malo2

I have been writing this for a week now and have been getting more enthusiastic over the days. I think it has reached the point where it will make you somewhat want to read more. If you could give me any criticism you can, I would be very happy. I want to know anything that is bad and/or could be improved. I apologize for the fact that the paragraphs are unclear, I do nothing more than indent. There are some notes after the story if you wish to read them first. The story is set in 15th century England in a historically modified world. Enjoy __________________________________ Charlie and I were walking through the forest behind our town of Cambridge, I was climbing up a hill of thick roots with Charlie behind me taking many glances back. ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅWow Elias, this is the furthest we have ever gotten, probably furthest anyone in our school has gotten.ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

Great map. What lvl are the dagganoths?

who cares if it's buy able, buying it will hardly make it any faster, let alone horribly unenjoyable. That is if you are willing to spend more than the gp cap.

That could make things very annoying for others, especially those without summons. I think they should just make more multi combat areas, even areas impossible without summoning.

They're like 50 ea or whatever. They're not too expensive at first, but you need so many of them, it gets extremely costly. theres potential for a new way of making money with the shards by making them mineable. As fast as iron but less xp to compensate for the stackability. That would laso drop the prices for summoners to 30 or 40 ea.

I don't like the stats page at all, they should have enlarged it. But everything else is good.

I hate when people keep asking what I am getting in at school. It's honestly really annoying because i really don't like sharing my grades, but If I don't I look like I am a very bad student or something. I'm not failing anything, and I'm also not getting 120% in anything, why do you care? why can't you mind your own business? I hardly even know you, you're just some random douche bag that asks people what grades they get, and I have already been asked by a million other douche bags the same question. I'm just not the person that likes sharing his grades, probably because douche bags often tend to judge someones intelligence through their grades (hence the fact that they're douche bags). but usually just by someone asking me I have no choice.

- Playing online games with Americans, get kicked for having high ping. - Americans cussing out middle-eastern players, this happens alot more then you think. - Americans feeling their way of spelling words takes priority over others. - When I was registering for some games, "Sorry, this is not available in your region". - They automatically assume their country is the middle of the universe. - Laugh at others cultures and accents. Sorry if this is a generalisation, but happens quite often. Sure, i've got quite a few american friends, but even more american enemies. Wow you just made everyone who isn't american look bad.

No, I would live to fight more. But if god himself told me that If I game my life, he would turn the world for my beliefs, then maybe.

you must not have been in tipit for long if you thought we might call you a hippie :wink:

every country owes debt to other countries, nobody is complaining because they pay interest. It's funny that you suggest that someday the debt will be due, if anybody ever complains about the debt owed to the U.S, they have the largest military in the world to answer to.

Wow you really must be living under a rock. Let me explain, racial profiling is when security or basically anybody else dealing with a security sensitive matter is extra careful when a person of a certain race appears. When four Arabs come to an airport to take a trip to Washington or something, the security is extra careful because there is a higher chance that they are suicidal Muslim extremists then the four white Americans before them. Sad but true, and sometimes necessary. Hmm... contradiction? So you agree with a country placing its naval units into another country, without that country's permission (in fact, forget that; at that country's opposition) based on the idea Iran might develop nuclear missiles and might launch them at an American city that might be close to the Canadian border? You're removing a nation's right to defend its borders based on something which is only going to happen after three variables? Wouldn't it be easier to just coerce them by helping them develop nuclear power, on the condition America, the UN and the EU can keep inspectors inside Iran, keeping an eye on all nuclear activity thereafter? Or am I just, as you put it, an 'idiot' whose arguments could not possibly have any validity, based on my opinion Muslims should be held to the same level of pre-suspicion as everyone else at an airport? I mean... how naÃÆÃâÃâïve of me to suggest a country with supposedly democratic values should do that. What contradiction? what are you talking about? yes it is a much bigger deal because Canada is a more powerful and more important country, if Russia were to attack Canada that would be far more damaging to the stability around the world than if poor little Iran went to war with the U.S. But that doesn't mean I think that will happen, i just don't see Russia attacking Canada because they have never really had many major problems, and they are not any kind of a threat to each other. As for Iran, is there something you do not comprehend about the devastating effects of nuclear warfare? Would you actually consider three variables to be enough to assume the safety of about 100 MILLION (or much much more) people? If you were the U.S secretary of defense then the world would be [bleep]ed. Not only that, it's not three variables, are you that self centered that you don't consider the fact that billions of lives would be at risk if Iran got through the first variable? The second variable means that millions will be dead, maybe I would happen to be still alive by chance, but i would still feel the effects of radiation being carried over by weather, ect... As for using nuclear energy safely, I don't have a problem, and I don't think anyone else should. But what is wrong with keeping a few military ships near by just in case something goes over the line? Billions of lives is not something to joke about, if Iran has nothing to hide, it should not have a problem with U.S military ships patrolling their waters, just like I have no problem with Russian subs patrolling Canadian waters.

