World's Greatest Draft (4 Viewers)

[Mario Kart]

3.04 - Ferdinand Magellan Discoverer/Explorer

Write up to follow, but is it needed?

He was my original 2nd rounder.

 

[timschochet]

Just wanted to say that I really admire people like Yankee and Krista who were classicly trained to play piano. My daughters, 8 and 6, are just now getting piano lessons; at this point, it's pretty basic stuff- Ode To Joy with chord changes, etc. I'm wondering how much I should push them into this. Should I leave it completely up to them, or is it worthwhile enough to get a little more serious?

I hope you're not serious. Leave it up to them!

I don't want to force them into anything they don't want. Guess I'm just wondering how strongly to encourage them in this.

 

[Doug B]

3.04 - Ferdinand Magellan Discoverer/Explorer

Write up to follow, but is it needed?

He was my original 2nd rounder.

Man, I am feeling this comment. Not about Magellan specifically ... but just seeing every person I thought about at 2.12 flying off the board Based on some comments ... I wonder if Julius Caesar would've been there at 3.09?

 

[Doug B]

I don't want to force them into anything they don't want. Guess I'm just wondering how strongly to encourage them in this.

Do they play on their own, away from lessons and organized practice?

 

[Ozymandias]

Ozy, great quote, but you've REALLY got to be carefull, dude. You keep spotlighting.

Fair enough, but in my opinion, spotlighting is only undesirable when it has some reference to the rankings or illuminates an individual's particular knowledge, expertise or position which could be relevant to a draft. Not because of some random quote. A chronological listing listing of the US Presidents, could be viewed as spotlighting, if you go by your interpretation. But it would hardly be relevant.

 

[timschochet]

I don't want to force them into anything they don't want. Guess I'm just wondering how strongly to encourage them in this.

Do they play on their own, away from lessons and organized practice?

All the time. But it's very simplistic. Aggravatingly so.

 

[timschochet]

Ozy, great quote, but you've REALLY got to be carefull, dude. You keep spotlighting.

Fair enough, but in my opinion, spotlighting is only undesirable when it has some reference to the rankings or illuminates an individual's particular knowledge, expertise or position which could be relevant to a draft. Not because of some random quote. A chronological listing listing of the US Presidents, could be viewed as spotlighting, if you go by your interpretation. But it would hardly be relevant.

It's not a question of you naming someone no one's heard of. The guy you named, of course we all know who he is. But somebody who's trying to come up with names to draft might read this and say to themselves, "OMG, I completely FORGET about him! Of course, that's the guy I've got to draft." That's the reason it's best to avoid it.You're not particulary more guilty than anyone else. We all do it; I've done it too. It's just better to try to be careful.

 

[Ozymandias]

[i think someone brought this up earlier, but Democracy isn’t what it’s cracked up to be.

Right now we get a choice of who to pick, but it’s really 1 of 2 and they have policy dictated by a very small group of people. You basically get a choice, which is massively influenced by what the media presents.

A Benevolent Overlord or Dictator works well. There are many documented in history who have worked for the greater good.

Unfortunately a bad Dictator or tyrant doesn’t, but then looking at how things are run these days how different would things be? Do you really have any real say right now?

The large majority of people will accept being told what to do or how to contribute to society as long as they have a roof over their head, food in their bellies and can procreate and raise children in a safe environment.

Movers and Shakers in society are the ones that cry most about freedom, but for me Democracy has had its day. It’s time to move on and come up with something better.

Don't know if this is shtick or not, but it doesn't read like it. So let me just write that I disagree completely with this entire take, and I hope this is never a popular viewpoint.

1. There is no doubt that a philosopher king (or, if you wish), a benevolent dictator, would be the best form of government. However, if the philosopher king were truly wise, he would reject the position of king, because he would know, as Galadriel the Elven Queen knew, that having the power would corrupt him (or her). So there is no such thing as a wise philosopher king; it is an unreachable goal.

2. All governments are corruptible. Democracy does have a self correcting mechanism; but it may take time.

3. Therefore, that government is best which governs least. But the people want bread and circus.

P.S. I'm sorry, I shouldn't have mentioned Galadriel.

