World's Greatest Draft (1 Viewer)

[Ozymandias]

Zeus wins.

And Odin would kick HIS ###.Norse gods are simply tougher than the Greek ones. If there was some major war between the two, the Norse Gods would win easy.

(Of course, the Greek gods would simply laugh it off, and go back to their drinking and cavorting...)

I've read a lot in the FFA, and drinking gets its support. But I think cavorting is seriously underestimated.

 

[Orange Crush]

I'm many pages behind, but I wanted to chime in that I'm glad to see Galileo go this high. One of my favorite scientists of all time.

2.10 Galileo Galilei, scientist

Highlights:

--scientist who played a major role in the Scientific Revolution and is widely regarded as the 'father of modern science'

--improved the design of the telescope which led to many discoveries, including the phases of Venus, 4 moons of Jupiter, features of the moon, and sun spots

--his studies played a major role in understanding kinematics, a branch of classical mechanics

--contributed many ideas to the fields of astronomy, mathematics, and physics

--perhaps most famous for challenging the church's understanding of the universe, where Galileo supported the model of heliocentrism (sun at center of universe) instead of geocentrism (Earth at center of universe). He was forced to recant his beliefs and spent remaining years under house arrest

Quite simply, he's one of the world's greatest scientists and his beliefs and achievements helped change the world. His full bio is here.

Galileo is an interesting choice because his greatness isn't based in his actual scientific achievements. I mean, yes he's a "great" scientist of history and deserves all kinds of accolades, but not as many as others who are going to be taken in this draft. Instead his greatness comes from his courage in publishing and defending his discoveries in the face of political and religious (though at that time there wasn't a distinction) opposition. For that, I think Galileo might be a better pick for the Rebel category.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Anybody ever heard of Spanish, Italian, French or German literature?

I think all, save perhaps Italian, will be well represented before all is said and done.

O RLY?

I don't have an Italian writer on my novelest and short story list. Poetry is another story, but the comment was made in the context of just the other category.

Gotcha. I misread and thought you were applying it to both. I like your beer analogy in a later post, but Larry is just going to tell you that the fact that millions of people drink Bud Light means that people who prefer other beers are just snobs.

And can't comment much on flysack's long Joyce post except to say

however if we were having a "beer draft" I would say that Bud Light should be drafted pretty high because of how many people drink it...

 

[Abrantes]

however if we were having a "beer draft" I would say that Bud Light should be drafted pretty high because of how many people drink it...

 

[mad sweeney]

however if we were having a "beer draft" I would say that Bud Light should be drafted pretty high because of how many people drink it...

That fits your debate fundamentals perfectly. In fact, our differing opinions on what "greatness" means all the way back from the Hogan Era have very much influenced my drafting. i could barely pick between Augustus and Constantine because I felt that the greatness that Constantine achieved was largely (with regards to the #1 spot, not in general) due to his post death legacy. Converting to Christianity didn't make him greatest to me (he wasn't called "the Great" until much later) despite the way it heavily influenced the course of history. Augustus achieved more in his lifetime in making the empire an Empire over a long reign, strengthening it from within and making advancement in protecting civilization while doing so. Despite how many people drink it, Bud Light is swill and should only be barely ranked above anything with Milwaukee in the title and Coors Lite (which I could make an argument for not being a beer at all).And you were right, the finale was fracking amazing. Best 2 hours of TV I've watched in a very long time.

 

[timschochet]

Has there ever been a liquor draft? What a great idea, we could get it done in three days or so. Different categories: beer, wine, mixed drinks, straight booze, local vs. imported, etc. How to judge?

 

[krista4]

however if we were having a "beer draft" I would say that Bud Light should be drafted pretty high because of how many people drink it...

That fits your debate fundamentals perfectly. In fact, our differing opinions on what "greatness" means all the way back from the Hogan Era have very much influenced my drafting. i could barely pick between Augustus and Constantine because I felt that the greatness that Constantine achieved was largely (with regards to the #1 spot, not in general) due to his post death legacy. Converting to Christianity didn't make him greatest to me (he wasn't called "the Great" until much later) despite the way it heavily influenced the course of history. Augustus achieved more in his lifetime in making the empire an Empire over a long reign, strengthening it from within and making advancement in protecting civilization while doing so. Despite how many people drink it, Bud Light is swill and should only be barely ranked above anything with Milwaukee in the title and Coors Lite (which I could make an argument for not being a beer at all).And you were right, the finale was fracking amazing. Best 2 hours of TV I've watched in a very long time.

Seems like you guys went 'round and 'round this one a million times in the GAD. Larry ranks "number of units sold" as the most important criterion for "greatness". It's a losing proposition to try to convince him that there are more important criteria, so I won't try to do so.Mario Kart, I meant to mention that, while I can't comment on Chaucer as a pick in terms of the criteria I've indicated I'd judge on, I really enjoy The Canterbury Tales.

 

[larry_boy_44]

however if we were having a "beer draft" I would say that Bud Light should be drafted pretty high because of how many people drink it...

That fits your debate fundamentals perfectly. In fact, our differing opinions on what "greatness" means all the way back from the Hogan Era have very much influenced my drafting. i could barely pick between Augustus and Constantine because I felt that the greatness that Constantine achieved was largely (with regards to the #1 spot, not in general) due to his post death legacy. Converting to Christianity didn't make him greatest to me (he wasn't called "the Great" until much later) despite the way it heavily influenced the course of history. Augustus achieved more in his lifetime in making the empire an Empire over a long reign, strengthening it from within and making advancement in protecting civilization while doing so. Despite how many people drink it, Bud Light is swill and should only be barely ranked above anything with Milwaukee in the title and Coors Lite (which I could make an argument for not being a beer at all).

