Tip.It Times - 25th September 2011

[Ts_Stormrage]

Biyaunte. Please allow me to clarify. Monotheistic tradition suggests not only the Christian God (and their numerous derivatives), but also that of Judaism and Islam, both of which are also sizable contenders. According to numerous census data released (though I admit the data on children and young adults is lacking somewhat), that does indeed seem to be majority insofar as individuals who declare themselves as religious - only 15% of the population in the United States and 18% (18-47%, depending on what poll you're looking at) of the population in Europe, for instance, declare themselves as a part of a non-religious group.

Christianity, Judaism and Islam are all the same Abrahamic religion (Abraham is the guy that was asked by the supposed creator of the universe to sacrifice his son)... Just that Judaism 2.0 has had a few books added to it and some rewritten and renamed it the Bible... 3.0 is Islam yet has had similar changes...

 

Btw take those percentages with a huge grain of salt... While many people do check the box when asked if they believe in a god, those checks quickly become crosses when you go into detail and ask those same people about specific things. The Quran for example states that salt and fresh water do not mix, only a tiny amount of muslims will actually say that they believe that... Many religious people come down in the category that "there must be SOMETHING out there.., right?" ...

 

EDIT: What Missingno said tbh :) (didn't read that far down when I wrote this)

 

PS: Always fun to debate religion vs atheism :) sadly this is not the thread for it...

[gompo]

 

 

Sorry but youve not read my comments on the issue here properly. Youre focussing on just the disabilities and that only RS is involved. That is quite incorrect.

 

i think we both may be on different levels as well.

 

i wanted to try to explain kinda what rush said in their song FREEWILL "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice"

 

while that line alone may not readily show what i want it to, it reminds me that even atheists who chose not to believe there is anything to worship they still have a belief. while they may not believe they worship anything, they do usually worship at the altar of non-belief.

 

we all have our own beliefs. things that others might find silly or unfounded, but do the beliefs of those silly people have any less validness than anyone elses?

 

it seems that in all areas of life there are people who are admired, many worshiped in ways that may not readily be seen. sports stars with images on cards that are handled with utmost care. leaders, who people actually bow to for no other reason than position of birth or the majority vote. korean professionals. playboy magazine..... i could go on.

 

just because someone worships a "top player" in runescape why is that wrong? who says it is? you? do your beliefs and thoughts make you somehow better? i do not know, you really may be better, maybe i should worship you?.... at least till someone better comes along.

 

i have not tried to make this a personal attack, honestly, i kinda like you (in a purely non-worshiping way) it just seems that since you find it asinine for people to "worship" or give "reverence" to players in RS, that your opinion is all that matters. i am sorry but it isnt.

 

personalty, i could give a spit what anyone thinks of me and my RS playing, as in all honesty, most people i meet on RS are rude and all to full of themselves even without others "worshiping" them. my point is, as humans, we all have opinions and we all know what they say about opinions..... i will just say we all spew the same mess out, it may all look different and unique, but in the end, it all smells the same. so remember, my ideas of what is worth reverence and worship dont stink any less than yours does.

 

it really doesnt hurt me or you, if someone sets up candles on an altar and lays some cheese balls and orange soda out in honor of (insert name) the greatest RS player of all time and never will, unless, of course they think we should do it too and decides to threaten us with harm till we do.... till then they can sit in their undies in their dark little room and worship whomever RS gawds they wish.

 

thanks,

gompo

 

I will choose a path that's clear, I will choose freewill :thumbsup:

 

as a side....

 

 

 

-------------

@Ts_Stormrage

 

*snip*

 

 

Christianity, Judaism and Islam are all the same Abrahamic religion (Abraham is the guy that was asked by the supposed creator of the universe to sacrifice his son)... Just that Judaism 2.0 has had a few books added to it and some rewritten and renamed it the Bible... 3.0 is Islam yet has had similar changes...

*snip*

 

first.... are you a believer of the "supposed" big bang?