 

[John Maddens Lunchbox]

[i think someone brought this up earlier, but Democracy isn’t what it’s cracked up to be.

Right now we get a choice of who to pick, but it’s really 1 of 2 and they have policy dictated by a very small group of people. You basically get a choice, which is massively influenced by what the media presents.

A Benevolent Overlord or Dictator works well. There are many documented in history who have worked for the greater good.

Unfortunately a bad Dictator or tyrant doesn’t, but then looking at how things are run these days how different would things be? Do you really have any real say right now?

The large majority of people will accept being told what to do or how to contribute to society as long as they have a roof over their head, food in their bellies and can procreate and raise children in a safe environment.

Movers and Shakers in society are the ones that cry most about freedom, but for me Democracy has had its day. It’s time to move on and come up with something better.

Don't know if this is shtick or not, but it doesn't read like it. So let me just write that I disagree completely with this entire take, and I hope this is never a popular viewpoint.

I don't think there is any doubt that Democracy is a terrible form of government.In fact, it is the worst form of government.

Except for all the others that have ever been tried. (XXXXXX XXXXXXXX)

No Schtick at all. I believe in Government running Hospitals, Defence, Police, Fire Services, Telecommunications, Postal Services and Planes, Trains and Automobiles.

I believe in personal Liberty ie people can what they like as long as they don't harm other people in doing it.

I'd vote for a Flat Tax as long as it could pay for the above and I want people to run the government for the betterment of the majority, not self interest and the minority.

Who do I vote for?

The best person to run that form of government is that of a benovolent dictator.

It's going to be hard to find one as most are the opposite of what would work.

 

[thatguy]

3.04 - Ferdinand Magellan Discoverer/Explorer

Write up to follow, but is it needed?

He was my original 2nd rounder.

Man, I am feeling this comment. Not about Magellan specifically ... but just seeing every person I thought about at 2.12 flying off the board Based on some comments ... I wonder if Julius Caesar would've been there at 3.09?

I hear ya. I feel strongly now that Tolstoy would have fallen to me in round 3, although I'd not have liked it if he hadn't. But Homer was a guy I very strongly considered. As is Magellan. And Adam Smith. And probably a good deal of others who've been taken. It seems that save for a few outliers, Tolstoy likely being one of them (although I can't say I regret the pick one bit), most of us have a strong sense of who the very top guys are.

 

[John Maddens Lunchbox]

[i think someone brought this up earlier, but Democracy isn’t what it’s cracked up to be.

Right now we get a choice of who to pick, but it’s really 1 of 2 and they have policy dictated by a very small group of people. You basically get a choice, which is massively influenced by what the media presents.

A Benevolent Overlord or Dictator works well. There are many documented in history who have worked for the greater good.

Unfortunately a bad Dictator or tyrant doesn’t, but then looking at how things are run these days how different would things be? Do you really have any real say right now?

The large majority of people will accept being told what to do or how to contribute to society as long as they have a roof over their head, food in their bellies and can procreate and raise children in a safe environment.

Movers and Shakers in society are the ones that cry most about freedom, but for me Democracy has had its day. It’s time to move on and come up with something better.

Don't know if this is shtick or not, but it doesn't read like it. So let me just write that I disagree completely with this entire take, and I hope this is never a popular viewpoint.

1. There is no doubt that a philosopher king (or, if you wish), a benevolent dictator, would be the best form of government. However, if the philosopher king were truly wise, he would reject the position of king, because he would know, as Galadriel the Elven Queen knew, that having the power would corrupt him (or her). So there is no such thing as a wise philosopher king; it is an unreachable goal.

2. All governments are corruptible. Democracy does have a self correcting mechanism; but it may take time.

3. Therefore, that government is best which governs least. But the people want bread and circus.

I want bread and circusSo I'm stuck with this democracy mularkey

 

[Yankee23Fan]

My pick is coming. I'm taking an American probably because, again, the lack of respect for this country so far is just wrong.

 

[John Maddens Lunchbox]

My pick is coming. I'm taking an American probably because, again, the lack of respect for this country so far is just wrong.

