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!

World's Greatest Draft (1 Viewer)

You can keep the $500 a plate place where you have to act better then everyone else or you don't get to eat. I'll be fine with Tennessee bourbon and a thick steak for a tenth of the price.
$50 is still a lot for a meal. :confused:If the likes of Tolstoy and Joyce are the $500 per plate meals, someone like Twain is probably $50 per plate. Where does that put Abatha? Maybe $15 per plate?
 
Orange Crush said:
larry_boy_44 said:
I still have to do a write-up on Phelps, whom I personally consider in the top 5-10 based on his time records, medal accomplishments, and pure dominance on the international scene. He's the Babe Ruth or Gretzky of his sport, and he's doing it against the entire globe. Plus he pulls a mean binger.I've been incredibly busy though, and have little time. Maybe tonight I'll get to it. I will say I was shocked to see him slip down this far when Athletes have been drafted steadily for awhile now.
honestly, what Phelps did really doesn't impress me that much... :confused:not that its un-impressive, just compared to guys like Pele, Gretzky, Ruth, & Jordan, it just doesn't measure up and i don't see any way he could do something that would measure up...
It doesn't measure up in what way Larry? What is the commonality of the four guys you listed that Phelps doesn't have?
I don't consider swimming on level with the other sports... I just don't...I also don't think we'd think Phelps were as impressive if there weren't 25 medals in swimming so that swimmers could get 8 medals in one Olympics...There are athletes who won a smaller number of medals in Olympic events that i am much more impressed by than Michael Phelps...
Sorry, you cannot partake in any discussion until you make up two picks. Against the rules.
I'm still catching up... lolI'll pick when I get caught up....
 
18th Round: Carl Von Clausewitz Intellectual. Move Ben Franklin to Wildcard
Brief write up:Way back at 1.01, when MK drafted Sun Tzu, I mentioned another whose influence at least arguably exceeds his. Clauswitz is that person.

Writer of "On War" and actually experienced success in the Prussian Army.

Some of the key ideas discussed in On War include:

the dialectical approach to military analysis
the methods of "critical analysis"
the nature of the balance-of-power mechanism
the relationship between political objectives and military objectives in war
the asymmetrical relationship between attack and defense
the nature of "military genius" (involving matters of personality and character, beyond intellect)
the "fascinating trinity" (wunderliche Dreifaltigkeit) of war
philosophical distinctions between "absolute" or "ideal war," and "real war"
in "real war," the distinctive poles of a) limited war and b) war to "render the enemy helpless"
"war" belongs fundamentally to the social realm—rather than to the realms of art or science
"strategy" belongs primarily to the realm of art
"tactics" belongs primarily to the realm of science
the importance of "moral forces" (more than simply "morale") as opposed to quantifiable physical elements
the "military virtues" of professional armies (which do not necessarily trump the rather different virtues of other kinds of fighting forces)
conversely, the very real effects of a superiority in numbers and "mass"
the essential unpredictability of war
the "fog" of war
"friction"
strategic and operational "centers of gravity"
the "culminating point of the offensive"
the "culminating point of victory"
Despite his death just prior to completing On War, Clausewitz' ideas have been widely influential in military theory. Later Prussian and German generals such as Helmuth Graf von Moltke were clearly influenced by Clausewitz: Moltke's famous statement that "No campaign plan survives first contact with the enemy" is a classic reflection of Clausewitz's insistence on the roles of chance, friction, "fog," and uncertainty in war. The idea that actual war includes "friction" which deranges, to a greater or lesser degree, all prior arrangements, has become common currency in other fields as well (e.g., business strategy, sports).

Some claim that nuclear proliferation makes Clausewitzian concepts obsolescent after a period—i.e., the 20th century—in which they dominated the world.[3] John E. Sheppard, Jr., argues that, by developing nuclear weapons, state-based conventional armies simultaneously both perfected their original purpose (to destroy a mirror image of themselves) and made themselves obsolete. No two nuclear powers have ever used their nuclear weapons against each other, instead using conventional means or proxy wars to settle disputes. If, hypothetically, such a conflict did in fact occur, presumably both combatants would be effectively annihilated. Therefore, the beginning of the 21st century has found many instances of state armies attempting to suppress terrorism, bloody feuds, raids and other intra/supra-state conflict while using conventional weaponry.

Others, however, argue that the essentials of Clausewitz's theoretical approach remain valid, but that our thinking must adjust to changed realities. Knowing that "war is an expression of politics" does us no good unless we have a valid definition of "politics" and an understanding of how it is reflected in a specific situation. The latter may well turn on religious passions, private interests and armies, etc. While many commentators are quick to dismiss Clausewitz's political context as obsolete, it seems worthwhile to note that the states of the twentieth century were very different from Clausewitz's Prussia, and yet the World Wars are generally seen as "Clausewitzian warfare"; similarly, North and South Vietnam, and the United States as well, were quite unlike 18th century European states, yet it was the war in Indochina that brought the importance of Clausewitzian theory forcefully home to American thinkers. The idea that states cannot suppress rebellions or terrorism in a nuclear-armed world does not bear up well in the light of experience: Just as some rebellions and revolutions succeeded and some failed before 1945, some rebellions and revolutions have succeeded and some have failed in the years since. Insurgencies were successfully suppressed in the Philippines, Yemen, and Malaysia—just a few of many examples. Successful revolutions may destroy some states, but the revolutionaries simply establish new and stronger states—e.g., China, Vietnam, Iran—which seem to be quite capable of handling threats of renewed insurgency.

