What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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

World's Greatest Draft (1 Viewer)

John Maddens Lunchbox said:
I was struggling with this pick until a light bulb went off in my head.

8:08 - Diana, Princess of Wales - Celebrity
Nailed it.Truly a worldwide celebrity.

I wasn't sure there was one who wouldn't also rank very highly in some other category. She indeed would rank nowhere near any top list for anything other than celebrity.

:wall: Great pick
It's a very good pick, and I might be inclined to agree that when she lived, she was probably a bigger celebrity than even Elvis. But in terms of lasting celebrity, she's a distant 2nd to The King.
Your view is jaded by being an American. Of course Elvis is bigger here. I live in Tennessee, so my view is even more jaded.However, for worldwide celebrity? There aren't many bigger than Princess Di. I think the person I have 2nd on my list for my next pick might be close, but it will be a controversial pick. My top pick may also be controversial, but I like it. :drive:

 
I don't see mad sweeney online so I'll post his pick via PM, which is another good one

Josef Mengele - Villian

I'll let him add his own commentary, but he is truly one of the most disturbed and evil people ever to walk the face of the earth. He earned his moniker The Angel of Death.

 
Can't comment too much, I owe an explanattion for using death toll as a measuring stick earlier on but Mengele is a true monster. Being herded into a gas chamber is merciful compared to being selected for his experiments. Especially sickening was his work on children, particularly twins. Sewing twins together back to back to see how long they'd live. And that's not even the worst. Unfortunately he was in the perfect environment to fulfill his true monstrous nature and I could almost believe in god if that meant there was truly a hell for him to rot in.

 
I was PM'd that I'm up, so if this is out of turn, don't blame me.

8.13--King Tutankhamun-Celebrity

I wasn't planning on drafting a celebrity here, much less one who's been dead for 3,500 years and was forgotten for almost 3,400 of those, but it suddenly dawned on me that King Tut is the perfect celebrity. He didn't do anything except die, be mummified, and have the good fortune not to have his grave found until 1922. From then on, his golden death mask became the face of Ancient Egypt, even more so than the fallen statues of Ramses at Abu Simbel. Tut is kind of a proto-Diana, except she wasn't buried in an elaborate tomb.

Anyway, Tut was a minor Pharoah between 1333-1324 BC and was then buried in the Valley of the Kings when he died. His tomb was then forgotten and the location lost until 1922 when it was discovered by an early Egyptologist named Howard Carter who upone opening the tomb, was asked if he saw anything and is said to have replied, "Yes, wonderous things!"! Tut's tomb was one of the few major tombs left basically undisturbed from Pharonic times and provided much information about the life and customs of court. The relics from the tomb have gone on tour around the world numerous times, and always with the trappings of a major rock star's tour, with T-shirts and booka and TV programs and sold out viewings.

So while Tut wasn't who I was originally going to take, he'll be a welcome addition to my team in the throw-away position of "Celebrity". That's kind of like the long-snapper of an NFL team.

 
I think the problem with the villain category is that there are 16 categories devoted to "good guys," and only one devoted to "bad guys." The good guys get disaggregated into various ways they have been good, but the bad guys don't. Thus, we're left to define for ourselves what constitutes bad and, so far, it seems like we've narrowly defined it as "leaders who are related to the deaths of lots of people." However, like the category judge has already indicated, there are many different ways to interpret villainy. There are inventors who created evil things, philosophers who developed evil ideas, explorers whose discoveries led to evil turn of events, etc. If you just go by the judge's definition of "overall twistedness," then someone like Hitler might not even be the biggest villain in his own regime.

Anyways, just saying that there's lots of ways to think outside the box that we've created for ourselves on this one.

 
flysack said:
GTBilly said:
It depends, Billy. If you're arrogant or delusional enough to impose an absolute sense of good and evil on all of recorded history, then sure, I guess it's all "smoke and mirrors" as you put it (note: I'm not saying you're arrogant or delusional. I'm just saying absolutist claims like this are).

I happen to think good, evil, righteousness and monstrosity are cultural constructs. What is monstrous in one culture and era isn't necessarily so in another. Or the magnitude of that monstrosity isn't as terrible. To some times and cultures, cutting someone's arm cut off is an acceptable form of justice. To the present day Americans, it's monstrous. Context plays a great deal in the magnitude of horror and villainy.
What I was saying is don't be fooled by the gap or how much society has evolved. I do not think today's villain's are nearly as bad as people think I believe it is the context they are in so what you are saying is what I said or was getting at.
Billy, you seem like a good bloke and I like you, but you need to learn the wonders of punctuation. Hell, at this point I'd take a comma splice and be happy. Reading your posts feels like running with scissors. Secondly, I do think the ideology of National Socialism, combined with Hitler's need to create an extremely fast and efficient war machine, demanded a scapegoat and thus led to genocide.

Genocides don't happen too often. Did the ancients attempt genocide? I'm referring to the attempt to systematically wipe out an entire group of people (whether they are nationally or ethnically defined).

The oldest one that comes to mind is the U.S. attempt to wipe out the Native Americans.

Edit: after that, almost all of them occur in the 19th century, and mostly 20 century.

- Australia's treatment of the aborigines has been classified as attempted genocide.

- XXXXX's attempt to wipe out the Serbs

- The current atrocity in Darfur

- Hitler's treatment of the Jews

It's possible I'm glossing over history or don't know the ancients well enough.
I don't think "race" was as well defined in the past as we define it... but the ancient world definitely committed genocide...
 
8.14 Slobodan Milosevic, Villan

Bosnia Genocide - 1992-1995 - 200,000 Deaths

In the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, conflict between the three main ethnic groups, the Serbs, Croats, and Muslims, resulted in genocide committed by the Serbs against the Muslims in Bosnia.

A new leader arose by the late 1980s, a Serbian named Slobodan Milosevic, a former Communist who had turned to nationalism and religious hatred to gain power. He began by inflaming long-standing tensions between Serbs and Muslims in the independent provence of Kosovo. Orthodox Christian Serbs in Kosovo were in the minority and claimed they were being mistreated by the Albanian Muslim majority. Serbian-backed political unrest in Kosovo eventually led to its loss of independence and domination by Milosevic.

