Thieving Monsters

[sees_all1]

I read the original suggestion, I skipped most of pages 2 through 3.

 

I see Compfreak's point that making the rare drops less rare with this thieving idea would mess up their prices.

 

 

 

I also think the underlying idea (thieving from corpses, possibly getting xp and possibly getting more of an item) has some potential.

 

I don't like the table you proposed for what monsters you're allowed to loot, because I don't see the chance involved.

 

 

 

So, let me attempt to make this suggestion a little bit better by proposing a change in it:

 

When you kill a monster, and you're using this new option, it leaves its corpse on the ground. Anyone is allowed to thieve any corpse that they killed, but the probability of getting something extra is based upon the monster's level and the player's thieving level (I'll get to that in a second).

 

 

 

-Any item that is dropped that is in the "Rare" table will be dropped as normal. The probability of getting one of these drops does not change, and you're still able to loot the corpse.

 

 

 

-Any item that is normally dropped in the common table will not be dropped at all. Instead you have to loot the corpse to get it. If successful, You'll get whatever item you would have gotten multiplied by 1.5. If not successful, you won't get anything.

 

-Any item that is dropped 100% will not be dropped at all. If you're successful in looting the monster, you'll get whatever item normally is one the ground, plus an extra. If not successful, you won't get anything.

 

 

 

Looting the 100% drop items is completely independent of looting the normal items - you can fail at one, and not the other, fail at both, or succeed at both. You'll get thieving experience based on the level of the monster if you're successful at looting it.

 

 

 

What is the probability of getting a drop?

 

((Thieving Level)^2 / (Monster level)^1.9), if it's above 1, it will always happen.

 

So someone with 80 thieving looting a level 150 monster will have a 47% chance,

 

Someone with 99 thieving looting a level 126 monster or under will always loot it,

 

Someone with 5 thieving looting a level 10 monster will have a 31% chance.

 

 

 

[hide=originally suggested - but not recommended.]What happens if they fail?

 

Well, I'd suggest that not only does the person not get the drop, but the monster (potentially) comes back to life with 10% of it's HP. If it does this, it dies without a corpse. I'd say the probability of this happening is monster's HP / 300.

 

That way low level monsters almost never come back, but high level monsters usually do.[/hide]

 

 

 

 

 

Not sure how lootshare would factor into this, or even if it could.

 

let me know what you think.

[compfreak847]

I like the idea, sees all, but I can see a few flaws. One problem is that it wouldn't be enough of an advantage; for most 'boss' monsters, rare drops are virtually all of the value, and for common monsters it would simply be a huge hassle. Like you said, there's a few issues with lootshare; IMO the person who does the most damage should get to loot it, but for monsters with very rare drops like CB that would be unbalanced. The main problem I have is with the coming back to life part - Kree could jump out and slam everyone in the room with a 70. I don't think that's a good idea, especially when the fail rate is reasonably high and the rewards small.

[sees_all1]

Like you said, there's a few issues with lootshare; IMO the person who does the most damage should get to loot it, but for monsters with very rare drops like CB that would be unbalanced.

 

 

 

The main problem I have is with the coming back to life part - Kree could jump out and slam everyone in the room with a 70. I don't think that's a good idea, especially when the fail rate is reasonably high and the rewards small.

 

 

 

The CB has a level of what, 700+? That's less than a 3% chance of looting it with 99 thieving.

 

 

 

What about for lootshare and coinshare, the chance for looting the monster is (sum(all thieving levels)^2 / (4 * (monster level^1.9)). The 4 can be some other scale factor... maybe square root of number of members?

 

 

 

For Coinshare, the clan owner (or level specified in CC options) is allowed to toggle group looting, and whatever gets looted is immediately sold on GE for min, and all the coins are distributed amongst the clan.

 

For Lootshare, each individual is randomly selected as they are now for who gets the drop/gets to loot it. Once again, the chance for looting the monster for any one individual is the same as the clan's chance. Each individual can decide for themselves to turn looting on or off.

 

 

 

 

 

I thought the idea of the monster coming back to life was interesting.... but this definitely would not work for lootshare. I'll take it out from my first post.

[compfreak847]

That still doesn't solve the issue of who gets to loot it - it's not fair to the clan if someone with, say, level 40 thieving has to loot it when the whole team gets the drop.