The real problem in determining Clausewitz's continuing relevance lies not with his own theoretical approach, which has stood up well over nearly two centuries of intense military and political change. Rather, the problem lies in the way that thinkers with more immediate concerns have adapted Clausewitzian theory to their own narrowly defined eras. When times change, people familiar only with Clausewitz's most recent interpreters, rather than with the original works, assume that the passing of cavalry, or Communism, or the USSR's Strategic Rocket Forces, means that Clausewitz is passé. Yet we always seem to be comfortable describing the age of warfare just past as "Clausewitzian"—even though Clausewitz never saw a machinegun, a tank, a Viet Cong, or a nuclear weapon.

The phrase fog of war derives from Clausewitz's stress on how confused warfare can seem while one is immersed within it.[4] The term center of gravity, used in a specifically military context, derives from Clausewitz's usage (which he took from Newtonian Mechanics). In the simplified and often confused form in which it appears in official US military doctrine, "Center of Gravity" refers to the basis of an opponent's power (at either the operational, strategic, or political level).
Agree or disagree with his influence being greater than Sun Tzu, he is a preeminent military theorist AND made it to Major-General, served as director of the Kriegsakademie and chief-of-staff.
 
You can keep the $500 a plate place where you have to act better then everyone else or you don't get to eat. I'll be fine with Tennessee bourbon and a thick steak for a tenth of the price.
$50 is still a lot for a meal. :)If the likes of Tolstoy and Joyce are the $500 per plate meals, someone like Twain is probably $50 per plate. Where does that put Abatha? Maybe $15 per plate?
I'll take Twain over Joyce each and every time offered.
 
You can keep the $500 a plate place where you have to act better then everyone else or you don't get to eat. I'll be fine with Tennessee bourbon and a thick steak for a tenth of the price.
$50 is still a lot for a meal. :)If the likes of Tolstoy and Joyce are the $500 per plate meals, someone like Twain is probably $50 per plate. Where does that put Abatha? Maybe $15 per plate?
I'll take Twain over Joyce each and every time offered.
I suspect most people would. He's still in the $500 per meal category though.
 
Yankee, here's the best analogy I can think of to make my point about Christie and other genre writers. Let's say we were drafting the greatest restaurants ever. Most of the people select the finest dining experiences, the best French, Italian, and steakhouses the world has to offer, and you draft McDonald's. Your argument is that this is the most popular restaurant in the world. You also argue that it created it's own genre, the fast food restaurant. Furthermore, you can even argue that it's got good food. I like McDonald's hamburgers and fries from time to time; most people do. But how do we compare it to the fine dining? We can't. And that's the problem.
I've seen this point and without making this mean, it's a point that is comedic and worthless. Your opinion about genre is childish - with all due respect.Again, Agatha Christie is not Susan Evanovich who writes the same 120 page "romance" "crime story" stories over and over again and has huge sales numbers because women eat that crap up. That is McDonalds. There is substance to Christie. So much so that she is still a titan in the industry today. Her stories have stood the test of time and have been made into movies, plays, television shows, and on and on and on. They are so respected that they have been remade over and over. Right down to the fact that the New York Times mourned the death of Poirot. It may genre (god forbid) but it stands well above the level you put it on.Popularity goes a long way with a lot of these "entertainment" categories. And it should. You guys that want to attack it with this McDonalds argument are making a case I will never understand. Joe Smith guitar player in Alabama might be the greatest jazz guitar player to ever grace this planet - God Himself may have cast the guys hands from the lake of musical genius to create the talent. But if not a single person ever heard the guy play then he won't be drafted here. If only 10 people heard him play, he isn't getting drafted here. At some point popularity must make it's ugly head known. Sorry. It's just the fact of the matter. And when you have people that obliterate others on the popularity chart, notice should be taken. It's the same in all the categories. Great Leaders are made great by what they do which naturally leads to a form of popular recognition. Same with Scientists. Same with every category here. The worst person on the planet - truly the most evil incarnation of humanity ever to curse this planet - may be tim's gardener. He isn't going to be drafted here. A necessary level of fame and recognition matters in every category, yet when we get to the "lifestyle" categories where you can be a snob and look down at others' opinions all of the sudden popularity has no place. Please.The only writing that surpases her is the bible. The freakin bible. The snobbery needed to justify your post is amazing in that respect. But I don't even need to go there given her stubstance, her greatness in plays and other formats - she wrote the most successful play in history - it's still running - decades after it opened - it's still relevent. And not for nothing, but for all the talk about the great fancy restaurant that gets 5 stars in Zagat's and has a waiting list 5 years long with a chef that can't be bothered using any bread not hand made by a virgin in Sicily - I'd rather enjoy myself then have to deal with the misplaced useless arrogance. You can keep the $500 a plate place where you have to act better then everyone else or you don't get to eat. I'll be fine with Tennessee bourbon and a thick steak for a tenth of the price.Ok, I'm done with Christie. Time to move on......
I think the truth lies somewhere in between yours and Tim's positions. She's not McDonalds, but she doesn't belong in this draft, either, IMO.
 
World's Crankiest Draft.
What makes you say this?
I've read the thread.
And?
And this is the crankiest draft thread I've seen. And it's not even close.
Cranky how? Because people are defending their picks and tearing down other picks? I think it comes with the territory. :wub: There's been some pretty heated debate, but at the end of the day people are still genial toward one another.

