xvillexvalox

In my eyes there are 2 different kinds of sellers, online companies, and actual people. I always thought of the companies making money by adding bots to the game and gold farmers as detrimental, but as individuals selling gold helpful. I had a friend who got into selling runescape gold to a few of his friends for a reasonable price, he would nat run (specifically for N0valyfe, to give perspective how long ago this was) to get money, do barrows, and anything else someone would normally do while playing. The advantage of this was that he was basically getting paid for playing the game, since back then it didn't take to much to afford the best equipment and after that there wasn't to much reason to hold on to money. By gathering gold by being a regular player, you're adding items (barrows, drops), raw materials (in reasonable amounts, unlike bots), and helping others (running). The only difference is that he sold the profits to kids in junior high, which in turn raises consumption in ways other than he would have because he had all the armor he'd need. People bought from him because he could get money faster than they could, and to them 5 dollars of their lunch money was worth it. Does anyone see anything wrong about this perspective of RWT? (Other than your objections to other opinions of what is fun and challenging)

To be brutally honest, everything but the arms looks bad. The water looks nice, but it doesn't resemble water at all besides for it being blue, more ripples, make it look smoother and more solid, and add accurate reflections on it also to make it look great. Mountains don't have thick black outlines, in fact, stray away from using thick strokes unless you need to show a rough texture (such as a rock, or rocky mountain) and don't use outlines (only in pencil before you start.) The kite's shading looks smooth, but overall it's unrealistic and looks really stiff. (by the way, who's/what's holding it?, the string just goes into the water.) The sky and window would look better if they were more solidly colored, a lot of the strokes look really harsh. The glass affect at the top is good, but it doesn't show any similarities to the shapes in the sky at the bottom, though if the strokes were smoother and blended more, it would look great. Apart from not being uniform, the arms look much more realistic, the strokes on the forearms that you made gives it a texture of hairiness, though the color changes are a bit harsh again. One thing that would really make them look great would be some shading/color on them to make them look like they aren't just resting. (the two long bones at the wrist going into the palm, some slight blue veins, etc.)

And also breakfast foods. (referring to the < waffles 3 ) EDIT: used my 5% to try and fix the hilt, is it just me or does drawball .jpg everything? ... Intergalactic rooster is gone, that made me rofl. :lol:

... that's definitely not it

NVidia GeForce 8800GT Overclocked I doubt it has to do with that though...

No, that I can do, I just want the browser to stretch even beyond my 2 monitors.

What are you talking about this relates in know way to the topic. Let me fill you in with what he is asking. He wants to know if in RSHD if he can use his second monitor, as he runs dual monitors. Now he can, before if you clicked "go fullscreen" it would revert back right when the screen loses "focus" and click somewhere else, on a 2nd monitor. The runescape window now adjusts to the browser window, so he can change the browser window and it won't revert back after losing "focus."

I'm running on Vista 64bit. I can't stretch out a window to be larger than the screen resolution (I stretch it fully, move it off a side and I can't stretch it any further.) Is there an option or a way to remove this limit or open firefox at a size larger (wider specifically) than my resolution? Note: all windows have this limitation, not just firefox.

I play RS with a 2960 width =P I stretch it across 2 monitors, they're uneven so I still see my character and the main stuff on the right side, seeing a huge panoramic-like runescape is epic. EDIT: I usually see some draw limits, but I think you could go way further, I think I might borrow a third monitor just to test it out.

WIDEpicture, I had my screen stretched across 2 monitors while at the same height, max visibility. It's in HD with max options. If anyone wants to see something else I'll take requests. [hide=][/hide] Note: I cropped it so it would be just the ships, the screen is actually even wider.

How about the monkeys and gnomes? They control quite a lot of modern day Runescape, what were they like before?

Carnivores, real meat-eaters, predators, whatever, they all share a hunger for actual flesh, eating any part of an animal, humans don't. Even your little pet dog has that, it will attack smaller animals and eat them if it's not trained well, (My Maltese has caught a rabbit before and chased a squirrel like 2 blocks. :shock: )

Boxer briefs all the way. They're 95% cotton 5% elastic, so they breath easy and give nice support. Regular boxers crunch up and fold in strange places, briefs let your bottom hang out pretty much and they look strange. Though for sleep = nada!

