Jump to content
Sal's RuneScape Forum


Forum Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5 Relatively Unknown

About Sajoh

  • Rank

About My Character

  • OldSchool RS Name
  • RuneScape Status
  • RuneScape Version
    OldSchool '07
  • RuneScape God
    Don't Care
  • Favourite Skill
  • Combat Type
  • Combat Level
  • Overall Skill Level

Recent Profile Visitors

493 profile views
  1. I have just been looking up Japan's national debt. 12.04 trillion US dollars at this point?
  2. I disagreed with the idea that most political figures should be becoming villainized in people's minds in the first place. Party lines are a fairly invisible thing when you get down to the practicalities of the job, at least in the UK, most of the time. In New Zealand the partisan gap is all for show. Perhaps this is different in the US, which is far more partisan, but really - what goes on behind closed doors and during sitting time in a parliament is not at all what the media portrays. Have you heard of MMP, or even STV? They're better than the American system. When government works, I goddamn love it. A symbolic head of state, like a Royal Family, is maybe, for me, going to be divisive and villainized because; they only serve their own countries' values, unlike a government - look at the British Royal Family - they selfishly represent their own culture and own culture directly, and follow an outdated model on how a country should behave. People don't seem to see past their immediate expectation of these figures, governmental or symbolic. Not that I am saying it is true of you, but it certainly is true of people, perhaps the brits you know. … sometimes I despise the idea that the world is divided into countries in the first place, and follow more the idea that the world is a sea of individuals and groups who require culture mixing as soon as possible. Listen to this song, maybe. Morph your mind around the concepts. It's a bit sarcastic, but give it a chance. I'm waiting to hear your opinion. Remember it is based on a real quote from a real US Congressman when they visited New Zealand in the nineties. You've got to be trying to express something constructive - you were trying to do that, and you did. Kudos. What I would like to point out here is that I under the context of this discussion we should be aiming to put forth the opinion representing the best possible scenario we would like to see. We do agree here about the good of the lack of any monarchy in the United States.
  3. You have got to be joking here. You are?? Plenty (but not all) of western political leaders are individually enigmatic, varied and hardworking, to be neither loved nor hated unless they are extremely convex to the view of an individual. Perhaps your type of viewpoint is a healthy dose of reality on how these things cannot be changed in the context of our own minor influence, I guess, but to me, your post was kind of contradictory, and not very inspiring; sorry. In the film True Stories, a preacher says "we can build a nation, inside a nation, right where we are".
  4. Sajoh