And you were right, the finale was fracking amazing. Best 2 hours of TV I've watched in a very long time.

but... that's my home... I know its nasty crap... but the point is that there has to be a place for popularity and the amount of people who have experienced/continue to experience (and like) what is being talked about...

and I think that, at times, these kinds of things ignore that aspect of things way too much...

 

[larry_boy_44]

however if we were having a "beer draft" I would say that Bud Light should be drafted pretty high because of how many people drink it...

That fits your debate fundamentals perfectly. In fact, our differing opinions on what "greatness" means all the way back from the Hogan Era have very much influenced my drafting. i could barely pick between Augustus and Constantine because I felt that the greatness that Constantine achieved was largely (with regards to the #1 spot, not in general) due to his post death legacy. Converting to Christianity didn't make him greatest to me (he wasn't called "the Great" until much later) despite the way it heavily influenced the course of history. Augustus achieved more in his lifetime in making the empire an Empire over a long reign, strengthening it from within and making advancement in protecting civilization while doing so. Despite how many people drink it, Bud Light is swill and should only be barely ranked above anything with Milwaukee in the title and Coors Lite (which I could make an argument for not being a beer at all).And you were right, the finale was fracking amazing. Best 2 hours of TV I've watched in a very long time.

Seems like you guys went 'round and 'round this one a million times in the GAD. Larry ranks "number of units sold" as the most important criterion for "greatness". It's a losing proposition to try to convince him that there are more important criteria, so I won't try to do so.Mario Kart, I meant to mention that, while I can't comment on Chaucer as a pick in terms of the criteria I've indicated I'd judge on, I really enjoy The Canterbury Tales.

I know there are other important things than just sales...but to completely ignore popularity doesn't make sense to me, either...

 

[FUBAR]

Three things that will provide little (or no) influence on my rankings:

1. Popularity, in the sense of sales of copies of the work or general public familiarity.

2. Accessibility - probably the most controversial factor. I did question Thorn's taking this into account in the GAO, though I understand that there is reason to do so. For me, I don't care. Incredible fiction is worth the effort, and this is where I completely agree with Thorn that an effort with a difficult book/story can be more than worth the reward.

3. Personal enjoyment - My three "favorite" writers--the ones whose books I soak up at every opportunity--will undoubtedly not be drafted. And I will admit sometimes to not enjoying some of the works of my top writers. I see this similarly to film...I certainly believe Citizen Kane is a top-tier movie, but I admire that film much more than I enjoyed it. I hope to make the same distinction with writers and leave personal preference aside as much as possible (note wording).

The two of you snobs are just like every literary professor I ever had and hated. Here's a quote from a well known popular novelist of the late 20th century from one of his best novels:

Speaking carefully, not stuttering (he has not stuttered in better than five years), he says: "I don't understand this at all. I don't understand any of this. Why does a story have to be socio-anything? Politics...culture...history...aren't those natural ingredients in any story, if it's told well? I mean..." he looks around, sees hostile eyes, and realizes dimly that they see this as some sort of attack. Maybe it even is. They are thinking, he realizes, that maybe there is a sexist death merchant in their midst. "I mean...can't you guys just let a story be a story?"

No one replies. Silence spins out. He stands there looking from one cool set of eyes to the next. The sallow girl chuffs out smoke and snubs her cigarette in an ashtray she has brought along in her backpack.

Finally the instructor says softly, as if to a child having an inexplicable tantrum, "Do you believe XXXXXXXXXX was just telling stories? Do you believe Shakespeare was just interested in making a buck? Come now, Bill. Tell us what you think."

"I think that's pretty close to the truth," Bill says after a long moment in which he honestly considers the question, and in their eyes he sees a kind of damnation.

I agree with most of Krista's list, but I will say this - there are a few writers, notably one Frenchman and one Englishman, whose influence stems largely from the fact that are widely popular and have been since their own time. I think that should be given due consideration.

(Yes, it is 3 am and I can't sleep so what do I do? Check the draft thread. )This is exactly right. You'll note that I chose my words carefully to indicate popularity only in the sense of sales or general public knowledge of the author. Definitely, though, popularity can affect influence, which I deem to be a huge factor in the ranking.

Where are you? 7 hours difference puts you in eastern Europe?

 

[krista4]

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 intended to comment on this earlier. I guess my opinion is different from the others stated in that I think this falls into "they'll thank you later" category, and I would encourage pushing them a bit on it (unless they were miserable playing piano, which is doesn't sound like they are). I was not a naturally gifted pianist and am not sure why my parents thought I should be required to take lessons (for ten years), but by the time I was in my late teens I was very glad that they had pushed me on this. I really enjoy playing and wouldn't have what feeble abilities I have to do so without their pushing me.

 

[krista4]

The two of you snobs are just like every literary professor I ever had and hated. Here's a quote from a well known popular novelist of the late 20th century from one of his best novels:

Speaking carefully, not stuttering (he has not stuttered in better than five years), he says: "I don't understand this at all. I don't understand any of this. Why does a story have to be socio-anything? Politics...culture...history...aren't those natural ingredients in any story, if it's told well? I mean..." he looks around, sees hostile eyes, and realizes dimly that they see this as some sort of attack. Maybe it even is. They are thinking, he realizes, that maybe there is a sexist death merchant in their midst. "I mean...can't you guys just let a story be a story?"

No one replies. Silence spins out. He stands there looking from one cool set of eyes to the next. The sallow girl chuffs out smoke and snubs her cigarette in an ashtray she has brought along in her backpack.

Finally the instructor says softly, as if to a child having an inexplicable tantrum, "Do you believe XXXXXXXXXX was just telling stories? Do you believe Shakespeare was just interested in making a buck? Come now, Bill. Tell us what you think."

