What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Official Great Works Draft (6 Viewers)

Fourth of all, you have made great contributions to this draft on behalf of MisfitBlondes (just about his only good picks, IMO) so I don't understand why you are lowering yourself by trying to make this argument.

However, since you are on his team, I interpret this argument as an appeal, so I will ask Krista and Rodg to come in and give their opinions.

(I predict that if Krista or Rodg agree with me, we will then get the following post from MisfitBlondes:

That's my pick and I'm not changing it. Tim just has an ego problem and he's jealous of me.... etc.)
Tim, just curious, which of my picks you did you really like?
There's been so many picks since then, I honestly can't remember. I do remember thinking that you had a few picks I really liked. If you list your picks, I can tell you.
 
Because I was on vacation (just got back) I haven't been able to read every post, and I missed Uncle Humuna's 60th round pick. If I had seen it, I would have disqualified it. Since I didn't see it, I suppose I have to accept it. But the problem is, with no offense to my Christian friends intended, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is not a proven event. And even if it did happen, I know for a fact that there are many Christians here who would argue that this was not a human achievement at all. CrossEyed, for example, is very firm that Jesus is not just the son of God, but God himself, and plenty of Christians agree with him.

So UH has a choice- if he was not joking, he can repick. If he was serious about this pick, then I will attempt to judge it accordingly.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Also, today's Brazil x USA game provided overwhelming evidence of the excitement of soccer. ####### awesome game.
more exciting than just about any baseball game I can remember sitting through
:lmao: 'Bout time the most popular sport in the world joined the 21st century and got instant replay. Wouldn't have been nearly as exciting if this was the case.
baseball umps can't even call balls and strikes consistently.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Aaron Rudnicki said:
rodg12 said:
Aaron Rudnicki said:
Abrantes said:
Also, today's Brazil x USA game provided overwhelming evidence of the excitement of soccer. ####### awesome game.
more exciting than just about any baseball game I can remember sitting through
:lmao: 'Bout time the most popular sport in the world joined the 21st century and got instant replay. Wouldn't have been nearly as exciting if this was the case.
baseball umps can't even call balls and strikes consistently.
Please. Don't compare ball/strike calls to missing a goal.
 
Aaron Rudnicki said:
rodg12 said:
Aaron Rudnicki said:
Abrantes said:
Also, today's Brazil x USA game provided overwhelming evidence of the excitement of soccer. ####### awesome game.
more exciting than just about any baseball game I can remember sitting through
:lmao: 'Bout time the most popular sport in the world joined the 21st century and got instant replay. Wouldn't have been nearly as exciting if this was the case.
baseball umps can't even call balls and strikes consistently.
Please. Don't compare ball/strike calls to missing a goal.
football has instant replay and still has more wrong calls than probably any other sport I can think of.:penalty:the original point made by ToW was that soccer is boring and fails to build drama. I don't think bad calls by the refs have much to do with either point.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Aaron Rudnicki said:
rodg12 said:
:rolleyes: 'Bout time the most popular sport in the world joined the 21st century and got instant replay. Wouldn't have been nearly as exciting if this was the case.
baseball umps can't even call balls and strikes consistently.
Please. Don't compare ball/strike calls to missing a goal.
football has instant replay and still has more wrong calls than probably any other sport I can think of.:shrug:the original point made by ToW was that soccer is boring and fails to build drama. I don't think bad calls are a sign of either.
:lmao:Drama is much reduced when the go ahead goal is scored in the 60th minute instead of the 84th.
 
Drama is much reduced when the go ahead goal is scored in the 60th minute instead of the 84th.
there you go.a bad call helped build the drama. success!
:shrug:Aside from the bad call argument......you will never be able to convince me that a goal scored with 6 minutes remaining in play is in any way more suspensful than a walk-off homer. :rolleyes:
did you see the South Africa/Spain game? SA was up 1-0 for awhile, Spain scores 2 quick goals near the end of regulation and the crowd started filing out. Then SA gets the equalizer on an incredible free kick just before time expires. Two awesome games today.I like watching other sports more than soccer too, but baseball just isn't one of them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Because I was on vacation (just got back) I haven't been able to read every post, and I missed Uncle Humuna's 60th round pick. If I had seen it, I would have disqualified it. Since I didn't see it, I suppose I have to accept it. But the problem is, with no offense to my Christian friends intended, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is not a proven event. And even if it did happen, I know for a fact that there are many Christians here who would argue that this was not a human achievement at all. CrossEyed, for example, is very firm that Jesus is not just the son of God, but God himself, and plenty of Christians agree with him.

So UH has a choice- if he was not joking, he can repick. If he was serious about this pick, then I will attempt to judge it accordingly.
How does this mesh with the NT qualifying as 'Non-Fiction'?
 
Drama is much reduced when the go ahead goal is scored in the 60th minute instead of the 84th.
there you go.a bad call helped build the drama. success!
:lmao:Aside from the bad call argument......you will never be able to convince me that a goal scored with 6 minutes remaining in play is in any way more suspensful than a walk-off homer. :rolleyes:
did you see the South Africa/Spain game? SA was up 1-0 for awhile, Spain scores 2 quick goals near the end of regulation and the crowd started filing out. Then SA gets the equalizer on an incredible free kick just before time expires. Two awesome games today.I like watching other sports more than soccer too, but baseball just isn't one of them.
I didn't see that game. I could buy that being more exciting than most baseball games.To me, baseball games are by and large always more exciting than soccer games. To each his own I guess. :shrug:
 
timschochet said:
Because I was on vacation (just got back) I haven't been able to read every post, and I missed Uncle Humuna's 60th round pick. If I had seen it, I would have disqualified it. Since I didn't see it, I suppose I have to accept it. But the problem is, with no offense to my Christian friends intended, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is not a proven event. And even if it did happen, I know for a fact that there are many Christians here who would argue that this was not a human achievement at all. CrossEyed, for example, is very firm that Jesus is not just the son of God, but God himself, and plenty of Christians agree with him.

