atestarossa

I have almost all the items needed ready. The problem now is that my membership have run out, and I don't know if I can afford a new month right now. But if i decide that I do, then I have the charms for going from 69 to between 83 and 85 summoning :)

Libera me. from Faure's Requiem That piece gives me chills every time I listen to it.

I do understand that initial steps can continue in a bad fashion afterwards. But in Norway, there's not much power left for the church anyway. The Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Norway. It has been a state church since the reformation. The first thing people use to think when they hear about a state church is theocracy. And hell, let this be clear, I do not support this in any way. The problem in Norway is that the state church have been forced to give up more and more on their theology. This is not because their bishops, priests and theologists have decided this way, but because the government dictates the church policy. The parties in government today are (as far as I remember) the only ones that want to keep the state church, whereas the other ones, including the Christian People's party wishes a separation of church and state. The only thing that holds this back, is the socialists and to a degree the social-democrats that want to keep the control over the church. (The social-democrats have done a lot good throughout their years in government by the way, but their religion politics annoy me)

This actually is ideal. Since the church isn't the government it should be the government running the benefits behind it. Let the churches cover the religious factor of it, because that's what they're there for. That's what I originally thought of, but that would be removing the right to legally marry from the Church. Stripping power is kind of unfair. A religious marriage should count as a marriage and as a civil union, not just the religious aspect. Our bishops have already been reduced to not being allowed to speak of the morality of politics on threat of legal action and removal of tax benefits (which would hurt Christian hospitals and parochial schools, and one must admit that Catholics do contribute a lot in medicine and education). But if the church does give their powers away from this, what do they loose? The blessing over married couples would by all probability be counted among Christians as the wedding, and where the marriage is started, before the eyes of God. The only difference would be that you also had to sign a couple of papers at the local courthouse (or where you sign these kind of papers) The official part, just for economy, and registration goes for the government, while the religious part, the ceremony, and the celebration would still be at church (if you are a Christian, that is) To put this in a historical context as well: It wasn't before the 5th century (that's 400-499, right?) that Christian marriage also was counted as official marriage. This was when cæsar Constantin made Christianity the official religion of the roman empire.

Changing the churches views on homosexual marriages is something that should be done, just as in America and other countries they were forced to marry black and white people, or two people of different races. If the church is going to be allowed to marry, then they should be forced to followed the secular laws on it, or should lose the right to marry. Unless churches are changed to strictly religious unions, which provide no legal rights what so ever, then they should be following secular laws. If they gave no legal rights, then I wouldn't mind if they had the choice on who they marry. This is actually my view as well. In my first post, I said that I support that (in Norway, I don't know enough about the American situation to be fair) the churches should give up the right of the marriage as the juridical agreement. Then the churches would of course be free to provide a blessing, or similar to the couple that just have been married, and this would probably, from the Christians been seen as the "wedding" although the state should have the responsibility of what we today call marriage. The problem in Norway, is that the government, instead of taking the right to marry people away from the churches, then they force them to go against their views to still marry people. (The church is just using a loophole about liturgy to avoid this at the moment, which they can't do forever.)

Okay. It seems like my statement spawned some discussion. And of course, not everyone that is religious want everyone to believe the same. But the christianity do have a missionary point of view. (look at the last words of matthew, you'll see a command to this) But I will compare religion to political views, at least in this debate. Because when you have something that becomes the ruling thing of your life, then keeping that just as your "little secret" But most important, about my view. I do not thing homosexuallity is healthy for a person, nor do I think it is "right" (morally) but i'm no homophobe. I'm not afraid of homosexuals. I don't act different to homosexuals than heterosexual persons. Because we all are (in my Christian point of view) created as God's images. Therefore I can't hate another person either. Saying that all persons that is against homosexual marriage either is afraid of them, hates them, or is too stupid to understand is truly wrong I, as many others have thought about this for a long time, looking at it in a theological, and a cultural context. I still believe that it is wrong, but I as a Christian can't out of the bible argue that there should be laws that forbid it. And out of the cultural context, I can't. So I may dislike it, but marriage (as a juridical pact between two people that want to live the rest of their lives together) must also be possible for homosexuals. However. I do not like that the (Norwegian) state, also tries to change what the church's point of view on this is. If a religious community (of lack of better words in English) out of religious reasons don't want to marry homosexuals (or marry people that are divorced) then that should be the respected. As long as the secular state don't uses this against the rest of the people I am very firm on this. I do want the state to be secular, as far as it is possible (there is imo nothing like total neutrality; that is a constructed idea) while I do want the [f]society[/f] to be marked by christianity. Not by force, not by might. Each person is a free soul, that is to decide about their lives themselves. But through speaking with people, being kind people that live for something more that is here. (And mark this. I do not say that non-christians aren't good people. I'd say about half of my best friends are not christian. I'm not very structured when I write about this, and it's a lot because of my English. I do have a hard time translating my thoughts over from Norwegian, without loosing a lot of the arguments quality. Anyways, I hope that you can see mercy to that, and take up my views. I do not want to offend people, but rather maybe think together with me about this topic. :)