Aided by Serbian guerrillas in Croatia, Milosevic's forces invaded in July 1991 to 'protect' the Serbian minority. In the city of Vukovar, they bombarded the outgunned Croats for 86 consecutive days and reduced it to rubble. After Vukovar fell, the Serbs began the first mass executions of the conflict, killing hundreds of Croat men and burying them in mass graves.

In April 1992, the U.S. and European Community chose to recognize the independence of Bosnia, a mostly Muslim country where the Serb minority made up 32 percent of the population. Milosevic responded to Bosnia's declaration of independence by attacking Sarajevo, its capital city, best known for hosting the 1984 Winter Olympics. Sarajevo soon became known as the city where Serb snipers continually shot down helpless civilians in the streets, including eventually over 3,500 children.

Bosnian Muslims were hopelessly outgunned. As the Serbs gained ground, they began to systematically roundup local Muslims in scenes eerily similar to those that had occurred under the Nazis during World War II, including mass shootings, forced repopulation of entire towns, and confinement in make-shift concentration camps for men and boys. The Serbs also terrorized Muslim families into fleeing their villages by using rape as a weapon against women and girls.

The actions of the Serbs were labeled as 'ethnic cleansing,' a name which quickly took hold among the international media.

At this point, some of the worst genocidal activities of the four-year-old conflict occurred. In Srebrenica, a Safe Haven, U.N. peacekeepers stood by helplessly as the Serbs under the command of General Ratko Mladic systematically selected and then slaughtered nearly 8,000 men and boys between the ages of twelve and sixty - the worst mass murder in Europe since World War II. In addition, the Serbs continued to engage in mass rapes of Muslim females.

On November 1, 1995, leaders of the warring factions including Milosevic and Tudjman traveled to the U.S. for peace talks at Wright-Patterson Air Force base in Ohio.

After three weeks of negotiations, a peace accord was declared. Terms of the agreement included partitioning Bosnia into two main portions known as the Bosnian Serb Republic and the Muslim-Croat Federation. The agreement also called for democratic elections and stipulated that war criminals would be handed over for prosecution. 60,000 NATO soldiers were deployed to preserve the cease-fire.

By now, over 200,000 Muslim civilians had been systematically murdered. More than 20,000 were missing and feared dead, while 2,000,000 had become refugees. It was, according to U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke, "the greatest failure of the West since the 1930s."
 
I don't see mad sweeney online so I'll post his pick via PM, which is another good one

Josef Mengele - Villian

I'll let him add his own commentary, but he is truly one of the most disturbed and evil people ever to walk the face of the earth. He earned his moniker The Angel of Death.
He sewed live twins together to see how long they would last as conjoined Siamese twins. He burned people alive at various temperatures to see how the human body would react to intense heat.

Of 3000 sets of twins he collected from concentration camps, only 26 survived. The rest were submitted to the most gruesome of horrors, and what's worse, they had no idea it was coming. He treated them like his own children. Many even called him "Uncle Josef" up until the point he injected chloroform into their hearts or cut off their arms to see how the other would react.

What he lacks in a Hitler or Pol Pot's numbers, he more than made up for in absolute inhuman cruelty.

I don't know where to rank him, but Top5 is certainly possible.

** this was one of the people I thought of when GT Billy said his criteria didn't necessarily depend on numbers.

I wonder if the other guy I thought of will be drafted....

 
Last edited by a moderator:
13. DC Thunder- King Tut

14. Thorn- Milosovich

15. Yankee23fan

16. Acer FC

17. FUBAR

18. Arsenal of Doom

19. Larry Boy 44

20. Mario Kart

I think this is where we are at.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
larry_boy_44 said:
timschochet said:
larry_boy_44 said:
but in the scope of human history, disliking and even hating a group of people for their race or religion really isn't that villainous...

It isn't good, but simply disliking/hating and even to a point persecuting/making life difficult for a group isn't that bad in comparison...
Look, given the nature of some of the bad guys who SHOULD be chosen, I don't really think Luther belongs on the list. But that doesn't mean he's a good guy. He didn't just "dislike" the Jews or "even to a point persecuting/making life difficult" for them. Let's be clear: what he did is set in motion a German anti-Semitism based, not on religious anti-Semitism, but on nationalistic anti-Semitism. Without Luther, there is no Hitler. Luther is also arguably the man most responsible for the Thirty Years War, which devestated Central Europe and set back European civilization by centuries.
do you consider all people who were racist the same way or is hating Jews worse than hating other ethnicities/cultures/religions?[/b]Just curious...
The more I think about this question, Larry, the more offensive I find it. Are you really expecting me to tell you that hating Jews is worse than hating other people? I happen to know a lot about the terrible mistreatment of Jews in Europe throughout the centuries because it involves my ancestry and it's something I've read a lot about. All racism is abhorrent. If my answer to your question was yes, that would make me racist as well. My answer is no.
is your answer no because you actually think it, or is your answer no because you think it would make you look bad to say yes?
 
dparker713 said:
the moops said:
flysack said:
People dress up like him everywhere. There's an entire industry built around imitating this man. You see him in football stadiums. Wackos like Jerry Glanville purchased season tickets for Elvis at Falcons games (true story). People see him in cookies and try to sell it on ebay. It's insane. He's practically a god.
But he is "merely" an American celebrity.IMO, this is going to be a very tough category because of that fact.I think the greatest celebrities are going to be tough to assign to that category, because they will already be near the top of other categories (performer, athlete, politician, etc). I think Ali is the best example of that. He would be a top celebrity (perhaps the top), but he is also a top athlete.
He's hugely popular in Japan to this day, and he had plenty of success in Europe, infact the remix of Little Less Conversation wasn't an American creation. He's certainly an international celebrity.
you can't sell the # of album that Elvis (or Jackson or the Beatles) did without being internationally known...
 
John Maddens Lunchbox said:
8:08 - Diana, Princess of Wales - Celebrity
I almost picked her last round and she was gonna be my next pick...GREAT pick... #1 person I thought of when i saw the "celebrity" category...

 
flysack said:
GTBilly said:
It depends, Billy. If you're arrogant or delusional enough to impose an absolute sense of good and evil on all of recorded history, then sure, I guess it's all "smoke and mirrors" as you put it (note: I'm not saying you're arrogant or delusional. I'm just saying absolutist claims like this are).