So UH has a choice- if he was not joking, he can repick. If he was serious about this pick, then I will attempt to judge it accordingly.
How does this mesh with the NT qualifying as 'Non-Fiction'?
The New Testament is a written work that has affected people who do not treat it as fiction. Whether or not what is described actually occurred does not matter in this instance; the point is people believe it did. What separates the book from your selection is that the book is real, irrelevant of the information contained within it. On the other hand, you have chosen an event that I don't know is real or not. A book and it's importance I can measure. An event that I don't know is real I can't.
 
timschochet said:
Because I was on vacation (just got back) I haven't been able to read every post, and I missed Uncle Humuna's 60th round pick. If I had seen it, I would have disqualified it. Since I didn't see it, I suppose I have to accept it. But the problem is, with no offense to my Christian friends intended, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is not a proven event. And even if it did happen, I know for a fact that there are many Christians here who would argue that this was not a human achievement at all. CrossEyed, for example, is very firm that Jesus is not just the son of God, but God himself, and plenty of Christians agree with him.

So UH has a choice- if he was not joking, he can repick. If he was serious about this pick, then I will attempt to judge it accordingly.
this is why it shouldn't be allowed. :twocents:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hey krista, a question on your documentary rankings. I'm just curious as to why the high rank for "Triumph of the Will" and the low rank for "Why We Fight". Both were propaganda films, "Fight" was almost a direct response to "Will" and contained some footage from "Will" in different contexts. Each was equally effective in their own way.

Are you saying Riefenstal is a better filmmaker than Capra? I'd just like some explanation, please

I'm not making a big deal out of this, because I still think that TV documentaries should have been allowed in this category and I'd have had Ken Burns Civil War in here if that were the case. So a corollary question is, had TV documentaries been allowed, where would you have ranked Burns' work?

 
Aaron Rudnicki said:
Yankee23Fan said:
Tier 1:Citizen Kane - I get the technical love of this movie, but I wouldn't tier 1 this thing.
?If there was an obvious choice for a Tier 1 movie, this HAS to be it. Pretty widely regarded as the best movie of all time, isn't it?
It is, but it's the Moby **** of movies. No one who says that it's a great movie ever actually watched the whole thing and enjoyed it except a small group of people akin to the lit professors that I have mentioned who love Moby.
 
Chiwawa said:
MisfitBlondes' Pick

60.07 Scientism (Philosophical Idea)

The term scientism is used to describe the view that natural science has authority over all other interpretations of life, such as philosophical, religious, mythical, spiritual, or humanistic explanations, and over other fields of inquiry, such as the social sciences. The term is used by social scientists like Hayek or Karl Popper to describe what they see as the underlying attitudes and beliefs common to many scientists. They tend to use the term in either of two equally pejorative directions:

1. To indicate the improper usage of science or scientific claims. as a counter-argument to appeals to scientific authority in contexts where science might not apply, such as when the topic is perceived to be beyond the scope of scientific inquiry.

2. To refer to "the belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry," with a concomitant "elimination of the psychological dimensions of experience". It thus expresses a position critical of (at least the more extreme expressions of) positivism.

In its most extreme form, scientism is the faith that science has no boundaries, that in due time all human problems and all aspects of human endeavor will be dealt and solved by science alone.

"In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth."
Not to get snooty (well, actually..) but I don't think this means what you think it does. Scientism is not a view that many take seriously, even the most hard core of scientists.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Because I was on vacation (just got back) I haven't been able to read every post, and I missed Uncle Humuna's 60th round pick. If I had seen it, I would have disqualified it. Since I didn't see it, I suppose I have to accept it. But the problem is, with no offense to my Christian friends intended, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is not a proven event. And even if it did happen, I know for a fact that there are many Christians here who would argue that this was not a human achievement at all. CrossEyed, for example, is very firm that Jesus is not just the son of God, but God himself, and plenty of Christians agree with him.

So UH has a choice- if he was not joking, he can repick. If he was serious about this pick, then I will attempt to judge it accordingly.
this is why it shouldn't be allowed. :twocents:
okI'll repick.

 
Drama is much reduced when the go ahead goal is scored in the 60th minute instead of the 84th.
there you go.a bad call helped build the drama. success!
:lmao:Aside from the bad call argument......you will never be able to convince me that a goal scored with 6 minutes remaining in play is in any way more suspensful than a walk-off homer. :shrug:
Or an inbounds play with 2 seconds left that ends with a game winning 25 foot jumperOr a 47 yard field goal for the win, or a 4th and goal from the two yard line, with 1 minute left and down 20-16, etc etc etc.I also believe the free-flowing nature of soccer, and the raqndom and erratic timimg system keep the players from feeling the pressure of make or break situations.Nothing like stepping to the line for two shots,on the road in front of a maniacal crowd, with 2 seconds left, and down two points
 
Final Rankings of the 20 Greatest Political Documents: Commentary and Rankings by Yankee23fan

No. 1 - The Constitution of the United States - 20 points

Adopted by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on September 17, 1787, this document is the founding supreme law of the United States. Later ratified by enough states to become the binding law, and therefore abolish the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution is a remarkable document unparalelled in the human political experience. After attaining victory over the crown in the war for independence, the revolutionaries of the American colonies had to take the next step - the step where almost every other revolution fails. They had to govern. Initially, in order to protect the republican principals that led the charge of revolution, the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union were erected to be the national authority over the collected states. But, in keeping with each pure republican ideal, the Articles failed to actually lead to a unified country the likes of which the whole nation-state exercise requires. The founders wished to be both individual and collective in their republican government, and their initial attempt failed.

