imhomer

OMG they got rid of the Dr. Ford random!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D

I've noticed a few hidden upadtes: 1. The wording for the sailors from Karamja to Port Sarim has changed 2. Right-clicking on the RS game no longer resets to countdown until the auto log-out (probably to fight macros) 3. Obvious censor changes (Jagex no longer likes phrases like 'sure, np' and 'I'm'

Well, I love smithing and occasionally I level it by making full steel outta bars. I then give out free armour to the newbies in lumby. More often I just talk to newbs especially in the mines, giving them advice about stuff. Once I gave this newbie character a spare pcik I'd picked up and then he logged on on another account and gave me some spare runes just for helping him. :wink: Best of luck with that money and helping out. It's good to see people who aren't greedy hoarders are still in game.

As far as cash 3.2 mil With items (ores and bars) probably around 4 mil

People like you make my brain hurt.............. :x

Noooooooooooooooooo!!! More, more, more!!!! JK, looks good, but the hands looks scary pointy :?

Hey bull, been a long time (I seem to remember Twister Time :wink: ) Anyways the shading on the scales look awesome but The BG needs work. It doesn't so much need any detail but it needs some kind of shading and at some point a line differentiating between the "floor" and the "wall" in the BG.

That's not at all what agnostic is. Agnostics don't believe in anything, or they don't know what they believe in. Atheist is not believing in anything, agnostic is practicing many religions or the underlying priciples of religion without committing to one specfic religion. It's the sort of 'on the fence' idea.

Ok here's how it works. I live in South East Michigan (the place in the US surrounded by all the lakes for those across the pond :wink: ) Anyways, in the last presidential election our area was the only area in all of Michigan to vote democratic (i.e. liberal/ leftist). The point of this is that I live in a place surrounded by people who think that spanking is wrong and shouldn't be allowed, even outlawed. I will say this, when I was young, I was spanked in the manner described above (only hands, no weapons or punching etc.) Personally I think this has worked very well with myself and I am ashamed to see so many parents letting it fall into disuse. The problem today is that parents today (especially those liberal ones stated above) treat children with the rights of adults but none of the responsibilities. I am personally offended when I go to a restaurant with my family and the table next to us has a screaming 5 year old. In an example I remember, the 5 year old kid was angry because he wanted to leave instead of waiting for the parents to finish eating. It was completely infuriating to me when the parents began pleading with the kid to stop which only gave him the attention he wanted in the first place. Afterwards, they bought him a dessert for "being so good tonight". (I was about ready to walk over and smack the kid's entire family at this point) If I had done the same thing as a child these things would have been done in this order: 1. I would have been shushed or told to be quiet 2. I would have a hand put over my mouth and be given a second and final warning 3. I would be spanked and begin to lose privilages such as TV 4. I would be taken outside and spanked again (and harder/more times) and lose more privilages for longer Bear in mind that this was meant to be done in public places. A lot of people see spanking as cruel and inhumane but they seem to ignore the main reason to spank people. It's similar to the medieval stocks. The point isn't to be physically painful so much as be the scene of public humiliation. Ok, counter-attack! The parent can't control the situation without violence. Your quote is right on as far as being correct. The reason for using it is faulty. The reason parents spank is because they can't control the situation. You see there are levels of escalation that occur. I have never known or seen a parent hit a child, first-offense, without any warning. Parents have advantages over children; reason, knowledge, experience, and finally physical strength. Saying you can't physically punish a kid is like saying that everything should be solved without war. Sometimes there are just no other options available to a parent. Ok, I agree with you again for the most part. Usually grounding/the loss of privilages is enough to bring a child into line. Also having the child tell you what they did wrong is very effective because then they have to think and understand what they did wrong. However, both you and I said usually and I think spanking should be that last resort instead of throwing the practice into the garbage heap. It has been proven that children are not fully capable of percieving the consequences of their actions until around age 12 (hence the being tried as an adult at that age). Not meaning to offend anyone but up until that point, we humans are basically more intelligent animals not fully capable of reasonable thought. A universal language is pain (and humiliation) which can be understood by all animals. If, when I was very young, I broke a vase (a cliche I know) I would be spanked for not being careful. I would then be more careful the next time to try and avoid pain and humiliation. If I were simply talked to it would be like asking a chimp what it did wrong. It might know what it should say to get out of trouble, but it would not really comprehend it. Just my very long 2 cents, Agree with me or die! :wink:

Wow, really makes me want to mess around with PS, maybe I'll go look at some tuts........

I like the 2nd and 4th ones. The 1st and 3rd look kind of cartoony to me, still way better work than I could do though. :?