If you're out running in a park somewhere and get hungry, you probably wouldn't mind eating an apple or berries from some bushes, but not a deer or a rabbit. Humans don't have instinct, you'd know that would be part of my argument if you actually read that webpage. [hide=Michaelbluejay.com]There's another important fact never acknowledged by meat proponents: Humans act by idea rather than by instinct. Other animals are programmed to know what food is. We are not. For us, it's learned behavior. Or in some cases, guessed behavior. We can make choices about what we should eat even if that's contrary to good health, as millions prove every day when they eat at McDonald's. If our ancestors ate meat, they were simply being human and making choices rather than acting on instinct. Think about it: Do you really believe that cavemen were true experts about nutrition? If so, what other major decisions about your life would you like to put in the hands of a caveman?[/hide] Your quote is probably accurate, but implies that those instances happen often and regularly, which is just untrue. Those examples are similar to the situation of Monkeys. They are classified as omnivores, but their diets are 99% plant life and 1% "other", of that 1% most of it is termites, and none of it is actual meat that you would consider, yet they are still classified falsely as omnivores. And that's why you can't use that same argument for us, we don't eat a 1% meat diet, it's closer to 20-30+%. That is unnatural, just like it would be unnatural for a lion to have 20 to 30% of it's diet be grass and so on.

When you get hungry you don't think about killing a cow and eating it. You think about that steak that was butchered, cut, and wrapped before you even saw it, being able to digest meat doesn't mean you have instinct to kill for it. Otherwise a rabbit wouldn't be able to go on your front lawn while you're hungry, you'd have an urge to eat it. @ SwordDude188, Zierro, and Trash_Boy Please don't bring up the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS that are proven wrong in the link that I provided in the post that you responded to, that page is well researched and provides responses better than I could. About the "we have canine teeth", that is a gross injustice, you point out one thing that's similar to carnivores and think it completely overrides the rest of the evidence. Plus I already covered than in the 2nd page, surely you should read what I've already said before arguing. HORSES have "canine" teeth, I guess it's out to eat me. :wall: @Trash-Boy specifically What you wrote is a petty argument, usually when you see censored words in every paragraph that's the case. You make incredible assumptions that you've probably never bothered to look up. Hunting =/= evolution. Hunting is not instinct, neither is killing for food in general, it's the last result of early man. FINALLY TO EVERYONE Please oh please take half an hour to CALMLY read through this: http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html I know, sometimes it's hard to read something you don't agree with, but you have to read this if only this if you want to at least make arguments worthy enough to get whole responses to. [hide=If you're you're to lazy to click that link, here are some common myths you guys are believing debunked, SOURCE]MYTH: "Humans were designed to eat meat." Fact: Human anatomy suggests otherwise. We're designed to be able to eat meat occasionally, as a survival mechanism, but our digestive systems are similar to those of the other plant-eaters and totally unlike those of carnivores. Also, the less meat someone eats, the less their risk of just about every major disease. Finally, people who don't eat meat have better physical performance, whether they're athletes or not. The argument that humans are carnivores because we possess "canine" teeth ignores the facts that other plant-eaters have these same so-called canine teeth, and that only plant-eaters have molar teeth. More here:http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html MYTH: "Vegetarians get little protein." Fact: Plant foods offer abundant protein. Vegetables are around 23% protein on average, beans 28%, grains 13%, and even fruit has 5.5%. For comparison, human breast milk is only 5% (designed for the time in our lives when our protein needs are as high as they'll ever be). The US Recommended Daily Allowance is 8%, and the World Health Organization recommends 4.5%. [more on this topic, inc. chart] MYTH: "Beans are a good source of protein." Fact: There is no such thing as a special "source of protein" because all foods -- even plants -- have plentiful protein. You might as well say "Food is a good source of protein". In any event, beans (28%) don't average much more protein per calorie than common vegetables (23%). More on this topic, inc. chart: http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/proteinexplain.html MYTH: "Meat protein is better than plant protein. You have to combine plant foods to make the protein just as good." Fact: This myth was popularized in the 1971 book Diet for a Small Planet and has no basis in fact. The author of the book admitted nearly twenty years ago that she made a mistake (in the 1982 edition of the same book). more on this topic: http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/proteinexplain.html MYTH: "Tofu is a low-fat food." Fact: Tofu is 54% fat, more than many meats, and way more than the 10-20% of dietary calories from fat that most vegetarian authorities recommend. McDougall again: "[soybeans] contain far too much fat for regular use by most people Tofuis even a little worse Obviously, tofu is a rich, high-fat, low-fiber food that should be used sparingly." MYTH: "Milk is necessary for strong bones." Fact: McDougall: "Where does a cow or an elephant get the calcium needed to grow its huge bones? From plants, of course. Only plants. People in Asia and Africa who consume no milk products after they're weaned from their mother's breast grow perfectly healthy skeletons in the normal size for their race. A consistent conclusion published in the scientific literature is clear: Calcium deficiency of dietary origin is unknown in humans. Dairy products contain large amounts of animal proteins. This excess protein removes calcium from the body by way of the kidneys. Knowing the physiological effects on calcium metabolism of eating excess protein explains why societies with the highest intakes of meat and dairy products--the United States, England, Israel, Finland, and Sweden--also show the highest rates of osteoporosis, the disease of bone-thinning."[/hide]