As with so many revolutions, that failure could have led to dictatorship, monarchy, further war, and an end to the potential of greatness the American revolution stood for. But, this time it was different. Forged out of a few centuries of political revelation that the world had never seen, the new American nation created the Constitution. It has become one of the longest existing, stable and powerful governing documents in world history, and has led a small colonial people to attain world empire status that the ancient Greeks and Romans could only dream of.

As a written supreme law, it was not the first. As a written statement of individual rights to be protected and considered supreme to the government, it was not the first. But it consolidated those ideals, and many others into a truly remarkable and powerful document. It limited government authority. It protected the most sacred rights. It created a system whereby if something needed to be changed, it could be, within the law and without revolution. Where so many revolutions like the French failed, the ratification of the Constitution succeeded. The debate surrounding it created more of some of the greatest political works in history, many drafted in this exercise. And to be sure, the Constitution is not perfect - the men who wrote it wouldn't argue otherwise. It is imperfect, and it is accepted as such so that our nation may grow and prosper with the understanding that certain bedrock things must be adhered to, but the rest - within Constitutional confines - can be changed, altered, amended and corrected. It is a beautiful document, for both its idealism and its practicality, its successes (immediate and long term) and its failures.

Thousands of years of human history came before it. Hopefully, thousands more come after it. And the smart money should be on this document standing the test of time. Should America ever fail, and should the empire be extinguished like so many have, it is still likely that the Constitution of the United States stands as a testament to government by, of and for the people of the nation it governs, full of ideals and ideas that have altered the political speech of our species, and have led to more freedom and liberty in our world then perhaps any other single document.

No 2. - Magna Carta - 19 points

The English legal charter first commissioned in 1215, it was the first written set of laws presuming to limit the power of the crown for his people. To be sure, the people in this case were landed barons, and not exactly the common man. But to be fair, it was a unique moment in monarchy for before that, the king was enthroned by God, unquestioned, and all knowing. Though there were eras where it wasn't adhered to as anything more then a wish of the people, its message and idea - that the crown could be limited in scope - has formed the basis for many politcal ideas that came forth in the later centuries, including such things as our own Constitution and specifically such ideals as the right to a speedy trial as codified by our Bill of Rights. Our Supreme Court has even quoted from and used the text and trestises of the Magna Carta on finer historical points.

It's moved several times in all the previous unofficial tallies of these documents, but in the end, I believe it has to be top 3.

No. 3 - Declaration of Independence - 18 points

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, amongst which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It's perhaps the most powerful written testament to that thing we call natural rights, used in a format to call attention to the wrongs committed against the colonies by the crown, and has become a beacon message for the peoples of the world that long for freedom. Penned by Thomas Jefferson with ideas from such great political minds as John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, John Locke, James Mason and others, this crowing acheivment of political idea was the verbal salvo of the American Revolution.

Abraham Lincoln is known to be a lover of this document and the ideals behind it, coming so far as to consider it the most important document in American history, and the one that shed light on the Constitution. It was used by him as the guiding principal of his administration. And even though it wasn't given the romantic attention it receives now for a few decades, no one can question the power of the words, and the message therein. For the signers pledged their mutual fortunes and sacred honor to the ideals there and marched forth to an unknown time where monarchy was removed and republican government of the people was made the crown.

No. 4 - Communist Manifesto - 17 points

Published in 1848 it has become one of the most powerful political writings in history. The overwhelming message was one of a change from society based on capitalism to the communist ideal, protecting the classes of people it was written for, and creating a new governmental ideal that since its writing has become the leading antangonist to the western governments based on capitalist and democratic systems.

If it just ended there, then it wouldn't be ranked this high. For as we know, the communist governments of the world that became great in the 20th century have since imploded. But there is more to the story, for the communist idea has mutated itself and become part of the western governments discussions of rights and liberties. You just have to look to the 10 foundations of the Manifesto to see what has become of the idea:

The abolition of private property has not taken hold yet, nor should it, but in that idea we can find the growing power of eminent domain in our country, and I'm sure abroad. A progressive income tax is now considered by many to be a funding necessity based on fairness and justice. Inheritance rights haven't been abolished, but the taxing system for them - and their constant attack - is achieving a part of that goal. A national bank with national credit is something that we seem to be heading towards in some American form here. Centralization of communications and transportation is also something that has been acquired. Free public education is now such a part of the lexicon of this republican country that to challenge it is unpatriotic. And the various forms of the working class armies have been seen in the formation of Unions. And last but not least, the state controlling the means of production is seen in some industries in various ways.