Basic coloring and ayda yada yada but it looks like that's what you were going for. I personally like it, reminds me of the old school games from my childhood (aaaaahhhh.........mathblaster :wink: )

Ok Ragen, I guess I misunderstood you about stereotyping :oops: . I just hate people who say it's all bad so much! :evil: And BTW I know I'm an American nerd and I accept it 8-)

God is omnipotent, meaning that He can do all things which are intrinsically possible. It follows that He cannot do those things which are intrinsically contradictory, nonsensical, or otherwise impossible. Non-sense is non-sense, even if you put the words "God can" in front of it. Exactly. Contradictions are just pieces of garbage that non-christians throw at us to challenge our mental beliefs. I am Christian. I believe in God, and perfection in spirit is what I long to have. As a pose to Christians constantly scaring people into having faith in a saviour? Or baptising children when the can't do anything into their religion when they may not wan't to be a part of it? Or maybe even going to war, on account of Gods name. Ido not agree in war in anyway. You say Gods followers burn't all their possesions? Killed their wifes and children on Gods word? Such a nice God. Don't hit me up with the greater good argument either And along the baptising lines, its indoctrination, no different from the Hitler youth. If you are brought up your whole life surrounded by people who believe something and who want you the believe something, chances are you are going to believe it no matter what. At least Anabaptists give people the choice of whether they want to be baptised when they are adults instead of bringing them into the cult (and yes all beliefs and religions are cults) immediatly after birth.

Looks cool, I like it. Only downside I can se is that the text is really plain. And a starry BG would look cool.

wrong forum, try the gallery forum

Pretty good but a few things: 1. The face is too ovular (oval?). The top is ok but most people have more angled chins 2. The ears look good as far as size, but the changes aren't quite smooth and it looks like there are a lot of right angles. 3. The shading is in the right places but there's too much contrast between colors, especially around the chin and lips 4. Some random looking lines like between his eyebrows and beside his mouth (furrows and dimple?). Try making them with shading instead of black lines If you want a rating 4/10: A little below average.

ummm............. 1. You already have a topic like this 2. It's bad...........real bad........................5 minutes bad 3. Try at least doing something to it in Photoshop or something, if you don't know how there are a lot of tutorials on the FAQ sticky

ummm...........akward saying this but.............nipples? :oops:

OK I think I know where you are coming from. You're saying that God already knows what's going to happen but he hasn't decided what he's going to do with us yet. That's the difference between foreknowledge and predestination. However, if God knows what's going to happen in the future, then doesn't he know what he's going to decide?

I dunno what happened but the log-in screen for the forums for me was in (I believe) German. However, when I logged in, it gave me my regular preferences and is in English. Is this happening to anyone else?

When is the contest going to end because I'm going to be unavailable until next weekend.

Wanna know why stereotypes exist? Because they're frequently correct. All of the world is divided into cultures. We (or at least I) am a part of Western culture. Further than that I am a part of American culture and then nerd culture 8-) . Each person has their own cultural "address" which can help others identify what kind of person they are. I am willing to bet that you have stereotyped before and would even do it now despite what you've written and here's why: You learn that the new person in your class is from Alabama. Would you be suprised if, once you met him, he talked in an Australian accent? I think you definatly would because you've just used a stereotype of people from Alabama. Here's my position on stereotyping: it serves a useful purpose in society (yes, I said useful) but, like all things, can become offensive or even dangerous when taken to an extreme. I'm not saying that all stereotypes are correct either. For example a person on my tennis team is what many people call a 'poser'. These are white people who act like they're black (Caucasian and African-American if you prefer). I admit I used a stereotype on this guy and was very surprised to learn that he had a 4.0 GPA (all A's) in school and lived in a 'good' section of town. Turns out he's really cool and good at tennis, two things I didn't expect. Did I stick to my guns and keep on believing in the stereotype after I knew the guy? No. Stereotypes are quick ways to judge someone's character. Considering that many people you meet you only meet for a short time, stereotypes help you know how to interact with them. Take another example: You go up to a black person and start talking to them. They see one of their friends and gets their attention by saying the 'n-word' (believe me this is a common occurance at my school). The next day you see the same friend in the hall and you try to get their attention by saying the 'n-word'. They are highly offended and many other people around you are as well. What happened? You failed to use a useful stereotype that tells you that most black people are very offended by the 'n-word'. You have also been stereotyped as being a racist by the people around you because they have used the stereotype that all people who use the 'n-word' and aren't black are racist. Just a final thought which is actually kinda off topic. Is calling someone black wrong? In America they are African-Americans but are they called African-British in the UK? It seems to me that when you say things like black and hispanic and asian, everyone knows what you mean because they are universal and non-discriminatory (at least about a person's country of origin).

I think you will find this informational video quite useful 8-) http://www.flashplayer.com/animation/wowwhengnomesfly.html

I myself am an agnostic. If it hasn't been stated before, which it probably has, it's a kind of scientific approach that there is little proof for or against a god (or gods) so you're basically sitting on the fence. Though I am agnostic, I have little tolerance for thouse trying to convince me either way. Fancy wordplay and questions about the complexities of eyes and such do nothing to further the religious case and there is little possible that can further the scientific case. Personally, the only way I can envision a god is through Deism or the 'watchmaker' idea. It's basically Intelligent Design in that a god (or gods) made the universe and set down universal rules but has left the creation to its own preset devices. I don't believe that INtelligent design should be taught in schools though because, at its base, it is religion. Here are just a few things to think about in this discussion: 1. If God made everything, what made God? Either religious or scientific, something had to spontaneously occur. 2. If God interferes with humanity to perform miracles, why doesn't he give irrefutable proof that he exists so all follow one true religion? 3. If everything bad is god's punishment, is everything good god's benevolence? 4. If god is all knowing, do we really have free will? He already knows if we're going to heaven or hell.