I think I know who it will be

 

[Yankee23Fan]

My pick is coming. I'm taking an American probably because, again, the lack of respect for this country so far is just wrong.

I think I know who it will be

............ and I've changed my mind. Seriously. There a too many people to take here. I will have many Americans on my team, but frankly, the person I'm taking here should be a first rounder.

 

[Mario Kart]

Just for the record, there are 2 selections so far where I have not even heard of the guy (Not going to name them to save myself embarrassment).Maybe it’s my Aussie education kicking in, but if I haven’t heard of a guy, a lot of guys who vote in the polls may not have either. For the record I studied as much History as was possible at High School and read a lot in my spare time#### em, it’s all about learning anyhow.

I'm not embarrassed to say that I've never heard of Subutai or Giovanni da Pian del Carpine.

I knew about one of them quite well (Subutai), but the 5 names guy is new to me.Mario has his own direction and while it won't get him a prize, I'm definitely interested to see where he goes with future picks.

Believe me, it was difficult pulling the trigger on Carpini compared to Magellan as he is the much more popular choice and a maritime one at that. Carpini is the guy who scores a touchdown, hands the ball to the official and trots to the sideline. Magellan is the guy who scores a touchdown and does a little dance and trots to the sideline. Columbus is the guy who scores a touchdown and pulls a Sharpie out of his shoe even if they are a few touchdowns behind. I am not all about the originals but I do appreciate the guys who took a chance and came out ahead. Carpini did not do it, for what we know, any riches. He did it for the knowledge of the people. A couple things from the Wiki page that stand out to me.If true, he tries to change perception through information:- The title is quite significant insofar as it calls attention to the fact that the Mongols were not identical to the Tatars. In fact, the author mentions that the Mongols were quite offended by the fact that they were referred to by this name: Tatars had been vanquished by them in several campaigns around 1206 and had since then ceased to exist as an independent ethnic group.Again, if true, he puts the knowledge ahead of any accolades:- Like some other famous medieval itineraries it shows an entire absence of a traveller's or author's egotism, and contains, even in the last chapter, scarcely any personal narrative. Joannes was not only an old man when he went cheerfully upon this mission, but was, as we know from accidental evidence in the annals of his order, a fat and heavy man Finally, if true, he introduced a huge religion to a new people, even if not accepted, is big:- It first revealed the Mongol world to Catholic Christendom; its account of Tatar manners, customs and history is perhaps the best treatment of the subject by any Christian writer of the Middle Ages. We may especially notice, moreover, its four name-lists of the nations conquered by the Mongols; of the nations which had up to this time (1245-1247) successfully resisted; of the Mongol princes; and of the witnesses to the truth of his narrative, including various merchants trading in Kiev whom he had met. All these catalogues, unrivalled in Western medieval literature, are of the utmost historical value.I like these aspects compared to exploring for the riches and accolades it might bring.

 

[Mario Kart]

My pick is coming. I'm taking an American probably because, again, the lack of respect for this country so far is just wrong.

I don't think it is a lack of respect but the World has been around a long time and not acknowledging those that have come before is a huge part of where we are today. If America was ancient Rome... the years after America collapsed would be plenty different but America would be just as acknowledged. When do I pick next?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Perhaps some will consider this the first curve ball, but the fact is that this guy needed to be a first round pick. Problem is, there are many that should lay claim to the 20 greatest people in this history of the world. Problem with almost all of them, though, is that without this guy, their histories might not exist - at least, it would be harder to find them.

Shakespeare's greatness doesn't come to life without this man. Columbus wouldn't have had the bad maps he had. Michelangelo wouldn't have had anything to paint on. Newton wouldn't have had anything to read and Gutenberg wouldnt' have had anything to press. Who is he? The man who invented that thing which took the written word and exploded it through China, Asia and then the world. The acceleration of education, knowledge and culture doesn't happen without this invention. By 751 A.D. his invention began slowly spreading outside of Asia and by the 12th century, Europe got its hands on it, leading to centuries of education growth through the Scolasticism period leading to the growth and influence of Western culture.