 

second...... 1.0 was started around 6,000 years ago, 2.0 was around 2,000 years ago, 3.0 was around 1.400 years ago, just last week, the possibility of exceeding the speed of light was announced. will we ever really know if the "big bang" was anything more than a intelligent being from sometime in our quantum future..... snapping its fingers? respect others beliefs as much as you would hope they respect yours, 2.0 Matt 7, 1-5

 

after all, what exactly do you lose? :pray:

 

:evil:

[Alg]

PS: Always fun to debate religion vs atheism :) sadly this is not the thread for it...

Wasn't trying to debate it, just clearing up some things about it. Whether they're true or not, they affect our culture, especially the Abrahamic religions here in the Western hemisphere. You can appreciate all kinds of fiction a lot more if you know when an author's bringing in a reference or symbol from a religion or a legend. </IBstudent>

 

It would be like going into a fantasy medium without knowing Tolkien. You don't have to have read or liked it, but it helps to have a basic knowledge of it, because it's going to show up a lot.

 

That said, I did find Croce's delivery a bit heavy handed :razz:

[Crossed_Body]

Wasn't trying to debate it, just clearing up some things about it. Whether they're true or not, they affect our culture, especially the Abrahamic religions here in the Western hemisphere. You can appreciate all kinds of fiction a lot more if you know when an author's bringing in a reference or symbol from a religion or a legend. </IBstudent>

 

It would be like going into a fantasy medium without knowing Tolkien. You don't have to have read or liked it, but it helps to have a basic knowledge of it, because it's going to show up a lot.

 

That said, I did find Croce's delivery a bit heavy handed :razz:

I've actually grown tired of tolkienesque fantasy mediums.

[Alg]

I've actually grown tired of tolkienesque fantasy mediums.

As I've grown tired of random/irrelevant references to religions in fiction, but authors aren't going to stop adding them :razz:

[Ts_Stormrage]

@Ts_Stormrage

 

*snip*

 

 

Christianity, Judaism and Islam are all the same Abrahamic religion (Abraham is the guy that was asked by the supposed creator of the universe to sacrifice his son)... Just that Judaism 2.0 has had a few books added to it and some rewritten and renamed it the Bible... 3.0 is Islam yet has had similar changes...

*snip*

 

first.... are you a believer of the "supposed" big bang?

 

second...... 1.0 was started around 6,000 years ago, 2.0 was around 2,000 years ago, 3.0 was around 1.400 years ago, just last week, the possibility of exceeding the speed of light was announced. will we ever really know if the "big bang" was anything more than a intelligent being from sometime in our quantum future..... snapping its fingers? respect others beliefs as much as you would hope they respect yours, 2.0 Matt 7, 1-5

 

after all, what exactly do you lose? :pray:

 

:evil:

First of all, you are mistaken. I "believe" in the big bang just as much as I "believe" I am putting my fingers rapidly on a keyboard atm, or that the air I breathe is mostly nitrogen and oxygen... There is nothing supposed about the big bang (it wasn't even a 'bang'), as evidence is overwhelmingly available for this... The big bang as it is named (could've also been called Timmy's Giant Fart for that matter) is the rapid expansion of the universe we occupy and is still happening... We simply cannot look beyond the horizon of when the universe started, and maybe we never can (afterall, there can be no "before" if time itself didn't exist)... But 14 billion years of small natural steps in the evolution of this universe does nowhere suggest that at the beginning of it should be a supernatural creator.

 

Even if there was a creator, coming from another universe or another dimension, it will not be one that is above the laws of the natural world that it occupies...

 

One thing I know for certain though... The jealous and cruel psychopathic "god" that is described in the holy books of all Abrahamic religions is NOT this creator...

 

We are the dominant species that has the self-aware capabilities to understand itself and its surrounding natural world who happen to occupy a portion of one insignificant blip of a planet in one uninteresting and completely unremarkable solar system which exists amongst many hundreds of millions of stars that make up one of hundreds of billions of galaxies...

 

No creator of a universe, where if you were to be dropped butt-nekkid 99.9999999(...)999999% of all possible locations you'd instantly die, made this universe for us... So why is such a creator taken a special interest in us? Moreover, why must we love, worship and obey everything he "says" (he seems to only talk to a handful of people and then only when nobody else is around)? If he is the perfect being, why did he then make us imperfect, so that we have to be shameful for our imperfection and have to kneel because we are not everything that we cannot be?

