snowager286

Prostitution? O_o thats one of the most random things I've ever heard, and completely pointless, cybering has been around in RS since I played and back then they just used GP. Also, I don't see how its a "business scam" what happens in a scenario are two things, A) people who had NOT been paying the P2P game beforehand, start so essential jagex gets more players to pay B) people who had been paying start just buying using Ingame money. So elaborate on your "business scam" idea a little.

Now, I have a feeling that this will be somewhat controversial. However, give me a chance to explain where I'm coming from and see what you think. This system is fairly simple, you enable purchase of in game time cards. These in game time cards can be sold by the person who bought for real money for gold. Enabling the person who spent money to exchange his cash for GP, and the buyer to pay for his membership with GP, a perfectly mutual relationship. What would make this crazy system function? well, This system was tried with great success in EVE online in the form of "concord pilots licences" or PLEX cards. Such a system can establish a moderately stable GP <--> money exchange rate, which MIGHT do something to stabilize the RS economy. Additionally, it allows for F2P players who don't feel like spending their own money to still be able to enjoy the members part of the game. However, it is VITAL to understand that while such a system functions well in a game like EVE there is no telling how it would work in RS. Would such a system function in a game like Runescape? Is it even acceptable? Discuss. *Note: I feel that for such a system to work in any system it should not have a firmly established rate created by the game company. excepting maybe an initial base rate.

I always found company while doing endlessly boring grinding nice. I hated having no one there to talk to. Then again... Its better to be alone then to be with an [wagon] the way I see it.

I've heard that there is a massive gulf between the difficulty for the PC and the difficulty for the consoles. From my experience on playing it for the PC its is a VERY hard game. But I might just be no good at it.

I grabbed a statistic off this site as well: http://www.earthtraces.com/godsodds.shtml The perpetuation of any theory along these lines seems insane to me. I just wanted to share these. I'm obviously not convincing you, and you are unable to convince me. I'm stepping out now, hopefully on friendly terms with you all. Thanks for all the time you dedicated. To further his point I would like to point out that the enzymes required for any functioning being to emerge would take exceedingly long times to form naturally. One of these enzymes is one that is needed for chlorophyll and it would have taken half the earths lifespan(including the years it was inhospitable) it have formed.

Exactly! Agnosticism is the only 'logical' argument. To be honest, I'm not "sure" that God exists, but I live my life like he does, and I assume that he does as the world is hopless without that assumption( to me at least.) I don't need logical proof to believe in God. Oh and you should capitlize God, not out of respect, but God is still a proper noun. Even if you believe he is pure fiction. Shouldn't you be capitalizing He, as well? Just curious... I never capitalize god. Only... uh, when I'm mocking the idea. You are right I should be capitalizing he when referring to God. But, yes you should capitlize God, It IS a proper noun whether or not you believe in him or not. Unless you enjoy mauling the English language to make an ideological point.

Exactly! Agnosticism is the only 'logical' argument. To be honest, I'm not "sure" that God exists, but I live my life like he does, and I assume that he does as the world is hopless without that assumption( to me at least.) I don't need logical proof to believe in God. Oh and you should capitlize God, not out of respect, but God is still a proper noun. Even if you believe he is pure fiction.

Well, if you agree that everything has to have a cause for it. Then you claim that the universe had to have been created by something. It then follows that everything needs to be caused, so that cause needs to have a cause. Then that cause needs a cause, ad infinitum. It's just infinite regression. If you argue that God isn't a part of this phenomenon, and doesn't need a cause, then that's special pleading, and destroys your argument that everything needs a cause. We could then easily argue that the Universe or the Big Bang or whatever didn't need a cause, it created itself or some other hogwash. Exactly, why should their ever be an end? The goal of science is to explain everything. Then it should be science's goal to explain why the universe exists. 'because' is not an acceptable answer from a scientist. The whole point of my argument is that I'm arguing from a scientific point of view,(or at least what I've been lead to believe a scientific view is) that science can explain everything. Because I don't feel that everything needs to proof I could potentially agree with you. But, if you hold that what science tells us is absolutely true, and that it's fundamental ideals are also true. Then wouldn't you be contradicting yourself.

Canada has a dictator? I thought Canada was just the 51st state. :shock: Honestly, if we wanted oil we would have actually... I don't know, taken it.

nah, I'd just use linux. Then we would have to figure our if we could create rocks we couldn't lift :uhh:

I get what your saying. But, everything else seems to have a reasonable explanation as to why it happened. We've found a source for everything.except for one thing, the universe and it's base components. We've found a reason for why most things are the way they are. Why should we think that the universe is somehow exempt from this? Why shouldn't the universe have an explicit reason to have these base components?

It is a logical thing to do. Only a fool or an ideologue would do otherwise. Props to Bush :thumbsup:

Maybe when you reposted the link you should of pulled some main points from it. Otherwise we could all just post links and not discuss anything. Well hell I'll copy and paste stuff if you really want. Maybe later though. Yeah I should have posted some made points, but still no reason to freak out over it and call me insecure and the like. Your right, but, your initial reaction should have been different and less defensive. You would have come off in a much better light. Also, Ginger was a little to aggressive, and inspired the defensive response from Dangeresque.

Saved? Nahh. You just turned all population into no-life supernerds. :ohnoes: Curse you! You uncovered my plot! :evil: But, the sticky part of my plan comes when we have to figure out a way to A) power the computer B) maintain the computer. and C) protect the computer. Personally I think most of those could be solved simply enough.

Fine I will admit that I misread your sentence, but, it was somewhat ambiguously worded. In light of that I realize what you meant to say and I understand how you managed to get upset at the other person. However, I would like to point that he might have also misinterpreted your statement. On a more annoyed note, why one earth did you say you wanted a civil discourse if you planned on becoming uncivil? You could clearly tell that I had misinterpreted your post and that I was being rude because I thought what you said was utter nonsense. Despite this, I did not truly respond in a kind manner,etc etc. You get the point? It was a misunderstanding. Hold on, are you trying to tell me that it is logical for something to exist for no reason? That It is logical for everything but the universe to have a beginning and an end? It seems somewhat silly to me. Although it is not beyond comprehension I would like to think that if science is the sole source of truth about our universe, then it would at least be able to explain why the universe even exists.