighting and killing each other. Americans are not responsible for killing 10s of thousands of Iraqi civilians. Americans are not responsible for destroying Iraqi schools, homes, families and pretty much everything they have. It is other Iraqis, other Muslims. It is people who seem to think that killing their own is the only way they can solve their problems. If they just kill off everyone that doesnt agree with them, or terrorize them into submission, then they get the power. That is how they think. Don't believe the reports you hear on TV. The average Iraqi does not hate America. The media won't show you the kids running alongside the HMMWVs waving and smiling, the media wont show you American soldiers building Iraqi schools, or bringing them the supplies they need to educate their children. The media won't show you American military standing up Iraqi medical clinics, or trucking in million dollar generators to provide power to entire neighborhoods. The media doesnt want you to see the warm fuzzies, because all people will do is change the channel, or grab another newspaper, magazine, etc. Someone, honestly tell me the last "fluff" story from the news that stood out to you and made you remember it. They don't exist, but to a very small portion of the population, and even then all you really hear is "Awww, well that's nice" or "How Sweet". Come the next day, do you think someone will actually remember that piece? Hell no. They will remember the bloodiest, most gruesome, or most controversial peice. Why?? HUMAN NATURE No, everything has not been perfect, and innocent lives have been affected. Yes, sometimes those bombs don't land as spot-on as they should have. Sometimes there were innocents that got too close and lost their lives in a battle. Believe what you want, but the FACT is that the US and other coalition militaries are not there to kill Iraqis. They are not there to destroy homes. They are not there to destroy infrastructure. Does it happen? Sadly, yes, it does. It is war. Every effort possible is made to minimize such things, however. Believe it or don't believe it. It is true. Dont you think it would be a hell of alot easier and infinitely less costly in lives and money if we did not try to protect the people of Iraq during this conflict. We have ground launched missiles that will take out a square kilometer with anti-personnel or anti-tank munitions PER MISSILE. We could shoot shake n bakes on every hut we thought housed insurgents. Hell, we could probably just carpet bomb the whole damn country if we wanted to. After all, we are THE SUPERPOWER. The reality is that we don't, and we don't for a reason. Yes, mistakes are made. They always are, no matter who is making the decisions.

:roll:

