Blyaunte

lol @ not being able to figure out how to upgrade phats in 15 minutes. Ok - I lol'd at that. I really did! *wipes tear* Oh - wait. What? You're serious? No. Really. You know, this "new math" that you kids use these days makes no sense whatsoever. <_< Had it up to *here* with you. You asked, they told you, you acted like an ass. Go try and snipe a phat. Or better yet, instead of being "rude", like you think crashers are, go sell YOUR phat in the ge, let someone else get one! Meh - I already got one. Though obviously I haven't had it as long as you have had that burr up your ass.

Hear hear! But you left out "It's JAGEX's fault!" :rolleyes:

Its hard to be against abortion but for birth control. Or its hard to be for masturbation but against pre-marital sex. Or for pre-marital sex but against gay marriage. Most of these arguments can be made on the basis of logic and reasoning, but from a morality standpoint defending all of them at once is easier than defending one individually, or excluding others. The article posted was just showing how birth control is adversely affecting fish populations, and I know how important the environment is to liberals. Well - for the sake of argument - there are hundreds of other mitigating factors involved that may affect the environment around this so-called "artificial lake". Where is the comparative study? Are fish in other lakes not similarly affected? Smells like [cabbage] to me. :unsure:

what, exactly, is the point? can you explicitly state what you want game theory applied to? i thought this was discussing crashing. i posted a perfect game of crashing. *sigh* Ever heard of the "Nash equilibrium" in game theory? It applies to economics which, in-game, right now, is a subject that I know is near and dear to your own mercenary heart. If you take into consideration the manner in which a group of people each individually make the same decision, it becomes impossible for anyone else to make any OTHER decision and survive within that economic environment. The more cut-throat and dog-eat-dog you make the economy, it is going to become even more so. -.-

... and yet there are numerous other spots one can crash and people often do -- just to be spiteful and ignorant. Pest Control is a perfect example of this -- there are a number of people who, while botting, place themselves in the landing craft in a non-designated Pest Control world, so that they don't get random events, and they can set up their auto-bots and alch-away undisturbed. Heaven forbid that they should encounter a group of people who, you know, actually want to use the boat for it's designated purpose, like -- weird I know -- actually playing the mini-game. *gasp* :ohnoes: But no -- when they encounter such groups, they merely sabotage the game until those players leave ... This kind of thing just keeps going around and around and around ... That had nothing to do with the statement you quoted (and what's with the [sic] part?), It has EVERYTHING to do with your statement -- see below. [sic] means you made a grammatical error: "There *IS* only two skills ..." should read, "There ARE only ..." .. and therefore you missed a perfectly made point. It's a CYCLE. Someone crashes someone who crashes someone who crashes someone. Eventually, you end up with someone who decides to raise his combat to "elite" status by alching in a boat at Pest Control and, for the sake of being spiteful because he's been crashed all the way down the line, he decides to conduct a "crash" of his own. How we play the game demonstrates to others how they should play the game. Being rude and pushing other people around only passes it down the line to the next person.

Like I said, I think this is unnecessarily self-sacrificing. I mean, there's nothing wrong with doing it, but it's just not behavior that economics would label as rational And whether or not we label it as "entitlement" or not bears little relevance to the actual validity of the action. Putting labels on things doesn't really change the moral validity of them No -- but by avoiding or otherwise ignoring such labels, you deem yourself not responsible for the actions that you take, or the consequences that result from such actions. But hey -- you've already indicated that you're going to continue not taking responsibility for anything you do anyways, so why worry, right? :rolleyes:

Which means, what, exactly? That your definition of morality is right because female hormones kill fish? :unsure:

No one's trying to say the behaviors are the same. The classification for the behaviors are identical: a sexual attraction. Any sexual attraction is in this category, homo, hetero, pedo, or otherwise. Perhaps, but it does have a negative connotation to it, and pedofiles are widely accepted as disgusting people so to put homosexuals in the same category does have a negative connotation to it as well. Yes, and if you'll read my post I'm putting heterosexuals in that same group as well. My point is that as much as the left likes to say "the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation" and "people's sexual preferences aren't our business" it's frankly untrue. We have all kinds of restrictions on what's seen as an "appropriate sexual attraction". So - back on topic - what is your opinion then? Is homosexuality right or wrong? "Appropriate or inappropriate"? And why? :mellow: I've said it before. Guys = ***, Girls = Yay. Humans are twisted, apparently. In total seriousness; There is no labelling it appropriate, or inappropriate, really. Would you label heterosexuality? I wouldn't label anything, personally -- I am merely trying to find out who's on what side of the debate and why. We're all on the right (left) side, because we alienate everyone who disagrees. Y Guy is just trollin' cause he has a green name. Ah -- I see ... :unsure:

Have you ever opened a history book? Ah yes I love history, tell me what I said that would be considered ill informed? LOL -- I think you pretty much hit the nail right on the head ... :lol:

... and yet there are numerous other spots one can crash and people often do -- just to be spiteful and ignorant. Pest Control is a perfect example of this -- there are a number of people who, while botting, place themselves in the landing craft in a non-designated Pest Control world, so that they don't get random events, and they can set up their auto-bots and alch-away undisturbed. Heaven forbid that they should encounter a group of people who, you know, actually want to use the boat for it's designated purpose, like -- weird I know -- actually playing the mini-game. *gasp* :ohnoes: But no -- when they encounter such groups, they merely sabotage the game until those players leave ... This kind of thing just keeps going around and around and around ...