Seems to me that the guy that invented paper needs to be considered one of the greatest people who ever walked this earth, given the fact that that his invention allowed for several of the greats already drafted to actual expand their message, learn their art or skill and become the greats they became. About the only weakness of this pick is that his invention did lead, some 1900 years later to the formation of the New York Times, but hey, no one is perfect.

I select, T'sai Lun the Chinese great who invented paper around roughly 105 A.D. Sometimes referred to in name as Cai Lun depending on the dialect and tradition of Chinese used.

 

[Doug B]

I select, T'sai Lun the Chinese great who invented paper ...

Even he didn't fall

 

[Doug B]

Michelangelo wouldn't have had anything to paint on.

Click here.

 

[timschochet]

I like these aspects compared to exploring for the riches and accolades it might bring.

Why? Why is selflessness considered such a virtue?I don't think there is anything wrong with personal ambition, and seeking personal riches and glory. When we're done with this draft, and we look through this list, I'm betting most of the people who made the greatest contributions to mankind did so not out of any altruistic purpose, but for their own personal gain. As it should be.

No creator was prompted by a desire to serve his brothers, for his brothers rejected the gift he offered and that gift destroyed the slothful routine of their lives. His truth was his only motive. His own truth, and his own work to achieve it in his own way. A symphony, a book, an engine, a philosophy, an airplane or a building—that was his goal and his life. Not those who heard, read, operated, believed, flew or inhabited the thing he had created. The creation, not its users. The creation, not the benefits others derived from it. The creation which gave form to his truth. He held his truth above all things and against all men.

“His vision, his strength, his courage came from his own spirit. A man's spirit, however, is his self. That entity which is his consciousness. To think, to feel, to judge, to act are functions of the ego.

“The creators were not selfless. It is the whole secret of their power—that it was self-sufficient, self-motivated, self-generated. A first cause, a fount of energy, a life force, a Prime Mover. The creator served nothing and no one. He lived for himself.

“And only by living for himself was he able to achieve the things which are the glory of mankind. Such is the nature of achievement.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Michelangelo wouldn't have had anything to paint on.

Click here.

 

[timschochet]

Great pick, Yankee. I had never heard of this guy until I read that book by Hart, The 100. Then I thought, "This guy is arguably #1!!"

 

[Ozymandias]

Perhaps some will consider this the first curve ball, but the fact is that this guy needed to be a first round pick. Problem is, there are many that should lay claim to the 20 greatest people in this history of the world. Problem with almost all of them, though, is that without this guy, their histories might not exist - at least, it would be harder to find them.

Shakespeare's greatness doesn't come to life without this man. Columbus wouldn't have had the bad maps he had. Michelangelo wouldn't have had anything to paint on. Newton wouldn't have had anything to read and Gutenberg wouldnt' have had anything to press. Who is he? The man who invented that thing which took the written word and exploded it through China, Asia and then the world. The acceleration of education, knowledge and culture doesn't happen without this invention. By 751 A.D. his invention began slowly spreading outside of Asia and by the 12th century, Europe got its hands on it, leading to centuries of education growth through the Scolasticism period leading to the growth and influence of Western culture.

Seems to me that the guy that invented paper needs to be considered one of the greatest people who ever walked this earth, given the fact that that his invention allowed for several of the greats already drafted to actual expand their message, learn their art or skill and become the greats they became. About the only weakness of this pick is that his invention did lead, some 1900 years later to the formation of the New York Times, but hey, no one is perfect.

I select, T'sai Lun the Chinese great who invented paper around roughly 105 A.D. Sometimes referred to in name as Cai Lun depending on the dialect and tradition of Chinese used.

Let me tell you, this guy is one of the all time greats.Have you ever tried a corncob?

 

[Mario Kart]

I like these aspects compared to exploring for the riches and accolades it might bring.

Why? Why is selflessness considered such a virtue?I don't think there is anything wrong with personal ambition, and seeking personal riches and glory. When we're done with this draft, and we look through this list, I'm betting most of the people who made the greatest contributions to mankind did so not out of any altruistic purpose, but for their own personal gain. As it should be.