In the ideal Christian world, it wouldn't be a problem because all the homosexuals would be killed. About the mother part, I dislike that. Unless the father was someone who only had sex so the woman could have a child, then he should still be the father. The "extra-mother" should just be the stepmother. That's quite an ignorant comment and I hope you burn your tongue so badly you can never say something so stupid and horrible. Homosexuals are as equal persons to heterosexual persons. Neither is "worth" more. They are both given God's grace to an equal extent. They are both humans. In an ideal Christian world, there would still be gays. Scriptural supported by how God loves everyone and the commandment thou shalt not kill is part of the ten commandments (found in exodus and deuteronomy) and Jesus says this applies to everyone by extension since everyone is your neighbor. I forget what book of this catholic youth bible I had to use for scripture studies honors last year, they have sidestories of contemporary time that parallel the stories in the scripture. In one of them, it's about AIDS and its implied the guy is gay and he is diagnosed from AIDS and he's ashamed to tell his Church but when they find out they're supportive and tell him they'll be there for him til the end. THAT is the ideal Christian deed. I'm gay, why would I purposely advocate murdering them /fail? In the ideal Christian world the Bible would be followed. "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB) Going by what the Bible says, the homosexuals would be killed. Now, I suggest you pay a little more attention to everything the Bible says before you confuse your ignorance for me acting ignorant. AIDS is something that happens to everyone, because of experimentation with polio or hepititus B(conflicting sources) and monkeys. Everyone can get aids, no matter what orientation. If you read the bible 100% biblistic, (taking every single word in it literal, no matter what the context is) then you can pull out quite a lot of stuff that seems to be offensive now. But most Christians (apart from adventists, I believe) agree that the old desert laws is nullified through the happenings of the new testament. The laws that you can read in the books of Moses (the first 5, I've forgotten some of the names of them in English) are meant for a society that lived in the desert 4,000 years ago. So really, pulling out bible verses without looking at the context, shows nothing. About the AIDS part. Every time I hear someone say that AIDS is a punishment to gays or similar, I really get angry. People that say that really, really have no compassion for other people. And I'm not catholic btw. I'm Lutheran, so I really won't accept anything said from the catholic (or other) popes, without really looking at it in a biblical context. Romy, you tell that my wish that everyone was Christian is offensive. That might be right actually. But the thing is, when you know of something that affects every part of your life, no matter what it is; then you'll also want that other knew about this. This goes for Christians, Muslims, Humanists, Communists, Socialists, Liberalists, and the list goes on. This is because I think my ideology / religion really is the answer for the troubles in the world.

Biathlon, normal distance. YES!!! Gold to Tora Berger for the women, and Gold to Svendsen, and Silver for Bjørndalen (Bjoerndalen) :D The Gold to Berger was Norway's 100th gold in the winter olympics through out the times btw. :D

