FuBai

Apart from the obvious fakness of the image being from another game, even if it were an true game image, all the frames and examines would also be changed, like it was from classic to RS2. There would be different message boxes and examines.

Why can;t he sell all the new crystal bows for 750k ea on forums. They susaly sell for around 700-800k each. Will take some time, but will get u back alot of money

or write it as one post - as i've shown him he can...

Actually, there's a character limit, wannabe-smartie. Now his post is vindicated?

[mod edit - removed the stupidty. Don't do it again - Phil]

As if by magic... So? You've just became a member? Don't know what to do in a member world? Heres how to get started. Stats/Quests: Stats: 60+ attack 40+ defence Strength is optional if you want to beat monsters faster. 55+ hits Atleast 40 magic, the higher the better. Quests: I suggest you beat all Free quests so you can start the Member quests. Start: Now, to get started, it's VERY important that you know your way around. To make things easier, pop open a world map on the top screen. Yes, yes, you might be wondering, "Where can I train my skills?" Lets begin with theiving. If you didn't find out, there is a hut filled with men inside at Edgeville Sorry if the pic is too small or too blurry. This is the only place I know that hosts images! This place is very nifty, you can get food from your bank. (if you have any) Start stealing from the men. Right click and select "Pickpocket Man."If you want, you can kill a few for herbs. These will be needed soon.When you have gotten to level 5, you can head over to Ardounge and steal baked goods. Keep on doing this and you'll get far. Now for Herblore. Head over to Taverly, its just north-east of Falador. Start the quest Druidic Ritual. Here's a guide http://www.tip.it/runescape/index.php?rs2quest_id=22 This guide was created by the Tip.it crew After finishing the quest, get the herbs that you got from the men. Click on them, and you will try to Identify the herb. The higher herblore level you have, the more herbs you can identify. Herbs are used to make potions, which can raise stats, expell poison, restore lost stats, and even protect you from fire breath. Once you get to make Prayer potions, you can sell them for around 7k each! Unidentified herbs can be sold for around 1k each. You may think herblore is a waste of time, but it is required for quests. Agility is hard and dangerous, but it can make all other skills much easier To get started, head on over to the Gnome agility course. Keep running around untill you get to a satisfying level. Not only is agility used for getting around, it also makes your run energy recover faster, and its for risky minigames. Fletching is easy, all you have to do is use a knife on logs. It helps make money and it gets you arrows. Thats all. I don't think you would want to do farming, farming really bores me. It takes long and all you get is food and herbs. Slayer is easy too. Locate one of the slayer masters around the map. I suggest starting with Turael (I think thats his name, I haven't passed by him in a while) He is in Burtorpe. Slayer masters asign you tasks in which you must kill monsters. This can vary from raining terror upon defenceless chickens to Slaying tough dragons. Construction in my oppinion is a hardworking money drain. I don't recommend it to players that are new. It is highly addictive somehow... Cities, cities, and more cities. Of course! How will you know what things are in which cities??? Ardounge: Useful:Yes Quests: A few. About: Ardounge is the,"Theives Wonderland." There are a few quests, not too man shops (unless you include the stalls) Ardounge is usually a banking spot for people that need teak or mahogany logs. The ship leads to BrimHaven, on the Karamja Island. Brimhaven: Useful: No Quests: Practically none. About:Brimhaven is usually an unpopulated place, seing how no one usually comes by. It's only used for the agility course and for the houses (Construction) Yanile: Useful:Sort of. Quests:Maybe one or two About:Yanille is the home of the wizards. Of course, that gave away the fact that it holds the Wizards guild. There is a place near here where you can use your agility to acquire high level Herbs. To the east of Yanille, there is a famous minigame called "Castle Wars" The name says it all. Seers' Village and Catherby: Useful:Yes Quests: A few About:The Seers' Village is the home to the Seers'. Of course, you knew that. The bank is usually crowded with people. Not many uses, only if you spin flax for a living. Catherby if a good farming place, and a good mid-high level fishing spot. The fishing store is convienient seeing how it's right next to a fishing spot. Pollivineach and Nardah: Useful:A bit. Quests:Just a few. About: Pollivineach is home to two rival gangs. Not many things go on here, seeing how it is in the dessert. Same with Nardah, only people taking a break from trekking in the dessert. Mort'ton and Burgh de Rott: Useful: Yes Quests:Some About: Mort'ton is the diseased town that has been corupted by shades. Some people go here to creamate the shades in chance of getting fine cloth, one of the things needed to make Splitbark armor. Burgh de Rott is available during the quest "In aid of the Myreque".This place has a bank and is good for people doing the dangerous minigame "Barrows" Canifis: Useful:A bit Quests: maybe one or two About: Canifis is home to the lycans and vampires that are in their human form. People hunt down these creatures. This is usually a retreat spot for people doing Barrows. One of the Slayer masters is in this town.