I happen to think good, evil, righteousness and monstrosity are cultural constructs. What is monstrous in one culture and era isn't necessarily so in another. Or the magnitude of that monstrosity isn't as terrible. To some times and cultures, cutting someone's arm cut off is an acceptable form of justice. To the present day Americans, it's monstrous. Context plays a great deal in the magnitude of horror and villainy.
What I was saying is don't be fooled by the gap or how much society has evolved. I do not think today's villain's are nearly as bad as people think I believe it is the context they are in so what you are saying is what I said or was getting at.
Billy, you seem like a good bloke and I like you, but you need to learn the wonders of punctuation. Hell, at this point I'd take a comma splice and be happy. Reading your posts feels like running with scissors. Secondly, I do think the ideology of National Socialism, combined with Hitler's need to create an extremely fast and efficient war machine, demanded a scapegoat and thus led to genocide.

Genocides don't happen too often. Did the ancients attempt genocide? I'm referring to the attempt to systematically wipe out an entire group of people (whether they are nationally or ethnically defined).

The oldest one that comes to mind is the U.S. attempt to wipe out the Native Americans.

Edit: after that, almost all of them occur in the 19th century, and mostly 20 century.

- Australia's treatment of the aborigines has been classified as attempted genocide.

- XXXXX's attempt to wipe out the Serbs

- The current atrocity in Darfur

- Hitler's treatment of the Jews

It's possible I'm glossing over history or don't know the ancients well enough.
I don't think "race" was as well defined in the past as we define it... but the ancient world definitely committed genocide...
You're right. Race was a 16th century English invention used to justify the attempted eradication of the Irish. Then it was carried on from there to dehumanize anyone who looked different than them, and thus justify English brutality. Other European people found this idea also useful. And thus the poison was spread.Most all genocides have been carried out in the name of race.

So what I'm wondering is, what exactly are these ancient world genocides you speak of? A convincing example would be nice.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
dparker713 said:
timschochet said:
dparker713 said:
You may not like the question, but its valid. You always emphasize any wrong done to Jews by a particular person, and the tone is rather strenuous. Though I wouldnt say it implies racism, as you seem somewhat fixated on Jewish sufferring, but you're not suggesting Jews are superior or displaying prejudice towards other races.
What incredible bs. I advise you to go back through the Great American Draft. I criticized Andrew Jackson for his treatment of Native Americans. I criticized another President for his treatment of African Americans. And I criticized a third president for his internment of Japanese Americans. I have a big thing with injustice. If you think I am focusing on Jews in particular, then all I can say is this is something YOU are looking for.
Didn't say you ignore other groups, I said you emphasize Jews. We all have our preconceptions. No one is unbiased. Im sure my biases come into play in this, yet you claim yours dont?
I emphasize a lot of things. Mistreatment of Jews is something I know a lot about, as I wrote. Of course everyone has biases. But let's look at the question again:Do you consider all people who were racist the same way or is hating Jews worse than hating other ethnicities/cultures/religions?

This question is asking me not about biases; it's asking me if I am racist. You think it's a valid question, and you write that I am "fixated" on Jewish suffering. Why shouldn't I find these remarks offensive?

Martin Luther deserves to be castigated for his treatment of Jews. It was a terrible thing that he did, and it makes him a terrible man. This is fact, not a question of fixation. Luther is also an extremely important man, perhaps the most important man of the last 1,000 years, and I am glad that he lived, because if he didn't, I think we might very well all be much worse off. But that doesn't change the fact that he is scum.
this is the part that made me ask that question (and I admit it may have sounded harsher than I meant it to)...Do you honestly believe every single person who disliked/mistreated another race of people is a "terrible man"?

Because that would make pretty much every person to live except a select few who live today terrible just on that definition alone...

 
I don't see mad sweeney online so I'll post his pick via PM, which is another good one

Josef Mengele - Villian

I'll let him add his own commentary, but he is truly one of the most disturbed and evil people ever to walk the face of the earth. He earned his moniker The Angel of Death.
do we really think 3 WWII-era Germans are in the top 20 most evil people in the history of the enitre planet earth? REALLY?!!?Because I don't see any way that that is even possible with the horrors and evil that humanity has perpetrated...

also, I wonder when tim is gonna say that Hitler, Mengele, and Hemmler need to all be demoted because they are "all equally at fault for the holocaust, whereas Pol Pot is solely responsible for what he did" like he did with Jesus/Paul and Muhammad...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
flysack said:
GTBilly said:
It depends, Billy. If you're arrogant or delusional enough to impose an absolute sense of good and evil on all of recorded history, then sure, I guess it's all "smoke and mirrors" as you put it (note: I'm not saying you're arrogant or delusional. I'm just saying absolutist claims like this are).

I happen to think good, evil, righteousness and monstrosity are cultural constructs. What is monstrous in one culture and era isn't necessarily so in another. Or the magnitude of that monstrosity isn't as terrible. To some times and cultures, cutting someone's arm cut off is an acceptable form of justice. To the present day Americans, it's monstrous. Context plays a great deal in the magnitude of horror and villainy.
What I was saying is don't be fooled by the gap or how much society has evolved. I do not think today's villain's are nearly as bad as people think I believe it is the context they are in so what you are saying is what I said or was getting at.
Billy, you seem like a good bloke and I like you, but you need to learn the wonders of punctuation. Hell, at this point I'd take a comma splice and be happy. Reading your posts feels like running with scissors. Secondly, I do think the ideology of National Socialism, combined with Hitler's need to create an extremely fast and efficient war machine, demanded a scapegoat and thus led to genocide.

Genocides don't happen too often. Did the ancients attempt genocide? I'm referring to the attempt to systematically wipe out an entire group of people (whether they are nationally or ethnically defined).

The oldest one that comes to mind is the U.S. attempt to wipe out the Native Americans.

Edit: after that, almost all of them occur in the 19th century, and mostly 20 century.

- Australia's treatment of the aborigines has been classified as attempted genocide.

- XXXXX's attempt to wipe out the Serbs

- The current atrocity in Darfur

- Hitler's treatment of the Jews

It's possible I'm glossing over history or don't know the ancients well enough.
I don't think "race" was as well defined in the past as we define it... but the ancient world definitely committed genocide...
You're right. Race was a 16th century English invention used to justify the attempted eradication of the Irish. Then it was carried on from there to dehumanize anyone who looked different than them, and thus justify English brutality. Other European people found this idea also useful. And thus the poison was spread.Most all genocides have been carried out in the name of race.