 

 

Everyone is entitled to believe whatever they want, but I am also entitled to tell people that what they believe is stupid if it's proven to be stupid...

I can refer back to my salt- and freshwater example from the quran here again, but all books are rife with these extremely stupid "teachings" that people still believe... THIS is why I know with enough certainty that I would bet my entire eternal afterlife in hell (should I be wrong) that god as found in the abrahamic religions does not exist...

[Crossed_Body]

will we ever really know if the "big bang" was anything more than a intelligent being from sometime in our quantum future..... snapping its fingers?

There is no evidence or indication that the big bang was created something inteligent, you're just shoehorning God in when there's no need to, and that's not how reason and logic works.

[Ts_Stormrage]

^ 'god of the gaps' is a futile argument for you too, I see :D

[gompo]

 

@Ts_Stormrage

 

*snip*

 

 

... THIS is why I know with enough certainty that I would bet my entire eternal afterlife in hell (should I be wrong) that god as found in the abrahamic religions does not exist...

 

sooooo. which gawd do you follow?? gertjarrs?

 

unless i am mistaken from that line, it is just the "abrahamic religions" you have a problem with?

 

it wasnt so long ago that breaking the sound barrier was impossible. nor so long ago that flight was. or that the idea that the earth was flat was known to be true. Pluto used to be a planet.

 

the so called "abrahamic religions" have many things in them that are very useful (as well as many beliefs and "archaic" systems do), just like a science book from 50 years ago would. does a few mistakes (maybe misunderstood or even typos) make either wholly useless?

 

i will admit i am not the smartest branch on the tree, but from what i understand is the universe is made of matter (all sorts) and that matter can not just appear. its form changes but matter can not become something from nothing. i also understand the universe is overwhelmingly large, but we still seem to only accept that it is only the "observable" universe. there are extents of our knowledge and to say there is no gawd is to say you know everything..... making you a gawd in your own right. but as you (or anyone) cant know everything, does that make you non-existent?

 

we all know what is real only to what we know, at that time and from our POV. every day something new is discovered. quantum theory, chaos theory, theory of everything are all.... theories. yet they get more respect than the theory of intelligent design. why is that?

 

i am not a man of faith. i hardly have faith that i will wake up in the morning, let alone do i have faith there is not a higher intelligence controlling our universe as a science experiment. i do have faith that there are things i will never understand. does that make me and my "beliefs" any less "stupid" than yours?

 

i have heard that Timmy's Giant Fart might not be expanding anymore but collapsing, which is correct? the Fart hasnt been proven anymore that my quantum chaotic future snap of the fingers. all the proof that i have that you were "putting my fingers rapidly on a keyboard atm" is your saying you were, does that make it true? could the air i am breathing be mostly oxygen and nitrogen rather than " nitrogen and oxygen"?

 

sure i may be stupid for admitting that we may never know all there is to know about everything that is to know. maybe i take to heart the old saying "everything is relative" and that while there may be some proof for what is currently known, does that make it the final truth? IDK, remember my thoughts and understandings are stupid..... wait, maybe your thoughts and ideas are stupid.... i am so darn confused now.

 

always remember the blind men and the elephant.

 

as you said....

 

"We are the dominant species that has the self-aware capabilities to understand itself and its surrounding natural world who happen to occupy a portion of one insignificant blip of a planet in one uninteresting and completely unremarkable solar system which exists amongst many hundreds of millions of stars that make up one of hundreds of billions of galaxies..."

 

i wonder which part of the elephant that your hand is on.

 

thanks,

gompo

[Alg]

This isn't the thread for this.

[Ts_Stormrage]

True, but like I said... I love eduiating religious people :P

 

"it wasnt so long ago that breaking the sound barrier was impossible. nor so long ago that flight was. or that the idea that the earth was flat was known to be true. Pluto used to be a planet."

 

 

-Sound barrier was always possible to break... This arguement shows your narrowmindedness as we ALWAYS have known that light travels faster than sound :)

-Flight was also possible, even for man, but we simply lacked a proper source of power (DaVinci's drawings anyone?)

-Since the days of Aristotle we've actually managed to prove and calculate that the earth was round, and within a few hundred kilometers, even managed to calculate how big the earth was... Simply by measuring the length of your shadow in 2 different locations (say Constantinopel and Alexandria?) at the exact same time gives you 2 different angles with a known distance between them :) On top of that, sailors also saw a curved horizon...