Regarding the OP, I would say that my feelings more or less are in line with what was written by the SSG. Regarding the rest of the posts in the thread, regardless of what side they were on, they showed, overwhelmingly, how uninformed and ignorant of the real issues that people are, surrounding the conflict in Iraq. First, let me say this. In all branches of the US Military, people join for a variety of reasons. Some are running away from something and hoping for a better life with the training, discipline and benefits that the military provides. Some join to pay for education, both education already attended and education that is intended. Some join for tradition. Some join for God and country. Some join for direction. Some join, just because. Regardless of the reasons for joining, none know what the future will hold. Granted, there are some that have joined since 2003 that joined to go to Iraq, but I am certain that number is very low. The SSG who wrote what was in the OP, certainly did not join the military so that he could go to war with Iraq. Joining the military, however, is really where the freedom to choose what you do and don't do, or where you go and don't go, ends. By raising your right hand and swearing "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." , you are giving up your freedom so that others can be free. So, for it to be said: You really, truly show your ignorance. Sure, a soldier can refuse to go, they always have that option. There are consequences, however. A felony conviction. Years in a federal prison. A Dishonorable Discharge from the military Loss of voting privledges for life. Loss of the ability to secure any, meaningful employment. By taking the oath of service, a servicemember is duty bound to go to war, when it is required of them, and the military courts are not forgiving of those who refuse. Concerning political affiliation of service members, it is overwhelmingly Republican. I have seen estimates at 70-80% Republican, in fact. Ragarding the "war" in Iraq, there has been a huge amount of spin placed on the events that have transpired there, but the reality of the matter is that there was as much justification to invade Iraq as any major military action to date. It could even be argued that there is more. WMDs had something to do with the reason for going, but it was not the reason to go to war. The whole world thought Saddam had stockpiles of WMDs, in fact, we knew that he did. Yes, partially, because we supplied him with them. Diplomatic relations, particularly in an area as volatile as the Middle East, have historically been about who will cooperate with us and our national interests the most. The Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, had very good relations with the United States. When he was overthrown and relations with Iran became very strained, the US decided to support Saddam Hussein, who at the time was actually very progressive in many areas, particularly women's rights. In our support for Iraq against Iran, we supplied Iraq with a large variety of weapons, including WMDs. It was not until 1988 when Saddam began his wholesale slaughtering of the Kurdish people that his Genocidal tendencies came into light. So we know he had WMDs, there is no doubt of that. In 1990, when he invaded Kuwait, the whole world cried out over his abuse of power against another sovereign nation. This led to UN sanctions against Iraq and weapons inspections that were repeatedly disregarded. Anyone want to take a quick guess what 3 countries were found by investigators to have been abusing the oil for food program? You guessed it kids! Russia, China and France Ok, now here is the question I have... President Bush was lying to us? Does that mean the UN was lying to us as well? Was President Clinton lying to us? Was the 105th Congress of 1998 lying to us when it passed Public Law No: 105-338, 105-235 and 105-174?? (George W. Bush was the governor of Texas at that time, btw) My goodness, did the whole, bloody world lie to us??? Think about it. Just because they didnt find WMDs doesnt mean they weren't there and certainly does not invalidate any of the other reasons for invading Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein from power. Everything that has happened since May 2003 when that objective was accomplished, has been a result of efforts to ensure that there is a stable government in place with the means to provide its own security. All estimates and briefings that I recieved were that it would take up to 10 years to rebuild Iraq. We aren't even at 4 years now and everyone is crying about how long its been and how many casualties we have had. Now, every single life that is lost is important and the sacrifices made by the soldiers that gave life and limb should not be belittled, in the least, but let's look at this mathematically: US Revolutionary War -- 8 years : approx. 50,000 casualties US Civil War -- 4 years : approx 360,000 Union Casualties World War 1 -- 5 years : approx 117,000 US Casualties World War 2 -- 5 years : approx 418,500 US Casualties Korean War -- 3 years : approx 37,000 US Casualties Vietnam War -- 9 years : approx 58,000 US Casualties Iraq War -- 4 years : approx 3,000 US Casualties Yes, every life matters. Historically, however, this is likely our least costly war. The largest amount of Iraqi lives that have been lost has not been at the hands of US troops, but rather by the terrorists that have sprung up there. Al Qaeda being the largest organization. Other militant groups, such as the Mahdi Army and Ba'athists being major contributors as well. The funny thing about that is that they rarely target military targets. Instead, they target police checkpoints, schools, bus stops and markets. Why is this happening? Easy answer. In 2004, control of Iraq was handed back over to the Iraqis, with coalition troops taking a secondary role in the security of the streets. If there was any failed policy of the Bush Administration, that was it. Letting the Iraqis take over before they were ready. Now, the Iraqis still arent ready and the "new direction" we are supposed to be taking is doing the same thing we did nearly 3 years ago that caused all of this?? When the US controlled the streets of Baghdad, we did not have many of the issues we have now. We conducted nightly raids of local neighborhoods, capturing insurgents and confiscating weapons and equipment on a regular basis. We had helicopters in the air 24/7 partolling the highways, looking for insurgents and providing air support. There was a heavy presence of troops partolling the roads at night, looking for WMDs and our EOD teams were busy daily, disposing of captured IEDs. What happened? Politics Liberal Media An ignorant and misinformed public. You get those 3 together at the same time in the same place and you have Vietnam all over again. A war that was lost on the homefront.

I played RS for 4 years. Combat 115, 1700ish total skill. It got to the point where I could barely log in for 5 minutes anymore. So I went to WoW. It isa totally different game, and in all reality, it like 2 games, due to a massive end-game. Basically, you play from 1-60 with some fairly limited content. Gear is replaced every few levels because you grow out of it. Grinding can get fairly boring, though not nearly as boring as grinding any RS skills. Once you get to 60 though and get into the end-game content everything opens up. Raiding is far more addictive than RS could ever be. Playing together with 39 other people just to beat one boss, and repeating that many times over to finish an instance. Employing strategies for a single boss that can take weeks to perfect. The joy of facing a boss you have never faced before that other guilds have stumbled seriously on, and one-shotting him (killing him on the first attempt). There is nothing like it in the MMO world. That is why they have 7 Million paying customers. Can't beat it.