 

 

 

The monster coming back to life just doesn't work for high level boss monsters; it's not specific to lootshare. The idea of a monster hitting 70+ without warning just doesn't appeal to me.

[Romy]

First and foremost, I would like to compliment you for that idea, and for the whole viewpoint of improving the Thieving skill in a more interesting way. Also, I would like to point out that if this idea will be popular enough, it will most probably be implemented this year, since JaGeX stated clearly that they're working on improving old content, including skills.

 

 

 

Secondly, I would like to say that the idea in general is good, except it has too many problems. I'd only support it if you manage a way to solve them.

 

 

 

Most of the problems are pointed out on previous comments, so I won't bother pointing these here too.

 

 

 

But to conclude most critical problems:

 

• 
   
  [*:3hwmrn1h]It shouldn't affect the economy too much/at all.
   
  [*:3hwmrn1h]It shouldn't give teams an edge in getting better drops/ easier drops.
   
  [*:3hwmrn1h]After solving all the problems, there should still be a point in implementing the idea. For example, if in order to keep the economy as it is, the percentage of a better drop would only increase in 1%, and the chance of failing would be 50%, then there will be no point in this at all.
   
  [*:3hwmrn1h]It should make Thieving a more popular skill, or once again there'll be no point in this idea.

 

 

 

Obviously there are more problems, some that I didn't state, some that I didn't think of etc.

 

I will track this thread, and if you could find solutions to these problems I'd be happy to support :D .

 

 

 

 

 

P.S.

 

You should edit the your suggestion every once in a while, to update it. Most people would only read your suggestion, and if they'll find any problems there, they'll point them out again, even though you may have already found a solution throughout the discussion.

 

 

 

P.S.S.

 

You should add a support list ;) . Oh, and encourage all criticism.

[Dire_Wolf]

Thanks for all the help (Compfreak, yes you are a freak!) and Romy. I'll try to come up with some solutions and also update suggestion.

[Romy]

Thanks for all the help (Compfreak, yes you are a freak!) and Romy. I'll try to come up with some solutions and also update suggestion.

 

 

 

Glad I could be of some help ;) .

[pinguimmaiden]

I wouldn't mind getting 99 thieving if that idea works.

 

 

 

Pretty cool idea, hope someday it releases on RS :

[Romy]

Your improved idea is great :thumbsup: . I just think 15% and 25% is way too much, how about 5% and 10%?

[Dire_Wolf]

Your improved idea is great :thumbsup: . I just think 15% and 25% is way too much, how about 5% and 10%?

 

 

 

The idea was improved mostly thanks to Compfreak, and me and him are now sharing the credit of this suggestion.

 

 

 

Anyhow according to Compfreak 10% higher chance of rare is what Ring of wealth does, and that's very little. Many say Ring of wealth dont help, some say it does etc.

 

 

 

So i think 25% is right at bosses, and 15% at usual monster such as Abyssal demon. Further more, when looting the corpses your thieving success rate is based on your Thieving level and the combat of the monster, so you might fail alot.

[Romy]

Your improved idea is great :thumbsup: . I just think 15% and 25% is way too much, how about 5% and 10%?

 

 

 

The idea was improved mostly thanks to Compfreak, and me and him are now sharing the credit of this suggestion.

 

 

 

Anyhow according to Compfreak 10% higher chance of rare is what Ring of wealth does, and that's very little. Many say Ring of wealth dont help, some say it does etc.

 

 

 

So i think 25% is right at bosses, and 15% at usual monster such as Abyssal demon. Further more, when looting the corpses your thieving success rate is based on your Thieving level and the combat of the monster, so you might fail alot.

 

 

 

 

 

First of all, Compfreak may be wrong, Ring of wealth could be more than 10%, or less, it's just an assumption.

 

 

 

Moreover, I doubt many would go to Thieving worlds without high Thieving, thus the succes rate will usualy be higher than the average Thieving level of scapers, not to mention that Thieving is relativly fast and easy to train.

 

 

 

I think that pretty much lowers the failure rate of most bosses to almost none. 25% higher chance means around 15-20% more rares coming into the game. I know this kind of suggestion would not be implemented if it was not worth using, but I honestly think 25% higher chance for bosses would be too much, and could even give the economy a little shock.