 
I'm going Humanitarian here. I honestly thought this guy was taken already but I just checked a few times and he wasn't, so:

I select Desmond Tutu

Desmond Mpilo Tutu (born 7 October 1931) is a South African cleric and activist who rose to worldwide fame during the 1980s as an opponent of apartheid. In 1984, Tutu became the second South African to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Tutu was the first black South African Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town, South Africa, and primate of the Church of the Province of Southern Africa (now the Anglican Church of Southern Africa). Tutu chaired the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and is currently the chairman of The Elders. Tutu is vocal in his defence of human rights and uses his high profile to campaign for the oppressed. Tutu also campaigns to fight AIDS, homophobia, poverty and racism. He received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1984, the Albert Schweitzer Prize for Humanitarianism, and the Gandhi Peace Prize in 2005.[1] Tutu has also compiled several books of his speeches and sayings.

Desmond Mpilo Tutu was born in Klerksdorp, Transvaal on 7 October 1931, the second of the three children of Zacheriah Zililo Tutu and his wife, Aletta, although the only son.[2] Tutu's family moved to Johannesburg when he was 12 years old where his father was a teacher and his mother a cleaner and cook at a school for the blind.[3] Here he met Trevor Huddleston who was a parish priest in the black slum of Sophiatown. "One day", said Tutu, "I was standing in the street with my mother when a white man in a priest's clothing walked past. As he passed us he took off his hat to my mother. I couldn't believe my eyes -- a white man who greeted a black working class woman!"[3]

Although Tutu wanted to become a physician, his family could not afford the training, and he followed his father's footsteps into teaching. Tutu studied at the Pretoria Bantu Normal College from 1951 to 1953, and went on to teach at Johannesburg Bantu High School and at Munsienville High School in Mogale City. However, he resigned following the passage of the Bantu Education Act, in protest of the poor educational prospects for black South Africans. He continued his studies, this time in theology, at St Peter's Theology College in Rosettenville and in 1960 was ordained as an Anglican priest following in the footsteps of his mentor and fellow activist, Trevor Huddleston.

Tutu then travelled to King's College London, (1962–1966), where he received his Bachelor's and Master's degrees in Theology. During this time he worked as a part-time curate, first at St Albans Cathedral and then at St. Mary's Church in Bletchingley, Surrey. He later returned to South Africa and from 1967 until 1972 used his lectures to highlight the circumstances of the African population. He wrote a letter to Prime Minister B. J. Vorster, in which he described the situation in South Africa as a "powder barrel that can explode at any time": the letter was never answered. He became chaplain at the University of Fort Hare in 1967, a hotbed of dissent and one of the few quality universities for African students in the southern part of Africa. From 1970 to 1972, Tutu lectured at the National University of Lesotho.

Tutu faced a difficult balancing act: voicing black discontent while leading a largely white parish. He alternated charm with challenges as he appealed to his parish's Afrikaner heritage, recalling that their forebears had endured British concentration camps. Somewhat to the bewilderment of other black leaders, he patiently courted Vorster’s successor, P. W. Botha, explaining that even Moses continued to reason with Pharaoh. But white liberals grew nervous when Tutu called for a boycott of South African products.[4] In 1972 Tutu returned to the UK, where he was appointed vice-director of the Theological Education Fund of the World Council of Churches, at Bromley in Kent. He returned to South Africa in 1975 and was appointed Anglican Dean of St. Mary's Cathedral in Johannesburg -— the first African person to hold that position

In 1976 protests in Soweto, also known as the Soweto Riots, against the government's use of Afrikaans as a compulsory medium of instruction in black schools became a massive uprising against apartheid. From then on Tutu supported an economic boycott of his country. He vigorously opposed the "constructive engagement" policy of the Reagan administration in the United States, which advocated "friendly persuasion". Tutu rather supported disinvestment, although it hit the poor hardest, for if disinvestment threw blacks out of work, Tutu argued, at least they would be suffering "with a purpose". Disinvestment did succeed, causing the value of the Rand to plunge down more than 35 percent, and pressuring the government toward reform. Tutu pressed the advantage and organised peaceful marches which brought 30 000 people onto the streets of Cape Town. That was the turning point: within months, Nelson Mandela was freed from prison, and apartheid was beginning to crumble.[4]

Tutu was Bishop of Lesotho from 1976 until 1978, when he became Secretary-General of the South African Council of Churches. From this position, he was able to continue his work against apartheid with agreement from nearly all churches. Tutu consistently advocated reconciliation between all parties involved in apartheid through his writings and lectures at home and abroad. Tutu's opposition to apartheid was vigorous and unequivocal, and he was outspoken both in South Africa and abroad. He often compared apartheid to Nazism and Communism, as a result the government twice revoked his passport, and he was jailed briefly in 1980 after a protest march. It was thought by many that Tutu's increasing international reputation and his rigorous advocacy of non-violence protected him from harsher penalties. Tutu was also harsh in his criticism of the violent tactics of some anti-apartheid groups such as the African National Congress and denounced terrorism and Communism. When a new constitution was proposed for South Africa in 1983 to defend against the anti-apartheid movement, Tutu helped form the National Forum Committee to fight the constitutional changes.[12]

In 1985, Tutu was appointed the Bishop of Johannesburg before he became the first black person to lead the Anglican Church in South Africa when, on 7 September 1986, he became Archbishop of Cape Town on the retirement of former Archbishop Philip Welsford Richmond Russell. From 1987 to 1997 he was president of the All Africa Conference of Churches. In 1989 he was invited to Birmingham, England, United Kingdom as part of Citywide Christian Celebrations. Tutu and his wife visited many establishments including the Nelson Mandela School in Sparkbrook.

