Sumpta

I'd use the money for a nice little holiday. Heading off for a while to some interesting place with lots of sunshine.

Depends on the kind of woman. Too true, do you really think all of us are feminists? I don't get all the prejudice towards them either. Yes, it's sad how "feminist" has become a dirty and ugly word. A lot of women have fought hard to gain equality, for which I am very thankful to them. But often, you can't say such things without being seen as a man-hating, totally crazy shrew.

Depends on the kind of woman. On topic: I've only read a few of your posts, since I've only recently found my way to the off-topic board, but you'll be missed. We need more female voices 'round here.

I'm not sure about the situation in America, but in Europe we kinda need a system the other way around, forcing people to have more kids, like in the marriage thread. Not that I care much for being turned into a breeding mare, mind you. We have a reverse population pyramid in my country and the western part of Europe. More and more older people and less and less younger ones to support them. It looks like it's going to be a real problem, us 20 year olds are being scared into saving for our older days already, whereas my grandparents and parents enjoy(ed) goverment-payed pensions. The problem: there was a population boost with the baby boom versus high educated people nowadays, who choose a career above kids/family. PS Don't mind my poorly constructed sentences, it's high time I went to bed, so I can't be bothered to write properly :oops:

Answering the original question: simple, but classy clothing. I wear lots of skirts, dresses, high heels, 'elegant' trousers. A rather soft, romantic look, but without the frills. I have a soft spot for shoes and all sorts of special looking coats. I adore the clothes from the Belle Epoque and try to find that elegance in contemporary clothing. Audrey Hepburn is another fashion icon to me, she combined elegance and beauty in a classic look. I have a very distinctive style, but it's a mix-and-match of what I find in the shops. I don't like being put in categories. Nevertheless, my clothes are very recognisably "Helena" (that's my name, in case you were about to look the style up on google :D).

The builder's costume you can put in your costume room. Very cool, way to go Jagex.

Nice quest, but all these new clothes (jester's costume, builder's outfit) are clogging up my bank... they should add them to the costume boxes in our houses.

The Philadelphia Story, with Katherine Hepburn and Cary Grant. Contrary to the above poster, I like Katherine Hepburn very much. I loved the film. I'm a fan of witty screwball comedies, they are funny and daring. The Philadelphia Story is based on a play, and it shows in the style, decors, acting; which I found both annoying and charming at times. Anyway, it's going straight to my wish-list of DVD's. The romantic comedies of these days just cannot compare.

I also love the musicality of Tennyson's Lady of Shalott. Edit: I can't believe Tip.It's filter actually blocks phrases used by respectable poets!

Saying that nobody's normal is really turning things upside down. We are all normal, but like to believe we're not. Which is funny, because as a kid, all you want is to be like all the other kids. Then you grow up and you want to be unique, different, you even take delight and pride in being abnormal. The most normal sentiment in the world, I'd say *grin*.

Same. People who say that this tells a lot about your personality obviously have never seen real psychological tests from up close... I've never lifted a finger against anyone (umm, except for one slap in the face of a male counterpart who deserved it) - so I wouldn't really count on this representing me...

Exactly. And it's complete nonsense to put the one against the other, when they can easily go hand in hand, EVEN if they not always do or have done. On the one hand -and I can only speak for the catholic church because I don't know about the other christian communities-, for hundreds of years, the church has pumped millions into schooling, research and education, long before it was any concern to politicians. The church may have had its hidden or not so hidden agenda in doing this, but there simply is no denying that science wouldn't be where it is now without the church's long-standing support. On the other hand, like someone else mentioned, you have for example Einstein, who was a firmly religious person, which to me proves that even great scientists seem to be able to seemlessly reconcile the two. Not only in the past, but even today. If scientists themselves can, why is it so hard for some of you to accept this possibility, even if it goes against your personal beliefs, whether they are atheist; anticlerical (that would me, lol); christian; agnostic;...

Umm, yeah, well, I happen to be a linguist and you're a bit off, lol. Actually, I've been reading a lot of linguistic rubbish on this thread. (Dutch is NOT a "dialect" of German.) As it happens, most of the European languages (Finnish being an oddity) and some eastern and Asian languages stem from Indo-European. They all share a lot of traits, because they come from one "mother" language. Indo-European as itself does not exist as a language (anymore, there are no traces of it, which is why it's also called proto-Indo-European). Within Indo-European, there are many other language families, who share even more traits amongst each other. The most well-known examples of such families are the Romance languages (Latin, French, Spanish, Italian,...) and the Germanic languages (English, German, Dutch, Flemish, Danish, Norwegian, Swedish,...).

I'm sure just repeating those big words will make lots of sense to little children who still have to learn about them :roll:

Swedish... Oops, I stand corrected. In any case, maybe they took German because the Germans are well-known for their lack of knowledge of English. And yes, Dutch and German are related languages, with similar vocabularies. The one can usually sort of understand the other when speaking. The grammar and spelling on the other hand... But English and German are also related languages, so everybody here should recognise parts of Wiederherstellungstrank :D (Trank, drink-drank-drunk, see?)