-Pluto used to be a planet? Just because it has less charachteristics of a planet and more of that of a comet (a muddy iceball that largely vaporizes when its orbit gets close to the sun) and we decided to put it in the PROPER category doesn't mean there have been changes made in the things we know to be true... Pluto ALWAYS was a dwarf-planet, part of the Oort-cloud, just as Ceres is part of the Asteroid-belt, but we just classified it differently...

 

 

"the so called "abrahamic religions" have many things in them that are very useful (as well as many beliefs and "archaic" systems do), just like a science book from 50 years ago would. does a few mistakes (maybe misunderstood or even typos) make either wholly useless?"

 

 

The problem is that these books are NOT science books, and are not from 50 years ago (which would still be well after Einstein's theories), yet they claim absolute truth, and worse, absolute morality...

 

 

"i will admit i am not the smartest branch on the tree, but from what i understand is the universe is made of matter (all sorts) and that matter can not just appear. its form changes but matter can not become something from nothing. i also understand the universe is overwhelmingly large, but we still seem to only accept that it is only the "observable" universe. there are extents of our knowledge and to say there is no gawd is to say you know everything..... making you a gawd in your own right. but as you (or anyone) cant know everything, does that make you non-existent?"

 

 

I said the gods that were dreamt up to explain all the tings we don't yet know (that is from Ra, Zeus, Buddah, Odin, Jahweh... the lot) do not exist... But god, by definition, is a supernatural being, and therefor if existed allowing it to roam in and outside the laws of nature... But when this super-natural being moves into the natural world and interacts with it (i.e. talking to people), this interaction is one that can be scientifically quantified and measured...

 

Also, matter and energy are different states of the same thing, matter IS energy... All this matter existed in the very tiniest fraction of a infinitessimal small point at the very beginning of time... A spot where all the matter (and energy) of the universe was condensed into a single point... The first few thousands of years the universe was far too hot for the energy to condense into the particles that make up the protons and electrons...

 

Back to your point: If god exists it must either be a natural being or a supernatural one... If it is a natural being, it cannot be a god because it cannot overcome the usual paradoxes that go with it (can he make a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it, etc)... If this being is supernatural it means that, whatever the natural world encompasses, this god is not (see earlier reference)...

 

Believing in the supernatural god is exactly like believing in ghosts... When asked, most people will tell you that a ghost weighs nothing at all... But if that was true, then it has no mass and therefor no intertia... Nor would it be bound to the earth by gravity, and therefor, if you saw one, it'd fly off in the distance at hundreds of miles per second... It's like the old movies; if ghosts could walk through walls, why don't they sink through the floor..?

 

 

"we all know what is real only to what we know, at that time and from our POV. every day something new is discovered. quantum theory, chaos theory, theory of everything are all.... theories. yet they get more respect than the theory of intelligent design. why is that?"

 

 

Because there is evidence for these theories... Btw the theories that you mentioned are just as valid as the LAW of gravity and LAWS of thermodynamics... We just called them theories (again just ba naming issue)...

I can make up a theory of the invisible treemunching hippogriff and write down as many arguments as I can think of to make that theory work... But unless you can test it and back it up with evidence, it will not get any respect, let alone any acceptance in the scientific community...

 

The Intelligent Design theory is wrong because we are NOT designed intelligently... We breath eat drink and talk all through the same hole, making sure that thousands of people choke to death every year... Dolphins and some whale species dont have this problem, so it doesnt even require a supernatural intervention of sorts to have made this happen... (mind you this is but one example of why we are not designed intelligently)...

 

 

"i am not a man of faith. i hardly have faith that i will wake up in the morning, let alone do i have faith there is not a higher intelligence controlling our universe as a science experiment. i do have faith that there are things i will never understand. does that make me and my "beliefs" any less "stupid" than yours?"

 

 

It makes them uneducated, first... Second, It makes them stupid if you don't go out and try to better your understanding of them (just ask the question of "why is this the way it is" more often) and still hold them to be true... "I don't know, but I'll try to find out even if I fail at that." > "I'm not sure, but I'll assume this to be true cuz someone said soemthing like it."