Tutu was considered as Archbishop of Canterbury in 1990, however George Carey was chosen in his stead. Tutu has commented that he is "glad" that he was not chosen, as once installed in Lambeth Palace, he would have been homesick for South Africa, unhappy to be away from home during a critical time in the country's history.[13]

In 1990, Tutu and the ex-Vice Chancellor of the University of the Western Cape Professor Jakes Gerwel founded the Desmond Tutu Educational Trust. The Trust was established to fund developmental programmes in tertiary education and provides capacity building at 17 historically disadvantaged institutions. Tutu's work as a mediator in order to prevent all-out racial war was evident at the funeral of South African Communist Party leader Chris Hani in 1993. Tutu spurred a crowd of 120,000 to repeat after him the chants, over and over: "We will be free!", "All of us!", "Black and white together!" and finished his speech saying:

"We are the rainbow people of God! We are unstoppable! Nobody can stop us on our march to victory! No one, no guns, nothing! Nothing will stop us, for we are moving to freedom! We are moving to freedom and nobody can stop us! For God is on our side!"[14]

In 1993, he was a patron of the Cape Town Olympic Bid Committee. In 1994 he was an appointed a patron of the World Campaign Against Military and Nuclear Collaboration with South Africa, Beacon Millennium and Action from Ireland. In 1995 he was appointed a Chaplain and Sub-Prelate of the Venerable Order of Saint John by Queen Elizabeth II,[15] and he became a patron of the American Harmony Child Foundation and the Hospice Association of Southern Africa.

Tutu is widely regarded as "South Africa's moral conscience"[18] and has been described by former President of South Africa, Nelson Mandela, as "sometimes strident, often tender, never afraid and seldom without humour, Desmond Tutu's voice will always be the voice of the voiceless".[16] Since his retirement, Tutu has worked to critique the new South African government. Tutu has been vocal in condemnation of corruption, the ineffectiveness of the ANC-led government to deal with poverty, and the recent outbreaks of xenophobic violence in townships across South Africa.

After a decade of freedom for South Africa, Tutu was honoured with the invitation to deliver the annual Nelson Mandela Foundation Lecture. On 23 November 2004 Tutu was given the address entitled, "Look to the Rock from Which You Were Hewn." This lecture, critical of the ANC-controlled government, stirred a pot of controversy between Tutu and Thabo Mbeki, calling into question "the right to criticise."[19]

He made a stinging attack against South Africa's political elite, saying the country was "sitting on a powder keg"[20] because of its failure to alleviate poverty a decade after apartheid's end. Tutu also said that attempts to boost black economic ownership were only benefiting an elite minority, while political "kowtowing" within the ruling ANC was hampering democracy. Tutu asked, "What is black empowerment when it seems to benefit not the vast majority but an elite that tends to be recycled?"[20]

Tutu criticised politicians for debating whether to give the poor an income grant of $16 (£12) a month and said the idea should be seriously considered. Tutu has often spoken in support of the Basic Income Grant (BIG) which has so far been defeated in parliament. After the first round of volleys were fired, South African Press Association journalist, Ben Maclennan reported Tutu's response as: "Thank you Mr President for telling me what you think of me, that I am--a liar with scant regard for the truth, and a charlatan posing with his concern for the poor, the hungry, the oppressed and the voiceless."[21]

Tutu warned of corruption shortly after the re-election of the African National Congress government of South Africa, saying that they "stopped the gravy train just long enough to get on themselves." [22] In August 2006 Tutu publicly urged Jacob Zuma, the South African politician who had been accused of sexual crimes and corruption, to drop out of the ANC's presidential succession race. He said in a public lecture that he would not be able to hold his "head high" if Zuma became leader after being accused both of rape and corruption. In September 2006, Tutu repeated his opposition to Zuma's candidacy as ANC leader due to Zuma's "moral failings"."[23]

The head of the Congress of South African Students condemned Tutu as a "loose cannon" and a "scandalous man" — a reaction which prompted an angry Mbeki to side with Tutu. Zuma's personal advisor responded by accusing Tutu of having double standards and "selective amnesia" (as well as being old). Elias Khumalo claims Tutu "had found it so easy to accept the apology from the apartheid government that committed unspeakable atrocities against millions of South Africans", yet now "cannot find it in his heart to accept the apology from this humble man who has erred". Tutu and Zuma’s public criticism of each other are reflections of a turbulent time in South African politics.[24]

Tutu has condemned the xenophobic violence which occurred throughout South Africa in May 2008. Tutu, who once intervened in the apartheid years to prevent a mob necklacing a man, said that when South Africans were fighting against apartheid they had been supported by people around the world and particularly in Africa. Although they were poor, other Africans welcomed South Africans as refugees, and allowed liberation movements to have bases in their territory even if it meant those countries were going to be attacked by the South African Defence force. Tutu called on South Africans to end the violence as thousands of refugees have sought refuge in shelters.[25]

 
Cranky how? Because people are defending their picks and tearing down other picks? I think it comes with the territory. :wub:There's been some pretty heated debate, but at the end of the day people are still genial toward one another.
Oh, bite me. I know you've been out to get me since that Polk pick, what like 2 months ago. I mean, get over it already and get laid or something.
 