"I think that's pretty close to the truth," Bill says after a long moment in which he honestly considers the question, and in their eyes he sees a kind of damnation.

I agree with most of Krista's list, but I will say this - there are a few writers, notably one Frenchman and one Englishman, whose influence stems largely from the fact that are widely popular and have been since their own time. I think that should be given due consideration.

(Yes, it is 3 am and I can't sleep so what do I do? Check the draft thread. )This is exactly right. You'll note that I chose my words carefully to indicate popularity only in the sense of sales or general public knowledge of the author. Definitely, though, popularity can affect influence, which I deem to be a huge factor in the ranking.

Where are you? 7 hours difference puts you in eastern Europe?

Istanbul. Listening to the call to prayer outside my window right now (we're staying right by the Blue Mosque). Beautiful.

 

[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 intended to comment on this earlier. I guess my opinion is different from the others stated in that I think this falls into "they'll thank you later" category, and I would encourage pushing them a bit on it (unless they were miserable playing piano, which is doesn't sound like they are). I was not a naturally gifted pianist and am not sure why my parents thought I should be required to take lessons (for ten years), but by the time I was in my late teens I was very glad that they had pushed me on this. I really enjoy playing and wouldn't have what feeble abilities I have to do so without their pushing me.

Thanks for the advice!

 

[Ozymandias]

Has there ever been a liquor draft? What a great idea, we could get it done in three days or so. Different categories: beer, wine, mixed drinks, straight booze, local vs. imported, etc. How to judge?

The only way is to spit it out. But I doubt you'd find even two posters willing to do that.

 

[The Real Hipster Doofus]

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 intended to comment on this earlier. I guess my opinion is different from the others stated in that I think this falls into "they'll thank you later" category, and I would encourage pushing them a bit on it (unless they were miserable playing piano, which is doesn't sound like they are). I was not a naturally gifted pianist and am not sure why my parents thought I should be required to take lessons (for ten years), but by the time I was in my late teens I was very glad that they had pushed me on this. I really enjoy playing and wouldn't have what feeble abilities I have to do so without their pushing me.

Thanks for the advice!

Ehhh. I can't imagine any kid really truly enjoys piano lessons. You should get them a tutor to teach them Mandarin or Spanish so when they are older and into a career they at least have a very marketable skill.

 

[Mjolnirs]

I'm many pages behind, but I wanted to chime in that I'm glad to see Galileo go this high. One of my favorite scientists of all time.

2.10 Galileo Galilei, scientist

Highlights:

--scientist who played a major role in the Scientific Revolution and is widely regarded as the 'father of modern science'

--improved the design of the telescope which led to many discoveries, including the phases of Venus, 4 moons of Jupiter, features of the moon, and sun spots

--his studies played a major role in understanding kinematics, a branch of classical mechanics

--contributed many ideas to the fields of astronomy, mathematics, and physics

--perhaps most famous for challenging the church's understanding of the universe, where Galileo supported the model of heliocentrism (sun at center of universe) instead of geocentrism (Earth at center of universe). He was forced to recant his beliefs and spent remaining years under house arrest

Quite simply, he's one of the world's greatest scientists and his beliefs and achievements helped change the world. His full bio is here.

Galileo is an interesting choice because his greatness isn't based in his actual scientific achievements. I mean, yes he's a "great" scientist of history and deserves all kinds of accolades, but not as many as others who are going to be taken in this draft. Instead his greatness comes from his courage in publishing and defending his discoveries in the face of political and religious (though at that time there wasn't a distinction) opposition. For that, I think Galileo might be a better pick for the Rebel category.

You make a good point about placing him in the Rebel category. His stand on heliocentrism and fight with the church surely qualify him as a rebel. But, his observational methods took stargazing to a completely different level forever. Planetary phases, sunspots and the discovery and plotting of Jupiter's moons earns him a special place in the science category.

 

[BobbyLayne]

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 intended to comment on this earlier. I guess my opinion is different from the others stated in that I think this falls into "they'll thank you later" category, and I would encourage pushing them a bit on it (unless they were miserable playing piano, which is doesn't sound like they are). I was not a naturally gifted pianist and am not sure why my parents thought I should be required to take lessons (for ten years), but by the time I was in my late teens I was very glad that they had pushed me on this. I really enjoy playing and wouldn't have what feeble abilities I have to do so without their pushing me.

Thanks for the advice!

Thanks for commenting Krista4. Guilt and parenting seem to go hand in hand and I was kind of cringing over all the earlier comments.My oldest son gets pushed pretty hard in a lot of things: he's always been fluent in Mandarin, also has been taking Chinese calligraphy since he was 2 or 3; piano lessons started at 4, recitals at 6; extracurricular math classes were the norm throughout elementary school. He just went through a bunch of testing to apply for junior high (99th percentile) and he's assured of getting into a good prep school. Kids are a bit of crap shoot, who knows what the end result will be, but he's happy, seems well-adjusted, great wry sense of humor, but my ex-wife definitely runs a strict household.He lives here in the summer, so I have the easy job - this is where its cool being the non-custodial - exposing him to the cultural institutions in NYC, and basically letting him have fun because he's pretty overbooked the rest of the year. I'm proud he works so hard to excel, its great he's on this Ivy League track, but to me its more important for him to be a good person with good judgment. My ex- is very goal oriented and parenting is a series of objectives to be met. I just want him to be courteous and know the right thing to do in any given situation.My parenting style with my new baby is completely different. My son was always on a feeding/sleeping schedule. With my daughter it's on demand (e.g., eats when she is hungry, sleeps when she is tired). She's only 6 months so I suppose everything could change, but I kind of prefer this way. I suspect with her there will be a whole lot less regimen and more of "well do you want to do?" instead of "You're doing this, that, the other thing, and it's gotta be done before dinner".Honestly, either way works, its just personal preference. Kids are a lot more adaptable and resilient than we give them credit for or realize. As long as you love them unconditionally and make them feel secure, there are no wrong answers.