Third, and this is the case with religion (all of them, not just the abrahamic ones), if you take these assumptions and teach others force others to know and accept them under threat of eternal torture or promise of eternal bliss (heaven and hell), it is downright dangerous...

 

 

"i have heard that Timmy's Giant Fart might not be expanding anymore but collapsing, which is correct? the Fart hasnt been proven anymore that my quantum chaotic future snap of the fingers. all the proof that i have that you were "putting my fingers rapidly on a keyboard atm" is your saying you were, does that make it true? could the air i am breathing be mostly oxygen and nitrogen rather than " nitrogen and oxygen"?"

 

 

The universe is expanding AND it's speeding up (we measured this from the speed that galaxies are moving away from us)... We don't know why this is, but all the gravity of all the things in the universe isn't going to be enough to slow it down, which will make our universe eventually "die" in what's been called the Heat Death...

 

Hand on keyboard is true... I have seen myself doing it, but even YOU can determine that, by reading my replies to your questions, i have indeed been typing...

As for the composition of the air you breath, we have invented a techniques called gas chromatography and spectrography that tells you what is exactly in the sample of air you're measuring...

 

 

"sure i may be stupid for admitting that we may never know all there is to know about everything that is to know. maybe i take to heart the old saying "everything is relative" and that while there may be some proof for what is currently known, does that make it the final truth? IDK, remember my thoughts and understandings are stupid..... wait, maybe your thoughts and ideas are stupid.... i am so darn confused now."

 

 

We have yet to determine what accounts for 85% of the gravity of the universe we measured, and 94% of all energy... We simply do not know how to account for these yet... So to claim we know everything is a big mistake... But even though science is adaptable, and obviously incomplete, the things that we DO know, are things we are certain about... We didn't throw out Newton's laws of gravity when Einstein gave us his theories of relativity, but found that the latter encompassed the former...

 

 

And you'll have to explain the elephant reference for me there as I've not heard of it...

 

Hope this all helped...

[firebird308]

And you'll have to explain the elephant reference for me there as I've not heard of it...

 

Hope this all helped...

 

He's referring to a story in which three blind men all touched a part of an elephant and say what they thought they were touching. I think one guy thought the trunk was a snake, I don't remember what the other guys thought.

[Crossed_Body]

He's referring to a story in which three blind men all touched a part of an elephant and say what they thought they were touching. I think one guy thought the trunk was a snake, I don't remember what the other guys thought.

Good thing I'm not blind, might have gotten trampled by an elephant if I grabbed the wrong parts.

 

 

^ 'god of the gaps' is a futile argument for you too, I see :D

Well, there's a reason why they call it a fallacy.

[pulli23]

 

oh my, productivity to improve society in their way??? :wall:

 

what is your determination as to what is "productive"? improvement of mankind? improvement of the world? whos society and just who decides what is "productive" for it???

 

i tend to think playing RS is productive and improves society,..... at least for me it does. :P

 

I hope you are making a joke here... Or otherwise I hope you're still a child and need to grow up a little bit. The argument you fired at me here is a non argument, it is like those republicans who refuse to believe there is increased global warming because it doesn't fit their agenda.. And then say "but we aren't completely certain". - You can never be, and just like that you can never describe "society" or "improvement" everyone knows what it is.

 

But really if you ultimate goal is to play runescape, and you believe you help others with that. Be my guest. I just hope you are trolling me and will know what is important once you have to make a decision.

[Cyber_soul10]

hate articles that use such complex english :S (article 1), big part of runescape community doesn't speak english as primal language, so it's very hard to read (even if you understand what those words mean). That ruins even the best articles.

[Assume Nothing]

I partly agree with that - if the referred term is difficult to understand for the sake of using a different word, then it ought to be substituted. However, if it's the only effective way to convey the magnitude and the gravity of a situation, or only word/phrase pertinent to the particular context, then by no means should it be substituted for anything lesser.

 

A good vocabulary could bring out and enhance any article. An overly complex vocabulary can obscure it.

[Alg]

A good vocabulary could bring out and enhance any article. An overly complex vocabulary can obscure it.