Life is not all about the Benjamin's and what a person might have. I think many people, if money was taken out of the equation, would want to live a happy, working/hobby, friendly life next to and with whom they choose. Add money into the mix and that is where problems begin to occur. There is nothing wrong with personal ambition but what is the motivation behind that? Is it money or a sense of accomplishment? Is it joy or a need to want more? Give me personal happiness and fulfillment without riches and glory and I will show you a successful person. Money corrupts... we all know this.

 

[Doug B]

I select, T'sai Lun the Chinese great who invented paper around roughly 105 A.D. Sometimes referred to in name as Cai Lun depending on the dialect and tradition of Chinese used.

Let me tell you, this guy is one of the all time greats.Have you ever tried a corncob?

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

My pick is coming. I'm taking an American probably because, again, the lack of respect for this country so far is just wrong.

I think I know who it will be

............ and I've changed my mind. Seriously. There a too many people to take here. I will have many Americans on my team, but frankly, the person I'm taking here should be a first rounder.

I think there are about 100 people you could say this about.

 

[Thorn]

So psyched right now. I had thought of three different people for my first round pick, and now I'm going to get all three of them. Though, if had still been here I would have had a big time debate. As it is, I don't..

3.07 James Joyce, Novel/Short Story

Ulysses. Dubliners. Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. Finnegan's Wake.

Ulysses is often cited as the greatest novel of all time. The others just as often rate near the top of any "100 Greatest" you might come across. I happen to think that Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man is one of best classics. I think he is the greatest author of all time, and I would put Tolstoy a close #1a to his #1. :giddy:

 

[AcerFC]

Perhaps some will consider this the first curve ball, but the fact is that this guy needed to be a first round pick. Problem is, there are many that should lay claim to the 20 greatest people in this history of the world. Problem with almost all of them, though, is that without this guy, their histories might not exist - at least, it would be harder to find them.

Shakespeare's greatness doesn't come to life without this man. Columbus wouldn't have had the bad maps he had. Michelangelo wouldn't have had anything to paint on. Newton wouldn't have had anything to read and Gutenberg wouldnt' have had anything to press. Who is he? The man who invented that thing which took the written word and exploded it through China, Asia and then the world. The acceleration of education, knowledge and culture doesn't happen without this invention. By 751 A.D. his invention began slowly spreading outside of Asia and by the 12th century, Europe got its hands on it, leading to centuries of education growth through the Scolasticism period leading to the growth and influence of Western culture.

Seems to me that the guy that invented paper needs to be considered one of the greatest people who ever walked this earth, given the fact that that his invention allowed for several of the greats already drafted to actual expand their message, learn their art or skill and become the greats they became. About the only weakness of this pick is that his invention did lead, some 1900 years later to the formation of the New York Times, but hey, no one is perfect.

I select, T'sai Lun the Chinese great who invented paper around roughly 105 A.D. Sometimes referred to in name as Cai Lun depending on the dialect and tradition of Chinese used.

If he hadnt done it, someone else would have Seriously, it was between him and Edison for me. Obviously I went with Edison

 

[timschochet]

There is nothing wrong with personal ambition but what is the motivation behind that? Is it money or a sense of accomplishment? Is it joy or a need to want more? Give me personal happiness and fulfillment without riches and glory and I will show you a successful person. Money corrupts... we all know this.

So you think that money is the root of all evil? Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil? When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears not all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor--your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money, Is this what you consider evil?

Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions--and you'll learn that man's mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth.

 

[Thorn]

I like these aspects compared to exploring for the riches and accolades it might bring.

Why? Why is selflessness considered such a virtue?I don't think there is anything wrong with personal ambition, and seeking personal riches and glory. When we're done with this draft, and we look through this list, I'm betting most of the people who made the greatest contributions to mankind did so not out of any altruistic purpose, but for their own personal gain. As it should be.

Life is not all about the Benjamin's and what a person might have. I think many people, if money was taken out of the equation, would want to live a happy, working/hobby, friendly life next to and with whom they choose. Add money into the mix and that is where problems begin to occur. There is nothing wrong with personal ambition but what is the motivation behind that? Is it money or a sense of accomplishment? Is it joy or a need to want more? Give me personal happiness and fulfillment without riches and glory and I will show you a successful person. Money corrupts... we all know this.

Yes but without a chance to get ahead, how many would be motivated to achieve?

