Nippon

Here ye, here ye, I hereby declare and confirm that the sort of account hitherto regarded as pure to be defined as one that Was intentionally made for the purpose of having an advantage in combat against other players in Runescape Up to or exactly consists of the following skill levels in combat for P2P based PKing: 80 defence and under 95 prayer and under any mix of other combat related skills OR [*]Up to or exactly consists of the following skill levels in combat for F2P based PKing: 40 defence and under 44 prayer and under any mix of other combat related skills This broad definition is to be regarded as the only commonly acceptable category for all sorts of pures ranging from 1 defence pures to armor type pures (e.g. initiate pures, addy pures, rune pures, barrows pures) and from 1 prayer pures to prayer beasts (e.g. 31 prayer pures, 44 prayer pures, turmoil pures) and as such, used as reference when validating whether an account should be referred to as being pure or main. FAQ Q: My defence level is over 80, why am I not pure? A: Your defence level is such that it no longer provides you with stat requirement items that would enhance your performance in combat along with the higher skill level. If your combat level is based on ranged or magic, you may consider yourself a tank, otherwise your combat skill levels place you in the category of main. Q: This is ridiculous! Isn't 20-/10- defence the universally accepted definition of a pure account? A: A long, long time ago when you were still sucking your momma's nipples, any PK account that had combat stats giving it advantage over other players of the same level would be regarded as pure. For further information on these distant times and places you should take a look at this. As you may notice, being pure has ment different things at different periods in RS history. This has called for an evolution of the word pure from being synonymous with low defence and prayer to a collection of more complex elements. Q: Suck my peenor, my clan only takes 10- defence and we're the ONLY REAL PURE CLAN OUT THERE A: The times they are a-changin' Q: Will this end the discussion on defence in pure community? A: No. Q: A: Deadly. Q: Didn't the term pure originally mean an account with 1 defence? A: No. In PvP the term pure was originally used in reference to accounts with 1 prayer and magic, as magic used to raise cb level independently. As such, any arguments that regard the origins of the term pure as being related to defence are false.

Massers had 35 starting at sp hill, not 50+. We were also in 30- def gear because we were supposed to fight EOP. Was also us that cleared you afterwards at CA.

Gz on 7 years wewt :thumbsup:

Yet the MEDC countries are limiting globalization by protecting their own production in many fields. Both EU and US have significant agricultural subsidies that especially hurt the trade of many heavily agricultural LEDC economies. It is not at all impossible to imagine China and India setting similar subsidies in the future on their industry as the growth of GDP/capita brings wages and prices up. Globalization can easily be limited with such measures, so it is simply a question of whether it should be done or not. Which an increasing amount of people see as a viable solution to many problems. Especially in Europe xenophobia has been on the rise lately due to increasing amounts of immigrants from 3rd world countries, which has increased domestic crime and both social and economic costs. While the gap is because of the rich becoming richer in the absolute sense, it also means that the poor are becoming poorer in a relative sense. The amount of money you have is irrelevant, it is how much that money can buy you. As the rich gain a larger percentage of the overall capital, the poor also have less purchase power and become, in effect, poorer. That last sentence is not true. World Commission A FAIR GLOBALIZATION: CREATING OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL (2004) The poorest countries have not moved forward at all in past 100 years. The amount of world population living in absolute povery is expected to rise by 1 billion people by 2015. I'm not expressing an opinion on whether its right or wrong, it's simply a fact. The poorest countries in the world are only getting poorer and they are not expected to rise out of their poverty at the current rate. You are mistaken, globalization is the factor that has led to these results. Globalization has enabled the current economic growth, which is the reason for all our environmental problems. Globalization and the unfair rules of globalization is why many African countries are burdened under huge debts that they'll never be able to pay, effectively destroying all attempts to create real growth.

Since the industrial revolution in the past few centuries the world has become increasingly open. The advancement of technology has made the world a small place, where crossing continents is only a matter of hours and spreading information a matter of seconds. Throughout the 20th century the industrial countries have made efforts to remove obstacles for free trade and to create international agreements allowing the free movement of people and commodities. This trend has become known as globalization. Globalization has certainly made the allocation of resources more efficient, but simultaneously it has worrying effects on the environment and has further spreadened the gap between industrial and 3rd world countries. Critics say that globalization is why an increasing amount of the world population is doomed to poverty and famine and environmental issues such as pollution and loss of biodiversity have become an issue all around the world. Where do you stand on globalization? Are we headed in the right direction or have we already gone too far?

0 Agressor 0 still around I Sc1m1tar I saw a while ago Charles long gone Jack2004inet is a goner Soostrong has been seen around Then again, nobody lurking here could even know many of these people.

Lovely. Good job FI keep it up ;)

You, sir, know nothing of music.