 

[Fennis]

I'm many pages behind, but I wanted to chime in that I'm glad to see Galileo go this high. One of my favorite scientists of all time.

2.10 Galileo Galilei, scientist

Highlights:

--scientist who played a major role in the Scientific Revolution and is widely regarded as the 'father of modern science'

--improved the design of the telescope which led to many discoveries, including the phases of Venus, 4 moons of Jupiter, features of the moon, and sun spots

--his studies played a major role in understanding kinematics, a branch of classical mechanics

--contributed many ideas to the fields of astronomy, mathematics, and physics

--perhaps most famous for challenging the church's understanding of the universe, where Galileo supported the model of heliocentrism (sun at center of universe) instead of geocentrism (Earth at center of universe). He was forced to recant his beliefs and spent remaining years under house arrest

Quite simply, he's one of the world's greatest scientists and his beliefs and achievements helped change the world. His full bio is here.

Galileo is an interesting choice because his greatness isn't based in his actual scientific achievements. I mean, yes he's a "great" scientist of history and deserves all kinds of accolades, but not as many as others who are going to be taken in this draft. Instead his greatness comes from his courage in publishing and defending his discoveries in the face of political and religious (though at that time there wasn't a distinction) opposition. For that, I think Galileo might be a better pick for the Rebel category.

There are already a small handful of people picked, who could fit nicely in the Rebel category. I agree Galileo is one of them. He was one of the people I thought about as a potential rebel prior to the draft.

 

[Fennis]

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 intended to comment on this earlier. I guess my opinion is different from the others stated in that I think this falls into "they'll thank you later" category, and I would encourage pushing them a bit on it (unless they were miserable playing piano, which is doesn't sound like they are). I was not a naturally gifted pianist and am not sure why my parents thought I should be required to take lessons (for ten years), but by the time I was in my late teens I was very glad that they had pushed me on this. I really enjoy playing and wouldn't have what feeble abilities I have to do so without their pushing me.

Thanks for the advice!

Thanks for commenting Krista4. Guilt and parenting seem to go hand in hand and I was kind of cringing over all the earlier comments.My oldest son gets pushed pretty hard in a lot of things: he's always been fluent in Mandarin, also has been taking Chinese calligraphy since he was 2 or 3; piano lessons started at 4, recitals at 6; extracurricular math classes were the norm throughout elementary school. He just went through a bunch of testing to apply for junior high (99th percentile) and he's assured of getting into a good prep school. Kids are a bit of crap shoot, who knows what the end result will be, but he's happy, seems well-adjusted, great wry sense of humor, but my ex-wife definitely runs a strict household.He lives here in the summer, so I have the easy job - this is where its cool being the non-custodial - exposing him to the cultural institutions in NYC, and basically letting him have fun because he's pretty overbooked the rest of the year. I'm proud he works so hard to excel, its great he's on this Ivy League track, but to me its more important for him to be a good person with good judgment. My ex- is very goal oriented and parenting is a series of objectives to be met. I just want him to be courteous and know the right thing to do in any given situation.My parenting style with my new baby is completely different. My son was always on a feeding/sleeping schedule. With my daughter it's on demand (e.g., eats when she is hungry, sleeps when she is tired). She's only 6 months so I suppose everything could change, but I kind of prefer this way. I suspect with her there will be a whole lot less regimen and more of "well do you want to do?" instead of "You're doing this, that, the other thing, and it's gotta be done before dinner".Honestly, either way works, its just personal preference. Kids are a lot more adaptable and resilient than we give them credit for or realize. As long as you love them unconditionally and make them feel secure, there are no wrong answers.

A good friend of mine has three boys and he literally looks at them as science experiments. He does things a little differently with each one, just to see how they turn out. He figures in another 10-15 years (they are 11,11 and 9) he will know what the right way should have been.

 

[Ozymandias]

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 intended to comment on this earlier. I guess my opinion is different from the others stated in that I think this falls into "they'll thank you later" category, and I would encourage pushing them a bit on it (unless they were miserable playing piano, which is doesn't sound like they are). I was not a naturally gifted pianist and am not sure why my parents thought I should be required to take lessons (for ten years), but by the time I was in my late teens I was very glad that they had pushed me on this. I really enjoy playing and wouldn't have what feeble abilities I have to do so without their pushing me.

Thanks for the advice!

Thanks for commenting Krista4. Guilt and parenting seem to go hand in hand and I was kind of cringing over all the earlier comments.My oldest son gets pushed pretty hard in a lot of things: he's always been fluent in Mandarin, also has been taking Chinese calligraphy since he was 2 or 3; piano lessons started at 4, recitals at 6; extracurricular math classes were the norm throughout elementary school. He just went through a bunch of testing to apply for junior high (99th percentile) and he's assured of getting into a good prep school. Kids are a bit of crap shoot, who knows what the end result will be, but he's happy, seems well-adjusted, great wry sense of humor, but my ex-wife definitely runs a strict household.He lives here in the summer, so I have the easy job - this is where its cool being the non-custodial - exposing him to the cultural institutions in NYC, and basically letting him have fun because he's pretty overbooked the rest of the year. I'm proud he works so hard to excel, its great he's on this Ivy League track, but to me its more important for him to be a good person with good judgment. My ex- is very goal oriented and parenting is a series of objectives to be met. I just want him to be courteous and know the right thing to do in any given situation.My parenting style with my new baby is completely different. My son was always on a feeding/sleeping schedule. With my daughter it's on demand (e.g., eats when she is hungry, sleeps when she is tired). She's only 6 months so I suppose everything could change, but I kind of prefer this way. I suspect with her there will be a whole lot less regimen and more of "well do you want to do?" instead of "You're doing this, that, the other thing, and it's gotta be done before dinner".Honestly, either way works, its just personal preference. Kids are a lot more adaptable and resilient than we give them credit for or realize. As long as you love them unconditionally and make them feel secure, there are no wrong answers.