All told, while the true idea has not been realized, you can't argue with the fact that the democratic idea has stolen some of the basic communist ideas, made them its own, and now use the terms liberty and freedom to protect them. The socialist movements of the world, the ever growing government in this country, and the communist ideal are all working together to realize the message of this document. It is helping to lead the charge in politcs, and has since the early 20th century. It is likely that the ideals therein will continue to become as we move forward in this 21st century.

No. 5 - The Universal Declaration of Human Rights - 16 points

Rising out of the ashes of World War II were many world wide attempts to temper the lesser nature of man and come to some universal agreement as to how we should treat each other in peace, and even in war. This document is one of the results. One of the most translated documents in the world, it sets core principals of how the peoples of the world are to treat each other - how the governments will treat their own people. Pope John Paul described the document as the collective human conscience of the time and Eleanor Roosevelt crowned it a new Magna Carta of all men in the world. It suffers from the fact that it isn't enforceable in any meaningful way, nor is it a creation document like our Constitution. But it stands for something world wide and calls on the better nature of ourselves. In that, it gets points the above documents do not, for it is a work of and for all people.

No. 6 - United Nations Charter - 15 points

The charter treaty that established the United Nations. Again, arising from the terror of World War II, and seeing the potential of the original League of Nations, it was created to be a world league to assist in maintaining peace and stability the world over. It was hoped it would become the central hub of international cooperation and the staging area for collective world affiars that would make the terrors of World War II something that could never occur again. The jury is still out on that one, and the body has just as many failures as successes that it claims. It also suffers from the nation-state organization of its members, its lack of true authority and the collective biases of many member nations. In short, the charter created another organization of man - the difference here though is that it attempted to actually create a world organization to focus on the collective problems of mankind. It's a noble goal, and a noble treaty.

No. 7 - The Atlantic Charter - 14 points

The world blueprint that became a reality after World War II. Such things like the aforementioned United Nations Charter, and its offspring, not to mention such international trade agreements like GATT, and the independence of former British and French possessions were the children of this treaty. Credited to Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt the basic tenants of the charter were agreed to by America and Britian before American officially entered the war. It informed the world that the allies were not seeking territorial gains for conquest, but fighting a righteous war against the worst of aggression. It wasn't an official treaty nor was it ever officially signed as a document of the true collective purpose of the two major creators - but it was an idea that sparked the post war peace and world structure that came to life.

No. 8 - Maastricht Treaty - 13 points

Could this possibly be the treaty that gets Europe to act as one voice in international affairs? If it does, then in another few decades this could end up being #1. The treaty led to the creation of the euro, and created what is commonly referred to as the pillar structure of the European Union. This conception of the Union divides it into the European Community (EC) pillar, the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) pillar, and the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) pillar. The latter two pillars are intergovernmental policy areas, where the power of member-states is at its greatest extent. The creation of the pillar system was the result of the desire by many member states to extend the European Economic Community to the areas of foreign policy, military, criminal justice, judicial cooperation to the European Community and the misgiving of other member states, notably the United Kingdom, to add areas which they considered to be too sensitive to be managed by the supra-national mechanisms of the European Economic Community. It's a treaty that massively altered world monetary policy and with it global economics. While it could be argued that it should suffer from a newness that other selections do not, the fact remains that just about every major world conflict and restructuring is due to conflict someone where in Europe. If it is a continent that continues to grow and work together for its collective benefit, then world affairs will be fundamentally altered unlike anything seen for hundreds of years.

Or, it could turn out to be another European decree with no force behind it that simply creates another level of beauracracy. But, I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt for now.

No. 9 - Washington's Farewell Address - 12 points

It's not a speech. It was an open letter written to the people of the United States in the form of a speech such that the vernacular of the text is in speech form. But ti wasn't a speech. It was something more. Much, much more. It was the goodbye of the American republican king. The man who was given the keys to the kingdom was saying, no thanks. It was a remarkable moment in our history, and world history. For in that act, one of the most important foundations of the new republic was sealed - there would be peaceful transition of power in a government where the people ruled. It could work. And it could work because of men like George Washington.

And beyond the romance of the document (which, if you are ever desiring to learn more, pick up Joe Elli's Founding Brothers - you won't find a better review of this moment anywhere in print) there was a practical message that became the bedrock principal of American foreign relations. We all know the simple context of it and to paraphrase - beware foreign alliances and the entangling nature of world events. Few people realize the power that this statement had the effect of it as well. The United States did not enter into a permanent international military alliance until NATO in 1949 - almost 200 years after Washington told us to be careful of such a thing. That is power. That is legacy. A message that told the people that their king was stepping down peacefully because the cause of liberty was greater then he, a message that claimed the Constitution superior and the adherance to its laws mandatory, a message to the people to beware amendments to the Constitution that would weaken the very structure of the government they created together (16th and 17th anyone), a message to beware political parties, foreign military entanglements and a message of piety calling the people to keep their religious values, community bonds and continue the education of its children above all was a message with such force and power that it created the singular principal that did in fact create a world empire.

No. 10 - Peace of Westphalia – 11 points

The two peace treaties of Osnabrück and Münster, signed on May 15 and October 24, 1648, respectively, and written in French, that ended both the Thirty Years' War in the Holy Roman Empire (today mostly Germany) and the Eighty Years' War between Spain and the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands. The treaties involved the Holy Roman Emperor, Ferdinand III (Habsburg), the Kingdoms of Spain, France and Sweden, the Dutch Republic and their respective allies among the princes and the Republican Imperial States of the Holy Roman Empire.