ITT: ***** sucking *****

This will lead to your ruin... I see the brilliance in your plan CP :thumbsup:

So you got return flights from London, where are you flying to first? How long are you staying? Since your return flights are from London I suggest starting from south. Train is a relatively cheap and fast way to travel. I suggest getting an interrail pass for easier traveling http://www.eurailer.net/ So, a sensible way would be starting either from Italy or Spain. If you have plenty of time, checking out the old cities in Italy is definitely worth it for cultural value; Rome, Florence and the whole of Tuscany, Venice. After Italy your next train stop would be Nice in France. You can spend some time there and visit Monaco to see how the rich live in Europe. After that you'll be at Marseille. Another option is starting from Spain, possibly visiting the coast (Ibiza) and cities like Madrid and Barcelona. Either way you'll end up at Marseille. From there you could start making your way through France towards Paris. A couple of pit stops at smaller towns, wine tastings, and before you know it you'll be in Paris. Visit Louvre and whatever else you want to do in Paris from shopping to night clubs. Take a train towards Brussels and Amsterdam and spend whatever time you have left visiting A'Dam and other dutch cities with delightful coffee shops and infamous night clubs. London itself is worth checking out as well, so make sure you have a few days left when you head there. Live in hostels, hostels.com will help you. Weekends and holidays are often full, so make reservations early. As for your other destinations, Greece is quite far from your route unless you decide to go to East Europe, same goes for Prague. Portugal is a possibility if you start from around Spain, but I've heard it's pretty dull for young travellers. All the best big festivals are in northern Europe, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands... UK? Don't really remember what festivals are around August but google is your friend.

Rly sick remix. Also a longer version

Woot 5 years @@ I missed the trips cuz I was out of town :( Glad to see you did well, keep it up guys!

I heard your fights with CP but crashed but GJ i guess.

Vegetarian != vegan. Just so you don't make a fool out of yourself in the real life ;)

This. Though nothing more than I'd expect from this clan judging by past experience. Gratz on your win EOP.

Gz on losing less. Would be cool to get both clans' starting opts in the first post. Gratz anyway FOE.

I'm not saying that the US government did the 9/11 bombings or had anything to do with it. There are anti-american organizations working on every continent if not every country, certainly in every country US has terrorized for the past 60 years. I'm saying I see no reason why all other suspects should be dropped just because Faux News and CNN decide so, without any evidence, without any investigation. Then again, it's probably a waste of resources to try to find out who's guilty, suspects are too many, even to bomb to the ground. Instead it might be a good idea to investigate WHY people want to bomb your country to shet? If you don't have mirrors there I'd be happy to send you one. Which I said in multiple posts if you had bothered reading them.

That feel when the font is too small for optically challenged people :( Here lemme help you out: Gj both clans

Osama bin Laden is known for his honesty and virtue all around the world, but still the fact remains that he was a known terrorist that had a lot to gain from claiming the act as his doing; reputation, ticket to paradise and monetary gain to begin with. As such, considering that there is absolutely no other evidence against him, I see no reason to assume that he had anything to do with the whole event. "Shortly before the U.S. presidential election in 2004, in a taped statement, bin Laden publicly acknowledged al-Qaeda's involvement in the attacks on the U.S. and admitted his direct link to the attacks. He said that the attacks were carried out because "we are free...and want to regain freedom for our nation. As you undermine our security we undermine yours." Osama bin Laden says he had personally directed his followers to attack the World Trade Center. Another video obtained by Al Jazeera in September 2006 shows Osama bin Laden with Ramzi bin al-Shibh, as well as two hijackers, Hamza al-Ghamdi and Wail al-Shehri, as they make preparations for the attacks." Yet again, the video consists of material that can't be dated to any time close to the 9/11 attacks. It confirms that bin Laden did meet 2 of the hi-jackers, which is bound to happen when you work and train in the same terrorist organization. If bin Laden or any other party possessing this video material would want to publish it just to make a connection between bin Laden and the attacks, they could do so. It is also worth a mention that bin Laden first publicly denied his participation in the attacks, something that he had never done in his earlier statements. Makes me wonder how much he knew to begin with... did he not want to claim the honor or was the deed not his after all? Still, it's a possibility that bin Laden was the mastermind behind it all. Yet how often do we publicly demonize, hunt, and murder someone for a *possibility* in any civilized society, and celebrate afterwards?

Osama bin Laden is known for his honesty and virtue all around the world, but still the fact remains that he was a known terrorist that had a lot to gain from claiming the act as his doing; reputation, ticket to paradise and monetary gain to begin with. As such, considering that there is absolutely no other evidence against him, I see no reason to assume that he had anything to do with the whole event. I always listen and I always answer. If I've failed to notice your arguments in the past, it must have been accidental and I apologize.

Fake pic is fake. Long live our glorious leader!

... ... That's fine. Believe what you want it's your opinion. He was still the symbol that we wanted to get rid of, and now he's gone. Well that's something we can agree on. He was a necessary symbolic diversion when Iraq/Afghanistan were troublesome issues that needed to be dealt with effectively. Question is, who will replace him? Which symbol does the world need for fear and terror to prosper over freedom and justice, who can fill those rotten shoes? Fear ye now nations of the world! Thus hast thy challenger appeared!

I'm going to assume you're not American. If you had to deal with the 9/11 attacks then you would be celebrating just the same. It's a victory to us, and I'm sure most of us don't care what you think. This was personal and we're thrilled about it. You do understand that with a great likelihood mr. Bin Laden had nada to do with those horrible events? He was never even officially prosecuted for 9/11 because there wasn't enough evidence of his participation. Yet he was a wanted terrorist, one that could be thrown to the media so that people could direct their hatred towards something specific. Osama bin Laden was nothing, until you made him into something that he wasn't. Undoubtedly the world is a better place with him gone, but murdering someone without a trial or evidence is against some very basic human ethics. Sorry to be a kill-joy.