 

[Mario Kart]

Perhaps some will consider this the first curve ball, but the fact is that this guy needed to be a first round pick. Problem is, there are many that should lay claim to the 20 greatest people in this history of the world. Problem with almost all of them, though, is that without this guy, their histories might not exist - at least, it would be harder to find them.

Shakespeare's greatness doesn't come to life without this man. Columbus wouldn't have had the bad maps he had. Michelangelo wouldn't have had anything to paint on. Newton wouldn't have had anything to read and Gutenberg wouldnt' have had anything to press. Who is he? The man who invented that thing which took the written word and exploded it through China, Asia and then the world. The acceleration of education, knowledge and culture doesn't happen without this invention. By 751 A.D. his invention began slowly spreading outside of Asia and by the 12th century, Europe got its hands on it, leading to centuries of education growth through the Scolasticism period leading to the growth and influence of Western culture.

Seems to me that the guy that invented paper needs to be considered one of the greatest people who ever walked this earth, given the fact that that his invention allowed for several of the greats already drafted to actual expand their message, learn their art or skill and become the greats they became. About the only weakness of this pick is that his invention did lead, some 1900 years later to the formation of the New York Times, but hey, no one is perfect.

I select, T'sai Lun the Chinese great who invented paper around roughly 105 A.D. Sometimes referred to in name as Cai Lun depending on the dialect and tradition of Chinese used.

I like the pick Yankee because it stands out. Better hope the judge is not an Environmentalist though.

 

[John Maddens Lunchbox]

I like these aspects compared to exploring for the riches and accolades it might bring.

Why? Why is selflessness considered such a virtue?I don't think there is anything wrong with personal ambition, and seeking personal riches and glory. When we're done with this draft, and we look through this list, I'm betting most of the people who made the greatest contributions to mankind did so not out of any altruistic purpose, but for their own personal gain. As it should be.

Life is not all about the Benjamin's and what a person might have. I think many people, if money was taken out of the equation, would want to live a happy, working/hobby, friendly life next to and with whom they choose. Add money into the mix and that is where problems begin to occur. There is nothing wrong with personal ambition but what is the motivation behind that? Is it money or a sense of accomplishment? Is it joy or a need to want more? Give me personal happiness and fulfillment without riches and glory and I will show you a successful person. Money corrupts... we all know this.

 

[Abrantes]

T'sai Lun sounds way too close to cylon when you say it out loud. I refused to take him.

Although it's a great pick, it confuses me that Thorn would consider Joyce to be the greatest author ever, given some of his views in the GAD.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

There is nothing wrong with personal ambition but what is the motivation behind that? Is it money or a sense of accomplishment? Is it joy or a need to want more? Give me personal happiness and fulfillment without riches and glory and I will show you a successful person. Money corrupts... we all know this.

So you think that money is the root of all evil? Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil? When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears not all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor--your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money, Is this what you consider evil?

Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions--and you'll learn that man's mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth.

Nice job, Francisco.

 

[John Maddens Lunchbox]

A few more curveballs being thrown around at this stage of the draft and Yankee increases my unknown total to 3

 

[timschochet]

As Bach is to Yankee23Fan, so is Joyce to me.

I know, he's supposed to be the greatest. I tried to read Ulysses. I put it down after about 40 pages. A friend of mine, an English major, told me I needed a companion guide to understand it. I replied, "why should a novel need a companion guide to understand it?" No good answer.

What's wrong with a plot? What's wrong with a driving narrative? Is it really a novel if you can't make heads or tails out of what you're reading? Or, as part of me strongly suspects, is this just the urinal again except this time in book form?

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

So psyched right now. I had thought of three different people for my first round pick, and now I'm going to get all three of them. Though, if had still been here I would have had a big time debate. As it is, I don't..

3.07 James Joyce, Novel/Short Story

Ulysses. Dubliners. Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. Finnegan's Wake.

Ulysses is often cited as the greatest novel of all time. The others just as often rate near the top of any "100 Greatest" you might come across. I happen to think that Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man is one of best classics. I think he is the greatest author of all time, and I would put Tolstoy a close #1a to his #1. :giddy:

Okay... so you place XXXXXXX 9th in the American draft complaining about his lack of accessibility, and now you are going to put the most complex and inaccessible writer of all time at #1?