Cranky how? Because people are defending their picks and tearing down other picks? I think it comes with the territory. :thumbdown:There's been some pretty heated debate, but at the end of the day people are still genial toward one another.
Oh, bite me. I know you've been out to get me since that Polk pick, what like 2 months ago. I mean, get over it already and get laid or something.
:lmao: I'm trying pal. I really am.
 
This pick is probably going to be ripped.... but here goes anyways:18.19 CS Lewis, FLEX

Clive Staples Lewis (29 November 1898 – 22 November 1963), commonly referred to as C. S. Lewis and known to his friends and family as Jack, was a northern Irish novelist, academic, medievalist, literary critic, essayist, lay theologian and Christian apologist. He is also known for his fiction, especially The Screwtape Letters, The Chronicles of Narnia and The Space Trilogy.Lewis was a close friend of J. R. R. Tolkien, the author of The Lord of the Rings. Both authors were leading figures in the English faculty at Oxford University and in the informal Oxford literary group known as the "Inklings". According to his memoir Surprised by Joy, Lewis had been baptised in the Church of Ireland at birth, but fell away from his faith during his adolescence. Owing to the influence of Tolkien and other friends, at about the age of 30, Lewis returned to Christianity, becoming "a very ordinary layman of the Church of England" [1]. His conversion had a profound effect on his work, and his wartime radio broadcasts on the subject of Christianity brought him wide acclaim.In 1956, he married the American writer Joy Gresham (17 years his junior), who died four years later after a long battle against cancer. She was only 45 years old.Lewis himself died three years later following a heart attack, one week before what would have been his 65th birthday. Media coverage of his death was minimal, as he died on 22 November 1963 - the same day that President Kennedy of the United States of America was assassinated.Lewis's works have been translated into more than 30 languages and have sold millions of copies over the years. The books that comprise The Chronicles of Narnia have sold the most and have been popularised on stage, in TV, in radio, and in cinema.
I would put him in the author category, but I'm pretty sure he'd get ripped as his most famous works (Narnia) are largely considered Children's books...But I'm picking him for more than that...his work as a scholar:
Lewis began his brilliant academic career as an undergraduate student at Oxford, where he won a triple first, the highest honors in three areas of study. [14] Lewis then taught as a fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford, for nearly thirty years, from 1925 to 1954, and later was the first Professor of Medieval and Renaissance English at the University of Cambridge and a fellow of Magdalene College, Cambridge. Using this position, he argued that there was no such thing as an English Renaissance. Much of his scholarly work concentrated on the later Middle Ages, especially its use of allegory. His The Allegory of Love (1936) helped reinvigorate the serious study of late medieval narratives like the Roman de la Rose. Lewis wrote several prefaces to old works of literature and poetry, like Layamon's Brut. His book "A Preface to Paradise Lost" is still one of the most valuable criticisms of that work. His last academic work, The Discarded Image: An Introduction to Medieval and Renaissance Literature (1964), is a summary of the medieval world view, the "discarded image" of the cosmos in his title.
Then there is his fiction:- The Pilgrim's Regress- The Space Trilogy (Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra, and That Hideous Strength)- The Chronicles of Narnia- The Great Divorce- The Screwtape Lettersamong many other workshis work as a Christian Apologist:
In addition to his career as an English professor and an author of fiction, Lewis is regarded by many as one of the most influential Christian apologists of his time; Mere Christianity was voted best book of the twentieth century by Christianity Today in 2000. Due to Lewis's approach to religious belief as a skeptic, and his following conversion, he has been called "The Apostle to the Skeptics."Lewis was very much interested in presenting a reasonable case for the truth of Christianity. Mere Christianity, The Problem of Pain, and Miracles were all concerned, to one degree or another, with refuting popular objections to Christianity, such as "How could a good God allow pain to exist in the world?". He also became known as a popular lecturer and broadcaster, and some of his writing (including much of Mere Christianity) originated as scripts for radio talks or lectures.According to xxxxxxxxxxxx, a 1948 loss in a debate with xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx led to his reevaluating his role as an apologist and his future works concentrated on devotional literature and children's books. xxxxxxx had a different recollection of the debate's emotional effect on Lewis.[17] xxxxxxxxxxxx also disputes xxxxxx, listing some of Lewis post-1948 apologetic publications, including the second and revised edition of his Miracles in 1960.Lewis also wrote an autobiography titled Surprised by Joy, which places special emphasis on his own conversion. (It was written before he met his wife, Joy Gresham; the title of the book came from the first line of a poem by William Wordsworth.) His essays and public speeches on Christian belief, many of which were collected in God in the Dock and The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses, remain popular today.His most famous works, the Chronicles of Narnia, contain many strong Christian messages and are often considered allegory. Lewis, an expert on the subject of allegory, maintained that the books were not allegory, and preferred to call the Christian aspects of them "suppositional". As Lewis wrote in a letter to a Mrs. Hook in December 1958: If Aslan represented the immaterial Deity in the same way in which Giant Despair [a character in The Pilgrim's Progress] represents despair, he would be an allegorical figure. In reality however he is an invention giving an imaginary answer to the question, 'What might Christ become like, if there really were a world like Narnia and He chose to be incarnate and die and rise again in that world as He actually has done in ours?' This is not allegory at all. (Martindale & Root 1990)
one of my favorite things he wrote/spoke about is referred to as the "trilemma". A quote from Lewis from Mere Christianity on this topic:
I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. (Lewis 1952, p. 43)
Basically he is arguing that there are only 3 logical opinions that one can have of Jesus if we take what He is claimed to have said in the Bible as what He actually said:1. he is insane2. he is evil3. he is everything he claims to beand that Christ intended it to be that way in order to force us to choose.plus, on top of all of this, Lewis wrote numerous non-fiction works, his essays, his poems, and lectures that are still read today. His fiction is great, and they are a large part of why i picked him, but there is also his theology and his non-fiction writings that are important and noteworthy...
 
