Sure, I don't disagree with that. Although I'm sure there are a lot more complexities within that analogy. I wasn't necessarily criticizing the arguments themselves that people here are making about Owls (since I don't know anything about Maple economy myself), but moreso the logical mistakes people are making with their reasoning. Such as equating the correlation between availability of Owls and the prices of certain items decreasing as causation. Or disregarding the infinite other variables that would influence the economy of this game. Maybe chance has it that everything discussed so far does in fact have to do with Owls, and Owls only. But my point is that without quantifiable, testable evidence and sound methods of reasoning, our arguments and conclusions are flawed--whether they happen to be true or not. Also the joke's on you because even if I wasn't on Maple I'd be wasting just as much of my life away on something equally worthless if not more