The Peace of Westphalia resulted from the first modern diplomatic congress and initiated a new order in central Europe based on the concept of state sovereignty. Until 1806, the regulations became part of the constitutional laws of the Holy Roman Empire. The Treaty of the Pyrenees, signed in 1659, ended the war between France and Spain and is often considered part of the overall accord.

No. 11 - Peace of Paris (1783) – 10 points

The collection of treaties that ended the American Revolution and claimed the existence of a new nation, the United States of America. Many parts of it were actually hated by the people of Britain and the result was a sea-bound cold war in which America was still a pawn of the crown and the results were the War of 1812 which was the final stage for the American Revolution.

No. 12 - I Have a Dream Speech - 9 points

One of the greatest speeches ever given, it was the defining moment in the struggle for civil rights in America for all people. It wasn't the victory speech of the moment, nor was it a creation speech in that a new government or political party arose from its words. It was a message of hope. And it was a call to this nation to finally get right the struggle of its people to be given the opportunities that the Constitution demanded. It is a speech that will be remembered and repeated as long as there is an America to honor it.

No. 13 - Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen – 8 points

The fundamental document of the French Revolution. Many of the tenants of this charter are still in practice in the current French constitution. Yet, many of the failures of the French Revolution can be found in the failures of this document.

No. 14 - Code of Hammurabi – 7 points

One of, if not the, first set of written laws it was also one of the first written examples of a king not having absolute and total control of his people. It’s a very ‘eye for an eye’ document, but it was one of the first forms of a constitution.

No. 15 - Gettysburg Address – 6 points

To me, this is the greatest speech in American history. But unlike Dr. King’s speech, it didn’t necessarily do or stand for anything. It was a memorial speech by the President, so short that almost all the media present failed to capture. So powerful that its words still ring true today. It is perhaps the best review of the purpose of this nation, our government and Constitution, as has ever been penned.

No. 16 - Treaty of Tordesillas – 5 points

Enacted to solve the problem that Columbus created by finding the New World, this treaty apportioned the lands outside of Europe were split between Spain and Portugal. It left many open ended questions that were never resolved and the actual separation of lands was never completed. And the powers of the parent nations were stripped within a few centuries making the dictates worthless in view of new treaties and powers, but it was an important attempt at the time to facilitate the colonization of a rather large part of the globe.

No. 17 - Edict of Milan – 4 points

Issued in 313 A.D. it was a declaration of religious tolerance by Emperor Constantine. It was in reality a political play to stop the ever growing Christian powers from overtaking the entire Roman Empire, either through war or not. It was one of the first wide ranging acknowledgments that Christianity was becoming a force the entire empire would have to deal with.

No. 18 - Emancipation Proclamation – 3 points

A military proclamation from the President in the midst of civil war. But what it did was give clarity and purpose to the anti-slavery movement in America that was sitting behind the civil war waiting for a day of liberty. Its ideas are part of the basis that led to the Constitutional Amendments following the war and the end of slavery. Of course, the document itself attempted to force things it could not enforce at the time, but you had to start somewhere.

No. 19 - Mayflower Compact – 2 points

The first governing document of the new Plymouth colony. The Pilgrims continued the western European notion of written laws and societal agreements in this new land that continued right through our Constitution. Some symmetry to complete the list.

 
Hey krista, a question on your documentary rankings. I'm just curious as to why the high rank for "Triumph of the Will" and the low rank for "Why We Fight". Both were propaganda films, "Fight" was almost a direct response to "Will" and contained some footage from "Will" in different contexts. Each was equally effective in their own way.Are you saying Riefenstal is a better filmmaker than Capra? I'd just like some explanation, pleaseI'm not making a big deal out of this, because I still think that TV documentaries should have been allowed in this category and I'd have had Ken Burns Civil War in here if that were the case. So a corollary question is, had TV documentaries been allowed, where would you have ranked Burns' work?
Yes, Riefenstahl was a better documentary filmmaker than Capra. While I love Capra's other movies, when it came to Why We Fight he did not, unlike Riefenstahl, pioneer any film techniques nor did his work on these movies affect future filmmakers the way that, for instance, Riefenstahl's work influenced him. The Why We Fight series is a interesting historical document, which is why I rated it more highly than some others, but it is not breakthrough filmmaking the way the Riefenstahl documentaries were.ETA: Sorry, missed the corollary question. Don't know. Somewhere in the bottom half.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Aaron Rudnicki said:
Yankee23Fan said:
Tier 1:Citizen Kane - I get the technical love of this movie, but I wouldn't tier 1 this thing.
?If there was an obvious choice for a Tier 1 movie, this HAS to be it. Pretty widely regarded as the best movie of all time, isn't it?
It is, but it's the Moby **** of movies. No one who says that it's a great movie ever actually watched the whole thing and enjoyed it except a small group of people akin to the lit professors that I have mentioned who love Moby.
Yeah, but even if this were true (which I don't believe), if a judge were to rank Citizen Kane low, or Moby ****, then they would be accused of taking personal bias into account and not adhering to the canon. Judging is fun!
 
Chiwawa said:
MisfitBlondes' Pick

60.07 Scientism (Philosophical Idea)

The term scientism is used to describe the view that natural science has authority over all other interpretations of life, such as philosophical, religious, mythical, spiritual, or humanistic explanations, and over other fields of inquiry, such as the social sciences. The term is used by social scientists like Hayek or Karl Popper to describe what they see as the underlying attitudes and beliefs common to many scientists. They tend to use the term in either of two equally pejorative directions:

1. To indicate the improper usage of science or scientific claims. as a counter-argument to appeals to scientific authority in contexts where science might not apply, such as when the topic is perceived to be beyond the scope of scientific inquiry.