No, its 42 pages of somebody having a guilt trip and then needing other elistists to make him feel better. Throw in some dog-eat-dog jargon or a good chapter from one of machiavelli's numerous dribbles and thats what this is. I mean really who are you going to convince with that chart other than yourself that crashing is good for the game and your great player for doing it? Just make sure to throw some insults when you crash so they get out sooner and never come back. :idea: =D> :thumbup: :thumbsup: =D> Gee -- I wish I had said that ...

Obviously, you have deliberately missed the point once again -- you're efforts at trying to justify your anti-social behaviour is amusing me, so I will keep pressing until you simply concede my point: Game theory is about many things -- but mainly it's about using how one plays a game to predict how one will behave in the real world. Obviously, your efforts here to exert your own ego speaks to something within your own personality, most likely a deficiency, that you need to overcome through game play. As such, you make an effort to enforce your own personal interests above those of others, by using your pixelated strengths to your advantage. In short, you're compensating for something ... :rolleyes:

No one's trying to say the behaviors are the same. The classification for the behaviors are identical: a sexual attraction. Any sexual attraction is in this category, homo, hetero, pedo, or otherwise. Perhaps, but it does have a negative connotation to it, and pedofiles are widely accepted as disgusting people so to put homosexuals in the same category does have a negative connotation to it as well. Yes, and if you'll read my post I'm putting heterosexuals in that same group as well. My point is that as much as the left likes to say "the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation" and "people's sexual preferences aren't our business" it's frankly untrue. We have all kinds of restrictions on what's seen as an "appropriate sexual attraction". So - back on topic - what is your opinion then? Is homosexuality right or wrong? "Appropriate or inappropriate"? And why? :mellow: I've said it before. Guys = ***, Girls = Yay. Humans are twisted, apparently. In total seriousness; There is no labelling it appropriate, or inappropriate, really. Would you label heterosexuality? I wouldn't label anything, personally -- I am merely trying to find out who's on what side of the debate and why.

Perhaps some of you should become better acquainted with the notion of "Game Theory". :unsure: Just sayin' ...

No one's trying to say the behaviors are the same. The classification for the behaviors are identical: a sexual attraction. Any sexual attraction is in this category, homo, hetero, pedo, or otherwise. Perhaps, but it does have a negative connotation to it, and pedofiles are widely accepted as disgusting people so to put homosexuals in the same category does have a negative connotation to it as well. Yes, and if you'll read my post I'm putting heterosexuals in that same group as well. My point is that as much as the left likes to say "the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation" and "people's sexual preferences aren't our business" it's frankly untrue. We have all kinds of restrictions on what's seen as an "appropriate sexual attraction". So - back on topic - what is your opinion then? Is homosexuality right or wrong? "Appropriate or inappropriate"? And why? :mellow:

... slagging me for calling you on your anti-social behaviour isn't correcting your mistakes either ... :shame:

lol @ not being able to figure out how to upgrade phats in 15 minutes. Ok - I lol'd at that. I really did! *wipes tear* Oh - wait. What? You're serious? No. Really. You know, this "new math" that you kids use these days makes no sense whatsoever. <_<