    Mephisto200 was born this day in 1993. Looking at their profile reveals they have thousands of posts here, but have not visited since 2010. Mephisto is a great boss character in Diablo 2 by the way. I have been playing that game again recently. Resurrected may be worthwhile.
  5. Where exactly do you live, Yuanrang? Edit: You're Norwegian? Interesting you mention the idea of not being burdened by voters or politics; symbolic and some non-political leaders have those abilities. You raise a good point. I also believe that those functions can be performed by someone outside the monarchial system, or by someone selected on the edges of the political system, or perhaps even by musicians and other cultural figures. Billy Bragg sang a song about the Iraq war being organized "all about the price of oil", which it was by the way. Symbolic leaders don't have to be wealthy, elite, or above the political system we have in order to perform those things, although being born into wealth creates a more realistic opportunity, sadly. But I'm reinforcing what you were saying. You bring up another point with your post. When a political party, system, leader or policy is brought into place, there are plenty of forces that can make the good cause of that action to be either corrupted or watered down. Often it isn't uncommon to find people who vote selfishly or even spitefully for example, or having commercial forces that hold a government to puppetry. Symbolic monarchies or other organizations that serve a public good that are exempt from forces of corruption can be useful, provided they do not really govern. It is difficult to corrupt a wealthy family that is held to the very high standard of media and indirect state expectation when they do not actually govern, rather than an entity influenced by voters, money, or most directly, commercial enterprise. Am I stating the obvious? Anyway I enjoyed your post, made me change my mind a bit.
  6. I live in New Zealand, which still has some reference to the mother land of Britain and England with that monarchy having some symbolic status. An image of the queen exists on our twenty-dollar bill, and on the reverse side of our coins. I consider it to be totally irrelevant and to be done away with, if the world were more logical and sane. I believe in a secular, clean society in which realistic government is the primary figurehead of power in all senses, and hopefully in the hands of the people while doing so (pipe dream, sadly?). It is worthwhile to note that some of the people from these very exclusive families have a tough time of their lives always being under a spotlight of media and state expectation, at least in some European society. In Thailand the monarchy commands a certain respect and reverence that borders on religious - that is unhealthy, to my mind. However, in order to keep a true and accurate sentimentality for the past, these power structures may have some validity for reminding us of times we have long since outgrown, but must remember.
  7. Judging by the rest of your post, I am calling you a liar here. In more ways than one. What the ****. Sorry.
  8. In relation to lockdown itself, I am afraid we may simply have to disagree here. You must understand that lockdown is based upon the wrong human life philosophy already; you say it isn't time to start being philosophical? It has already happened at the top, by the chosen reaction to this virus. Arbitrarily. The powers that be have "decided" for us, and it isn't pretty. Also, philosophies of mind are now going to need to be much more useful during lockdown proceedings, if we must. Start to understand. Scientific research and medical breakthroughs have my support, of course. Yes, alongside and to combat ailments like Covid19, just as people should, by participating in civilization. In an ideal world, when the going gets tough, people work harder around and to combat the problems we face. That is what I have been trying to do. Yes, quite possibly. Note that I never disagreed with this. Open statements. I am totally aware of these historical truths. In fact, they are examples that back up my argument. Remember that with the diseases brought through were also superior technologies that were not shared fairly with native inhabitants, nor were other things like communication forms, and fair expression of religion. Read closely. This exacerbated the problem, and draconian principles like lockdown in today's world are a similar false principle. Lockdown exacerbates the problem. I understand that your intentions are good, as are mine, but I am afraid we must disagree. Just because you apparently have all the so-called factual verbiage does not make you any more correct.
  9. What do you mean by this here? You are the one making the claim of the "every person". What people do you mean and why? I am worried for people's lives, of course. Who are you to say what "every person" claims? I don't understand you. When I said that you didn't know those numbers to a certainty, I meant the Covid19 numbers. That is the topic here, and those numbers are the most likely to be falsified. You are refuting me with information that appears and may be factual, but why not take on some of my more philosophical arguments? Sanctity of human life is not as simple as just preserving as many current human lives as we possibly can. In fact that is a very selfish view indeed, and the reason that lockdown is, for the most part, incorrect. I think this is the core of why we disagreed. I believe that the long term outcome is precedent over the short term sacrifice. I would sooner have a million more people die now instead, should we be able to create more human lives immediately, or to ensure that more human lives are created down the track in civilization, and civilization last longer, yes, creating more human lives. That is what matters.
  10. "Everyone claiming it is harmless"? Don't misquote. When I say that immunities are derived from exposure, that is based on a very encompassing, long term, non-single life analysis model. Exposure does create strengthening, and immunities. Your problem is that you fail to grasp me, "immunities" is not simply a medical term, nor limited to an individual. Have an open mind to medical and societal possibilities. I have been receiving information from other sources which conflicts with claims like yours, yes, from some in the medical community. It is my opinion that Covid19 must behave somewhat differently from a disease like Malaria. The numbers you have just provided me also conflict with what I have been hearing elsewhere. You do not know those numbers to any kind of certainty. Now you may accuse me of being callous, but due to the way in which I perceive the nature of things like death (don't pity the dead, pity the living) I regard that the expense of lockdown too great versus potential lives lost. And there is an "anyhow", here. That being - this virus is clearly very insidious in the manner in which it spreads, particularly the delta strain, which is greatly vaccine resistant. I sense a great deal of inevitability to this problem, even before the virus came about. When the human population explodes we will always be faced with challenges such as these, man made or otherwise (was Covid19 manufactured, hmm?), and I am not afraid of this manner of death, unlike others. For myself, I am not greatly worried about my personal fate when it happens. Others should, but do not, feel the same. I worked happily at three volunteer organizations prior to this lockdown coming about. I want to go back to work. What I am trying to say is that there is something more cosmic at play here. It has always been this way with society, to my mind. People are too selfish about personal safety. Why bring up HIV?
  11. You are hilarious... he said with serious overtones. "Don't let the haircut fool you, I am exceedingly wealthy". For the record, I don't believe in the reaction to this virus, as don't most people, really. People build immunities to viruses through exposure, not isolation and scaremongering. The sacrifice of quality of life is too great for the many; for example, the volunteer organizations at which I work have all been forced to shut whereas businesses like McDonald's are thriving throughout the lower levels of lockdown. I get the vaccine as a token gesture to appease, really, I wish that the small amount of narcissists behind this lockdown nonsense would be exposed for what they really are, and everyone return to their lives. As David Byrne put it; "It takes a lot of time, to push away the nonsense".
  12. No, just ordinary internet over a netbook. Why do you ask? Just had the jab anyhow. No side effects that I can tell. How many people here trust Pfizer?
  13. Sorry to hear you were ill although you took it in your stride by the sound of it, and it is strange that I am getting my second jab too, today, in about an hour from now. Do you think the second jab is more likely to produce side effects? I am about to find out myself.
  14. Is it true that Julian Assange is still being detained and imprisoned by various governments right now, losing his mind? It is no surprise that the organization he founded is becoming corrupted, or does it still even exist at this point?
  15. That kind of thing isn't too uncommon, although it is usually to extort money otherwise. Microsoft are o-so shady. Or at least, plenty of people who work(ed) for these companies may end up scripting viruses and etc. I have been studying cyber security recently, and I have been noticing how the creators of the course tiptoed around this idea. I'm stating the obvious.

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines and Privacy Policy.