What makes you say this?
I've read the thread.
And?
And this is the crankiest draft thread I've seen. And it's not even close.
Cranky how? Because people are defending their picks and tearing down other picks? I think it comes with the territory. :thumbdown: There's been some pretty heated debate, but at the end of the day people are still genial toward one another.
Obviously I disagree. Wanna fight about it?
 
Late in the draft I'm going to have to use a little creativity. And, I'm not above pandering to the large number of lawyers who frequent the FFA…

His Commentaries were works that would dominate the common law legal system for more than a century, and his influence is still felt today. Virtually every English-speaking country can point to him as a foundation to their legal system. His words would shape the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution and primal laws of the USA.

19.07, Sir William Blackstone, Intellectual

Sir William Blackstone (originally pronounced Blexstun) (10 July 1723 – 14 February 1780) was an English jurist and professor who produced the historical and analytic treatise on the common law called Commentaries on the Laws of England, first published in four volumes over 1765–1769. It had an extraordinary success, reportedly bringing the author £14,000, and still remains an important source on classical views of the common law and its principles.
In his 1941 book The Mysterious Science of the Law, (redacted) wrote that no other book except the Bible played a greater role in the history of American institutions. The Founders of the country found their philosophy in John Locke and their passion in (redacted), but they found the blueprint for a new nation in Blackstone. To be sure, they did not construct the government as Blackstone would have designed it; they added and subtracted from it as they went along but the foundation was built on Blackstone.
The first volume of his ’Commentaries on the Laws of England’ appeared in 1765, being the enlarged substance of his lectures, the fourth and final volume came in 1769, and edition after edition followed down to the middle of the nineteenth century. It was the first time that English Law had been made readable and intelligible to the lay mind. The book was quoted in the Courts and treated almost as an authority. The rising tide of the appeal to 'Natural Rights' as against precedent, which foreshadowed and accompanied the French Revolution, led the new school of jurists, headed by Bentham and Austen, to discredit the work as having in it no 'original philosophy of Law' - a property which its author might well have asked his critics to define. Blackstone was not, indeed, a great Civilian and did not pretend to be. He was only the most lucid and harmonious expositor of the English Systems that ever lived. It has been said in more recent times that the Commentaries “summed up and passed on the Common Law, as developed mainly by the work of the legal profession, before it was remodelled by direct legislation”.
 
You're basically saying that for the purposes of this draft, Jesus is nothing more than an evil human being or a lunatic.

 
Larry, that quote kind of hurts your Jesus pick.
no it doesn't, because Jesus is great and influential because of how many people believe He is the Son of God as Jesus claimed to be...That quote is a direct refutation of those who were trying to claim Jesus was a good moral teacher, but not God...
 
Don't forget to vote in the GAD vote thread either people. For some strange reason all of the sudden I'm losing. So, let's get with it....

 
You're basically saying that for the purposes of this draft, Jesus is nothing more than an evil human being or a lunatic.
You're not suggesting that the picks we make have to be in harmony with each other are you?
No, I'm saying that, if Lewis' opinion is a popular one, then for the purposes of this draft, since he can't be divine, he is evil or he is crazy.
 
You're basically saying that for the purposes of this draft, Jesus is nothing more than an evil human being or a lunatic.
You're not suggesting that the picks we make have to be in harmony with each other are you?
No, I'm saying that, if Lewis' opinion is a popular one, then for the purposes of this draft, since he can't be divine, he is evil or he is crazy.
We can't use "He is divine" as the basis for our argument for His greatness... But that is mostly because if He actually is God, whoever had Him would win outright...But that doesn't mean He is declared as not divine... It just means we can't use His divinity as our argument for His greatness, rather we can only use the fact that people believe Him to be divine as the reason for His greatness...
 
You're basically saying that for the purposes of this draft, Jesus is nothing more than an evil human being or a lunatic.
You're not suggesting that the picks we make have to be in harmony with each other are you?
No, I'm saying that, if Lewis' opinion is a popular one, then for the purposes of this draft, since he can't be divine, he is evil or he is crazy.
We can't use "He is divine" as the basis for our argument for His greatness... But that is mostly because if He actually is God, whoever had Him would win outright...But that doesn't mean He is declared as not divine... It just means we can't use His divinity as our argument for His greatness, rather we can only use the fact that people believe Him to be divine as the reason for His greatness...
Yeah, I agree with you for the most part on this.
 
You're basically saying that for the purposes of this draft, Jesus is nothing more than an evil human being or a lunatic.
You're not suggesting that the picks we make have to be in harmony with each other are you?
No, I'm saying that, if Lewis' opinion is a popular one, then for the purposes of this draft, since he can't be divine, he is evil or he is crazy.
What? Lewis' commentary is about how one views Jesus Christ. How can that possibly affect the strength of Jesus as a pick? I don't get it. If I had Marx and Adam Smith on the same team, would one be somehow weakened by the presence of the other?
 