I'll try to share my point of view. My first point is that I, in a religious point of view, believe that homosexuality not is right; that it's not the way that we are meant to be. And I could also hope, that in an ideal world, then everyone would be Christian as well, and then we wouldn't even have to have this argument. But, the reality is that that there are also people that do not think it's morally wrong, and it's important to remember that homosexuals also love each other. Out of that point of view, I do not think that homosexual marriage should be illegal. For the next, I'll tell how the situation in Norway is at the moment. We have had a "partnership" law in 15-20 years. (Some time in the 90's, if I remember right) which have pretty much worked like a marriage, just that it have used the word partnership instead. But about two years ago, the law was changed, so that homosexual marriage is made possible. But this is not the only part of this new law. One of the most important parts is that if the mother of a child marries another woman, then that woman is legally "extra-mother" to the child. The father is no longer legally it's father. A lot of people have problems with this point, and a lot think that it's just fair. The problem is that there's nothing the other way around. No "extra-father" Which is based on that a girl can go to a "sperm bank" and get impregnated, but a male homosexual couple can not use a surrogate mother. I believe that both of these are wrong, but the second is worse than the first. However, this "discrimination" that makes the difference of couples of men and women will probably be changed, because in Norway, everyone is really, really frightened of the word discrimination, and everything that could be slightly similar. Another problem about this law however, is that the religious parts of Norway, that can already marry people may end up having to marry homosexual people, even though this is against their religion. The evangelical-lutheran church of Norway have avoided this by not accepting the new liturgics for this (as the old one always uses "this man", and "this woman" Because of this, I think that only the state should be able to marry people. A lot of stuff from Norway here. But short: For me, this is a hard question, but I have ended up being for homosexual marriage, as long as this doesn't continue to push on the rights of the children (the right of both a mother and a father, as long as this is possible), and does not offend the right the different religious communities aren't forced to marry people of the same sex, if this is against their theologic sights.

Or you could, you know: Do wolf whistle? I would say that it's actually less of a hassle, than waiting for the point of a quest where your summoning level is drained.

I might be mistaken, but that event picture they had there. Wasn't that from the tet event we had at lumberyard?

Some information about me that you probably didn't know, -How about I drive a tanks for [cabbage]z and giggles What the hell?

It's an item from Legends quest, which when used, makes an animation of you rocking it above your head (it's kind of flail-like) together with a load sound, which very many finds annoying. Because of this, a lot of people tend to use this in high crowed areas as the ge, at pest control, sw, other crowed banks and similar.

do you think using void melee would be worth it btw? It has almost as good mage defence as black dhide, and increases your offence with a lot!

You make a very good point, and it almost takes the time aspect out of this. But I want to make a little comment on these limited moneymakers. I do some of these; in particular farming, and they are good. Farming makes at least 1500k per hour of effort, and others are at 1000k+ without problems. Thing is, this might make them look as so good that you must do them. But if I should do all of these, and they would all be the best gp/h I could get, I wouldn't have time for anything else. I have tried. Doing all of them can take well over an hour, leaving you do start on a new farming round. For me at least, I make the choice of not doing all of these. But this is still dependent on my ready time. (and I do not agree fully that we dispose our 24 hours freely. We live in a society, which takes it's demands, as well as our natural demands like food/shelter etc. that needs to be secured.) But I think, in whole. I agree with you. As long as you don't put too much weight on the choice of it. I believe knowledge is the most important factor in this. And time, to a degree (which you have proven to be less than I first thought) But if you "have" sufficient of these two factors. Then all you are left with, is the choice.