u can hit more than 9 at once. U can hit everyone in a 3 x 3 grid. So if there's 1000 people in a 3 x 3 grid u hit all 1000

got to the second post and see this...WOW, you must be a true believer and study it if you think Jesus is god... personally ~ i dont believe in god, meh smite me to hell...I DARE YOU God and Jesus are both seperate AND the same. the trinitarian answer states that whilst God, the Son and The Holy ghost are indivdual, they are also all one - three facets of the same object.

I will tell you that there is, as yet, no perfect system divised. Free Market Capitalism just has fewer flaws that communism of socilaism - as can be seen from all the attempts to establish communist and socialist states. For any of them to be sucessful they always have too force thier wokers to work - compare the two types of soviet farms (I have forgotten what they are called right now) in one people got payed the same, no matter what they produced, in the other people were payed on the basis of what they produced. The second type of farm was infinitley more succesful than the first. Every time you say "income mobility" you confuse Equal Opportunity (the basis pf the neo-liberal idea) withe Equal Outcome (communism). The problem that we have, and this is a problem, is that people are not being provided with a good enough education - or, as is more often, they are not motivated to study in the same way. Now I have been to two state schools - one i spent a year in, the other was was just visiting as part of a private school and state school cooperationg programme. In the one i stayed in, the pupils were disciplined and comapitivley well behaved. The teaching was not much different in substace from the Private school (although they tend not to have as may people with Doctorates). They achieved resulst very close to those achieved at private schools. In the other, the students were uncontrolable by thier teachers. There was no work ethic, and the teachers had given up trying. In this atmospher it's impossible for a meritcoracy to begin to function. There are several methods for dealing with this, but none of them are relevant to the subject. Schools and education needs to be better funded and a much stricter atmosphere is needed. I believe in Equal Opportunity (allthough i recognise it can never truly be). It must be made so that people succeded and fail on thier own merits as much as possible. This is not, therefore, an argument to justify the distribution of wealth, but increased education increases the meritocracy, which increases the strength of the free market economy, which increases the wealth of all eventualy. as for the flat tax - as I said, if you are at a level where you are unable to pay income tax at the flat rate of 20% you don't. However, you lose certain would have to lose priviledges. And youre argument that people don't deserve their wealth because they were lucky at the stockmarket is firstly a missaprehension - Most of the people I know who earn more the 100,000 a year are very hard working lawyers or doctors. And for those people who are lucky on the stock exchanges - they risked thier money, and the won. Takeing it away from them is like taking all the winnings of gamblers becasue "they just got lucky".