[compfreak847]

 

First of all, Compfreak may be wrong, Ring of wealth could be more than 10%, or less, it's just an assumption.

 

An assumption based on extensive testing. Perhaps you have more evidence to change my mind?

 

 

 

Moreover, I doubt many would go to Thieving worlds without high Thieving, thus the succes rate will usualy be higher than the average Thieving level of scapers, not to mention that Thieving is relativly fast and easy to train.

 

 

So the actual increase is around 20%, not even noticeable without extensive testing

 

 

I think that pretty much lowers the failure rate of most bosses to almost none.

 

 

Are you mathmatically challanged? 20% failure rate is not 'none', it's a 20% increase on drops.

 

 

 

a a 25% higher chance means around 15-20% more rares coming into the game.

 

Reading skills ftl. Shall we do the actual math? There are 80 members worlds, with 28 of them lootshare and 52 of them regular. Lootshare worlds with an average 6 man team get 3 times faster kills, so we have the equivalent of 136 solo worlds. We are suggesting 3 extra worlds like this, so out of the 139 soloings 3 of them will have the boosted rate. (136 X 100) + (3 X 125) = (13975 / 139) = .54% higher drop rates. Let's see, that '25%' number you pulled out of your behind was only of by 46,296% :roll:

 

 

 

and could even give the economy a little shock.

 

.5% = 90k drop in bandos hilt price. Given that it regularly rises and falls by well over 100k in normal market fluctuation, I don't think this is going to cause the Runescape Apocalypse. Come back when you have some real numbers, not ones you thought sounded cool =D>

[Romy]

[hide=]

 

First of all, Compfreak may be wrong, Ring of wealth could be more than 10%, or less, it's just an assumption.

 

An assumption based on extensive testing. Perhaps you have more evidence to change my mind?

 

 

 

Moreover, I doubt many would go to Thieving worlds without high Thieving, thus the succes rate will usualy be higher than the average Thieving level of scapers, not to mention that Thieving is relativly fast and easy to train.

 

 

So the actual increase is around 20%, not even noticeable without extensive testing

 

 

I think that pretty much lowers the failure rate of most bosses to almost none.

 

 

Are you mathmatically challanged? 20% failure rate is not 'none', it's a 20% increase on drops.

 

 

 

a a 25% higher chance means around 15-20% more rares coming into the game.

 

Reading skills ftl. Shall we do the actual math? There are 80 members worlds, with 28 of them lootshare and 52 of them regular. Lootshare worlds with an average 6 man team get 3 times faster kills, so we have the equivalent of 136 solo worlds. We are suggesting 3 extra worlds like this, so out of the 139 soloings 3 of them will have the boosted rate. (136 X 100) + (3 X 125) = (13975 / 139) = .54% higher drop rates. Let's see, that '25%' number you pulled out of your behind was only of by 46,296% :roll:

 

 

 

and could even give the economy a little shock.

 

.5% = 90k drop in bandos hilt price. Given that it regularly rises and falls by well over 100k in normal market fluctuation, I don't think this is going to cause the Runescape Apocalypse. Come back when you have some real numbers, not ones you thought sounded cool =D>

[/hide]

 

 

 

First, I'd like to compliment you for being the nicest person around, and for the fact that you could put all of your thoughts, ideas and calculations into such a nice, kind and tender post.

 

 

 

 

 

After that being said, I must also add I'm just trying to help improve your suggestion, and in no way push it aside.

 

 

 

1. No matter how long you tested Rings of Wealth for, you cannot gurantee you're right. No, I do not have any proofs for other numbers, but nor do I pretend to know.

 

2. How could I tell by how much your Thieving level affects failure? It's not like I have a chart, or even a basic explanation of that.

 

3. Once again, thanks Mr. nice, for being so nice. If rares are 20% easier to obtain (or even a bit less, counting failure/success rates), then that's a lot.

 

4.I didn't calculate anything whatsoever, it was purely intuitive thinking. Sorry if I didn't exactly 'hit' the right numbers there. No need to get all crazy about it.

 

5.Same as above.