The second article is a good written one, with a interesting point of view. Although it in rs, compared to in the real life, rs players starts more on equal, and have the same chances as everyone, seen from the perceptive of the game. But the author was barely touching the subject of how the real life affects rs. (although this was done jokeful, when naming the somali child, that didn't have a chance to play rs. But I believe that this is a more important point than it was pointed out in the article. How busy we are, what economical status we have, what our age is, where we live, expectations from others, and a lot of different things affect our chance of being on rs. One key word here is time. Rs is very time consuming. Very much so. If I want to get that 13m xp in, say fishing. I must devote my time for that. But the time I have, and the author have, may differ a lot. It's not like all of us have a God given, say 5 hours a day to use on runescape. So our potential of what we can do with the time we can use differs a lot. Secondly, it is interesting to look at how knowledge about the game is "given" It isn't so that it just flows in, linear, from when you start playing. Instead it moves more in steps, or perhaps more exponentially. Anyways, the point is. When you first stumble over rs (assuming that it is your first mmporg, as others would have affected your way of thinking a bit), you won't know much about the game, and the first exploring will take a lot of time. So, at first you will have very limited knowledge. The next part would be perhaps, when you suddenly understand how you can use a bank to train your skills more efficiently. You don't have to burn every load of wood you chop. You can instead bank and sell them. After that, the next step, or one step after a while, would be finding fan sites. The knowledge base has done this easier though. But now you've found a way to be told how to do stuff. At this point, you won't know the best ways to make money, but you'll have a much better understanding of runescape as a whole. Up to this step, is a place where many players loose interest in the game. Of course there's a lot more steps, and they come faster and faster, or so I belive. (therefore the kind of exp. learning i spoke of.) In this aspect of knowledge, of course, maturity and age will probably affect a lot as well. Players that get stuck on earlier levels of what I tried to explain generally are younger. Or so I believe. But back to the article. The point you raise is very good. And if two people have the same knowledge and free time, then everything that differed the rich player with a lot of 99's from the begging level 15 in Varrock, would be what they decided to do. But as long as there are other factors that can affect this, then it would be wrong to say that the newb in question just have made the choise to be poor. He may just have not known that he could make that choice. That's perhaps why richer people is looked at as "lucky", as well. Because it all becomes so overwhelming.

My best farming run to date. (and probably ever, to be honest) 9, 13, 15, 9, and 5 herbs on each patch. Now, the only thing bad about this, was that I was using a stock of avantoe seeds I have in my bank right now. If i had farmed snaps, this would have been a lot better o.o

Okay. I can agree on that. But i rather think the story is exaggerated, rather than false. I did not believe that this thread is making a joke out of it at all, but both the OP, and most people in here is discussing the matter without making fun out of it at all. As in my views, this is really fantastic that they do. They are obliged by law to do so, but I really hope that they would do so, even if that wasn't the case. I've heard way too many sad stories, where people have known things that if handled correctly, could have saved someones lifes. I am certain that the police here could easily get to me in half an hour. And in the place I'm from (the place which I used for the comparison) Would have made it in less. But these are small places. The current is with only 150,000 citizens, and the one where I lived before, only have 7,000. But this is still slightly off-topic. (And here in Norway, it's unlegal to call the police, if there's no valid reason for it.)

Considering that post on the rsof, it's pretty much confirmed that jagex do contact the local police in matters like this, no matter if this particular story is true or not. However, to get that done in half an hour would not be a problem in my place at least. Remember that the quality of the police service varies a lot from place to place, and not to speak about different countries.

And a d chain at dusties at all is 1/10k i believe. You are lucky as hell. Now I though about posting my back to back d boots, but that won't be much point after this! (now imagine if you got back to back visage/arma hilts or something else, instead of this. The chances would be about the same o.o) Actually back to back visage/arma hilts wouldn't be the same. Yes, good luck, no, not as good of luck. Arma Hilt/Visage aren't nearly close to 1/10k rate, nor are they even remotely close. The fact that they're higher priced is why they're considered "rare" And @ Elite; shopped pic. :rolleyes: True enough on the hilts. But saying that a visage is perhaps 1/4k or something, would make a back to back about the same probability. (remember that the chains weren't b2b, just in a short amount of time. But no matter what, that luck is INSANE. And you are probably not going to be as lucky as that again in your rs career.

And a d chain at dusties at all is 1/10k i believe. You are lucky as hell. Now I though about posting my back to back d boots, but that won't be much point after this! (now imagine if you got back to back visage/arma hilts or something else, instead of this. The chances would be about the same o.o)

Basically they pulled number 3 and that's my issue. Well, my point was that number 3 was a good choice. Number one would have led us without the thing that makes this quest special, and number two is just plain ridiculous. But as I said, it all comes down to opinion on which of these are the right. I still think that most people that do this quest will enjoy it, just because it's good on itself. Not everything has to be compared with other things to see if it's enjoyable or not.