And yes, I am pissed that now I don't get him on my team.

 

[Ozymandias]

So psyched right now. I had thought of three different people for my first round pick, and now I'm going to get all three of them. Though, if had still been here I would have had a big time debate. As it is, I don't..

3.07 James Joyce, Novel/Short Story

Ulysses. Dubliners. Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. Finnegan's Wake.

Ulysses is often cited as the greatest novel of all time. The others just as often rate near the top of any "100 Greatest" you might come across. I happen to think that Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man is one of best classics. I think he is the greatest author of all time, and I would put Tolstoy a close #1a to his #1. :giddy:

Frankly, this is an abominable pick, IMHO. He is the most overrated writer ever, and is only rated so highly because the literary priesthood love obscurity and convoluted works, because if not, what need would we have for the literary priesthood? Ulysses is drivel, and only good because Joyce used a style which had not been used before. Please don't get me started, otherwise I'll tell you what I really think of James Joyce.

 

[flysack]

Ozy, great quote, but you've REALLY got to be carefull, dude. You keep spotlighting.

Fair enough, but in my opinion, spotlighting is only undesirable when it has some reference to the rankings or illuminates an individual's particular knowledge, expertise or position which could be relevant to a draft. Not because of some random quote. A chronological listing listing of the US Presidents, could be viewed as spotlighting, if you go by your interpretation. But it would hardly be relevant.

In a way, you can't help spotlighting. Whenever you post you spotlight a top 5 villain from Watchman.

 

[Mario Kart]

There is nothing wrong with personal ambition but what is the motivation behind that? Is it money or a sense of accomplishment? Is it joy or a need to want more? Give me personal happiness and fulfillment without riches and glory and I will show you a successful person. Money corrupts... we all know this.

snip

Simply put, give me a career that allow me to live a life that is not full of trouble, and I will be a happy camper. Give me a career that rests on having to "outdo" others with the overall dollar/money as the barometer and I would surely not be happy. I have traveled down both paths and I prefer one over the other.Live your life anyway you want with whatever you want but do not expect anything from it. I would rather you go about your business and be on your way instead of trying to influence me as to how important your accomplishments are. If they were that important, you would not have to tell me.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

There is nothing wrong with personal ambition but what is the motivation behind that? Is it money or a sense of accomplishment? Is it joy or a need to want more? Give me personal happiness and fulfillment without riches and glory and I will show you a successful person. Money corrupts... we all know this.

No it doesn't. It's a magnifying glass. Good people with money do good things and typically acquire their money by giving benefit. That's called "wealth" in my book.

Bad people with money do bad things and typically acquire their money by doing evil - lying, cheating, stealing, etc.. That's called "greed" in my book.

 

[Abrantes]

So psyched right now. I had thought of three different people for my first round pick, and now I'm going to get all three of them. Though, if had still been here I would have had a big time debate. As it is, I don't..

3.07 James Joyce, Novel/Short Story

Ulysses. Dubliners. Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. Finnegan's Wake.

Ulysses is often cited as the greatest novel of all time. The others just as often rate near the top of any "100 Greatest" you might come across. I happen to think that Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man is one of best classics. I think he is the greatest author of all time, and I would put Tolstoy a close #1a to his #1. :giddy:

Okay... so you place XXXXXXX 9th in the American draft complaining about his lack of accessibility, and now you are going to put the most complex and inaccessible writer of all time at #1?



And yes, I am pissed that now I don't get him on my team.

My thoughts exactly. Particularly the bolded part.

 

[timschochet]

Frankly, this is an abominable pick, IMHO. He is the most overrated writer ever, and is only rated so highly because the literary priesthood love obscurity and convoluted works, because if not, what need would we have for the literary priesthood? Ulysses is drivel, and only good because Joyce used a style which had not been used before. Please don't get me started, otherwise I'll tell you what I really think of James Joyce.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Simply put, give me a career that allow me to live a life that is not full of trouble, and I will be a happy camper. Give me a career that rests on having to "outdo" others with the overall dollar/money as the barometer and I would surely not be happy. I have traveled down both paths and I prefer one over the other.Live your life anyway you want with whatever you want but do not expect anything from it. I would rather you go about your business and be on your way instead of trying to influence me as to how important your accomplishments are. If they were that important, you would not have to tell me.