This. Especially since these are usually editorials, the author has to be sure that their thoughts come across clearly and in a way that is easy to understand.

[Kimberly]

A good vocabulary could bring out and enhance any article. An overly complex vocabulary can obscure it.

 

Purple prose is rampant in both bad books and the internet.

[Crocefisso]

hate articles that use such complex english :S (article 1), big part of runescape community doesn't speak english as primal language, so it's very hard to read (even if you understand what those words mean). That ruins even the best articles.

I'm very sorry for this, it's not my intention; my job requires me to use specialist and advanced vocabulary all the time, and it does spill over into my Times articles without my noticing. In future, I'll try to make sure my articles are more accessible for illegal aliens (only joking :mrgreen: )

 

In response to Kimberley's point, though I agree with you to an extent, the internet has also given rise to far more of the polar opposite to purple prose - terribly simplistic prose that is dry, uninteresting, and dull. Similarly, because purple prose is a term that is best applied to fiction, there will be relatively little in the Times.

 

 

Edit: Geekguy, my regrets that I've not had the time to respond to your post as I'd hoped. It's just too long for me to be able to compose a proper reply in the time limitations I have. However, I will say this:

 

I agree with most of what you're saying, and some of these things are flaws in the article. I will, however, point out some key areas in which I disagree.

 

I would argue that, even if one is aiming for the top levels in RS with the sole aim of feeling self-fulfilled, this trait is inherently egotistical. Although it is not extrovert egoism in the sense of boastfulness and other such traits, it is a more narcissistic approach. The act of reaching 99 in every skill is such a huge time investment, and requires so much patience, that it is literally impossible to do achieve this end by simply 'enjoying skilling'. Instead, it can only be done out of a desire to prove something to one's self, and though you're right that it is not the most scientific or accurate of indicators of a personality trait, nevertheless you must surely concur that such determined skilling is indicative of at least an abnormal degree of pathological self-absoprtion.

 

As for those right at the top, who continue to skill just for the sake of XP and staying there, there can be no doubt in my mind that they have definite personality disorders in the vein of those I've mentioned.

 

Sorry my response could not be longer and more comprehensive.

[RU_Insane]

hate articles that use such complex english :S (article 1), big part of runescape community doesn't speak english as primal language, so it's very hard to read (even if you understand what those words mean). That ruins even the best articles.

I'm very sorry for this, it's not my intention; my job requires me to use specialist and advanced vocabulary all the time, and it does spill over into my Times articles without my noticing. In future, I'll try to make sure my articles are more accessible for illegal aliens (only joking :mrgreen: )

 

In response to Kimberley's point, though I agree with you to an extent, the internet has also given rise to far more of the polar opposite to purple prose - terribly simplistic prose that is dry, uninteresting, and dull. Similarly, because purple prose is a term that is best applied to fiction, there will be relatively little in the Times.

 

 

Edit: Geekguy, my regrets that I've not had the time to respond to your post as I'd hoped. It's just too long for me to be able to compose a proper reply in the time limitations I have. However, I will say this:

 

I agree with most of what you're saying, and some of these things are flaws in the article. I will, however, point out some key areas in which I disagree.

 

I would argue that, even if one is aiming for the top levels in RS with the sole aim of feeling self-fulfilled, this trait is inherently egotistical. Although it is not extrovert egoism in the sense of boastfulness and other such traits, it is a more narcissistic approach. The act of reaching 99 in every skill is such a huge time investment, and requires so much patience, that it is literally impossible to do achieve this end by simply 'enjoying skilling'. Instead, it can only be done out of a desire to prove something to one's self, and though you're right that it is not the most scientific or accurate of indicators of a personality trait, nevertheless you must surely concur that such determined skilling is indicative of at least an abnormal degree of pathological self-absoprtion.

 

As for those right at the top, who continue to skill just for the sake of XP and staying there, there can be no doubt in my mind that they have definite personality disorders in the vein of those I've mentioned.

 

Sorry my response could not be longer and more comprehensive.

 

That's fine. I have time restraints as well. >.<

 

I agree. My perspective on this issue is that 99 is usually attained with that goal in mind, as opposed to nonchalantly gaining levels out of enjoyment. Because one actually aims to achieve this level, skilling in no longer played solely for enjoyment, but in a scheduled, ordered manner, conforming to the player's individual time constraints, and the most appropriate methods of gaining experience. That is, skilling with a goal in mind is usually done efficiently as opposed to inefficiently, if we compare those two scenarios. I agree it's gained in order to prove something to oneself, and indeed, who doesn't enjoy indulging in a bit of narcissism (which I'd also argue is healthy to indulge in, in small amounts).

 

Maybe I'm a bit biased, but I have a friend, who's level 122 now, but back when he was level 97, he was skilling for his first 99, which was 99 woodcutting. He skilled for about eight hours each day for most of the week. That's certainly dedication. I think he skilled from 80-99 woodcutting, and it took about 1/2 weeks - 2 weeks. Point is, you don't skill for that long unless you're feel you have something to prove to yourself, and hence validate. I think, at the end of the day, achieving a 99 skill is either more towards harmless (maybe even healthy?) narcissism, or a sign of something more problematic. I can see why someone would do it, but it can potentially be harmful, in my opinion, if the time for it isn't carefully managed.

 

That's when the problem (which as a whole, is outside of this scope) needs to be addressed.

[Guest jrhairychest]

 

just because someone worships a "top player" in runescape why is that wrong? who says it is? you? do your beliefs and thoughts make you somehow better? i do not know, you really may be better, maybe i should worship you?.... at least till someone better comes along.

 

i have not tried to make this a personal attack, honestly, i kinda like you (in a purely non-worshiping way) it just seems that since you find it asinine for people to "worship" or give "reverence" to players in RS, that your opinion is all that matters. i am sorry but it isnt.

 

personalty, i could give a spit what anyone thinks of me and my RS playing, as in all honesty, most people i meet on RS are rude and all to full of themselves even without others "worshiping" them. my point is, as humans, we all have opinions and we all know what they say about opinions..... i will just say we all spew the same mess out, it may all look different and unique, but in the end, it all smells the same. so remember, my ideas of what is worth reverence and worship dont stink any less than yours does.

 

it really doesnt hurt me or you, if someone sets up candles on an altar and lays some cheese balls and orange soda out in honor of (insert name) the greatest RS player of all time and never will, unless, of course they think we should do it too and decides to threaten us with harm till we do.... till then they can sit in their undies in their dark little room and worship whomever RS gawds they wish.

 

thanks,

gompo

 

I will choose a path that's clear, I will choose freewill :thumbsup:

 

as a side....

Still think we're going in circles here but I'll cover these points. It's up to the individual if they want to hero-worship or not. I choose not for the reasons outlined. This game is about being time-served. Take yourself - Your stats are pretty high and you've a reasonably high rank. By your admission you spend a lot of time on RS (addiction I think you said). Compare that to your stats if you played around 2 hours per day. They'd be lower. Does that make you a worse player? No. Does someone who is ranked, lets say, 250 make them a better player than you? No , they've just put more time into the game. It's that simple. So, if someone wants to hero worship the top'x' then that's fine, but I don't. I haven't stated anywhere that everyone should conform to this idea so not sure where you're going with that.

 

The 'Kinda like you' statement is original because everyone else doesn't but thanks :grin:

 

 

 

A good vocabulary could bring out and enhance any article. An overly complex vocabulary can obscure it.

This. Especially since these are usually editorials, the author has to be sure that their thoughts come across clearly and in a way that is easy to understand.

 

Shouldn't this be sorted out by the editorial panels?

[Crocefisso]

It would seem, Geek, that we've come to a consensus. :thumbup:

[Crossed_Body]

Does that make you a worse player? No. Does someone who is ranked, lets say, 250 make them a better player than you?

How do you define a player's worth? You'll have to give out your definition, because not everybody has the same definition of what makes a player "good" or "bad".

[RU_Insane]

It would seem, Geek, that we've come to a consensus. :thumbup:

 

Yeah. :P

[Crocefisso]

Does that make you a worse player? No. Does someone who is ranked, lets say, 250 make them a better player than you?

How do you define a player's worth? You'll have to give out your definition, because not everybody has the same definition of what makes a player "good" or "bad".

Stop being a pedant and start trying to contribute to discussions once in a while.