So what I'm wondering is, what exactly are these ancient world genocides you speak of? A convincing example would be nice.
just look in the Bible for evidence of what happened during ancient war...When a city was overtaken it was, many times, completely destroyed and everyone was killed except for those taken as slaves and those the soldiers took as "brides" (or concubines)...

it wasn't called genocide, and it wasn't necessarily because of race because those constructs didn't exist yet, but they still systematically killed everyone because of where they lived, how they looked, or what religion they believed in...

 
this is the part that made me ask that question (and I admit it may have sounded harsher than I meant it to)...

Do you honestly believe every single person who disliked/mistreated another race of people is a "terrible man"?

Because that would make pretty much every person to live except a select few who live today terrible just on that definition alone...
The answer to your question is no. But the fact that you even ask this question indicates you are not aware of what Martin Luther did to Jews. It was not simply dislike or mistreatment. from wikipedia:

In 1543 Luther published On the Jews and Their Lies in which he says that the Jews are a "base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth."[13] They are full of the "devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine."[14] The synagogue was a "defiled bride, yes, an incorrigible whore and an evil slut ..."[15] He argues that their synagogues and schools be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes razed, and property and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness,[16] afforded no legal protection,[17] and these "poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time.[18] He also seems to advocate their murder, writing "[w]e are at fault in not slaying them."[19]

Much of this activity recommended by Luther was eagerly carried out by his followers. So Larry, to answer your question, if Luther had been just another anti-Semite who had expressed a disdain for Jews and would have nothing to do with them, then I wouldn't condemn him. But that's not what we're talking about here. This is the writing of an evil man. If he had written the same thing about any race of people or religion he would still be an evil man. He can be definitely defined in this manner.

 
this is the part that made me ask that question (and I admit it may have sounded harsher than I meant it to)...

Do you honestly believe every single person who disliked/mistreated another race of people is a "terrible man"?

Because that would make pretty much every person to live except a select few who live today terrible just on that definition alone...
The answer to your question is no. But the fact that you even ask this question indicates you are not aware of what Martin Luther did to Jews. It was not simply dislike or mistreatment. from wikipedia:

In 1543 Luther published On the Jews and Their Lies in which he says that the Jews are a "base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth."[13] They are full of the "devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine."[14] The synagogue was a "defiled bride, yes, an incorrigible whore and an evil slut ..."[15] He argues that their synagogues and schools be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes razed, and property and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness,[16] afforded no legal protection,[17] and these "poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time.[18] He also seems to advocate their murder, writing "[w]e are at fault in not slaying them."[19]

Much of this activity recommended by Luther was eagerly carried out by his followers. So Larry, to answer your question, if Luther had been just another anti-Semite who had expressed a disdain for Jews and would have nothing to do with them, then I wouldn't condemn him. But that's not what we're talking about here. This is the writing of an evil man. If he had written the same thing about any race of people or religion he would still be an evil man. He can be definitely defined in this manner.
see, that word is one of the things that makes me question those who go off on Jews...how come Jews get their own word to define those who hate Jews? I mean if I hate blacks, latinos, asians, or anything else I'm racist... but if I hate Jews I'm not racist I'm an "anti-Semite"... why is that?

as far as Luther goes, I know what he did... I also know that that kind of stuff was happening all over the place and the biggest reason for it was simply that the world had not yet come to a point where different races/religions could co-exist in one place like that... its sad, but its a sad fact about HUMANITY, not about any particular human...

 
MisfitBlondes said:
Count me among the people who think Elvis is the more enduring and influential celebrity, with Princess Di #2.
Princess Di is the clear #1. She's so far ahead of the next celebrities that I'd rank the next four as 5a, 5b, 5c, and 5d.
Pahh!She just has an Elton John song about her (which was a remake of his Marilyn tribute), not comic gold from Steve Martin like my man, King Tut!King Tut (King Tut)Now when he was a young man,He never thought he'd seePeople stand in line to see the boy king.(King Tut) How'd you get so funky?(Funky Tut) Did you do the Monkey?Born in Arizona,Moved to Babylonia (King Tut).(King Tut) Now, if I'd knownThey'd line up just to see him,I'd trade in all my moneyAnd buy me a museum. (King Tut)Buried with a donkey (funky Tut)He's my favorite honkyBorn in Arizona,Moved to Babylonia (King Tut)Dancin' by the Nile, (Disco Tut)The ladies love his style (boss Tut)Rockin' for a mile (rockin' Tut)He ate a crocodile.He gave his life for tourism.Golden idolHe's an EgyptianThey're sellin' you.Now, when I die,Now don't think I'm a nut,Don't want no fancy funeral,Just one like ole king Tut (King Tut)He coulda won a Grammy,Buried in his jammies,Born in Arizona, moved to Babylonia,He was born in Arizona, got a condo made of stone-a,King Tut
 
I'm not surprised by this reluctance/refusal by certain people to accept the FACT that Martin Luther was evil. I see it in my own family. Several years ago, my father-in-law, who I respect tremendously and who is a devout Lutheran, told me that he had heard the stories about anti-Semitism and Luther and did not believe them. He told me they were lies spread to make Christianity look bad, and that Luther had never written or done anything to harm the Jewish people. He brought the subject up with me, not the other way around. I tried to tell him the truth of the matter, but he told me I was a victim of anti-Christian propaganda. We've never discussed this issue again.