2. To refer to "the belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry," with a concomitant "elimination of the psychological dimensions of experience". It thus expresses a position critical of (at least the more extreme expressions of) positivism.

In its most extreme form, scientism is the faith that science has no boundaries, that in due time all human problems and all aspects of human endeavor will be dealt and solved by science alone.

"In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth."
Not to get snooty (well, actually..) but I don't think this means what you think it does. Scientism is not a view that many take seriously, even the most hard core of scientists.
Not to get snooty, but could we stick to the important question at hand--which movie did you watch on Saturday night???
 
Aaron Rudnicki said:
Yankee23Fan said:
Tier 1:Citizen Kane - I get the technical love of this movie, but I wouldn't tier 1 this thing.
?If there was an obvious choice for a Tier 1 movie, this HAS to be it. Pretty widely regarded as the best movie of all time, isn't it?
It is, but it's the Moby **** of movies. No one who says that it's a great movie ever actually watched the whole thing and enjoyed it except a small group of people akin to the lit professors that I have mentioned who love Moby.
I think it's just about a perfect film and the whole story behind it makes it even more impressive.
 
The Bill of Rights -15 Points

This is also around where I would have placed the US Constitution. I generally agree with Yankee about the importance of these documents, but the United States is not the world. In the 233 years since our existence, two key questions remain unanswered:

1. What is the effect of our form of government on all of mankind?

2. What is the effect of the United States on the rest of the world?

The second question is somewhat easier to answer than the first, if only because we know the importance of the USA has been profound. Yet this importance may be because of our incredible natural wealth and economy as much as the political nature of our documents. (I don't believe this myself: I think our form of government is an integral part of the overall whole; otherwise, the Bill of Rights would never get as high a ranking as it did.)

But the first question is far more problematic. For the Bill of Rights and US Constitution to reach the level of the Magna Carta (which should be #1 IMO), it must be clearly proven that the nations of the world have significantly been influenced by these documents. And I have trouble seeing it. Certainly parts of Western Europe have been affected by the Enlightenment which produced the ideas that made these documents possible, but that is not the same thing.

Therefore, since the Bill of Rights is so important to America, and America is so important to the rest of the world, it deserves a high ranking. But since the Bill of Rights is not in itself important to the rest of the world, it cannot be in the top tier. Thus a 15 is appropriate.

 
Chiwawa said:
MisfitBlondes' Pick

60.07 Scientism (Philosophical Idea)

The term scientism is used to describe the view that natural science has authority over all other interpretations of life, such as philosophical, religious, mythical, spiritual, or humanistic explanations, and over other fields of inquiry, such as the social sciences. The term is used by social scientists like Hayek or Karl Popper to describe what they see as the underlying attitudes and beliefs common to many scientists. They tend to use the term in either of two equally pejorative directions:

1. To indicate the improper usage of science or scientific claims. as a counter-argument to appeals to scientific authority in contexts where science might not apply, such as when the topic is perceived to be beyond the scope of scientific inquiry.

2. To refer to "the belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry," with a concomitant "elimination of the psychological dimensions of experience". It thus expresses a position critical of (at least the more extreme expressions of) positivism.

In its most extreme form, scientism is the faith that science has no boundaries, that in due time all human problems and all aspects of human endeavor will be dealt and solved by science alone.

"In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth."
Not to get snooty (well, actually..) but I don't think this means what you think it does. Scientism is not a view that many take seriously, even the most hard core of scientists.
Not to get snooty, but could we stick to the important question at hand--which movie did you watch on Saturday night???
Actually, I ended up watching Rear Window. :unsure:
 
The Bill of Rights -15 Points

This is also around where I would have placed the US Constitution. I generally agree with Yankee about the importance of these documents, but the United States is not the world. In the 233 years since our existence, two key questions remain unanswered:

1. What is the effect of our form of government on all of mankind?

2. What is the effect of the United States on the rest of the world?

The second question is somewhat easier to answer than the first, if only because we know the importance of the USA has been profound. Yet this importance may be because of our incredible natural wealth and economy as much as the political nature of our documents. (I don't believe this myself: I think our form of government is an integral part of the overall whole; otherwise, the Bill of Rights would never get as high a ranking as it did.)

But the first question is far more problematic. For the Bill of Rights and US Constitution to reach the level of the Magna Carta (which should be #1 IMO), it must be clearly proven that the nations of the world have significantly been influenced by these documents. And I have trouble seeing it. Certainly parts of Western Europe have been affected by the Enlightenment which produced the ideas that made these documents possible, but that is not the same thing.

Therefore, since the Bill of Rights is so important to America, and America is so important to the rest of the world, it deserves a high ranking. But since the Bill of Rights is not in itself important to the rest of the world, it cannot be in the top tier. Thus a 15 is appropriate.
1. Our government shows that government of the people can work. Since 1787 moarchy is all but dead and totalitarianism is the enemy of all people. The question now for most of the world isn't what form - monarchy or democratic - is appropriate, but what version of democratic is the proper one. It's also the longest standing constitution in the world.2. You are right, this is a much easier question. Like the Roman empire of long ago, America is the empire that shaps the world, or at least has for the better part of the 20th century and into today. It might not last as long as the Roman empire, but it might.