 

6. (I added that 6 :P ), I'm not looking for any fighting or flaming so lets drop that. I really do think that's a good idea, and all I did was trying to fix what seemed (and actualy still seems) wrong to me. I hope you're not going to post a very angry post over this one. Try to keep it simple and nice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

O.T.

 

A wild guess- you're Aeries/Leo, aren't you?

[Dire_Wolf]

Aeries/Leo - Persons in game?

 

 

 

If so, then sorry to disappoint you that i am not them :?

[Romy]

Aeries/Leo - Persons in game?

 

 

 

If so, then sorry to disappoint you that i am not them :?

 

 

 

I was talking to Compfreak :P.

 

 

 

 

 

And no, Aeries and Leo are signs of Zodiac.

[compfreak847]

 

First, I'd like to compliment you for being the nicest person around, and for the fact that you could put all of your thoughts, ideas and calculations into such a nice, kind and tender post.

 

If you want kindness and tenderness, please visit the CareBear forums located at http://www.bedtimebear.com/forums/. If you want to debate, stick around here.

 

 

 

 

1. No matter how long you tested Rings of Wealth for, you cannot gurantee you're right. No, I do not have any proofs for other numbers, but nor do I pretend to know.

 

Then why are you trying to tell me your are right? By your logic, having never visited Antarctica, you don't have proof it exists.

 

 

 

 

2. How could I tell by how much your Thieving level affects failure? It's not like I have a chart, or even a basic explanation of that.

 

Covered in the replies, though the exact percentage isn't given. Not that it matters, your % error is still off by a a factor of 40.

 

 

 

3. Once again, thanks Mr. nice, for being so nice. If rares are 20% easier to obtain (or even a bit less, counting failure/success rates), then that's a lot.

 

But they aren't 20% easier to obtain, they are .5% easier. It must be convenient to ignore numbers, but I'm afraid it won't do you much good here.

 

 

 

 

4.I didn't calculate anything whatsoever, it was purely intuitive thinking. Sorry if I didn't exactly 'hit' the right numbers there. No need to get all crazy about it.

 

Intuitive thinking? Sorry, but even if I 'intuitively think' 2+2 = 7, it doesn't make it right, and being wrong by 46,000% is not only not quite 'exact', it's so laughably absurd that it completely destroys your entire argument.

 

 

 

 

O.T.

 

A wild guess- you're Aeries/Leo, aren't you?

 

Yep, a Leo, but I don't hold with signs of the Zodiac :P

[Romy]

[hide=]

 

First, I'd like to compliment you for being the nicest person around, and for the fact that you could put all of your thoughts, ideas and calculations into such a nice, kind and tender post.

 

If you want kindness and tenderness, please visit the CareBear forums located at http://www.bedtimebear.com/forums/. If you want to debate, stick around here.

 

 

 

 

1. No matter how long you tested Rings of Wealth for, you cannot gurantee you're right. No, I do not have any proofs for other numbers, but nor do I pretend to know.

 

Then why are you trying to tell me your are right? By your logic, having never visited Antarctica, you don't have proof it exists.

 

 

 

 

2. How could I tell by how much your Thieving level affects failure? It's not like I have a chart, or even a basic explanation of that.

 

Covered in the replies, though the exact percentage isn't given. Not that it matters, your % error is still off by a a factor of 40.

 

 

 

3. Once again, thanks Mr. nice, for being so nice. If rares are 20% easier to obtain (or even a bit less, counting failure/success rates), then that's a lot.

 

But they aren't 20% easier to obtain, they are .5% easier. It must be convenient to ignore numbers, but I'm afraid it won't do you much good here.

 

 

 

 

4.I didn't calculate anything whatsoever, it was purely intuitive thinking. Sorry if I didn't exactly 'hit' the right numbers there. No need to get all crazy about it.

 

Intuitive thinking? Sorry, but even if I 'intuitively think' 2+2 = 7, it doesn't make it right, and being wrong by 46,000% is not only not quite 'exact', it's so laughably absurd that it completely destroys your entire argument.

 

 

 

 

O.T.

 

A wild guess- you're Aeries/Leo, aren't you?

 

Yep, a Leo, but I don't hold with signs of the Zodiac :P

[/hide]

 

 

 

You know, being nice and debating are not oppsite terms. On the contrary, nice debates lead to better ideas usualy.