 
I'm not surprised by this reluctance/refusal by certain people to accept the FACT that Martin Luther was evil. I see it in my own family. Several years ago, my father-in-law, who I respect tremendously and who is a devout Lutheran, told me that he had heard the stories about anti-Semitism and Luther and did not believe them. He told me they were lies spread to make Christianity look bad, and that Luther had never written or done anything to harm the Jewish people. He brought the subject up with me, not the other way around. I tried to tell him the truth of the matter, but he told me I was a victim of anti-Christian propaganda. We've never discussed this issue again.
lolso you disagree that the whole planet was a crappy racist place in Luther's time? (even though, technically speaking, race had barely been invented yet as an idea)

 
Just finished a consult..... pick coming in a few........
We're allowed consultants? YF23, can I consult with you for categories you've already drafted in?
Sure, but I meant a real life legal client with real life problems requiring a payment of a fee to me for services to be rendered.
:lmao: as soon as you posted that my first thought was that it was about the draft, then I went "wait... he's a lawyer... probably was work"...and then I wasn't sure at all...I mean, we all know that this draft >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> real life....
 
see, that word is one of the things that makes me question those who go off on Jews...how come Jews get their own word to define those who hate Jews? I mean if I hate blacks, latinos, asians, or anything else I'm racist... but if I hate Jews I'm not racist I'm an "anti-Semite"... why is that?as far as Luther goes, I know what he did... I also know that that kind of stuff was happening all over the place and the biggest reason for it was simply that the world had not yet come to a point where different races/religions could co-exist in one place like that... its sad, but its a sad fact about HUMANITY, not about any particular human...
Larry, I like you, but what you've written here is ridiculous and must be corrected.First, the reason for the term anti-Semitism, which existed long before the term "racism" was used, is because of the special dual nature of the hatred against Jews. Jews are treated both as a race and another religion, and in general as outsiders, forced to live apart in Europe. I'm not sure why the use of that term bothers you in particular, but that is the reason it is used.Now to your larger point, which suggests that Luther is simply a product of the times in which he lived, and that "this kind of stuff was happening all over the place." Luther's writings were highly influential, among the most influential writings in history. The truth is that, unlike Western Europe, until Luther came along Jews in Germany and Bohemia were well treated- many of them fled there after the Spanish Inquisition because the Germans as a people were willing to treat them well and respect their desire to worship a non-Christian God. Luther changed all that. Far from being a product of his era, he was the instrumental force in bringing anti-Semitism to central Europe, and he created untold misery. It's not a "sad fact about humanity", it's a sad fact about LUTHER.
 
I'm not surprised by this reluctance/refusal by certain people to accept the FACT that Martin Luther was evil. I see it in my own family. Several years ago, my father-in-law, who I respect tremendously and who is a devout Lutheran, told me that he had heard the stories about anti-Semitism and Luther and did not believe them. He told me they were lies spread to make Christianity look bad, and that Luther had never written or done anything to harm the Jewish people. He brought the subject up with me, not the other way around. I tried to tell him the truth of the matter, but he told me I was a victim of anti-Christian propaganda. We've never discussed this issue again.
lolso you disagree that the whole planet was a crappy racist place in Luther's time? (even though, technically speaking, race had barely been invented yet as an idea)
Larry, the planet is a crappy racist place in our own time. It doesn't absolve anyone from individual responsibility for their actions, ever. As an educated, supposedly civilized man, Luther should have known better than an ignorant peasant. He spread hatred for the purpose of spreading hatred. His guilt is heavy.
 
see, that word is one of the things that makes me question those who go off on Jews...how come Jews get their own word to define those who hate Jews? I mean if I hate blacks, latinos, asians, or anything else I'm racist... but if I hate Jews I'm not racist I'm an "anti-Semite"... why is that?as far as Luther goes, I know what he did... I also know that that kind of stuff was happening all over the place and the biggest reason for it was simply that the world had not yet come to a point where different races/religions could co-exist in one place like that... its sad, but its a sad fact about HUMANITY, not about any particular human...
Larry, I like you, but what you've written here is ridiculous and must be corrected.First, the reason for the term anti-Semitism, which existed long before the term "racism" was used, is because of the special dual nature of the hatred against Jews. Jews are treated both as a race and another religion, and in general as outsiders, forced to live apart in Europe. I'm not sure why the use of that term bothers you in particular, but that is the reason it is used.Now to your larger point, which suggests that Luther is simply a product of the times in which he lived, and that "this kind of stuff was happening all over the place." Luther's writings were highly influential, among the most influential writings in history. The truth is that, unlike Western Europe, until Luther came along Jews in Germany and Bohemia were well treated- many of them fled there after the Spanish Inquisition because the Germans as a people were willing to treat them well and respect their desire to worship a non-Christian God. Luther changed all that. Far from being a product of his era, he was the instrumental force in bringing anti-Semitism to central Europe, and he created untold misery. It's not a "sad fact about humanity", it's a sad fact about LUTHER.
your "reason" for the term doesn't work, because there isn't a term for hating Christians, or Buddhists, or Muslims either... only when you hate Jews do you get a special word to describe you... and I've never understood that... to me it comes off as almost racist against everyone except Jews (and, yes, I mean "racist" as in "dislike" not "racist" as in "persecuting and killing in the streets")as far as the rest of what you say... You are missing the big picture...Why did they flee from Spain/ Why'd they flee from wherever they were before Spain? Why'd they flee where they were after Germany?even to today, the same stuff happens (see: Israel, its their own nation, yet they have to constantly fight in order to keep it and stay there)...I'm not entirely sure why it is, but to act like Luther invented racism against Jews is absurd... He might have been the first to vocalize it and/or write it down, but he was far from the first in his area to think those things and he was far from the first in the world, too...he was a product of his era and world, an era and world where you had little to no contact with anything that wasn't exactly like you and thus you hated them... The Jews just had an extra problem in this era because they didn't have any place to call home and where they could be the majority... Thus they always seemed to have everyone hate them because that's what the world did at that time...
 
I'm not surprised by this reluctance/refusal by certain people to accept the FACT that Martin Luther was evil. I see it in my own family. Several years ago, my father-in-law, who I respect tremendously and who is a devout Lutheran, told me that he had heard the stories about anti-Semitism and Luther and did not believe them. He told me they were lies spread to make Christianity look bad, and that Luther had never written or done anything to harm the Jewish people. He brought the subject up with me, not the other way around. I tried to tell him the truth of the matter, but he told me I was a victim of anti-Christian propaganda. We've never discussed this issue again.
lolso you disagree that the whole planet was a crappy racist place in Luther's time? (even though, technically speaking, race had barely been invented yet as an idea)
Larry, the planet is a crappy racist place in our own time. It doesn't absolve anyone from individual responsibility for their actions, ever. As an educated, supposedly civilized man, Luther should have known better than an ignorant peasant. He spread hatred for the purpose of spreading hatred. His guilt is heavy.
you are massively overstating how educated Luther was...and you are also massively overstating how bad what he did was compared to what the rest of the world did at that time...

 
Bit surprised at the lack of musician picks thus far. Early or not, I was getting a little paranoid sitting on this pick. Shouldn't come as much of a surprise to those who followed my comments on the Greatest American Draft, but here we go.