Technical question - if BoR gets a 15, how do I do the final rankings - does the current 15 go to 14 and then everything under it? Or are there 2 15's?

 
timschochet said:
TidesofWar said:
Tim - I see you in here, so, d id you read my case a couple of pages earlier for The Peppers Club?? Backed with facts?

If so, I hope you noted the response of the judge, which I can paraphrase with..........

"It does not matter who or how many liked it, what influence it had, who rates it # 1, 2 or 3 in history, I am putting it in the basement"
Absurd
That's quite a paraphrase.I also disagree with the judges placement of Sgt. Pepper, but I don't see you making a good case for it. If you really want to make this argument, forget other critics and explain why you believe that Sgt. Pepper deserves first tier placement. For me, it's the innovation of the music. It continued an evolution of popular music begun on Rubber Soul, continued on Revolver and Pet Sounds and perfected on Sgt. Pepper. It's impossible to evaluate those other albums IMO without regarding Sgt. Pepper as their culmination and as the height of artistic achievement. That being said, in my own personal opinion, the Beatles would achieve their greatest musical masterpiece a few years later with Abbey Road.

I also think the first tier is too full of Jazz albums. But then again, I don't listen to Be Bop and don't really understand it.

The above is the sort of argument I would have made.
I have been attempting to get across the innovation and also influence of SGPLHCB. It is rated near or at the top of ANY music ranking of any credible source. Some have it #1 overall, all close to the top.For it to be listed by our judge not #1, not Tier One, but buried in Tier 4, is ludicrous, and in my opinion, destroys the credibility and integrity of his rankings.

SGPLHCB is not a personal favorite, but that should not be a factor. It is like "The Scream" - it does nothing for me personally, but I am still able to recognize that it has power as a work, and its influence and legacy cannot be doubted.

That is Objectivity.

Below is an article on the album from Rolling Stone......................

Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is the most important rock & roll album ever made, an unsurpassed adventure in concept, sound, songwriting, cover art and studio technology by the greatest rock & roll group of all time. From the title song's regal blasts of brass and fuzz guitar to the orchestral seizure and long, dying piano chord at the end of "A Day in the Life," the thirteen tracks on Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band are the pinnacle of the Beatles' eight years as recording artists. John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr were never more fearless and unified in their pursuit of magic and transcendence.

Issued in Britain on June 1st, 1967, and a day later in America,Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is also rock's ultimate declaration of change. For the Beatles, it was a decisive goodbye to matching suits, world tours and assembly-line record-making. "We were fed up with being Beatles," McCartney said decades later, in Many Years From Now, Barry Miles' McCartney biography. "We were not boys, we were men . . . artists rather than performers."

At the same time, Sgt. Pepper formally ushered in an unforgettable season of hope, upheaval and achievement: the late 1960s and, in particular, 1967's Summer of Love. In its iridescent instrumentation, lyric fantasias and eye-popping packaging, Sgt. Pepper defined the opulent revolutionary optimism of psychedelia and instantly spread the gospel of love, acid, Eastern spirituality and electric guitars around the globe. No other pop record of that era, or since, has had such an immediate, titanic impact. This music documents the world's biggest rock band at the very height of its influence and ambition. "It was a peak," Lennon confirmed in his 1970 Rolling Stone interview, describing both the album and his collaborative relationship with McCartney. "Paul and I definitely were working together," Lennon said, and Sgt. Pepper is rich with proof: McCartney's burst of hot piano and school-days memoir ("Woke up, fell out of bed . . . ") in Lennon's "A Day in the Life," a reverie on mortality and infinity; Lennon's impish rejoinder to McCartney's chorus in "Getting Better" ("It can't get no worse").

"Sgt. Pepper was our grandest endeavor," Starr said, looking back, in the 2000 autobiography The Beatles Anthology. "The greatest thing about the band was that whoever had the best idea - it didn't matter who -- that was the one we'd use. No one was standing on their ego, saying, 'Well, it's mine,' and getting possessive." It was Neil Aspinall, the Beatles' longtime assistant, who suggested they reprise the title track, just before the grand finale of "A Day in the Life," to complete Sgt. Pepper's theatrical conceit: an imaginary concert by a fictional band, played by the Beatles.

The first notes went to tape on December 6th, 1966: two takes of McCartney's music-hall confection "When I'm Sixty-Four." (Lennon's lysergic reflection on his Liverpool childhood, "Strawberry Fields Forever," was started two weeks earlier but issued in February 1967 as a stand-alone single.) But Sgt. Pepper's real birthday is August 29th, 1966, when the Beatles played their last live concert, in San Francisco. Until then, they had made history in the studio -- Please Please Me (1963), Rubber Soul (1965), Revolver (1966) -- between punishing tours. Off the road for good, the Beatles were free to be a band away from the hysteria of Beatlemania. McCartney went a step further. On a plane to London in November '66, as he returned from a vacation in Kenya, he came up with the idea of an album by the Beatles in disguise, an alter-ego group that he subsequently dubbed Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. "We'd pretend to be someone else," McCartney explained in Anthology. "It liberated you -- you could do anything when you got to the mike or on your guitar, because it wasn't you."