You're basically saying that for the purposes of this draft, Jesus is nothing more than an evil human being or a lunatic.
You're not suggesting that the picks we make have to be in harmony with each other are you?
No, I'm saying that, if Lewis' opinion is a popular one, then for the purposes of this draft, since he can't be divine, he is evil or he is crazy.
What? Lewis' commentary is about how one views Jesus Christ. How can that possibly affect the strength of Jesus as a pick? I don't get it. If I had Marx and Adam Smith on the same team, would one be somehow weakened by the presence of the other?
And......... we're done with this debate.
 
UPDATED MARIO KART PICKS

I had this guy pegged a couple of rounds ago and I am happy that the people I sent his name to did not draft him, for whatever reason. Kudos. This guy is more than a telescope with a fixed lens. His accomplishments are huge and have opened many of the doors for guys in his field as well as many other scientific fields. He is often overlooked by the general public because of his association with a telescope but like his telescope, he was able to see far into the past and recognize the greatness of the universe. The pictures you see at night can often be attributed to his vision. In that respect, Mario Kart selected:

18.20 - Edwin Hubble - Wild Card

Edwin Powell Hubble (November 20, 1889 – September 28, 1953) was an American astronomer. He profoundly changed astronomers' understanding of the nature of the universe by demonstrating the existence of other galaxies besides the Milky Way. He also discovered that the degree of redshift observed in light coming from a galaxy increased in proportion to the distance of that galaxy from the Milky Way. This became known as Hubble's law, and would help establish that the universe is expanding.

Hubble's arrival at Mount Wilson in 1919 coincided roughly with the completion of the 100-inch (2.5 m) Hooker Telescope, then the world's largest telescope. At that time, the prevailing view of the cosmos was that the universe consisted entirely of the Milky Way Galaxy. Using the Hooker Telescope at Mt. Wilson, Hubble identified Cepheid variables (a kind of star; see also standard candle) in several spiral nebulae, including the Andromeda Nebula. His observations, made in 1922–1923, proved conclusively that these nebulae were much too distant to be part of the Milky Way and were, in fact, entire galaxies outside our own. This idea had been opposed by many in the astronomy establishment of the time, in particular by the Harvard University-based Harlow Shapley. Hubble's discovery, announced on January 1, 1925, fundamentally changed the view of the universe.

Hubble also devised the most commonly used system for classifying galaxies, grouping them according to their appearance in photographic images. He arranged the different groups of galaxies in what became known as the Hubble sequence.

-------------- Round 19 ---------------

Never thought I would pick her to be my celebrity but during her time she was huge. She was the essential celebrity when her face was on television every week and later in life she remained a huge celebrity. She was the quintessential starlet on television and was a pioneer into the consciousness of American's that women can be funny as well. Her character, while a character and not herself by any means, made people laugh in times of anguish and joy. She opened up on television to simply be remembered years later by most film studies, television studies, and people who get cheap cable stations. Mario Kart brings to you:

19.01 - Lucille Ball - Celebrity

Ball has received many prestigious awards throughout her career including some that she received posthumously such as the Presidential Medal of Freedom on July 6, 1989.[52] The Women's International Center's Living Legacy Award.[53] There is a Lucille Ball-Desi Arnaz Center museum in Jamestown, NY. The Little Theatre in Jamestown, New York, was renamed the Lucille Ball Little Theatre in her honor.[54] Ball was among Time magazine's 100 Most Important People of the Century.[55]

On August 6, 2001, on what would have been her ninetieth birthday, the United States Postal Service honored her with a commemorative postage stamp as part of its Legends of Hollywood series.[56] Ball appeared on the cover of TV Guide more than any other person; she appeared on thirty-nine covers, including the very first cover in 1953, with her baby son Desi Arnaz, Jr.[57] TV Guide voted Lucille Ball as the Greatest TV Star of All Time and later it commemorated the fiftieth anniversary of I Love Lucy with eight collector covers celebrating memorable scenes from the show and in another instance they named I Love Lucy the second most influential television program in American history.[58] Because of her liberated mindset and approval of the women's movement, Ball was inducted into the National Women's Hall of Fame.[59]

Finally, she was awarded the Legacy of Laughter award at the fifth Annual TV Land Awards in 2007.[60] and I Love Lucy was named the Greatest TV Series by Hall of Fame Magazine.[19] In November of that year, Lucille Ball was chosen as the second out of the 50 Greatest TV Icons. In a poll done by the public, however, they chose her as the greatest icon.[61]

Mario Kart

Leaders - Franklin Delano Roosevelt (post #5479) (16.20)

Military - Sun Tzu (post #45) (1.01)

Scientist - Dmitri Mendeleev (post #4660) (13.01)

Inventor - Guglielmo Marconi (post #5479) (17.01)

Discoverer/Explorer - Giovanni da Pian del Carpine (post #1281) (2.20)

Humanitarian/Saint/Martyr - Henry Dunant (post #5205) (15.01)

Novelist/Short stories - J. R. R. Tolkien (post #3003)(6.20)

Playwrights/Poets - Geoffrey Chaucer (post #1295) (3.01)

Villain - Ho Chi Minh (post #3916) (10.20)

Athlete -

Composer - Antonio Vivaldi (post #3403) (9.01)

Musicians/Performers -

Painter - Claude Monet (post #2236) (4.20)

Artist/Non-Painter - Auguste Rodin (post #2248) (5.01)

Philosopher - Jean Piaget (post #4660) (12.20)