Indeed it rather sounds like you think you're quite something that you have penetrated this veneer to see the true nature of mankind. Did you think that that all yourself? Or are you just the next person to complain about how society/mankind are degrading? Because I can tell you, if you do a small historical survey, you'll find that the Romans already had this sort of thinking; there has always been that kind of sentiment. And I think we haven't really degraded as much as you'd expect if such doomthinking were actually to be a decent prediction of morality in the future. Yes, I am very well acquainted with the complaints and subsequent philosophies of the ancients. Plato, himself, in The Republic spoke of the woes befalling his own society and sought to find a manner in which he could create a "just society". It is interesting to likewise note that, in Leviathan, Hobbes indicated that, given human nature to squabble over the limited resources presented to itself, the quality of human life without a social order was "cruel, brutish and short", and that the only way to maintain a decent quality of life for everyone was to form a "commonwealth", in which all of the members of society shared the benefits. Of course, while I will admit that it appears that I may taken this discussion "off topic", there is still one underlying factor here. All of your excuses about being "stronger" and therefore taking priority over other weaker players are, of course, entirely perfect examples of anti-social behaviour and -- for the most part -- all of your very poor efforts at trying to explain why you feel entitled to behave in this manner only suffice to demonstrate: 1. The degree to which your anti-social behaviour has degraded; and 2. The extent to which you will exert your better efforts to not have to take responsibility for your anti-social activities. In other words, the only effective argument that you have provided to endorse your bad behaviour is "neener neener". You know, during a similar discussion on another forum, I once argued with someone that the average Western country currently lives, roughly, 72 hours away from total chaos. All it takes is 72 hours before people will degrade from law-abiding social beings, back to cave-man-like "take whatever I want" creatures of no social conscience whatsoever. That is – if people living in, say, the United States, for example, were relieved of those services that maintain the "social order" within their society – and which keep one another away from each other's throats – they would reduce themselves to utter chaos within three (3) days. That prediction was made roughly 18 months prior to the Katrina disaster. Within 72 hours of Katrina hitting the Gulf Coast, I was proven correct. The next time a similar disaster hits somewhere in the Western world – and the people are declined the luxuries of life that enforce them to follow the social order – there will again be another explosion of chaos within 72 hours. He is not missing the point. You compare behaviour (social behaviour, even, how wonderful) in RS to behaviour in (non-RS) life. The behaviour is different. From this you somehow conclude the behaviour in RS is wrong? What you forget is that what you are simulated to do in RS is not the same as doing that IRL. Killing a person in RS is not the same as killing a person IRL. That goes for all actions performed. Even namecalling in RS is not the same as namecalling IRL (for one, you don't use your vocal chords). So you may think that crashing in RS is as bad as crashing IRL, but that is your opinion. In no way can you conclude that because someone thinks crashing IRL is bad, they must logically believe it is bad in RS as well. Deliberately mis-directing the point also does not amount to accidentally missing the point, but w/e. Once again, all you're doing here is providing another excuse for poor social behaviour and saying that there is nothing that can, or should, be done about it. Making excuses for bad behaviour – or explaining it in such a way as to make it seem more commonplace – does not an improvement make. Don't you think that maybe, just maybe, it's time for people to actually take the contrary position to such behaviour with the intention of correcting or, at least, modifying said behaviour, with the eventual hope that such people could learn how to behave in any social environment? :rolleyes:

well here's what you'd need to do. for a white you need a red plus yellow (ish). a red is worth a green plus a couple pumpkins. - buy a green phat for 2b, dispose of 1.5b junk. - buy two pumpkins for about 400m each, dispose of 600m junk. - trade green plus two pumpkins for red - trade yellow plus red for white and to the above poster - it's not about excluding the new guy. it's that there are so many new guys and so few old guys wishing to part with their hat (which they may never see again if they do) that the new guys have to compete to get them. the prices go up because some people are willing to pay more than you would for a hat. Ok - I lol'd at that. I really did! *wipes tear* Oh - wait. What? You're serious? No. Really.

No - I am comparing social behaviour at said spots with social behaviour in the outside world. which is ridiculous - imagine if i told you to stop shooting people in call of duty because it's antisocial. hint: it's not antisocial to shoot people IN CALL OF DUTY. in real life it is because the social norm is to not shoot people. in call of duty the social norm is to shoot people. in runescape the social norm is to kill monsters. LOL -- you're missing the point. Either that or you're deliberately mis-directing the point, which amounts to the same thing. Start again.

ideally yes. but the only realistic solutions to this issue, which we have already discussed, involve changing game mechanics, and jagex is highly unlikely to do so or care. Your mother never taught you "sharing"? :rolleyes: she did. then my dad taught me to think as well. OT: to expect everyone to share is just unrealistic in this situation. why don't we all share houses, for example? I see -- and your father taught you what, exactly? How to claw away at other children in order that you can attain the top of the crap heap? Food, shelter, clothing -- these are the essentials of life. They can all be shared, and often are, given certain circumstances within the social environment. Really -- are you comparing a compilation of pixels with the essentials of life? Do these pixels REALLY mean that much to you? If so -- I think you REALLY need to re-consider your values. No. Really. We're not here to say that sharing is bad. There's no need to respond as if your moral values are under attack. Oh trust me -- I am not worried about my "moral values". I am, however, worried in the interesting trends I see within our so-called "civilization" -- i.e. that thin veneer of decency that the vast majority of humanity pretends to put on, and then gleefully peels away whenever they think no one is watching. :unsure: You know -- like when they're playing games on the internet ... <_<

No - I said it did not meet the requirements to be considered "human" -- there is more to being human than mere appearances ... If one does not have a human brain or heartbeat, is it human?

No - I am comparing social behaviour at said spots with social behaviour in the outside world.

ideally yes. but the only realistic solutions to this issue, which we have already discussed, involve changing game mechanics, and jagex is highly unlikely to do so or care. Your mother never taught you "sharing"? :rolleyes: she did. then my dad taught me to think as well. OT: to expect everyone to share is just unrealistic in this situation. why don't we all share houses, for example? I see -- and your father taught you what, exactly? How to claw away at other children in order that you can attain the top of the crap heap? Food, shelter, clothing -- these are the essentials of life. They can all be shared, and often are, given certain circumstances within the social environment. Really -- are you comparing a compilation of pixels with the essentials of life? Do these pixels REALLY mean that much to you? If so -- I think you REALLY need to re-consider your values. No. Really.

ideally yes. but the only realistic solutions to this issue, which we have already discussed, involve changing game mechanics, and jagex is highly unlikely to do so or care. Your mother never taught you "sharing"? :rolleyes: