Why would blizzard change the leveling content ? It's been the way it is for 10 years, it got some revamps with cataclysm and been left alone again ever since.

Altering the comprehensive leveling content (which includes all the past expansions) now would cost them a fortune in development time for literally zero gain.
If anything the biggest change that could reduce the quality of leveling content is to speed up XP gain so people level through zones much faster and this has already been done for all pre-cata content but that change, if anything, actually reduces the number of people who will buy an extra boost by reducing how much time and effort leveling actually takes.
When I started playing in Wrath it took me over 3 months of playing several hours a day, almost every day, to get my first character to level 80.
Now I have several characters at maxlevel and several quite close to it - you can do it in a few weeks, or with sufficient dedication (and heirlooms and boosts) one long, hard weekend without sleep.

That's not actually true anymore. With the release of MoP all past expansions got folded into Vanilla so buying a base account gets you everything up to the end of Wrath - a single extra purchase gets you the current MoP features.

Because buying it twice is useless unless you also pay for a character transfer - actually TWO. Wow-insider calculated that getting a second boost from buying the expansion twice would work out to around 140 dollars in all.

A largely overlooked factor (though I agree with your general comment - and for myself, I will at most see it as a way to maybe rapid-level an alt with the free one when I buy the upgrade just to try some new class out) is that they realized that without the levelling people would have no idea what a class's spells do.

So they are saying boosted characters would go through a kind of special starting zone and get a bunch of quests designed to teach them the character in a kind of crash-course way - much like Death Knights have done all along to rapidly skill up between 55 (where they start) and about 58 where they leave the DK starting zone.

Tansexual kiling themselves because of bullying and people like you - and you're response was "cry me a river" - this from somebody who claims to be speaking of morality.
How are you DIFFERENT from Breivik ? You both are happy to see people dead who don't share your specific set of morals - the only difference is he had the gutts to pull the trigger himself. You kill by your cowardly words.

s#admiral#admirable#g

Nice response to the topic of DEAD CHILDREN.

I don't need to be critical of you - you have pretty much done a bangup job of proving that you don't belong in civilization.

Now me... I wouldn't consider "The Next Anders Breivik" an admiral ambition...

>It's a hell of a lot cheaper to buy condoms than it is to raise another child...

You are actually right about that - but there are two problems with condoms.
1) It is something men have to do - suggesting condoms as the sole solution here disempowers woman to make birth control decisions about their own bodies. Poor communities tend to be more sexist already.
2) Among the poor children are often seen (incorrectly) as an investment rather than a financial burden, and this may even appear true on a very shallow level (more than one libertarian have told me poor people have more kids because kids make more money than they cost) - the trouble is that if you spend less on a child's upbringing than that child is likely to earn over a lifetime - it means you're not investing in an education that allows for social mobility. Sure your childs contributions may slightly reduce the family's suffering over his lifetime, but he is nevertheless almost certainly doomed to be another generation in poverty.
Trying to get this message across widely while dealing with traditionalists and anti-birth-control religions is hard enough already, to compound it by focussing only on a birth control method that more than half the worlds' population have no control over is to take a difficult thing and make it quite impossible.

Why don't you educate yourself instead: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

The tripe that bisexual people don't exist at all is one of the most common forms of biphobia. I know it may be hard for you to wrap your head around but I am genuinely attracted to people *regardless* of their physical sex.
Indeed I more commonly identify as sapiosexual - I am attracted to minds and intellect, not to physical appearance or shape.

Your simple-minded heterosexist view of the world is offensive but that isn't what I hate about it - what I hate about it is that it causes other people harm.

We have a massive problem all over the world right now caused by the likes of you. LGBTQ people have suicide rates far above the norm in societies everywhere -and the highest of all for trans people.

That you are ignorant and there is a mountain of scientific data proving your bigotry false doesn't concern me much - what does concern me is that everytime you spout your crap you are helping to kill some innocent kid - and in my book that means putting a bullet in your head is saving lives.
I know that most of the LGBTQ community wouldn't agree with me saying that - they think that sounding militaristic harms our cause and mostly, I think they are right and since I'm a pacifist I would never physically harm you - but believe me you make me want to.
Not because of hatred for you, not because of anger, not because I could care two shits what you think - because what you SAY is KILLING people.

"Lillith held up a mirror to life, and chopped off all the bits of life that didn't fit".

I'm getting bored with this, you're also not the first person who has come up with this bigoted crap that bisexual men don't exist. You're not only judgemental, bigoted and reprehensible in every possible way - you are, like every other person like you I've known - an ignorant idiot as well.

Thank you for the incredible sense of superiority you've made me feel. I would almost imagine you're hitting on me - except for the fact that you are so utterly not my type.

>In other words you're a cheating gay man in denial - plenty of gay men get married and have kids and plenty of men like to dress up their cheating as some kind of acceptable lifestyle. Even Elton John was married to a woman once btw.