Maybe not in those tactics no, but you're missing the point. You've quite rightly pointed out your anger at Russia placing its naval units in your territory, then you say America has the right to do it to another country, simply because, as you put it, they're 'smaller'. My question is why did America feel it had a right to be there in the first place? Because I personally see no justification; while conversly I see Iran has every right to defend its borders. no actually russian subs in my country's territory is really the least of my problems as long as they cause no trouble. America does have the right to be in Iran because I ran is still a nuclear threat, do you realize than nuclear weapons are the only thing on the planet capable of destroying all life in a few days? If America gets nuked, then Canada is [bleep]ed too because many of Americas major cities are very close to Canada, we would be the first to feel the devastating effects from radiation. If a country makes serious threats against another, and then begins a nuclear program then action should be taken immediately. Even if they have halted their nuclear program, that does not mean it's safe to leave. When did a few military ships in Iran kill anybody? I have no problem with Russia floating nukes in my completely innocent waters, why is Iran, who has threatened America multiple times, have a problem if it no longer has anything to hide? idiot. Big word. I presume that means you accept your point was fundamentally flawed then? My question is; were you born just yesterday? Is Arabic not a race like black, white, and asian? Have you never heard of racial profiling going on not in just america, but everywhere in the world?

If you're thinking about Iraq, that's just a drop in the bucket compared to what the baby boomers will be bringing in soon. I read about this elsewhere earlier, but then this video on youtube caught my attention. Ron Paul for president please.

Why are you condemning Iran for nukes but not America? Who said they sent suicidal speed boats at military ships. Please, show me your evidence; not assumptions. Negotiate with the US. Hah, this is a discussion not a comedy club. because you see, U.S is one of the countries that disassembles nukes to this day (it has about 1/3 of the nukes it had at the height of the cold war), and is the most responsible with keeping them safe and avoiding any nuclear war. Why would you think the U.S wants to start launching nukes at everyone? the U.S is not am militaristic country, it has 300 million regular people living in it, and it's government does what it can to earn their support so it can get re-elected, and that does not include directing nukes at other countries. Why isn't anyone condemning Russia for it's nukes? it has more nukes than anybody else. Worry about Pakistan who has enough nukes to kill a good 2-4billion people, and has a very unstable country. Secondly, circling a military ship who would obviously suspect you of being a suicide bomber is pretty suicidal, kinda like dancing with a towel covering your face, around a soldier patrolling Iraq.