A good friend of mine has three boys and he literally looks at them as science experiments. He does things a little differently with each one, just to see how they turn out. He figures in another 10-15 years (they are 11,11 and 9) he will know what the right way should have been.

Or he may find out that he needed one more child.

 

[the moops]

Has there ever been a liquor draft? What a great idea, we could get it done in three days or so. Different categories: beer, wine, mixed drinks, straight booze, local vs. imported, etc. How to judge?

The only way is to spit it out. But I doubt you'd find even two posters willing to do that.

I'm sure he would find plenty of posters to participate.But for everyone's sanity (especially your tim)...please take a break.

 

[Abrantes]

Draft beer > Beer draft

 

[timschochet]

Has there ever been a liquor draft? What a great idea, we could get it done in three days or so. Different categories: beer, wine, mixed drinks, straight booze, local vs. imported, etc. How to judge?

The only way is to spit it out. But I doubt you'd find even two posters willing to do that.

I'm sure he would find plenty of posters to participate.But for everyone's sanity (especially your tim)...please take a break.

Oh don't worry about it. I was making a joke. This will be the last draft I will run for a long long time. I am enjoying myself immensly, but it's enough.

 

[DCThunder]

Sorry, didn't get a chance to log in yesterday.

3.08--Karl Marx-Philosopher/Intellectual

The yin to Adam Smith's yang, Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital (in conjunction with another), thereby providing the intellectual framework of Marxism and Communism. Born in Prussia, he lived most of his life in Paris, Brussels and London. His approach to history and politics can be summed up in the opening line of the first chapter of The Communist Manifesto (1848): “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles”. Marx argued that capitalism, like previous socioeconomic systems, will produce internal tensions which will lead to its destruction.[2] Just as capitalism replaced feudalism, socialism will in its turn replace capitalism and lead to a stateless, classless society which will emerge after a transitional period, the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'.[3][4][5]

On the one hand, Marx argued for a systemic understanding of socio-economic change. He argued that the structural contradictions within capitalism necessitate its end, giving way to communism:

“ The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable. ”

— (The Communist Manifesto)[6]

On the other hand, Marx argued that socio-economic change occurred through organized revolutionary action. He argued that capitalism will end through the organized actions of an international working class, led by a Communist Party: "Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence." (from The German Ideology)

While Marx remained a relatively obscure figure in his own lifetime, his ideas began to exert a major influence on workers' movements shortly after his death. This influence gained added impetus with the victory of the Marxist Bolsheviks in the Russian October Revolution, and there are few parts of the world which were not significantly touched by Marxian ideas in the course of the twentieth century.

Although relatively unknown during his lifetime, his work began to be widely read and followe dby revolutionary groups of the late 19th century, culminating with the Russian Revolution of 1917.

Communism and Marxism, while now widely discredited in practice, nevertheless remains a seductive political philosophy to this day.

 

[Doug B]

Kind of making a snap pick ... no write-up until late Monday at best:

3.09 - George Washington, Rebel

 

[Ozymandias]

Sorry, didn't get a chance to log in yesterday.

3.08--Karl Marx-Philosopher/Intellectual

The yin to Adam Smith's yang, Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital (in conjunction with another), thereby providing the intellectual framework of Marxism and Communism. Born in Prussia, he lived most of his life in Paris, Brussels and London. His approach to history and politics can be summed up in the opening line of the first chapter of The Communist Manifesto (1848): “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles”. Marx argued that capitalism, like previous socioeconomic systems, will produce internal tensions which will lead to its destruction.[2] Just as capitalism replaced feudalism, socialism will in its turn replace capitalism and lead to a stateless, classless society which will emerge after a transitional period, the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'.[3][4][5]

On the one hand, Marx argued for a systemic understanding of socio-economic change. He argued that the structural contradictions within capitalism necessitate its end, giving way to communism:

“ The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable. ”

— (The Communist Manifesto)[6]

On the other hand, Marx argued that socio-economic change occurred through organized revolutionary action. He argued that capitalism will end through the organized actions of an international working class, led by a Communist Party: "Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence." (from The German Ideology)

While Marx remained a relatively obscure figure in his own lifetime, his ideas began to exert a major influence on workers' movements shortly after his death. This influence gained added impetus with the victory of the Marxist Bolsheviks in the Russian October Revolution, and there are few parts of the world which were not significantly touched by Marxian ideas in the course of the twentieth century.

Although relatively unknown during his lifetime, his work began to be widely read and followe dby revolutionary groups of the late 19th century, culminating with the Russian Revolution of 1917.

Communism and Marxism, while now widely discredited in practice, nevertheless remains a seductive political philosophy to this day.

Much as I hate what this guy spawned, there is no doubt he has been extremely influential. His economic system has been been marked by widespread failure, but as you say, the seduction of his philosophy still draws the academic world panting after him, lusting after an aging whore like a man on a desert island.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

A couple of interesting picks... Not sure what to think about Marx, his influence is obviously hugely significant in the 20th century as was noted; however, as also was noted his ideas have widely been discredited in practice.