It's too late for me now, but I did a speech arguing for egg in Soph. Honors English about this. This page covers it all: http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Which.html Note: I argued for egg because I threw out the possibilities of 2a. and 2c. (from that website) because in the question itself it is implied that a chicken already existed by using the preterit tense.

I'm going to sleep, while I'm away look at this: http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html It's all you'll need to answer your arguments. Read everything there and you'll understand that you're the one lacking evidence, you're making an exception for humans by classifying them as meat eaters for 2 reasons: 1. because we can 2. because we have I've been saying we aren't because: 1. Our body isn't built for it 2. Our bodies are healthier without it 3. We don't share characteristics with meat-eaters at all -There's more at the link I provided, it cites all of it's sources, check them before criticizing it if you don't believe it or think its flawed.

What real meat eater has to cook their meat? We weren't meant to be meat-eaters. Our body does not need meat, it can digest it, but it does not need it. Just because you can doesn't mean it's natural. Cleaning food, farming, and cracking nuts open are vastly different from "Cook it or die." Logic doesn't say that "Raw meat makes you sick" it's experience and experiment that does that. Picking up an apple off the ground and brushing off the dirt is logic, "dirt. do not want." Cracking a nut is logic, "Hey, food in there, I should get it."

I have a small dog and he always sleeps with me, and he's peed on the bed before 2-3 times I think. It's never while I'm sleeping though, it's before I go into bed. I think at least one of the times he was sick or something, because he all of a sudden stood up and started peeing and looking me with the "omg don't hit me" look. I close my door when I sleep so the other times he was probably thinking "Damn, he didn't let me out yet and now the door's closed." Just make sure to let him out before sleeping, and make sure he doesn't go to the water bowl afterwards. Strangely if my dog gets up and has to pee he makes a ruckus and wakes me up to let him out, and hasn't ever peed on the bed then, but on the floor (I don't mind as much as long as I notice before getting out of bed, it's easy to clean up on my floors and I guess it's my fault)

You do know we've been hunting mammoths since Fred Flintstone was around right? And I doubt inferiority was on their mind at the time - I'm pretty sure their main concern was getting food. And you said preparation of food means you shouldn't eat it... Then I'd like to see you pick a potato out of the ground and eating it. No washing it either. Dirt on a potato won't kill you, and is easy to clean, how would have the original humans wash a piece of meat, cut it off part the body and wash it in a river? Also I didn't say it means you shouldn't eat it, but that it means that because we have to do it we're not naturally predators. About hunting mammoths... it's widely know that the human race originated in the middle east, some move south to Africa, others went to Europe. What were the conditions like when mammoth were around? Icey. Cold. Small amounts of plant life, it was survival instict that made them hunt, if fruits and plants were widely available as were to those living in Africa, hunting wouldn't have been a necessity. Meat was a last resort, and not a good source of nourishment. Added fact about lacking protein: Elephants and certain types of gorillas are the largest animals on earth, and are completely herbivores, meaning all of their muscle and fat was built by using plant protiens.

The only real joke argument I responded to was the living thing one, the rest that I did were common misconceptions on the subject. By the way, otters eat fish, swimming ability does help, tons. Here's an otter's teeth. If you eat raw meat have fun getting: My thoughts on the raw meat subject is that we aren't meant to eat it, it's just that humans evolved to be able to eat meat raw and get nourishment from it in case food was scarce and some predator left scrap meat out. Humans are scavengers and prey.