Religious Figure - Pope Gregory XIII (post #3371) (8.20)

Celebrity - Lucille Ball (post #6051) (19.01)

Intellectual - John Maynard Keynes (post #3003) (7.01)

Rebel - Guy Fawkes (post #5205) (14.20)

Wildcards - Gavrilo Princip (post #3916) (11.01)

Wildcards - Edwin Hubble (post #6051) (18.20)

Wildcards -

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You're basically saying that for the purposes of this draft, Jesus is nothing more than an evil human being or a lunatic.
You're not suggesting that the picks we make have to be in harmony with each other are you?
No, I'm saying that, if Lewis' opinion is a popular one, then for the purposes of this draft, since he can't be divine, he is evil or he is crazy.
What? Lewis' commentary is about how one views Jesus Christ. How can that possibly affect the strength of Jesus as a pick? I don't get it. If I had Marx and Adam Smith on the same team, would one be somehow weakened by the presence of the other?
I think he was trying to see if I'd make an insane, non-sensical rant in response...or a decently thought out, semi-intelligent reason why he's wrong...I don't think he was being entirely serious in what he said, rather he wanted to see what my reaction to it would be...
 
You're basically saying that for the purposes of this draft, Jesus is nothing more than an evil human being or a lunatic.
You're not suggesting that the picks we make have to be in harmony with each other are you?
No, I'm saying that, if Lewis' opinion is a popular one, then for the purposes of this draft, since he can't be divine, he is evil or he is crazy.
What? Lewis' commentary is about how one views Jesus Christ. How can that possibly affect the strength of Jesus as a pick? I don't get it. If I had Marx and Adam Smith on the same team, would one be somehow weakened by the presence of the other?
It has nothing to do with the fact that they're on the same team. I never made that claim - that was your interpretation. In any case, Larry cleared it up nicely and I'm ready to move on. For the purposes of this draft, let's just say, according to Lewis, Jesus was either insane or evil, but nonetheless probably the most influential figure in world history.
 
You're basically saying that for the purposes of this draft, Jesus is nothing more than an evil human being or a lunatic.
You're not suggesting that the picks we make have to be in harmony with each other are you?
No, I'm saying that, if Lewis' opinion is a popular one, then for the purposes of this draft, since he can't be divine, he is evil or he is crazy.
What? Lewis' commentary is about how one views Jesus Christ. How can that possibly affect the strength of Jesus as a pick? I don't get it. If I had Marx and Adam Smith on the same team, would one be somehow weakened by the presence of the other?
I think he was trying to see if I'd make an insane, non-sensical rant in response...or a decently thought out, semi-intelligent reason why he's wrong...I don't think he was being entirely serious in what he said, rather he wanted to see what my reaction to it would be...
Once again, you're assuming the worst here Larry. I wasn't enticing you. I just found it interesting that you chose to highlight that quote by Lewis.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Have I mentioned that everyone in here has been great. Truly fun to be with. Arguments are inspiring. Picks - educational. About the only thing that could truly make you all rise to a saintly level in my eyes - and beleive me, you are all close already (yes, even you larry - slap it high for Hulk Hogan) - is if you would be so kind as to go over the GAD vote thread and select the best team there, which just happens to be my team. KThanks.

 
You're basically saying that for the purposes of this draft, Jesus is nothing more than an evil human being or a lunatic.
You're not suggesting that the picks we make have to be in harmony with each other are you?
No, I'm saying that, if Lewis' opinion is a popular one, then for the purposes of this draft, since he can't be divine, he is evil or he is crazy.
What? Lewis' commentary is about how one views Jesus Christ. How can that possibly affect the strength of Jesus as a pick? I don't get it. If I had Marx and Adam Smith on the same team, would one be somehow weakened by the presence of the other?
It has nothing to do with the fact that they're on the same team. I never made that claim - that was your interpretation. In any case, Larry cleared it up nicely and I'm ready to move on. For the purposes of this draft, let's just say, according to Lewis, Jesus was either insane or evil, but nonetheless probably the most influential figure in world history.
That is not even close to what Lewis was saying...You can't frame Lewis' theory on Jesus in terms of this draft...There is no rule that people drafted can't work to prove Jesus was God, only that I can't use "Jesus is God" as a reason to say Jesus was an influential person...What you are doing would be like someone framing John Wesley's sermons the same way (removing all mentions of Jesus as divine from them), only if you did that you'd have very little (if anything) left...
 
You're basically saying that for the purposes of this draft, Jesus is nothing more than an evil human being or a lunatic.
You're not suggesting that the picks we make have to be in harmony with each other are you?
No, I'm saying that, if Lewis' opinion is a popular one, then for the purposes of this draft, since he can't be divine, he is evil or he is crazy.
What? Lewis' commentary is about how one views Jesus Christ. How can that possibly affect the strength of Jesus as a pick? I don't get it. If I had Marx and Adam Smith on the same team, would one be somehow weakened by the presence of the other?
It has nothing to do with the fact that they're on the same team. I never made that claim - that was your interpretation. In any case, Larry cleared it up nicely and I'm ready to move on. For the purposes of this draft, let's just say, according to Lewis, Jesus was either insane or evil, but nonetheless probably the most influential figure in world history.
I guess that would work if Lewis were drafting in this thread and agreed not to consider Jesus' divinity, but he didn't. Anyhow, I'm happy to move on. How about me getting the founder of UNICEF and the guy who formed the foundation of modern law as we know it? Pretty sweet, huh?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top