I'm not sure Rebel is Washington's best category.

 

[Abrantes]

I don't rate Marx too highly as a philosopher due to repeated failures in the practical application of his beliefs, but he's certainly been influential. Actually considered him as a possible villain due to his influence on Stalin and Mao (as well as some currently unpicked leaders), but decided against it.

 

[Ozymandias]

Kind of making a snap pick ... no write-up until late Monday at best:

3.09 - George Washington, Rebel

In many ways, the American Revolution was the most successful revolution ever. There were many in that Revolution who had clearer ideas and were better at articulating them. But if not for Washington, it would not have held together. And his willingness to give up power, when he could have been reelected, mark him as one of the greatest of all time. That willingness, is probably only rivaled by that of Cincinnatus.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Kind of making a snap pick ... no write-up until late Monday at best:

3.09 - George Washington, Rebel

In many ways, the American Revolution was the most successful revolution ever. There were many in that Revolution who had clearer ideas and were better at articulating them. But if not for Washington, it would not have held together. And his willingness to give up power, when he could have been reelected, mark him as one of the greatest of all time. That willingness, is probably only rivaled by that of Cincinnatus.

Now that he's been picked I can talk about it more freely, but the bolded above is why I think Washington ranks very highly among the World Leaders. The act of surrendering power, particularly in his case, was one of the finest displays of leadership the world has seen.

 

[Mario Kart]

3/22/09

8. DC Thunder - Karl Marx

9. Doug B - George Washington

10. Mad Sweeney - TURN TO PICK

11. Big Rocks - ON DECK

12. higgins - IN THE HOLE

13. John Madden's Lunchbox

14. Usual21

15. thatguy

16. Andy Dufresne

 

[flysack]

A couple of interesting picks... Not sure what to think about Marx, his influence is obviously hugely significant in the 20th century as was noted; however, as also was noted his ideas have widely been discredited in practice.

I wouldn't say this is entirely true. Marxist ideas have been very successful and humanitarian when applied within capitalist systems. This is why he's still so studied in universities around the globe, but especially in America and France. Communism was attributed more to Lenin and Mao than Marx, who was more of an intellectual inspiration than a founding father type. Basically, Marx gets a lot of bad credit because of Lenin, Stalin and Mao - three guys who misapplied his principles and ideas to make totalitarian states. Marx himself would have been their largest critic. Contrary to popular opinion, Marx believed capitalism was very necessary. You needed its power to develop a state of exuberant capital wealth, which then could could be distributed in egalitarian ways by crediting labor as much as finance and management. Some scholars (though not in the majority) believe one of the reasons the Soviets failed is because they didn't go through a necessary state of capitalism first - they tried to imitate its wealth generating power by using direct state control of the economy. Even Marx predicted this would fail. In terms of worker's rights and fair pay for labor and the criticism of the inherit need for capitalism to exploit workers, Marx was a saint. It's a shame he's been vilified in the West by associations he himself never engaged. In terms of the global influence of his ideas, I had him as my #1 Intellectual. EDIT: there's only other person person I can think of who's been as influential.

 

[John Maddens Lunchbox]

Crap.

The 2 options I had have now just been taken.

I wasn't sure where I was going to place Marx in the draft, Philosopher seems right.

Rebel is not where I'd stick Washington for sure.

 

[Ozymandias]

A couple of interesting picks... Not sure what to think about Marx, his influence is obviously hugely significant in the 20th century as was noted; however, as also was noted his ideas have widely been discredited in practice.

I wouldn't say this is entirely true. Marxist ideas have been very successful and humanitarian when applied within capitalist systems. This is why he's still so studied in universities around the globe, but especially in America and France. Communism was attributed more to Lenin and Mao than Marx, who was more of an intellectual inspiration than a founding father type. Basically, Marx gets a lot of bad credit because of Lenin, Stalin and Mao - three guys who misapplied his principles and ideas to make totalitarian states. Marx himself would have been their largest critic. Contrary to popular opinion, Marx believed capitalism was very necessary. You needed its power to develop a state of exuberant capital wealth, which then could could be distributed in egalitarian ways by crediting labor as much as finance and management. Some scholars (though not in the majority) believe one of the reasons the Soviets failed is because they didn't go through a necessary state of capitalism first - they tried to imitate its wealth generating power by using direct state control of the economy. Even Marx predicted this would fail. In terms of worker's rights and fair pay for labor and the criticism of the inherit need for capitalism to exploit workers, Marx was a saint. It's a shame he's been vilified in the West by associations he himself never engaged. In terms of the global influence of his ideas, I had him as my #1 Intellectual. EDIT: there's only other person person I can think of who's been as influential.

There is nothing quite like the girl you lusted after in high school.

 

[flysack]

A couple of interesting picks... Not sure what to think about Marx, his influence is obviously hugely significant in the 20th century as was noted; however, as also was noted his ideas have widely been discredited in practice.

I wouldn't say this is entirely true. Marxist ideas have been very successful and humanitarian when applied within capitalist systems. This is why he's still so studied in universities around the globe, but especially in America and France. Communism was attributed more to Lenin and Mao than Marx, who was more of an intellectual inspiration than a founding father type. Basically, Marx gets a lot of bad credit because of Lenin, Stalin and Mao - three guys who misapplied his principles and ideas to make totalitarian states. Marx himself would have been their largest critic. Contrary to popular opinion, Marx believed capitalism was very necessary. You needed its power to develop a state of exuberant capital wealth, which then could could be distributed in egalitarian ways by crediting labor as much as finance and management. Some scholars (though not in the majority) believe one of the reasons the Soviets failed is because they didn't go through a necessary state of capitalism first - they tried to imitate its wealth generating power by using direct state control of the economy. Even Marx predicted this would fail. In terms of worker's rights and fair pay for labor and the criticism of the inherit need for capitalism to exploit workers, Marx was a saint. It's a shame he's been vilified in the West by associations he himself never engaged. In terms of the global influence of his ideas, I had him as my #1 Intellectual. EDIT: there's only other person person I can think of who's been as influential.