To mhl. You make a very good point. This quest (after what I've heard, I haven't done it yet) Is lacking in story and length, compared to WGS, and to what Jagex said would classify as a grandmaster quest. And seeing how WGS probably is my favourite quest, I would love to see another one like it. But you also said earlier - the quest itself is good, it's just the labeling that is wrong. So we have a good (if short) quest, that is too hard to be put into the "master" label. In my opinion, that leaves three options. 1: Lower the difficulty of the boss fight. I think this would take the challenge out of the quest. This quest is special, appealing, (and perhaps a bit frustrating) because of this fight. Lowering the difficulty would really just make this another filler quest, that at least I wouldn't like as much. (the kind that I've seen you complain about often, the last year) 2: Leave the quest exactly like it is, and make a new difficulty rating, between master and grandmaster. This way, you could still have the fight, and everyone would know this quest is harder than the regular master quest. But honestly, just difficulty wise, I've been led to believe that this quest is as hard as WGS. You'll need more experience, because of the very high combat skills needed. And the puzzles were (again, as I've heard) par to the ones in WGS. This might be just me, but I don't think that making a quest label that says; "this quest is harder than the rest, but it is not this epic story wise So we can't give it the highest rating" would be a very smart move of Jagex. 3: Do as they did now. Knowingly release a quest in the grandmaster difficulty, that doesn't live 100% to their own expectations of what they wanted to make out of these quests. This way they can create a hard quest, without needing it to be as epic as WGS was, and therefore they can release more of such quests. Remember, this isn't necessarily the only GM-quest coming out this year. Hell, the place they said there would be max 1 per year, was the very same thread as they said that they would be "epicly, long, et cetera." They could of course have made it longer, and made this like WGS, and I think all of us would have liked that alot. But it's still so, that they can still produce that kind of quests. The only thing this quest did, was that it was made possible to have quests that are harder than master quests, without needing to put many extra months of development on the story. On a side note: I don't really think we'll see a quest as epic as WGS, at least not in a very long time. That is simply because of WGS being the first GM quest, and I'll guess that Jagex wanted to put some extra effort into it. (that doesn't necessarily make all upcoming GM quests crappy.) But all in all, this is my opinion. And it all really comes down into opinions, mostly of what should be excepted from a GM quest, story and length wise. I do think that this quest gave quests a new side in rs, which I think about as a positive change. But God forbid that every hard quest is becoming like this one. A more puzzle, skiller based quest would be good soon, after this one, and Blood runs deep. The only negative side about this update for me, would be that I will not see my quest cape in a long time. I just don't think that my combat is good enough at the moment. I might give it a try when i reach even 90's in melee skills. (But an extra motivation to train is always great.)

At the start, I didn't really get it. Like, why should it be illegal at all to buy/sell organs. Then i got that it was not about the instrument. :wall: Anyway, I'm not sure about it. I don't like the fact that people could be earning money out of selling their own organs, (like one kidney, or something) but this can save lives. Also, is there a line that needs to be drawn between what is "mine" and "yours" in organs? Are we created in such a way, that we really should respect each other. The main problem with cases like this, is that we need to find an ethical line, about what we should be able to do, and what not. Humans can now do a lot, a lot more than most people would find acceptable. Like named earlier in this thread: cloning. Some people believe that using clones for getting organs or stam cells that can save someone's life is okay, while other looks at that clone as a human being, just as the other person. But back to organs, I don't know how much they are in need now, not in my country, and not in others. But would it not be possible to ask people to donate an organ, (this would mostly be kidneys, i can't think about anything else that can be given while you're still alive) just as you do with blood, or similar at least. That people should be able to sell their kidneys for money is something that really disgusts me. If people are so desperate that they actually need that money, then the state should rather have a way of picking up these people. I would go as far as saying that that would be like prostitution: Selling your body. However doing it for free would let people donate if it was for people they know that became sick, and needs a kidney, or they could donate it to whoever needs it, and would accept it (in the medicine term, as the body can actually reject other people's organs) I am really not sure about much in this case, and it's harder to try to let my views out when using a foreign language. But my main point is that we should be careful with the medicinal technology we have. And that we need to find this line, where we say that this is allowed, and this isn't. If this line goes here, on the debate on organ selling i do not know. Perhaps partly.

Who's to say that Runescape's eastern lands are the same as Earth's east? Although, looking at the map now it looks vaguely like Earth. The main reason for this, is the samurai located on the port phasmatys ports. He states that he comes from the east, which is over the sea east of the port. Another interesting thing, is that when port Phasmatys was still a living town, it based it's income on trading with the lands to the east.