The state can intervene to improve welfare, and can intervene effectively. Of course, if you're one of the 16% of Americans that don't have health insurance, you probably already know this. ~~~ So, why welfare? 1. It is moral. A decent society should protect its poor. There should be a minimum standard of living that should be guaranteed to all citizens. 2. The number of people who are living in "luxury" from welfare is vastly overestimated. The media loves reporting cases of people who have told the state they have a broken leg, who then go out and do a marathon or something, and that over-reporting makes it seem like there are a lot of them. But are there really? What's statistically more likely to kill you... a shark, or falling aeroplane parts? The media hypes up shark attacks, but falling aeroplane parts are much more deadly. 3. No one chooses to live on welfare. I know that in the UK, I'd have a massive problem trying to live on the amount that welfare pays. In addition, we have a scheme whereby if you are out of work for a year, then the government will give you a choice of either taking a job, or undertaking further education. If you do neither, then your benefits will stop. In the US, I believe that welfare payments are even lower. I think I read some years ago that they are actually below the US's own set minimum poverty line. People don't choose to "be lazy" and live on welfare. If they do, it's because they don't know about other opportunities. 4. It provides a buffer zone for risk and bad luck. Entrepreneurs might be less likely to risk it all if they know that they'll be practically starving if they fail. Similarly, if you lose your job even through no fault of your own, it probably takes a while for you to find a new one, and the state helps you out in the mean time. 5. Having a massive underclass of poor people doesn't help the rich. Underclasses steal, rebel, strike. They are easy to bribe. Why shouldn't charities be responsible for welfare? 1.They're unfair. They tend to have special interests: either religious, cultural, gender, etc. The government is more impartial. Why redistribute income? 1. It is fair. The fact is, the statistical likelihood is that you will stay in the same earning decile that your parents were in, or maybe go up or down one decile. Is this because the children of dustmen have something in their genes that says they are only fit to become dustmen, or hotel cleaners? Nope, it's because their parents can't/don't provide the same opportunities. The fact is, we all like to think that we rise and fall upon our own merits, but statistically, it doesn't happen. 2. Taxes are not a barrier to success. No one ever thinks "I won't bother earning another million, because it'll be taxed so highly". 3. The opposite is actually the case. If people get too rich, they just retire early. Slowing the earnings of the richest people actually encourages them to do more work. 4. 40% from ̣̉100,00 has the same impact as 10% from 10,000. The reason that there are income tax bands, is that 10% from an annual income of ̣̉5,000 will be noticed a lot more than 10% from an annual income of ̣̉500,000. The poorest people have to spend all of their money just to live. Things like food, water, electricity cost a similar amount for poor people as rich people. Hence why the top rate of income tax is 40% in the UK. 5. Wealth will not be redistributed by a free market system. The argument that when the country gets richer in absolute terms, some of it will trickle down to the poorest people, is a fallacy. Many countries have a rich elite class, that doesn't help any of its people. ~~~ Concerning Atlas Shrugged, I was recently reading articles about it, though I confess that I haven't read it yet. This article is mainly in support of Ayn Rand's novel, however it has an interesting quote: I'm not even going to try answering the length of that post right now. I'm just going to say you're wrong. You have heavily confused Equal Opportunity with Equal Outcome. I have answered about every point you have made in my other post, which you then blithley ignored. You appear to have read niether of the works i propposed, and come across very much like, although slightly less intelegntly than, most of my friends at debating soceity. It is, however, impossible to shift a socialist though arguments, as I have reapeatedly found out. They either go out and make money and change thier views, or they go out, don't make money, and become poor socialists with nothing to live on, which in turn makes them more ardently socialist. People will not work if you pay them the same for not working. Why bother taking responsibility if you get payed the same for not taking it. What reward is there for working hard if you get payed the same if u don't. Socialism relies on humans naturlay getting together and heloing each other as much as they help themeselves. This does not happen. Read my sig.

Okay, I read it carefully, but it still doesn't make sense. You're making this whole argument out of a word play with the word "created." There is absolutely no reason why logic can only exist if a supernatural being created us. As death_by_pod said earlier - the premise of your argument, that a logical mind can only be created by the supernatural, has no basis. You've just assumed that point and that point is the premise of your argument. Okay, I'll try and refragment his argument using one of my own, that may not be correct, but is interesting to think about. Reductionism (or the general scientific community) has reduced all things to a bunch of atoms and electrons. Thus, a tree is a bunch of atoms, and so is thought - a bunch of atoms, or electrons. Why are we able to call thought logical, or true, and not a tree? Both are mere electron/atom patterns - according to science, the only difference is in their electronic makeup. But of course, it would be absurd to assign truth values to a tree, and it would be absurd to not assign truth values to a thought. Ah, now I'm starting to follow. So basically, we can't reduce thought to anything of this world. It's not like a tree where we can see what it's made of - it can't be reduced, so is it of another realm? Is that where you are going? There are two processes I would like to state here - logical removal of doubt and the theory of evolution applied to the argument presented. logival removal of all that can be doubted (devised by DesCartes) 1: I will say that I will not believe in anything that cannot be proven conclusivley to be true 2: Apart from the obvious things (God and faith etc.) I will also question the objects i persieve 3: I cannot conclusivley prove the objects i percieve are real - the sensations that they are could be generated by something else, or I may indeed be genereating these images myself (an easy metaphore to understand is that of a demon feeding you false sensations) 4: therefore i cannot prove the existance of anything other thgan my self and my thoughts, or else what is thinking these thoughts (cogito ergo sum) 5: However, to say that is to imply that thoughts need origin, and this cannot be conclusivley proven. (Bertrand Russel's final reduction) Now all that can be thought for sure to be true is that there are thoughts. (notice how at this point we must remove both the personal pro-noun and the verb "say") 6: therefore to believe (o even to think of beliving) everything else is a leap of faith. Why is that important - it shows how almost everything that may be percieved is a matter of faith, and therefore nothing can be conclusivley proven, even by the scientific method. I chose to believe in reality beacuse its a hell of a lot easier than not beiliving in it. darwinism applied to the above argument 1: the creature mutates into a form that provides a logical brain (infact i will dispute the idea of logic later, so let us say a "more intelegent brain") 2: conditions change 3: those who do not have the more intelegnt brain die out, as they are unable to cope with the new enviroment (for example being able to think how to survive an ice age) 4: those who have the more intelegent brain reproduce, and so the mutation is passed on. There is no need for the involvment of God here, to create a mind to be logical. Random mutation can just as easily explain it. You must chose which you belive - or just dont bother and go through life not realy caring - all three options work for me. The idea of a logical brain - We do not have one. Everyday we act illogicaly, in many different ways. Emotions are illogical. I do not think that i should pity a beggar because not to do so would place me without society, I pity a beggar because he has much less than I do. There are a thousand illogical thoughts and actions that each one of us performs everyday. For instance writing this - why bother? How does it serve me? It is illogical. The most convincing explanation for me is the ID argument - look around you. The scientific chances of any of this happening are so impossibly minute, the complexity of our surroundings is so great that we have studied it for thousands of years and the great proportion of it still remains un known. Its a realy good argument. But usualy i just say - the odds say its gunna happen somewhere. Sure its a million to one chance, but there are billions of worlds out there. Another argument is the Big Bang argument - Where the hell did this singularity come from? In response I usualy say "we don't know a lot of things, give us time and we may find that out" the ontological argument is intresting - and i'm rubbish at explaining it so I'll copy and paste somethign in:

I dont beleive in the all powerful, creator and overseer god. To me that seems a very odd and unattractive concept. Allthough i do preceive the "divine" in nature and beauty - the feeling of awe and being a part of something so beautiful and huge. This has nothing to do with religion, and i don't in any shape or form worship it - i just recognise that blissful, invigorating expereince as something worthy of the title "holy", "divine" or "numenos".

very nice but wrong forum goals and achievments.

this is why i say that Jagex is to blame for the glitches like durial. Sure the guy himself probably shouldn't have gone on a rampage, but they know that there are loads of potential scammers and bug abusers out there, and yet they still released them with so many glitches! Undertested i would say.

did ten runs this morning - got dh pl8 and torags pl8. got dh helm yesterday, and another one the day before - i love barrows lol

rune pures are great fun sure, but they have a problem. They are bound to wearing either blkc hides or rune armor, otherwise they lose the advantage of thier def (it being to low to be of real value without the armor). However, def noobs, who wear robes most of the time, can mage rune pures, who usualy have to run. However, I think rune pures own def pures of a same level in melee - def is a skill far often too underated.

maybe the help and advice forum?

We will still ne cereals for quite a long time. As the world's average GNP increases, cereal farming will become less used. This will drive up the price of cereals. This will make them lucrative once more and then we will farm them again. In "service sector Britain", agriculture is at an all time low - but if it become lucrative it will rise. p.s. i Didn't read entire post only conclusion as I am going to bed. Edit: before I go I just want to point out that the distribution of wealth can become more even, but the world cannot actualy get richer, per se, as richness and currency is relative.

depends how much they hate me. If it's "murder the pretty boy" then i wouldnt be too keen on it to tell you the truth

There is absolutley no way they could process all that information. It must just be stored. Luckily that kind of stuff can't happen in Britain under european law (see the Human Rights Act)

Yeah so the people who do have jobs and can vote will vote in parties whose policies will make it harder for those without jobs to get them. And what right do those who contribute nothing to society - and here we are talking about those living entirley off state benefits - have to effect soceity. Those who are in emplyment or pay income tax contibute and therefore are rewarded by the gift of being able to vote. Voting is not a right. Its a gift our prdeceasors waged wars for. And i meant to insert the bit about those who are emplyed but still to low earnings not to pay income tax still getting a vote. moreover, if you had read the first link i appended, then you would realise it is in the intrests of noone to see that others do not get a job.

Hitler was elected. Lets say that again - elected. The Nazi party had a great following in Germany. Hitler himself was offered the chancellorship because he was so popular. There is no such thing as a true democracy either. I cba to explain but perhaps someone else who does politics can explain.