7.20 Miles Dewey Davis III Musician/Performer

My personal take on Miles

A mercurial, creative force of nature. The epitome of a performer, composer, conductor and bandleader. Although I have immeasurable respect for the contributions of those such as Louis Armstrong, who laid the foundation for what we know as jazz music so many years ago, no other musician has been as instrumental to the metamorphosis of jazz music as Miles, in my view. During his lifetime, he led the charge on nearly every single development in jazz, and sitting still was never an option. He was a catalyst in the experimentation with cool jazz, modal jazz, jazz-fusion and jazz-funk, often to the dismay of his fans, who lamented his broadening horizons as he eschewed his more traditional origins.

I'd say Miles didn't get his due in the GAD (not by a long shot). The depth of his discography is unparalleled, and even a cursory glance reveals some of the most cherished artistic achievements in jazz (and all of music, in several cases). Kind of Blue is the most celebrated jazz album of all time, and for good reason. Listening to it, it feels as if every note has always belonged in that precise order and pitch. The overwhelming certainty and ease is stunning.

Still, that is just the tip of Miles' musical iceberg. His three collaborations with the Gil Evans Orchestra (Miles Ahead, Porgy & Bess and my personal favorite Miles album Sketches of Spain) are true jazz milestones (pun intended). His two great quintets are held as two of the finest ensembles in jazz history. The evolution of his sound from Filles de Kilimanjaro through In A Silent Way to #####es Brew makes for fascinating listening. Live-Evil and On The Corner is some of the funkiest stuff you'll ever hear. His live recordings at the Cellar Door, the Plugged Nickel and the Fillmore East, as well as his February 12, 1964 Lincoln Center concert are pure dynamite. He also recorded two stellar film soundtracks, but one of them is a bit spotlighty. I could go on and on.

Few musicians can claim to have displayed the same ceaseless exploratory spirit that Miles possessed, and fewer still have the musical catalogue to back it up. Apart from being a phenomenal musician, he also made those around him better through sheer synergy, presence and force of will, as evidenced by the tightness and success of each of his groups. Even in the oft-maligned later period of his career, he constantly sought new points of view, and his 1993 album Doo-Bop is credited as one of the first ventures into a rap/jazz fusion. His influence is immense, and casts a shadow over the music world to this day.

In the end, it's all about the music, and it speaks louder than anything I could ever say:

Jeru Birth Of The Cool

Walkin' Walkin'

'Round Midnight 'Round Midnight

My Funny Valentine Cookin' With The Miles Davis Quintet

This is a tough pick for me.I love Miles Davis (my youngest son is named Miles!)

He deserves to be drafted, I'm just not sure where.

He was a huge figure in music, but not really as a composer, and even though he was great, I wouldn't put him in the top tier of musicians either.

(Maybe we need a 3rd musical category - band leader or facilitator!)

His ability to put together a team and get the most out of that collection is unparalled in music.

It is hard enough to put together one of the greatest combos in jazz history.

Miles did it twice.

Not only did he have a knack selecting groups with incredible chemistry,

but he did so with a vision of developing new sounds and dared to take music into brand new realms.

1) Artistic expertice - the ability to emote with an instrument.

Miles stands out here. His phrasing his unbelievable and his ability to express emotion is top-notch

2) Technical mastery of one's instrument.

If there were any knocks on Miles, this was probably it. He would be the first to admit that he was no virtuoso.

He did however have the great gift of being able to know his limitations, and used what he had as well as any other musician has done (see #1).

3) Innovativeness/importance in musical history

He was always at the forefront of musical developments, but more as a facilitator or manager.

He didn't always come up with the ideas, but he maximized their capabilities, and put together the best possible combination of talent to reach that potential.

4) Popularity.

Pretty large, but mostly through his recordings, including the acknowledged greatest jazz album of all time. One of the more recognizable figures in jazz.

I think this is a good, but not great pick. He belongs in the conversation, but I wouldn't put him in the top 3 (based on how I am judging the category).

 
I don't see mad sweeney online so I'll post his pick via PM, which is another good one

Josef Mengele - Villian

I'll let him add his own commentary, but he is truly one of the most disturbed and evil people ever to walk the face of the earth. He earned his moniker The Angel of Death.
do we really think 3 WWII-era Germans are in the top 20 most evil people in the history of the enitre planet earth? REALLY?!!?
Yes, I think Hitler and Mengele are Top 10, if not Top 5. Larry, you keep repeating (shouting, really) this same argument on behalf of "world history" without providing any indication that you know what you're talking about.

You can convince us without spotlighting. Until then, I won't deign to disagree with you like I occasionally do with Tim or Ozy or thatguy. I'll just ignore your baseless shouts.

However, I do hope you rise to the occasion and provide a more substantial argument.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You know what Larry, you seem to really want to absolve Martin Luther of his rabid anti-Semitism, and you also seem to want to criticize those who even bring up the term anti-Semitism, and I can't help you with either point. I've tried to make my position clear. I actually find several of your statements on these issues to be quite offensive- I doubt you mean to be offensive intentionally, but they're offensive nonetheless. So in the interests of trying to continue with the draft (which I think you've done quite well with) I'm going to drop this subject and I politely ask you do the same. I will no longer respond to posts regarding Martin Luther and anti-Semitism because I find that your responses are angering me and there is no place for that in this draft.

 
I don't see mad sweeney online so I'll post his pick via PM, which is another good one

Josef Mengele - Villian

I'll let him add his own commentary, but he is truly one of the most disturbed and evil people ever to walk the face of the earth. He earned his moniker The Angel of Death.
do we really think 3 WWII-era Germans are in the top 20 most evil people in the history of the enitre planet earth? REALLY?!!?
Yes, I think Hitler and Mengele are Top 10, if not Top 5. Larry, you keep repeating (shouting, really) this same argument on behalf of "world history" without providing any indication that you know what you're talking about.

You can convince us without spotlighting. Until then, I won't deign to disagree with you like I occasionally do with Tim or Ozy or thatguy. I'll just ignore your baseless shouts.