 

 

 

1.Right? I'm only saying you can't say for sure how much ROW matters/ affects your drops, only assume. Assuming, as defined, cannot be guranteed.

 

2..Once again, I could not, in any way, know how much your Thieving level matters, or by how much. I assumed it matters more than anything else.

 

3.I'm not ignoring any numbers. For some reason you tend to believe I know everything that's running around in your mind. Well, I don't. I can't KNOW the numbers without someone telling me, I can only guess and see what seems right to my logic. It's like telling someone they had to solve this: 67+ X= Y. Obviously, no one could. They could say X=Y-67, but they cannot give a firm answer, only guess.

 

4.I never said intuitive thinking makes anything right. That's why it's called INTUITIVE. And no, it does not 'destroy' my arguement. My whole viewpoints stands from the fact that in order to implement this suggestion into the game it must be worth using, and not over-productive/ overpowered. I just think that 20% higher chance of getting rares (or even less) is, in fact, a bit over-productive.

 

5. (Yay, my own 5 once again :P). I knew you must have been 1 of these. This sure tells you something, doesn't it? That I could determine your sign through 1 post you made. Purely by the character of those signs. I bet I would have said Leo by itself if I knew you better =D> .

 

 

 

 

 

P.S.

 

You really should take this lightly, it's only a debate over the internet, I'm not trying to hurt you, your feelings or your suggestion. I'm just trying to improve an idea I find interesting.

[compfreak847]

You know, being nice and debating are not oppsite terms. On the contrary, nice debates lead to better ideas usualy.

 

I'm businesslike and sarcastic when I debate. If you don't like it, only post on threads where I agree with you.

 

 

 

 

1.Right? I'm only saying you can't say for sure how much ROW matters/ affects your drops, only assume. Assuming, as defined, cannot be guranteed.

 

I have numbers and logs proving drop rates, as well as work by Zarfot and Qeltar confirming it. Numbers don't magically change :roll:

 

 

 

 

2..Once again, I could not, in any way, know how much your Thieving level matters, or by how much. I assumed it matters more than anything else.

 

Exactly what I said.

 

 

 

 

3.I'm not ignoring any numbers. For some reason you tend to believe I know everything that's running around in your mind. Well, I don't. I can't KNOW the numbers without someone telling me, I can only guess and see what seems right to my logic. It's like telling someone they had to solve this: 67+ X= Y. Obviously, no one could. They could say X=Y-67, but they cannot give a firm answer, only guess.

 

Ah yes, numbers like lootshare worlds and percentages given ein the first post are guesses. No possible way for you to know the number of non-lootshare worlds :roll:

 

 

 

[qutoe]

 

4.I never said intuitive thinking makes anything right. That's why it's called INTUITIVE. And no, it does not 'destroy' my arguement. My whole viewpoints stands from the fact that in order to implement this suggestion into the game it must be worth using, and not over-productive/ overpowered. I just think that 20% higher chance of getting rares (or even less) is, in fact, a bit over-productive.

 

But it's not a 20% higher chance of getting rares, it's .54%. Why are you continuing to talk about intuitive thinking when it was proven wrong, by a factor of 46?

 

 

 

 

5. (Yay, my own 5 once again :P). I knew you must have been 1 of these. This sure tells you something, doesn't it? That I could determine your sign through 1 post you made. Purely by the character of those signs. I bet I would have said Leo by itself if I knew you better =D> .

 

Not a chance, lucky guesses mean nothing. I'm congenial and social in real life, but I come on these forums to debate, not spread peace and love.

 

 

 

 

P.S.

 

You really should take this lightly, it's only a debate over the internet, I'm not trying to hurt you, your feelings or your suggestion. I'm just trying to improve an idea I find interesting.

 

And I'm doing the same thing. Your point?

[Romy]

I'd like to apologize, because the following post is completely off topic.

 

 

 

 

 

I know quite a lot about Leos, and the last thing you need, as most Leos, is me telling you this, but I feel like I have to.

 

 

 

You're a stubborn person, that cannot pay attention to others, and is protecting his opinions as if it was the last thing he could do. You really should loosen up and try to have fun debates. I'm 100% sure you're going to say something oh so sarcastic and disagreeing, but that would only prove my point.