When there is evidence Iran is a threat to your domestic security, I'll agree with you. As it is, you're buying into hysteria. As mentioned before, the majority of Jihadists are trained in Saudi Arabia. Pakistan holds the HQ of al-Queda, not Iran. Like it or not; Iran has a right to develop a nuclear program. I agree, nuclear weapons are not needed and none at all should exist, but I would urge you to look at your own nuclear stockpile before condemning another country for its intentions to develop nuclear power. As for the territory issue, you're arguing a unreal point. The fact is, Iran does have its own naval space and has the right to dictate who enters that territory. *looks at own country's nuclear stock pile* I got 0, how about you? ooh what's that? you have 200? looks like your argument has just backfired. And yes, its a great idea to send suicidal speed boats at a military ship instead of discussing it if they had a problem. I believe that considering Iran being a threat (the Al-Queda point was pretty irrelevant) I think the U.S had it's right to peacefully patrol Iran's waters, you may not see it that way, but if you think that approaching them with speed boats and possibly suicide bombing is a better idea than simply negotiating with the U.S about it, then you are insane. I'm amazed you call me for being "not very smart" (and I suppose you know my IQ then?), and yet you brand Muslims as a 'race'. idiot. [hide] You're an idiot. If anyone attacked the US, it'd be with (nuclear) bombs not guns and tanks. :roll: I think you are the idiot that can't comprehend the world nuclear state. If anyone in the world would make a single nuclear attack, then the doomsday clock would be closer to midnight than it was during the Cuban missile crisis, and if you know your history, then you should know that's pretty damn close. L2 read, Malo... Skatedog is saying that America's civilian guns will defend an invasion ( :roll: ). And I'm saying that's stupid because no one will ever invade America. IF someone wanted to attack America, it would be with bombs. I dont even know what you're talking about with this nuclear state. That's completely irrelevant. [/hide]yeah sorry about that, but what i said still stands relevant.

[hide] It's not like the U.S has completely sealed off all Iranian waters even from itself and is aiming nukes at anyone who sets even a toe inside. They were patrolling, and common sense tells you not to come near a military ship, they had plenty of room swim in their cute little bathing suits in the rest of hundreds of miles of water. That's irrelevant and you know it. Those US ships had absolutely no right to be there in the first place. If they were trying to secure the waters of neighbouring countries, then of course that's a sensible thing to do, but they should have kept within the naval borders of those countries. The US has no Right of Passage agreement with Iran and should therefore not have been in Iranian waters in the first place. [/hide]First of all, go look at the world map. You should find that Iran is hardly surrounded by sea, if they are not in Iranian waters, then they're in somebody else's waters, Iran does not border the ocean. So you are telling me they shouldn't be there at all which is not very smart. Even with the discovery that Iran has most likely halted it's nuclear program, it's still a thread with no nuclear program, espechially no nuclear program right now. Second of all, who is complaining that the U.S is patrolling Iranian waters other than Iran? The Russians swim all over the Canadian waters without permission, I that thats a much bigger deal. It also happens in many other parts of the world as well. Yes when a small country is a threat to the big country, then not patrolling their waters is just stupid. This [kitty] train of thought is what puts everyone at risk from the international level down to the local level where people scream racist just because airport security double searches a bunch of loud praying Muslims. Boo Hoo. You're an idiot. If anyone attacked the US, it'd be with (nuclear) bombs not guns and tanks. :roll: I think you are the idiot that can't comprehend the world nuclear state. If anyone in the world would make a single nuclear attack, then the doomsday clock would be closer to midnight than it was during the Cuban missile crisis, and if you know your history, then you should know that's pretty damn close.

It's not like the U.S has completely sealed off all Iranian waters even from itself and is aiming nukes at anyone who sets even a toe inside. They were patrolling, and common sense tells you not to come near a military ship, they had plenty of room swim in their cute little bathing suits in the rest of hundreds of miles of water.

I just watched the video of the speed boats that were threatening the ships. They looked like they were really asking for it, next time they should just blow them away, otherwise they will never learn and this will drag on forever.

ok so no swat team? the first article just took sensationalistic journalism to a whole new low? link please? a swat team breaking into your house with your kids and rest of your family inside, in the middle of your regular day equipped with fully automatic weapons ready to fire, pulling everyone to the ground, going through everything in the house while they hold you at gun point is not something you will laugh at the next day during your dinner.