However, I do hope you rise to the occasion and provide a more substantial argument.
there were ancient leaders who burned whole cities to the ground, murdering every man, and raping (and then murdering) every woman...and there were many more who did similar, only they kept some of the people alive as slaves/concubines...

like I've said, you want evidence? Look at Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun, the pillaged and plundered and murdered their empire to huge proportions, all they did was kill during their reigns... and they aren't the only ones, there are tons of examples of groups of people who did nothing but war throughout their history... and there are tons of examples of leaders who killed for no reason other than just to do it...

honestly, though, I'm not saying the men we're drafting aren't evil... they are... They are definitely villains... I'm merely saying that i find it interesting that we find our villains to be the worst villains in history (read: the best), and our heroes to be the weakest heroes in history (read: the worst)... That makes me kinda sad... :goodposting:

 
You know what Larry, you seem to really want to absolve Martin Luther of his rabid anti-Semitism, and you also seem to want to criticize those who even bring up the term anti-Semitism, and I can't help you with either point. I've tried to make my position clear. I actually find several of your statements on these issues to be quite offensive- I doubt you mean to be offensive intentionally, but they're offensive nonetheless. So in the interests of trying to continue with the draft (which I think you've done quite well with) I'm going to drop this subject and I politely ask you do the same. I will no longer respond to posts regarding Martin Luther and anti-Semitism because I find that your responses are angering me and there is no place for that in this draft.
really? What exactly did I say that angered you?Because... I honestly don't see it...
 
Ok, I'm going rebel here. For now. I may move this guy later but I really want him on my team and I'm following the Yankee23fan rule for the draft here in taking him.

He is the most well known leader of one of the most well known revolutions in history. His revolutionary movement, like many before it and after, led not to the democratic principles that made the foundation of the act, but instead to tyranny, bloodshed and a Reign of Terror that only ended with his own arrest and execution. He was a great admirer of the Roman Empire, citing his heros as men who haven't been drafted yet but will be. He could have been a rather rich legal scholar in his time having rose through those education ranks rather quickly, even being elected to give an address to the King.

But before any of that came to fruition, he decided to represent the poor. He was a lawyer who forceably argued for the rights of the poor and helpless in his society. His rise there led him to politics, to quick power, to a voice in the creation of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Provisions of the Constitution. He quickly became the leading republican voice against the monarchy in his country, forming organziations that, once the monarshy fell due to his revolution, took control the country.

The people that overturned the monarchy in his name and for his cause appointed him their supreme patriot, a man of common modesty who cared about the people and poor, and who was incoruptable.

Then he took power.

As a young lawyer, before he helped the poor, he was appointed a criminal judge and he resigned quickly when he had to make a decision to order a young man's execution. Now, as the powerful revolutionary charged with giving his country to the people, his first quasi-official act was the public demand for the execution of the King. The people oblidged. His revolution off the ground, he next turned his sights on internal traitors and counterrevolutionaries, preaching no tolerance. He was oblidged.

The country, being thrown into the depths of riots and chaos decided that a new government needed to be put in place. The Committe on Public Safety was empowered and he was made the Chairman. He became the de facto dictator. The revolutionary that fought for the poor decided that his revolution required the death of the poor, or anyone else that tunred against him and the revolution. Thus began the Reign of Terror. The criminals became anyone that didn't support the revolution, people whose support wasn't strong enough or too moderate, and just about everyone else that he decided was a traitor to the cause. In a few short months many of his closest allies and supporters were arrested and killed. Not satisfied with how the revolution was progressing, he and his still living partners redrew the government and made it the sole power of judge and executioner, making him and his committe the ultimate judge of all.

But it was too much for the very people he started helping; the common man. Charges of dictator, tyrant and murdered started to abound and so he answered the charges publically by saying there was a faction of the government that was conspiring against the progress of democracy he was fighting for. But the bloody movement that he started finally got bigger then him. He was shouted down in public. Chased down to a home where his closest friends killed themselves instead of being arrested, he tried to do the same and simply shattered his jaw with the bullet meant for his brain. He was arrested, and without a hearing or appeal or any public discourse, he was guillotined. According to legend, he was the only man ever to be done so face up so that he could see his death coming.

His rebellion was supposed to be American cousin in Europe leading to a new birth of republican freedom and prosperity. It became the Reign of Terror. Another quick congrats to our own rebels and revolutionaries that tempered that possibility with our great Constitution.

I select as my rebel, Maximilien Robespierre

 
I said it about celebrity and Ill say it about musician. IMO, you guys are being too narrow in your choices.
Fennis, you have an interesting point, and of course it applies to everything. If we were running this draft in Japan, it would likely be very different, and many Japanese people would probably be represented already (is there even one in this draft)?On the other hand, the United States is, throughout it's history, the most international nation on Earth. We, along with our allies in the West, export most of the world's culture, and the amount we don't export is usually very imitative. Why then, shouldn't the celebrity and musician lists be dominated by American and Western figures?
 
thatguy said:
No time now for writeup:



James Clerk Maxwell - Scientist
Here is the writeup and a little bump of this name, so maybe Larry can stop arguing about what is evil and why the term Anti-Semite needs to be retired immediatelyI consider Maxwell's accomplishments in physics to be a notch below those of Newton and on par with those of Einstein. He developed the four equations used to describe Electromagnetism, which as most of you know is very significant branch of physics. If Newton is the Father of Classical Mechanics, this man is The Father of Electricity and Magnetism. Einstein kept pictures of 3 men in his office: Newton, Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell. Faraday made the experimental breakthroughs in Electromagnetism, but it was Maxwell's theoretical work that gave it the push the field needed to become the science that it is today. His accomplishments are truly remarkable, and without them we likely have none of the technological breakthroughs that we now take for granted. I have no idea where this man will be slotted ultimately by the judges, but for my money he is as worthy of 3rd as anyone else drafted, and should be no worse than 5th. Seriously, his breakthroughs in Electromagnetism paved the way for technology as we know it today.



James Clerk Maxwell (13 June 1831 – 5 November 1879) was a Scottish theoretical physicist and mathematician. His most significant achievement was the development of the classical electromagnetic theory, synthesizing all previous unrelated observations, experiments and equations of electricity, magnetism and even optics into a consistent theory. His set of equations—Maxwell's equations—demonstrated that electricity, magnetism and even light are all manifestations of the same phenomenon: the electromagnetic field. From that moment on, all other classical laws or equations of these disciplines became simplified cases of Maxwell's equations. Maxwell's work in electromagnetism has been called the "second great unification in physics", after the first one carried out by Isaac Newton.