 

 

 

Your reading skills, as surprising as it may be to you, are awful. You cannot see anything that's happenning 1 inch from your own eyes, and even though I tried to explain myself enough times in my opinion, you refused to try and understand me, and were only busy on your stupid mission to prove everyone else wrong but you.

 

 

 

I'm done arguing with you, and not because I don't have anything to say, but because by reading your previous comments I realized you will keep close touch with your 'mission'.

 

 

 

 

 

Even though I doubt you're going to listen to me (a lot like 90% of the living people, and as ashamed I am, including me), try to think about what I said instead of pulling out an intuitive (no pun intended), angry post.

 

 

 

 

 

If you have an extremly good memory, then you might remember what I just sent in 10-20 years, and say "I guess she was right", but that's, ofcourse, nothing we can argue over, and only time will tell...

 

 

 

 

 

[hide=Extremely off topic]Astrology has been used by virtually every advanced civilization for thousands of years, but it has almost always been very controversial as well. Today, skepticism about astrology is as strong as ever, and there are many good reasons for this. Astrology has its roots in ancient times when less scientific methods were employed and superstition was rampant in many of these civilizations. The only exposure that many people have had to astrology is the sun sign columns in the newspaper or a glamorous psychic astrologer on television. Thus, it is hardly surprising that astrology is generally not accepted as a legitimate and valid field of inquiry by academia.[/hide]

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and I'm not trying to spread "peace and love". I'm only a person who found Astrology true, and who had seen countless proofs in the matter.

[Sir_Kurity]

The reason horoscopes and "star signs" work is because they are designed to work for almost anybody, so most horoscopes, when looked at by and random person off the streets, would still probably apply.

[Romy]

The reason horoscopes and "star signs" work is because they are designed to work for almost anybody, so most horoscopes, when looked at by and random person off the streets, would still probably apply.

 

 

 

I don't want to go completely off topic here and turn this into a spam thread, but yeah, you're basicly right, even though it's a lot more complicated than this.

[compfreak847]

 

You're a stubborn person, that cannot pay attention to others, and is protecting his opinions as if it was the last thing he could do. You really should loosen up and try to have fun debates. I'm 100% sure you're going to say something oh so sarcastic and disagreeing, but that would only prove my point.

 

I find a sarcastic, disagreeing debate to be highly enjoyable. Who are you to tell me what I should find 'fun' and 'not fun'?

 

 

 

 

Your reading skills, as surprising as it may be to you, are awful. You cannot see anything that's happenning 1 inch from your own eyes, and even though I tried to explain myself enough times in my opinion, you refused to try and understand me, and were only busy on your stupid mission to prove everyone else wrong but you.

 

So are you admitting you were wrong, or still trying to say 2+2=7 because your ''intuition' says so? This is math, what you feel like doesn't count. I can run through the numbers again if you didn't bother reading them the first time.

 

 

 

 

Even though I doubt you're going to listen to me (a lot like 90% of the living people, and as ashamed I am, including me), try to think about what I said instead of pulling out an intuitive (no pun intended), angry post.

 

 

You have no idea what my emotions are from my post - I was quite happy, because I enjoy debating, but sarcastic because I find the complex thought processes required enjoyable.

 

 

 

 

I'm done arguing with you, and not because I don't have anything to say, but because by reading your previous comments I realized you will keep close touch with your 'mission'.

 

 

And my 'mission' would be supporting this thread. Welcome to TIF forums, where that happens to be the point of posting.

 

 

 

As for astrology, I really couldn't care less about signs of the zodiac. I've stated my opinion, and I'm not planning on arguing about a non-provable point so vague and undefined as to be meaningless.

[Romy]

[hide=]

 

You're a stubborn person, that cannot pay attention to others, and is protecting his opinions as if it was the last thing he could do. You really should loosen up and try to have fun debates. I'm 100% sure you're going to say something oh so sarcastic and disagreeing, but that would only prove my point.

 

I find a sarcastic, disagreeing debate to be highly enjoyable. Who are you to tell me what I should find 'fun' and 'not fun'?

 

 

 

 

Your reading skills, as surprising as it may be to you, are awful. You cannot see anything that's happenning 1 inch from your own eyes, and even though I tried to explain myself enough times in my opinion, you refused to try and understand me, and were only busy on your stupid mission to prove everyone else wrong but you.