There is nothing quite like the girl you lusted after in high school.

Or the seduction of oversimplification.

 

[mad sweeney]

Crap.The 2 options I had have now just been taken.I wasn't sure where I was going to place Marx in the draft, Philosopher seems right.Rebel is not where I'd stick Washington for sure.

Same here, I wake up to find myself double sniped.Back to the drawing board, I'll have a pick in soon.No PM...

 

[Ozymandias]

A couple of interesting picks... Not sure what to think about Marx, his influence is obviously hugely significant in the 20th century as was noted; however, as also was noted his ideas have widely been discredited in practice.

I wouldn't say this is entirely true. Marxist ideas have been very successful and humanitarian when applied within capitalist systems. This is why he's still so studied in universities around the globe, but especially in America and France. Communism was attributed more to Lenin and Mao than Marx, who was more of an intellectual inspiration than a founding father type. Basically, Marx gets a lot of bad credit because of Lenin, Stalin and Mao - three guys who misapplied his principles and ideas to make totalitarian states. Marx himself would have been their largest critic. Contrary to popular opinion, Marx believed capitalism was very necessary. You needed its power to develop a state of exuberant capital wealth, which then could could be distributed in egalitarian ways by crediting labor as much as finance and management. Some scholars (though not in the majority) believe one of the reasons the Soviets failed is because they didn't go through a necessary state of capitalism first - they tried to imitate its wealth generating power by using direct state control of the economy. Even Marx predicted this would fail. In terms of worker's rights and fair pay for labor and the criticism of the inherit need for capitalism to exploit workers, Marx was a saint. It's a shame he's been vilified in the West by associations he himself never engaged. In terms of the global influence of his ideas, I had him as my #1 Intellectual. EDIT: there's only other person person I can think of who's been as influential.

There is nothing quite like the girl you lusted after in high school.

Or the seduction of oversimplification.

If you're not a Marxist before age 25, there is something wrong with your heart. If you are a Marxist after 25, there is something wrong with your head.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

A couple of interesting picks... Not sure what to think about Marx, his influence is obviously hugely significant in the 20th century as was noted; however, as also was noted his ideas have widely been discredited in practice.

I wouldn't say this is entirely true. Marxist ideas have been very successful and humanitarian when applied within capitalist systems. This is why he's still so studied in universities around the globe, but especially in America and France. Communism was attributed more to Lenin and Mao than Marx, who was more of an intellectual inspiration than a founding father type. Basically, Marx gets a lot of bad credit because of Lenin, Stalin and Mao - three guys who misapplied his principles and ideas to make totalitarian states. Marx himself would have been their largest critic. Contrary to popular opinion, Marx believed capitalism was very necessary. You needed its power to develop a state of exuberant capital wealth, which then could could be distributed in egalitarian ways by crediting labor as much as finance and management. Some scholars (though not in the majority) believe one of the reasons the Soviets failed is because they didn't go through a necessary state of capitalism first - they tried to imitate its wealth generating power by using direct state control of the economy. Even Marx predicted this would fail. In terms of worker's rights and fair pay for labor and the criticism of the inherit need for capitalism to exploit workers, Marx was a saint. It's a shame he's been vilified in the West by associations he himself never engaged. In terms of the global influence of his ideas, I had him as my #1 Intellectual. EDIT: there's only other person person I can think of who's been as influential.

You've outlined many of the reasons why I think he deserves to be drafted, but he's somewhere in the second tier of intellectuals IMO. There were people before him who have more foundational influence and continue to have more relevant contemporary influence.

 

[FUBAR]

Kind of making a snap pick ... no write-up until late Monday at best:

3.09 - George Washington, Rebel

In many ways, the American Revolution was the most successful revolution ever. There were many in that Revolution who had clearer ideas and were better at articulating them. But if not for Washington, it would not have held together. And his willingness to give up power, when he could have been reelected, mark him as one of the greatest of all time. That willingness, is probably only rivaled by that of Cincinnatus.

Now that he's been picked I can talk about it more freely, but the bolded above is why I think Washington ranks very highly among the World Leaders. The act of surrendering power, particularly in his case, was one of the finest displays of leadership the world has seen.

I'll just say Washington fits well with my leader criteria.

 

[flysack]

A couple of interesting picks... Not sure what to think about Marx, his influence is obviously hugely significant in the 20th century as was noted; however, as also was noted his ideas have widely been discredited in practice.

I wouldn't say this is entirely true. Marxist ideas have been very successful and humanitarian when applied within capitalist systems. This is why he's still so studied in universities around the globe, but especially in America and France. Communism was attributed more to Lenin and Mao than Marx, who was more of an intellectual inspiration than a founding father type. Basically, Marx gets a lot of bad credit because of Lenin, Stalin and Mao - three guys who misapplied his principles and ideas to make totalitarian states. Marx himself would have been their largest critic. Contrary to popular opinion, Marx believed capitalism was very necessary. You needed its power to develop a state of exuberant capital wealth, which then could could be distributed in egalitarian ways by crediting labor as much as finance and management. Some scholars (though not in the majority) believe one of the reasons the Soviets failed is because they didn't go through a necessary state of capitalism first - they tried to imitate its wealth generating power by using direct state control of the economy. Even Marx predicted this would fail. In terms of worker's rights and fair pay for labor and the criticism of the inherit need for capitalism to exploit workers, Marx was a saint. It's a shame he's been vilified in the West by associations he himself never engaged. In terms of the global influence of his ideas, I had him as my #1 Intellectual. EDIT: there's only other person person I can think of who's been as influential.