Ya know, slavery has existed since the Egyptians, so it's been around for about 2000 years, but it doesn't make it right. And the second point, that's just it, we're not natural predators, if a deer walked in front of your house you wouldn't go bite it at the neck. A lot of the meat eating attitudes are because of some kind of inferiority complex that people have about not being predators, people seem to think eating meat makes you better than animals, it really doesn't matter. About getting nutrients and minerals as a vegetarian, it's not as hard as everyone is thinking it to be, I don't pick out foods based on how much of this and that I need, I just eat with variety (lots of ingredients in food, not the same thing every other night). In fact many of you that are posting this probably have vitamin deficiencies yourself, when you replace calories from meats with calories from non-meats, you're getting allot more vitamins and minerals than you would be getting from the same amount of energy from meat. EDIT: Take a look at this: http://www.everybodygoto.com/2007/10/12 ... the-world/ American's obviously can't just cut out meat and be healthy (unless you have a good diet already like I had before cutting out my meat), but many other people can, look at the variety of foods other countries eat compared to the processed junk of us. There are two pictures from the US there, you actually need to scan the picture to find the vegetables in those pictures, look at the rest of the world, the greens, grains, and fruits are easily apparant.

Obviously where ever you read that lied, humans can only eat about 1500 pounds of food a year [book], just by having to feed 1 cow for a year, you're using up enough food and space to feed 4 people for that year. I can't see how that would work seeing as how much less food would be needed to feed livestock. America has 300million people, but 98million cows (according to http://www.cattlenetwork.com/Content.as ... tid=226025). If cows eat 16 pounds per day, then every cow eats about 4 times more food than a human in a year. India has the most cows, 281.7 million, eating enough food for over 1 billion people. Sorry for not citing sources in my original post, but nothing that I posted was to hard to believe either, I google searched some statistics that I needed on the spot, if you wanted to you could do the same and find them.

NOTE: I am vegetarian (1.5+ years). Please take some time to read this. A lot of the things you guys are arguing are just freaking stupid. :roll: Plants are rooted to the ground and eat sunlight and nutrients in water and dirt. For the most part they don't have organs. Plants don't think (No, not even Venus fly traps, they're just that, traps). Plants and such are the furthest things from animals that is still included in the category of "living things." Last time I checked I haven't seen plants feed their children, build homes, or show emotion. I can't believe I even have to retaliate this argument. :wall: Uneducated about this topic. This guy has been vegetarian since 1997 and vegan since 1999, I'd be surprised if he doesn't live until 100. I used to be protein deficient before vegetarianism , but I got my yearly blood test back a few weeks ago and it's gone up into the OK-High level. On average vegetarians and vegans live significantly longer than meat eaters. UPDATE: Here are my full blood test results after vegetarianism for a year in a nutshell: Every level that was checked was in the "OK" zone (and not borderline) except for 3, TSH, Free T4, and Iron. TSH and Free T4 are thyroid-related because I have thyroid problems inherited from my dad. My Iron has always been low, my mom remembers that when I was a toddler a doctor recommended iron pills for me because he though I was anemic, but I had no symptoms and lived with low iron until now. Even though my low iron is thyroid-related or just my bodily settings, we're trying to get it up anyway and I should take another test in a week to see 1 month progress. Meat is HORRIBLE for the environment. Cows eat around 16 pounds of grain a day, that's a hella lot of grain to grow, just to make 80~ pounds of usable meat for you to eat. Shutting down cow/chicken/pig farming for only year would save more than enough grains and such to seriously affect world hunger. A cow will probably be killed at 3-5 years of growing, meaning 17,088-28,480 pounds of grain consumed, 22,789 pounds being the middle and assuming 100 pounds of meat, that's still 228 pounds of grain for a single pound of meat. All that grain needs space to grow, so they cut down habitats, letting out CO2 by killing trees. (also why I don't support ethanol, but that's a different topic) Yes, sorry that we don't consume that equivalent of an extra 228 pounds of grain per week (assuming you eat 1 pound of meat a week, which is probably a lot less than some of you). That one pound of meat is probably worth at least a month's worth of grain for a block of households. If humans are supposed to eat meat, then we are surely pathetic meat eaters. What real meat-eating animals have to cook their food just so they won't die from it? What natural weapons does a human have to kill animals? You can't even bite through leather. Our "canine" or Incisor teeth are pathetic as well. I have a freaking Maltese and his incisors are longer and sharper than ours. Even horses have these "Canine" teeth = warning-large resolution picture The reason you might see vegetarians that look ill is because a lot of the time girls just do it because they think they'll lose weight and don't know any thing else vegetarian to eat besides cheerios or something.