Leylen

remember when amnesia

So based on this (^) i am a bot? I put my Public chat on the Friends only option for the specific reason to keep brainless [bleep]s (like you) from talking to me and over all just pissing me off for having a total lack of logic. Have you never, in all your days of playing, ever, ever, ever heard of someone that puts his Public chat of while he does an AFK skills (whils probably doing something else too) which would easily affect his response time? Whatadouche. If I'm trying to get a level fast before work or somthing I hate people being runescape police feeling the need to check that I'm there constantly, and really isn't a bot more likely to have "thank you oh supreme checker of my afk status for deeming to talk to me" coded in as an automatic response than a person is likely to say it?

I remember when I started playing in 1945 everything was perfect. Really though, it's all one game following a progression, it's all good in certain ways, I'd be so bored by now if it had never changed.

I've also gotten more effigies lately, although it's far too early to make any kind of developed, educated opinion. People need to give things like this more time before the flood of rants come in. We really need 100+ ROW drops from the same monster logged. Good Comment.

a ferocious ring in kuradal's dungeon increases your odds by 10% a zerker i increases your odds by around 5% Equip as required then. Simple. ROW is still better than anything else while just training and hoping to make slightly more wealth

More to the point, what else are you going to equip in your ring slot that gives you better odds?

Lol reading comprehension etc etc Also a funny video http://gawker.com/5716043/barney-frank-makes-a-fool-out-of-conservative-reporter-over-dont-ask-dont-tell I don't get how it is funny, maybe it's an inside joke for people who search for videos about men showering.

Loophole: an ambiguity (especially one in the text of a law or contract) that makes it possible to evade a difficulty or obligation DADT: Don't ask, don't tell (DADT) is the common term for the policy restricting the United States military from efforts to discover or reveal closeted gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members or applicants. Of couse now it's been repealed, you americans can force everyone out of the closet and throw it in their friends faces till they resent them, yay. :rolleyes:

Discriminatory policies are like that. They tend to work for most and not for some. Tell me how this is going to negatively affect anyone aside from the homophobic military members, please. And wouldn't you think that it would be better for the same homophobic soldiers to actually know who is gay? Wouldn't that make them feel safer knowing who they should avoid in the shower? Or is the real issue here that there is some sort of underlying hatred for gays among military members? It seems like the people who aren't on the front lines might have a better perspective on this than the soldiers that have had homophobia driven into them by their superiors that support DADT. Again if you read the results of the survey, over half of front line troops, especially marines, predicted problems arising from this. If you want to believe their all homophobes go for it, but the reality is they have to deal with more and more stupid PC nonsense every day, they'd rather just not think about it and get on with a difficult job. Hi. So I'm pretty much the resident homosexual of tip.it. And I'd have to say I find that premise is unfounded. And. Wait for it: I don't say that because I'm gay. I say that because I have many loved ones who risk their lives protecting this company (I live in a conservative family) with many people in the military. Some people like my brother, who is simply an Airforce electrician stationed in DC (but is moving to Germany) is as you stated "sitting on his ass." I will admit to that point. But I also have a great many loved ones in the military who are perfectly fine with it. Especially the ones saving our asses over in the middle east. There logic? If a man (or woman) wants to fight, loves to fight, and well, is good at it: LET THEM FIGHT. Now, as a gay man I do foresee one issue with it, which as I mentioned in the last page is making me slightly hesitant. If this falls through into disaster, as Leylen predicts it will, I fear it will set back the LGBT equality movement a bit. But besides that, I see nothing wrong with having more hunky gay dudes risking their lives and making America a great place to be. You're saying what the survey already told us, they don't give a damn what their co-workers are doing in their spare time, they just don't want to hear about it. Most of the gay soldiers won't even be coming out to their co-workers; Despite the lack of interest from either sexuality on this issue they kept forcing and forcing it through so that they could win a few points with their mostly unwilling extra special rainbow soldiers.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5964655/ns/politics/ Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Illinois and New Jersey have all gained republican senators with the recent hilarious/embarassing/train wreck of American top leadership over the last year or so. Also for every few dozen Administrive staff re-enlisting that got caught with their pants down on office time, hundreds of thousands of front line staff may be considering their re-enlistment options.

Can you please link me to the survey that said half predicted problems? I wonder if there was a question if they had problems with it... I'd be willing to guess that 95% of all troops don't care the sexual orientation of their peers, and that the half that predicted there would be problems know one of those 5% of homophobes... DADT inherently discriminated against gays, just like "separate but equal" inherently discriminated against minorities. If DADT was a private business's policy, I'd have more problem with a law against that than I do with Congress repealing the federal government's stance. http://www.mlive.com/opinion/muskegon/index.ssf/2010/12/david_kolb_do_ask_ill_tell_who.html Note that this is including non-front line staff, this article not mentioning how big the gap really was as it comes from a fairly liberal source, which I chose specifically to show that the dissent isn't able to be covered up even by those who would want to make everything bunny and rainbows. In answer to your frequently repeated argument "it's mean!!", I'll direct you to this article; http://techblogs.mit.edu/opinion/2010/12/dadt-repeal-will-weaken-our-military/

Discriminatory policies are like that. They tend to work for most and not for some. Tell me how this is going to negatively affect anyone aside from the homophobic military members, please. And wouldn't you think that it would be better for the same homophobic soldiers to actually know who is gay? Wouldn't that make them feel safer knowing who they should avoid in the shower? Or is the real issue here that there is some sort of underlying hatred for gays among military members? It seems like the people who aren't on the front lines might have a better perspective on this than the soldiers that have had homophobia driven into them by their superiors that support DADT. Again if you read the results of the survey, over half of front line troops, especially marines, predicted problems arising from this. If you want to believe their all homophobes go for it, but the reality is they have to deal with more and more stupid PC nonsense every day, they'd rather just not think about it and get on with a difficult job. Good for them. Let them predict all they want, but it's not going to change anything. And this is not "PC nonsense", this is blatant discrimination. "All men are created equal." Yeah, except for gays in the military. We don't want them. Just like we didn't want blacks or women either. How can a military upholding the constitution and statements such as "all men are created equal" not allow "all men" to protect the country they live in. The idiocy is truly beyond me. I don't see how asking someone not to talk about their sexual orientation whilst on the job affects any of these points? Also if they majority of front line troops would rather keep DADT, then the goverment does not have the consent of the goverened, Jefferson would surely protest that point?

Discriminatory policies are like that. They tend to work for most and not for some. Tell me how this is going to negatively affect anyone aside from the homophobic military members, please. And wouldn't you think that it would be better for the same homophobic soldiers to actually know who is gay? Wouldn't that make them feel safer knowing who they should avoid in the shower? Or is the real issue here that there is some sort of underlying hatred for gays among military members? It seems like the people who aren't on the front lines might have a better perspective on this than the soldiers that have had homophobia driven into them by their superiors that support DADT. Again if you read the results of the survey, over half of front line troops, especially marines, predicted problems arising from this. If you want to believe their all homophobes go for it, but the reality is they have to deal with more and more stupid PC nonsense every day, they'd rather just not think about it and get on with a difficult job.

Yes, it's been working great for the thousands of gay soldiers who've either been dismissed from the military for being gay or who live with harassment and abuse due to not being able to complain. If they followed DADT as instructed it wouldn't be a problem would it :rolleyes: Don't ask, don't tell. If they can't follow an instruction that simple they probably had no place in the military anyway.