Judgemental and moralistic - but no, I don't cheat. There are no lies or secrets in our household. I have my boyfriends and girlfriends - and so does my equally bisexual wife. It's part of what we have in common. I love watching her eat pussy, she loves watching me suck cock.
What we don't do - is give a flying fuck about whether you approve or not.
I am also no gay - I'm bisexual. I like sucking cock, I LOVE eating pussy - if anything I'm bi but closer to straight.

>Sadly it doesn't seem to help your clarity. Please explain exactly which part of "Coming from a country where it's a political hot potato to have insurance cover birth control but not viagra" translates to "birth control should be readily available". Or perhaps you just use google translate for everything?

The clarity problem is not with my expression but with your comprehension. Then again, with a mind as narrow and closed as you're displaying - I'm surprised you can remember to alternate your breathing between "in" and "out".

>Ah yes, quote or paraphrase some well known cliche - the last resort of those who can't think up their own counter arguments.

Says the guy who writes entire posts that sound like his paraphrasing Fred Phelps.

>Actually the plural is spelt "ass's" Mr English Degree.

Actually the apostrophe in English is used only:
1) To indicate letters left out in a word (when writing in accent or if a word's spelling has changed historically). E.g. "Wham, bam thank you Ma'm".
2) To indicate possession.
Ass's would only be correct if you were talking about something owned by an ass.
E.g. "You're ass's pimples are filled with less bile than your comments".
3) In contractions e.g. "What's up with that ?"

The plural form of ass is asses and the the possessive plural is asses' .

>Its only people who have no morals who *don't* judge others.
Judge all you want - but don't try to force your morals on other people.
Also - "different morals from you" is not the same thing as "no morals".

>But I guess language degrees don't require the comprehension of simple logic.
The do when your second major is in Philosophy specializing in logic - in fact, that requires advanced logic skills (simple won't cut it). When you throw in a third major in computer science - you kind of have to be *really* good at logic to get that degree.
Now ask yourself- just how good does somebody have to be at these things to get special dispensation from a university allowing him to take computer science as an extra, credited major when he is enrolled to for a degree in English Literature and Philosophy ?

I would add: and avoid "big brand" clothes.

Seriously - if Calvin Klein wants to use my ass as billboard to advertise his designs he can bloody well pay me rent.

I don't know if that country exists - but my insurance covers either, provided you have a doctor's prescription.

>Well going by that whining self righteous queenie rant you're obviously fairly young, early 20s, maybe teens and probably gay.

You got every single one of your guesses wrong.
I am in my mid-thirties, married, polyamorous and bisexual and my wife is currently pregnant.

> quite clear that you're the sort who think people have no responsibility for the amount of children they have if they can't get free birth control

Nope, I didn't say that - I do however have the capacity to do math and say that if poor people have ready access to birth control for free they are more likely to use it - because people who spend their entire income on a place to live and a meal don't have anything to spare on your ideas and abstinence doesn't EXIST in the real world.

>Actually it wasn't clear at all. Is english a 2nd language for you?

Yes, actually, but it happens to be one I have a university degree in - from how terrible *your* English is -you MUST be a first language speaker however. To paraphrase G.B. Shaw: nobody who had been taught English could possibly use it so badly - only native speakers rape English.

>Being gay doesn't mean you're incapable, you just don't want to.

That sentence was badly put I admit -it should have read "get pregnant" not "have children" - I'm having a child in June.

> So if you were angling for a bit of sympathy you're out of luck pal.

I have neither the need nor the desire for sympathy - I was EXPRESSING sympathy, not asking for it.

You know... the headline on this site says it's for smart-asses, you are only *half* qualified to be here (the second half - I'm saying you're an ass).

And you still know practically nothing about me - but you have told me a great deal about you: you are a judgmental moralist who blame the oppressed for their own oppression. You call me part of the problem - I say you ARE the problem.

>Sadly people like you are part of the problem. But keep your head in the sand if it makes you feel better.

People like me ? And what pray-tell kind of people, am I ?
You know exactly fuckall about me.
You don't know if I'm married or single. You don't know if I have children. You don't know if I'm monogamous, polyamorous, a swinger. You don't know which gender I identify with, what my sexual orientation is, whether I'm religious and if so what religion.
You don't know if I like anal sex, giving or receiving, you don't know whether I like bagels or pizza more.
You literally know absolutely nothing about me - except the one thing I have told you in that comment: a clear indication that I believe birth control should be readily available.
Considering I am not biologically capable of having children - clearly this is not out of personal concern.

Absolutely everything else you may think you know about me is based entirely on extrapolation from that solitary un-contexted statement with zero affirming evidence.

I will therefore, take your declarations regarding my head and sand (about which I'll tell you something new about me: I know that this expression is fucking stupid because no animal actually does that - least of all the ostrich and I should know as I live in their native habitat) and being part of "the problem" as just more utterly ignorant claptrap.
How can you know whether I'm part of what you perceive as the problem ? How can you know what I propose to do about it ?
You have no idea of my thoughts on *anything at all* !
Yet you feel you know me well enough to make such declarations based purely on what you imagine I may, possibly, think.

Now that is arrogant and stupid in the extreme - just like the comment I replied to.