Only two songs on the final LP, both McCartney's, had anything to do with the Pepper character: the title track and Starr's jaunty vocal showcase "With a Little Help From My Friends," introduced as a number by Sgt. Pepper's star crooner, Billy Shears. "Every other song could have been on any other album," Lennon insisted later. Yet it is hard to imagine a more perfect setting for the Victorian jollity of Lennon's "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite!" (inspired by an 1843 circus poster) or the sumptuous melancholy of McCartney's "Fixing a Hole," with its blend of antique shadows (a harpsichord played by the Beatles' producer George Martin) and modern sunshine (double-tracked lead guitar executed with ringing precision by Harrison). The Pepper premise was a license to thrill.

It also underscored the real-life cohesion of the music and the group that made it. Of the 700 hours the Beatles spent making Sgt. Pepper (engineer Geoff Emerick actually tallied them) from the end of 1966 until April 1967, the group needed only three days' worth to complete Lennon's lavish daydream "Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds." "A Day in the Life," the most complex song on the album, was done in just five days. (The oceanic piano chord was three pianos hit simultaneously by ten hands belonging to Lennon, McCartney, Starr, Martin and Beatles roadie Mal Evans.) No other Beatles appear with Harrison on his sitar-perfumed sermon on materialism and fidelity, "Within You Without You," but the band wisely placed the track at the halfway point of the original vinyl LP, at the beginning of Side Two: a vital meditation break in the middle of the jubilant indulgence.

The Beatles' exploitation of multitracking on Sgt. Pepper transformed the very act of studio recording (the orchestral overdubs on "A Day in the Life" marked the debut of eight-track recording in Britain: two four-track machines used in sync). And Sgt. Pepper's visual extravagance officially elevated the rock album cover to a Work of Art. Michael Cooper's photo of the Beatles in satin marching-band outfits, in front of a cardboard-cutout audience of historical figures, created by artist Peter Blake, is the most enduring image of the psychedelic era. Sgt. Pepper was also the first rock album to incorporate complete lyrics to the songs in its design.

Yet Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is the Number One album of the RS 500 not just because of its firsts -- it is simply the best of everything the Beatles ever did as musicians, pioneers and pop stars, all in one place. A 1967 British print ad for the album declared, "Remember Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band Is the Beatles." As McCartney put it, the album was "just us doing a good show."

The show goes on forever.
 
Just a heads up, I am adding pages to the google site which contain the judges rankings. When you go to the link here you will see a sidebar to the left called "Judgement" which links to these pages. Easy way for people to keep track of the rankings instead of sifting through all the posts in this thread.

Aside 1: Tim, could you send me a PM with your complete Play rankings once you have finished posting them so I can add them to the site?

Aside 2: Krista, were there/will there be write-ups to accompany your documentary rankings?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Bill of Rights -15 Points

This is also around where I would have placed the US Constitution. I generally agree with Yankee about the importance of these documents, but the United States is not the world. In the 233 years since our existence, two key questions remain unanswered:

1. What is the effect of our form of government on all of mankind?

2. What is the effect of the United States on the rest of the world?

The second question is somewhat easier to answer than the first, if only because we know the importance of the USA has been profound. Yet this importance may be because of our incredible natural wealth and economy as much as the political nature of our documents. (I don't believe this myself: I think our form of government is an integral part of the overall whole; otherwise, the Bill of Rights would never get as high a ranking as it did.)

But the first question is far more problematic. For the Bill of Rights and US Constitution to reach the level of the Magna Carta (which should be #1 IMO), it must be clearly proven that the nations of the world have significantly been influenced by these documents. And I have trouble seeing it. Certainly parts of Western Europe have been affected by the Enlightenment which produced the ideas that made these documents possible, but that is not the same thing.

Therefore, since the Bill of Rights is so important to America, and America is so important to the rest of the world, it deserves a high ranking. But since the Bill of Rights is not in itself important to the rest of the world, it cannot be in the top tier. Thus a 15 is appropriate.
So, Timmay, if you were judge of this category, which owuld you rank first? From your rationale above, I'd guess Magna Carta, but I could be wrong.Oh, and, why do you hate America? :lmao: :wall:

 
It's also the longest standing constitution in the world.
Per Wiki, the constitutions of San Marino and Sweden are older.
You need to stop hinging every opinion to wiki. Sweden's constitution currently in effect is the one that can be traced to 1809 but really was fundamentally altered created a new government in the 1970's. I don't know if I would count it given all the changes to that empire.I had never heard of San Marino's until now. Very cool.
 
Just a heads up, I am adding pages to the google site which contain the judges rankings. When you go to the link here you will see a sidebar to the left called "Judgement" which links to these pages. Easy way for people to keep track of the rankings instead of sifting through all the posts in this thread.

Aside 1: Tim, could you send me a PM with your complete Play rankings once you have finished posting them so I can add them to the site?

Aside 2: Krista, were there/will there be write-ups to accompany your documentary rankings?
I intended to do write-ups, but the discussion has pretty much taken care of what I thought about almost all of them. So I'd say it's unlikely I'll go back and do write-ups now.I will do very short comments on the movies, though.

 
Just a heads up, I am adding pages to the google site which contain the judges rankings. When you go to the link here you will see a sidebar to the left called "Judgement" which links to these pages. Easy way for people to keep track of the rankings instead of sifting through all the posts in this thread.

Aside 1: Tim, could you send me a PM with your complete Play rankings once you have finished posting them so I can add them to the site?

Aside 2: Krista, were there/will there be write-ups to accompany your documentary rankings?
I intended to do write-ups, but the discussion has pretty much taken care of what I thought about almost all of them. So I'd say it's unlikely I'll go back and do write-ups now.I will do very short comments on the movies, though.
:thumbdown:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top