You've outlined many of the reasons why I think he deserves to be drafted, but he's somewhere in the second tier of intellectuals IMO. There were people before him who have more foundational influence and continue to have more relevant contemporary influence.

Immediately after I posted that, I thought of one BIG intellectual even more important than Marx. I wouldn't say Marx is "second tier" though. I think part of the problem is that starting in the late 19th century, intellectuals were able to affect the entire globe. Before that, they were limited to their own civilizations. So while Marx affected China, Russia, and the West, Confucius affected mostly just China (here I'm thinking of Confucius as a public intellectual, in terms of his direct influence on the state civil service exams, government bureaucracy, and general thought about family piety, etc.).I think Aristotle could be slotted as a public intellectual as well, through his influence on Alexander, etc. Though both Aristotle and Confucius are clearly better Philosopher picks - their influence was greater in terms of pure abstract ideas.I guess what I'm getting at is this: I see "Intellectual" as more of a 19th century and beyond category. The judge may see things differently. Just my opinion.

 

[flysack]

Kind of making a snap pick ... no write-up until late Monday at best:

3.09 - George Washington, Rebel

In many ways, the American Revolution was the most successful revolution ever. There were many in that Revolution who had clearer ideas and were better at articulating them. But if not for Washington, it would not have held together. And his willingness to give up power, when he could have been reelected, mark him as one of the greatest of all time. That willingness, is probably only rivaled by that of Cincinnatus.

Now that he's been picked I can talk about it more freely, but the bolded above is why I think Washington ranks very highly among the World Leaders. The act of surrendering power, particularly in his case, was one of the finest displays of leadership the world has seen.

Great Rebel - but even better Leader.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Sorry, didn't get a chance to log in yesterday.

3.08--Karl Marx-Philosopher/Intellectual

Marx was going to be my next pick. I would have put him in the villain category. This is what I was referring to when I said that the pen is mightier than the sword. His ideas have caused more misery and suffering for more people than have come from any other source in world history. He is my #1 villain.I'm glad to see Washington taken too. I would have put him in the leader category.

 

[flysack]

A couple of interesting picks... Not sure what to think about Marx, his influence is obviously hugely significant in the 20th century as was noted; however, as also was noted his ideas have widely been discredited in practice.

I wouldn't say this is entirely true. Marxist ideas have been very successful and humanitarian when applied within capitalist systems. This is why he's still so studied in universities around the globe, but especially in America and France. Communism was attributed more to Lenin and Mao than Marx, who was more of an intellectual inspiration than a founding father type. Basically, Marx gets a lot of bad credit because of Lenin, Stalin and Mao - three guys who misapplied his principles and ideas to make totalitarian states. Marx himself would have been their largest critic. Contrary to popular opinion, Marx believed capitalism was very necessary. You needed its power to develop a state of exuberant capital wealth, which then could could be distributed in egalitarian ways by crediting labor as much as finance and management. Some scholars (though not in the majority) believe one of the reasons the Soviets failed is because they didn't go through a necessary state of capitalism first - they tried to imitate its wealth generating power by using direct state control of the economy. Even Marx predicted this would fail. In terms of worker's rights and fair pay for labor and the criticism of the inherit need for capitalism to exploit workers, Marx was a saint. It's a shame he's been vilified in the West by associations he himself never engaged. In terms of the global influence of his ideas, I had him as my #1 Intellectual. EDIT: there's only other person person I can think of who's been as influential.

There is nothing quite like the girl you lusted after in high school.

Or the seduction of oversimplification.

If you're not a Marxist before age 25, there is something wrong with your heart. If you are a Marxist after 25, there is something wrong with your head.

Until this discussion, I never thought of you as the boring platitude type. I guess Marx just strikes a nerve.Whatever. He wasn't my pick. I'm just shouting out comments from the peanut gallery.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Great pick with Washington but I don't get the Rebel category.

You can stack him up against anyone in history as a Leader.

I suppose you could say the country he led - population of less than 4 million, mostly in the coastal region, nearly 95% farmers, relatively weak militarily - doesn't stack up compared to the great empires of other leaders.

The quality of that leadership has never been surpassed IMO.

 

[FUBAR]

I studied Marx in an independent study in HS, found his manifesto fascinating, but I'm thinking I'd find it less so today. Plus it's a nice short read!

 

[Fennis]

Kind of making a snap pick ... no write-up until late Monday at best:

3.09 - George Washington, Rebel

Ah, we are running out of my early group of rebels. Washington is a very interesting choice, as he did lead the actual revolution that changed the British Empire and the world. Although I tend to have a bias for people whose ideas and thoughts sparked change, it is hard for me to find too much issue with this man who successfully led an armed rebellion, especially one as impacting and important as the US Revolution.

His only shortcoming, as rebel, in my mind, is his lack of leadership prior to the US Revolution, driving the ideas that led to the revolution.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Looks like my next pick is going to be a curveball.

 

[Fennis]

I'm not judging Leaders, and I can see by previous comments many disagree, but no US President falls in my personal top 20 world leaders list.

 

[Thorn]

Hey guys I'm off for a little ski trip, back Monday night. put me on auto skip for now.

 

[flysack]

[post deleted because I was spotlighting. I'm sorry everyone.]

The gist this original post was an argument for Washington as a Rebel because he also inspired the French Revolution. Basically, he was instrumental in both defeating the greatest empire on earth, and taking down the French monarchy.

Again, apologies for the original post.