Foreign language support will also bring foreign language censoring. And that is one thing the Dutch servers could *really* use. With all the filth uttered there, I never go on them. But recently I have begun to lag more on the American servers, so I'll have to move (boohoo)... So hail Jagex.

What I really don't understand, though, is why they went for German when there's not one German server :?. Versus the existing Dutch, Finnish and Norwegian servers... Aber, es is sehr wichtig und gut fremde Sprachen zu unterstÃÆÃâÃâützen. Or something like that *grin* (tranlation: But, it's very important and good to support foreign languages). So well done, Jagex.

The fault lies with the people who abuse it, not with the book. Any book can be abused. I shudder to think of the possibilities of a Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Dona Tartt's Secret History, well, of any book in the wrong hands, quite frankly. Many repressive authorities have acknowledged the power of the word and banished or burned certain works while spreading others. Obviously, the bible (likewise the thora, the koran or any other religious book...) has a fixed status and authority, but I refuse to make it into the scapegoat for religious fanatism. It's cheap.

This is really getting too silly. Please explain to me where and when I stated that only the bible can be valuable in protecting us from immorality. The fact that there are other instances of transferring values and rules, does not make the bible obsolete or invaluable.

This thread is getting very amusing. And completely beside the point. The fact that the bible is filled with fantasy, does not make the christian belief a fallacy. The bible uses a very simple method to get messages across: it makes use of metaphorical stories. Apparently, there are idiots on both sides of the argument who simply cannot look beyond the words. Our minds work best with the narrative, it's a long continuing tradition of transferring information. Yes, in the past the Church has abused the words of the bible and used them to scare people into following their rules. That does not make the religion bad, nor does it make the bible bad. As a child, I was read many of the stories from both the old and the new testament by my teachers. These stories taught me many of the values I hold dear today. However, I am not a catholic (anymore), I have serious doubts about the existence of a god and I certainly don't envision a Hell with pits of fire. Why is it so hard to see beyond the old Institution and acknowledge the real value of the religion? I presume this is aimed against me. I cannot believe how you seem so bent on misunderstanding people whom you consider to be "opposition". Science can be trusted, but it's not Absolute Truth. I don't think any scientist would want to live with that kind of pressure. Science is extremely valuable. I think the bible can be very valuable as well. I really don't see why the one must exclude the other. Many religious scientists wouldn't either. What makes you suggest we're going backwards, sumpta? Besides that, say we have developed some problems; who's to say evolution won't ween them out in the future? It was mainly me being a bit cynical. I cannot believe how people are going back to denying that we humans stem from the ape. Whereas this theory used to be accepted and taught in the schools, now all of a sudden, a lot of people are going back on it and claim the bible to be right. And it's not just stupid, unimportant people who are saying this, but politicians, media, teachers. People who rule the society and hold its future in their hands. I find that really infuriating.

I don't know the first thing about cars, but I always loved Inspector Morse's Jaguar:

And to think that only a few years ago, us Europeans were being bashed for not liking George Bush and refusing to take part in the war. (First Iraq, France next, anyone?) My my, things can change.

Of course not. Some of the then agreed upon theories from medieval, renaissance, even victorian scientists make us laugh our heads off these days, because we now have gained knowledge and evidence which points in other directions. Who's to say scientists won't be doing the same in a century or 3 about a number of scientific theories which are in vogue today? I respect science and I look for the answers it can provide, I'm just pointing out that it's not a question of absolute truth (science) on the one hand and complete bollocks (religion) on the other. *shutting up now* *blush* P.S. A nice article on the problematics and the theories which have been put forward about the genealogy of theory (uhuh, I can't believe I used to study this kind of stuff) can be found on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

I disagree, just because something can't be disproved doesn't mean it can be proved. Take the example of a teapot orbiting the earth. No-one can know if it exists because it's too small to see. Do you beleive a teapot is orbiting the earth because you can't disprove that it is? That doesn't make my beleif or theory of the tea pot valid. Uhh, okay, so I need to address even the obvious. It speaks for itself to me that theory must always be supported by evidence. There is not a shred of evidence for a tea pot in space, so that would not be a theory, it's not even a conjecture.

Okay let me expand. The problem and antithesis does not lie in a science versus theology discussion. Actually, theologists would rather consider themselves scientists as well. The rulers of the catholic church aren't stupid either (but they may have different agenda's). The antithesis often exist between the followers of both sides, because they mix emotions with the facts. This board/discussion is a good example of what I mean. So I might like to rephrase: "pseudo-scientists" can be as fundamentalist. I'm sorry, but it is not sound to call in the aid of science and put it forward as the absolute truth. Obviously, the same goes for religion/the bible. A scientist can put out a theory, which can be valid until it is disproved. If other scientists cannot find fault with the theory, it is sound at that moment in time. But nobody says that in the longer run, even (often!) the scientist who put the theory forward himself, cannot change/refine it. Science is not fixed either, it moves as more knowledge is gained. P.S. I'd like to be clear about one thing though, before anyone starts to suspect me of religious fanatism to counter my point. Saying that the earth is only 6.000 years old is blind stupidity. Science has proven this to be faulty over and over. Sadly, this growing belief disproves evolutionary theory: aren't we supposed to be perfecting ourselves instead of going backwards?