You shortchange how much to the profound good that captains of industry have, in general, raised the state of mankind.I'd name names but I can't. Suffice to say that many, many men of genius were paid handsomely for the products and services that they provided mankind with to mankind's benefit.

 

[Thorn]

T'sai Lun sounds way too close to cylon when you say it out loud. I refused to take him.Although it's a great pick, it confuses me that Thorn would consider Joyce to be the greatest author ever, given some of his views in the GAD.

I wasn't thinking anyone was paying that much attention. But I think I tried to explain there, I don't dislike the challenge of less accessible writing, I just ask for a reward for it. I never felt that reward with (redacted) and some others. With Joyce, I have.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

So psyched right now. I had thought of three different people for my first round pick, and now I'm going to get all three of them. Though, if had still been here I would have had a big time debate. As it is, I don't..

3.07 James Joyce, Novel/Short Story

Ulysses. Dubliners. Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. Finnegan's Wake.

Ulysses is often cited as the greatest novel of all time. The others just as often rate near the top of any "100 Greatest" you might come across. I happen to think that Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man is one of best classics. I think he is the greatest author of all time, and I would put Tolstoy a close #1a to his #1. :giddy:

Frankly, this is an abominable pick, IMHO. He is the most overrated writer ever, and is only rated so highly because the literary priesthood love obscurity and convoluted works, because if not, what need would we have for the literary priesthood? Ulysses is drivel, and only good because Joyce used a style which had not been used before. Please don't get me started, otherwise I'll tell you what I really think of James Joyce.

He was #1 on my list. His writing is the foundation on which the rest of 20th century lituratue is built, even though not many people actually read it (comparitively).

 

[Mario Kart]

There is nothing wrong with personal ambition but what is the motivation behind that? Is it money or a sense of accomplishment? Is it joy or a need to want more? Give me personal happiness and fulfillment without riches and glory and I will show you a successful person. Money corrupts... we all know this.

No it doesn't. It's a magnifying glass. Good people with money do good things and typically acquire their money by giving benefit. That's called "wealth" in my book.

Bad people with money do bad things and typically acquire their money by doing evil - lying, cheating, stealing, etc.. That's called "greed" in my book.

Good distortions of what money can do. Good people do good things, true. Money is not the overall corruption of that but it does come to the forefront more often than not. Believe me, I am not disagreeing with you here, Andy, as you make a great point, but, sadly, money has been at the forefront of more corruption... i.e. Greed... than not.

 

[Thorn]

As Bach is to Yankee23Fan, so is Joyce to me. I know, he's supposed to be the greatest. I tried to read Ulysses. I put it down after about 40 pages. A friend of mine, an English major, told me I needed a companion guide to understand it. I replied, "why should a novel need a companion guide to understand it?" No good answer.What's wrong with a plot? What's wrong with a driving narrative? Is it really a novel if you can't make heads or tails out of what you're reading? Or, as part of me strongly suspects, is this just the urinal again except this time in book form?

Have you tried Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man?

 

[thatguy]

Nice pick Yankee on T'sai Lun. I think he and Gutenberg are the top two inventors. He gave us paper. Gutenberg gave us an incredibly efficient way to use paper.

I picked Gutenberg because even though prior to him we had paper, the spread and proliferation of ideas was still rather slow, and would have remained slow without his contribution.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

As Bach is to Yankee23Fan, so is Joyce to me. I know, he's supposed to be the greatest. I tried to read Ulysses. I put it down after about 40 pages. A friend of mine, an English major, told me I needed a companion guide to understand it. I replied, "why should a novel need a companion guide to understand it?" No good answer.What's wrong with a plot? What's wrong with a driving narrative? Is it really a novel if you can't make heads or tails out of what you're reading? Or, as part of me strongly suspects, is this just the urinal again except this time in book form?

Have you tried Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man?

Don't even go there. Start with Dubliners.