From E3expo.com:

Macro in WoW means something entirely different than macro in RS. WoW has a fully customizable user interface allowing players to make mods and addons that change basically anything that is client side, with some limitations, of course. As long as the game's code isnt interferred with or anything that is server side, players can pretty much do what they want. GM's are Blizzard's in-game staff and impersonating them is just as serious of an offense as impersonating Jagex mods in RS. I'd say a one month ban is pretty fair. In RS, id imagine that it would be permanent. As far as the game playing itself, I wish! While there are a lot of things that can be done to make the gameplay more simple, in the endgame that can be very helpful due to the nature of 20 and 40 man raids. Trying to coordinate 40 people to all work together on fairly complex strategies is complicated enough without the healers having to sort through 6 toolbars, dozens of keys and 8 different raid groups in order to heal the main tank.

Player Owned Houses (POH)!!! ROFLMAO Like that would ever happen! *clutches side while falling over*

TKS pretty much stopped playing in 2002 because she could not get any peace with all of the n00bs constantly hounding her. I believe she logged on occasionally still for a while and I remember seeing her at a friends wedding in 2003, but that was the last time. Even then, people wouldnt leave her alone and she had long since fallen from the #1 spot on the overall list.

*Sigh* The inevitable has happened and this has turned into another weepy, whiney "1 607 84NNZ0RD!!!!11!!!!!1!!one!" thread. I really don't see the purpose of this meaningless dribble to be here, much less stickied. On topic: If you got banned, your only recourse is to use the appeals system at the Runescape website, however defunct it may seem. If you broke one of Jagex' Rules, however trivial or unneeded they may seem to you, then they are well within their rights to ban you for whatever length of time they deem neccessary. Your feelings about whether the rule should be there or the fact that "every one else does it" is completely meaningless. Rules are rules. By breaking them, you are taking the risk that you will lose your character. No amount of crying, whining or complaining will change that. Can someone please lock this, now worthless, topic.

Concerning bannings, yes, mistakes ARE made. There is no way to get around that with the ratio of staff to users, coupled with human error. Sometimes they are caught and withdrawn, while others are not. As users, however, we are unable to see the information that is provided to the Jagex support staff that is responsible for bannings. All we know, as users, is the side of the story of the person being banned, and to be honest, Jagex has no obligation to explain to anyone, particularly the general public, the process they use to determine if a person needs to be banned. That would be bad for business on thewir part as, certainly, someone would use that information to devise better ways to cheat. With that said, I DO believe that there could (and SHOULD) be some steps forward made in improving this process. Realizing that I am not speaking from an informed point of view, I have gotten the feeling that the support staff for Jagex are young, have little prior CS experience, have recieved insufficient training, are hugely overworked and, quite possibly, have to deal with very poor interdepartmental and/or intradepartmental communication. I also feel that the infrastructure of the appeal process needs to be improved so that users recieving bans have an adequate appeals system to use. The bottom line with appealing a ban that was given in error is to respond in a mature, logical and coherent manner. Attitude is everything for people that work in Customer Support professions and many times costumers will not even give you a chance if you come off with a bad attitude. After all, they are just trying to do their job and make an honest living.

That is not suicide, that is sacrifice. "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends." That highest level of selfless service should never be compared with such a selfish act as suicide. I feel compassion and sadness. Not for him, but for his family. I can't imagine what they are going through when their son can't even go to them with his problems and instead takes his own life. Suicide is a result of tunnel vision. Whatever people say about what he must have been going through, etc is meaningless. We all have pain we go through in life, some more than others. The true measure of character is how you handle the challenges that life gives you. Don't allow people to mask this as anything but pride. It was pride that leads a person to "not want to bother" others with his problems. It was selfishness that made him make the decision that he would rather force his parents through a lifetime of pain than bother them with his problems. Tunnel vision. Pitiful.