The only way to stop war forever is to allow yourself to be defeated - if someone declares war on you, you simply do not retaliate and allow them to take over your conunty and set you to slave labour. Read my sig. A country is occupied by usualy well over 10 million people. Thats 10 million times worth my sig. I will no present some pro-war views that I do not agree with: You have been strengthed in understanding and mental ability by your experince in war, and the hardships u had to survive. War can untie a nation behind a single cause (well it used to now that's not realy happening) War is cathartic - the tension between nations is released in small wars, rather than storing it up for a long time then unleashing it in an apocalyptic neuclear manner. There's lots of other reasons I don't agree with, but what i do say is this: The only way to remove war is not through diplomacy - solitudinem fecerunt, pacem appelunt. And when a nation refuses to engage in diplomacy to what recourse are we left? It is through war. And this, as is apparent, is a paradox.

crickey...those things are so easy..well at least the English ones are. You basicaly click at almost any point and there will be a hazard.

I'll copy and waste what i wrote on the other thread: And in response to allot of this welfare stuff I will write this: I firstly want to make it clear that, as I am 16, middle class, go to a private school In Britain (the Welfare state) I am highly unusual - I am a free market economist, and, when it comes to the economy, I am almost radicaly right wing. Let it be known that in the atmopshere of a middle class, private school in England, not being socialist or communist is actualy a very rare thing. Alot of the interlectuals are left wing, and when i go to debating society you can't move for reds. As the saying goes, "if you're not a communist when you're young, garden tool have no heart, If you are a communist when your old you have no sense". Well I, as it seems, have no heart. I am a great believer in the economics of Adam Smith (the author of the wealth of nations), which often attracts much argument in Debating Society. But, as i said before - "only those who have never had to work have the time to be communist" The welfare state is a conundrum - I do not wish to see those who are unable to pay for medical treatment die or live poor quality lives. I recognise that society need the dustbin man, the street cleaner and the shelf stacker. Those people who are unable to pay for thier medical care still need acces to the care. However, the simple solution (cut off free healthcare past a certain rate of income) is invioble. This forms a tax on succes, and a tax on succes is detrimental to success, which is detrimental to the country, which is detremental to all of society. If we cut off free healthcare at a certain point, then many people will try to maintain thier incomes at the rate they need to gain acces to healthcare. Moreover, the succesful are punished for being so. The same problem occurs with taxes - i will tax you more beacuse you are richer, and therefore can afford to pay, falls down along the same lines. So this means something is going to have to give. We cannot afford free healthcare for all without taxes, and we cannot tax the rich extra to pay for the poor. How do we answer this problem - with a fiscal blackhole like the NHS (For those of you who are forieghn, that is the National Health Service) and risk the tax on succes? I would answer no. The NHS is too comprehensive. it covers all the ailments that are unesecary to the functioning of people's lives, and that do not decrease thier well being much. This must be reduced. Moreover there should be a flat tax for eveyone - lets say 20-30% of total earnings. This would mean that the rich pay more in actual quantity, however, they pay the same percentage of earinings so it is not a tax on succes. Yet there is still a flaw in this plan - there is a point where taxation of even 20% of earinings is too high - if you earn $10 (for those Americans) a week then going down to $8 may put you below subsitence level. So society needs to fund these people. Yet it is by thier own merit that they are in this position of low earnings - it has been shown repeatedly that, whilst the middle and upper class my have an advantage, the lower class can still achieve great things. Margaret Thatcher was working class - yet she was the longest consecutivley reigning PM in recent times. And a radical right wing economist. Therefore there must be some punishmet for failure, as society is still giving these people so much, they must not be comfortable enough not to go and get a Job. So we can reverse the principle of no taxation without representation to being no representation without taxation. TO put it shortly, if you do not pay income tax, you do not have the right to vote. This may, initself not be enough, so sate grants must be reduced, and the poll tax introduced. This would lead to a slightly better society in my opinion. Companies must be free and unrestrained to make profits, as, in the long term, the succes of the companies filters down to the lowest parts of society - more jobs, more money and better opportunities are the gifts the large companies can give to the poor. And if the companies pay thier workes too little they may leave. The government must only esnure the market stays free - that companies do not work together to keep labour cheap by setting maximum pay rates. That is free market capitalism. Unlike socialism it means that everyone has the opportunity to win, rather than causing economic instability and removing any desire to work. disclaimer: - I was not realy thinking much about this is before or as i was writing, just providing some of the arguments i have provided before. There are going to be lots of flaws but right now i'm too tired to bother to sort them out, or even to re-read what i've written. So If i've said something wrong i probably dont mean it, just wasn't think whilst i was typing :lol: Afilliated links: http://www.online-literature.com/adam_smith/wealth_nations/ http://www.bibliomania.com/2/1/261/1294/frameset.html Its best to read both, then make up your own mind For the mods, check both links if u want - thier well respected sites and the first that came up on a google search. Neither have anything to do with me.