You are just as bad as the people in that messed up baptist church. Your generalizations don't do anyone good, they only make you look ignorant.i made it more clear if it annoys you that bad. Though I have not hear of many fundamentalists that are generally nice people, although out of thousands out there I'm sure theres at least one who keeps his fundamentalist beliefs to himself, I would still get a bad first impression if I knew a person I have just met is fundamentalist. It's not easy to not stereotype someone who follows those same beliefs you are stereotyping for, it probably doesn't even count as a stereotype. "These" people? Is that some sort of prejudice bash against all people who have faith? I would definitely care if you burned in hell, does that some how make me a bad person? The people from this church are bad people. That doesn't some how make all Christian morals bad. are you brain damaged? Who else am I refering to but the people that the thread is about (in case you really are slow in the head, the ones that are picketing the funerals). What kind of a problem do you have with me not liking people who choose to use their religions aggressively? Which is pretty ironic because I am the one being told that I will burn in hell, and yes if you were to picket my sons funeral (if i had a son) that way, I would be content if you get hit by a car. Is someone disagreeing with you? Why do you feel the need to state this? Obviously it's our business. Though, it is also your friend's business if they decide they hate their life enough to end it. Does that mean you are not entitled to care and maybe try to encourage them to live? If not, you are just as evil as the people from this baptist church picketing for the most absurd cause. These people don't care if you go to hell. They just hate people enough to tell them they are going to hell, which may or may not be the case. Many people, including myself, would think its not the case. Regardless, a minority as small as 100 people in the millions of people on this earth show that their thinking may not be up to par with the human race. If there was a group of a 100 people picketing against the use of pencils for standardized tests, with no reason other than "Pencils are dangerous" or "I hate the USA", would there cause ever be fulfilled? How is this topic encouraging constructive discussion? This makes absolutely no sense, you are somehow tying in burning in hell with suicide. and no these people don't just randomly hate others and express it by telling them that they are going to hell, they really think they all of us are going to hell, that's the fundamentalist belief, if you don't take the bible seriously then you are going to hell. If 100 people, no if one person picketed at a funeral and said "thank god this soldier is dead, that would be a big deal to me and everybody. and you still have not answered my question, you just said many things that are unrelated or just make no sense.

[hide] Wow, deja vu there for a second.. It's not as simple as that. The US people wouldn't want it, the government would. Iranian oil control, middle eastern territory that can help with their continuous middle eastern take over plan, and at the same time instilling fear and demoralisation into the hearts of every citizen, so they will do what they're told and make no fuss about it. Money isn't anything when we're talking about the people who have ultimate control. 20 years down the line they'll own everything, so it doesn't really matter if they lose a few bil for the time being.. Because it isn't just about oil. Oil is in fact probably not their primary reason - it's an added bonus but there are plenty other things that are more important to the people who ACTUALLY run the show. Bush is a puppet, look at him - you think HE orchestrated this? Get real. Ultimately, it's about control. If you're told everyday that there's a foreign country trying to get nukes so they can kill you and your entire family, regardless of whether or not you think it's true, you'll be scared. Fear and demoralisation are the most basic methods used to make people submit their freedoms in the name of "security." I don't know the answers, but I take things how I see them - this is about one thing, ONE - and that is control. We now have the control of two countries in the middle east, and if we invade Iran, that will be three. What next? Saudi Arabia maybe? Nah, they'd cut off our oil. BUT, if we controlled every single other country around them, maybe it'd be a different story. You see what I'm getting at? Edit: Hah saw this on fukung, thought it was pretty funny. [/hide]I must admit you're the first person to say that bush is a puppet and Iraq was not about 9/11 and actually sound like you know what you're saying. Unlike most others who crap their pants and scream "they just want oil!". Although I would not jump the wagon so quickly. You still are a nobody to know exactly what is going on in the middle east. Our national security and the troops see things everyday that give them a much better view on the world than a random kid posting on tip.it during his evenings.

looking at your sig, I have realized i look too much like Light Yagami. But it happened outside of school and has no bearing on what goes on in school. That should be outside of the school's jurisdiction. i don't agree. First off, what if a kid decides to go to school drunk? and maybe hits another kid on the way, or just acts like a jack [wagon] there. Unlikely but possible. Also, if someone got a hold of alcohols at such a young age, what else can he get a hold of? Thirdly, if a person can so easily break one law, how many more laws can he break without his own concern?

13 is a lot of people, and a lot more people had them as friends. The main reason people protest is because of outrage, not just to get a person out of trouble. The protested because they thought the principal was wrong. If someone is going to say something stupid like "Should people protest if he gets a math problem wrong too?" don't be an idiot and compare that to 13 suspensions.

You're about the 10th person to post this, but it's still always fun to push our hate on the messed up fundamentalists :D What I could never understand is why do these people care if we are all going to burn in hell? Why do they picket this? If we burn in hell, thats our business.