 

So are you admitting you were wrong, or still trying to say 2+2=7 because your ''intuition' says so? This is math, what you feel like doesn't count. I can run through the numbers again if you didn't bother reading them the first time.

 

 

 

 

Even though I doubt you're going to listen to me (a lot like 90% of the living people, and as ashamed I am, including me), try to think about what I said instead of pulling out an intuitive (no pun intended), angry post.

 

 

You have no idea what my emotions are from my post - I was quite happy, because I enjoy debating, but sarcastic because I find the complex thought processes required enjoyable.

 

 

 

 

I'm done arguing with you, and not because I don't have anything to say, but because by reading your previous comments I realized you will keep close touch with your 'mission'.

 

 

And my 'mission' would be supporting this thread. Welcome to TIF forums, where that happens to be the point of posting.

 

As for astrology, I really couldn't care less about signs of the zodiac. I've stated my opinion, and I'm not planning on arguing about a non-provable point so vague and undefined as to be meaningless.

[/hide]

 

 

 

WOW, you just proved yourself to be a complete idiot.

 

 

 

1.

I'm 100% sure you're going to say something oh so sarcastic and disagreeing, but that would only prove my point.

Point proven.

 

 

 

2.

Your reading skills, as surprising as it may be to you, are awful. You cannot see anything that's happenning 1 inch from your own eyes, you refused to try and understand me, and were only busy on your stupid mission to prove everyone else wrong but you.

This is getting boring. Point proven.

 

 

 

3.

Even though I doubt you're going to listen to me, try to think about what I said instead of pulling out an intuitive (no pun intended), angry post.

Hey, guess what? Point proven.

 

 

 

4. No, your 'mission' would be-

to prove everyone else wrong but you.

I'm kind of tired of quoting myself, and you know what? The fact that I had to quote myself to support what I already said can only mean one thing, and surprisingly I had already stated that-

Your reading skills' date=' as surprising as it may be to you, are awful.[/quote']

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and if I had to quote you-

=D>

.

[compfreak847]

Point proven.

 

Or else your just an immature jerk who refuses to accept that some people enjoy different things then him. I didn't even use sarcasm, for that matter. Learn to see beyond the end of your nose.

 

 

 

This is getting boring. Point proven.

 

See above.

 

 

 

Hey, guess what? Point proven.

 

Yes, because I didn't listen to you and suddenly being not-enjoying sarcasm, your 'point' was proven. Grow up.

 

 

 

Your reading skills, as surprising as it may be to you, are awful.

 

You: It's 20%

 

Me: (math stuff done): Actually, it's .54%...

 

You: Yeah well... I just made it up! It's intuition!

 

Me; Yeah, well... it's still wrong

 

You: I can't argue with that but I gotta think of something so... Your reading skills suck!

 

Me: Uhh.. Could you respond to my post?

 

You: Your reading skills suck!

 

Me: ... I just gave you the numbers to prove it wrong, do I need to go over them again?

 

You: Your reading skills suck!

 

Me: ...

 

You: Your reading skills suck!

[Romy]

Point proven.

 

Or else your just an immature jerk who refuses to accept that some people enjoy different things then him. I didn't even use sarcasm, for that matter. Learn to see beyond the end of your nose.

 

 

 

This is getting boring. Point proven.

 

See above.

 

 

 

Hey, guess what? Point proven.

 

Yes, because I didn't listen to you and suddenly being not-enjoying sarcasm, your 'point' was proven. Grow up.

 

 

 

Your reading skills, as surprising as it may be to you, are awful.

 

You: It's 20%

 

Me: (math stuff done): Actually, it's .54%...

 

You: Yeah well... I just made it up! It's intuition!

 

Me; Yeah, well... it's still wrong

 

You: I can't argue with that but I gotta think of something so... Your reading skills suck!

 

Me: Uhh.. Could you respond to my post?

 

You: Your reading skills suck!

 

Me: ... I just gave you the numbers to prove it wrong, do I need to go over them again?

 

You: Your reading skills suck!

 

Me: ...

 

You: Your reading skills suck!

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not going to respond to that all over again just read what I already had written, because you just seem to ignore all the imporatant things. And by the way this-

Grow up.

should be pointed at you. Good night.