Maxwell demonstrated that electric and magnetic fields travel through space in the form of waves, and at the constant speed of light. Finally, in 1864 Maxwell wrote A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field where he first proposed that light was in fact undulations in the same medium that is the cause of electric and magnetic phenomena. His work in producing a unified model of electromagnetism is considered to be one of the greatest advances in physics.



Maxwell also developed the Maxwell distribution, a statistical means to describe aspects of the kinetic theory of gases. These two discoveries helped usher in the era of modern physics, laying the foundation for future work in such fields as special relativity and quantum mechanics. He is also known for creating the first true colour photograph in 1861.

Maxwell is considered by many physicists to be the nineteenth century scientist with the greatest influence on twentieth century physics. His contributions to the science are considered by many to be of the same magnitude as those of Newton and Albert Einstein. In 1931, on the centennial of Maxwell's birthday, Einstein himself described Maxwell's work as the "most profound and the most fruitful that physics has experienced since the time of Newton." Einstein kept a photograph of Maxwell on his study wall, alongside pictures of Michael Faraday and Newton.



Contributions



Electromagnetism

Maxwell had studied and commented on the field of electricity and magnetism as early as 1855/6 when On Faraday's lines of force was read to the Cambridge Philosophical Society. The paper presented a simplified model of Faraday's work, and how the two phenomena were related. He reduced all of the current knowledge into a linked set of differential equations with 20 equations in 20 variables. This work was later published as On Physical Lines of Force in March 1861.

Around 1862, while lecturing at King's College, Maxwell calculated that the speed of propagation of an electromagnetic field is approximately that of the speed of light. He considered this to be more than just a coincidence, and commented "We can scarcely avoid the conclusion that light consists in the transverse undulations of the same medium which is the cause of electric and magnetic phenomena."

Working on the problem further, Maxwell showed that the equations predict the existence of waves of oscillating electric and magnetic fields that travel through empty space at a speed that could be predicted from simple electrical experiments; using the data available at the time, Maxwell obtained a velocity of 310,740,000 m/s. In his 1864 paper A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field, Maxwell wrote, The agreement of the results seems to show that light and magnetism are affections of the same substance, and that light is an electromagnetic disturbance propagated through the field according to electromagnetic laws.

His famous equations, in their modern form of four partial differential equations, first appeared in fully developed form in his textbook A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism in 1873. Most of this work was done by Maxwell at Glenlair during the period between holding his London post and his taking up the Cavendish chair. Maxwell was proven correct, and his quantitative connection between light and electromagnetism is considered one of the great accomplishments of 19th century mathematical physics.

At that time, Maxwell believed that the propagation of light required a medium for the waves, dubbed the luminiferous aether. Over time, the existence of such a medium, permeating all space and yet apparently undetectable by mechanical means, proved more and more difficult to reconcile with experiments such as the Michelson-Morley experiment. Moreover, it seemed to require an absolute frame of reference in which the equations were valid, with the distasteful result that the equations changed form for a moving observer. These difficulties inspired Albert Einstein to formulate the theory of special relativity, and in the process Einstein dispensed with the requirement of a luminiferous aether.



Colour analysis

Maxwell contributed to the area of optics and colour vision, and is credited with the discovery that colour photographs could be formed using red, green, and blue filters. In 1861 he presented the world's first colour photograph during a Royal Institution lecture. He had Thomas Sutton, inventor of the single-lens reflex camera, photograph a tartan ribbon three times, each time with a different colour filter over the lens. The three images were reversal developed to form three colour separation transparencies, and then projected onto a screen with three different projectors, each equipped with the same colour filter used to take its image. When brought into focus, the three images formed a full colour image. The three photographic plates now reside in a small museum at 14 India Street, Edinburgh, the house where Maxwell was born.

However, in the strictest sense, this demonstration did not produce a tangible photograph, but a photographic image produced by three carefully aligned projectors. It served as a "proof of concept" of the possibility of colour photography, using the additive principle, where white is produced by the presence of all three additive primaries (red, green and blue).

From 1855 to 1872, he published at intervals a series of valuable investigations connected with the Perception of Colour and Colour-Blindness, for the earlier of which the Royal Society awarded him the Rumford Medal. The instruments which he devised for these investigations were simple and convenient in use. For example, Maxwell's discs were used to compare a variable mixture of three primary colours with a sample colour by observing the spinning "colour top."

Kinetic theory and thermodynamics

One of Maxwell's major investigations was on the kinetic theory of gases. Originating with ####, this theory was advanced by the successive labours of ####, ####, ####, and particularly ####, to such an extent as to put its general accuracy beyond a doubt; but it received enormous development from Maxwell, who in this field appeared as an experimenter (on the laws of gaseous friction) as well as a mathematician.

In 1866, he formulated statistically, independently of Ludwig Boltzmann, the Maxwell-Boltzmann kinetic theory of gases. His formula, called the Maxwell distribution, gives the fraction of gas molecules moving at a specified velocity at any given temperature. In the kinetic theory, temperatures and heat involve only molecular movement. This approach generalized the previously established laws of thermodynamics and explained existing observations and experiments in a better way than had been achieved previously. Maxwell's work on thermodynamics led him to devise the thought experiment (Gedanken) that came to be known as Maxwell's demon.

In 1871, he established Maxwell's thermodynamic relations, which are statements of equality among the second derivatives of the thermodynamic potentials with respect to different thermodynamic variables.

Control theory

Maxwell published a famous paper On governors in the Proceedings of Royal Society, vol. 16 (1867–1868). This paper is quite frequently considered a classical paper of the early days of control theory. Here governors refer to the governor or the centrifugal governor used in steam engines.

Legacy

* The maxwell (Mw), a compound derived CGS unit measuring magnetic flux.

* Maxwell Montes, a mountain range on Venus, one of only three features on the planet that are not given female names.

* The Maxwell Gap in the Rings of Saturn.

* The James Clerk Maxwell Telescope, the largest submillimetre-wavelength astronomical telescope in the world, with a diameter of 15 metres.

* The 1977 James Clerk Maxwell Building of the University of Edinburgh, housing the schools of mathematics, physics, computer science and meteorology.

* The James Clerk Maxwell building at the Waterloo campus of King's College London, in commemoration of him being Professor of Natural Philosophy at King's from 1860 to 1865. The university also has a chair in Physics named after him, and a society for undergraduate physicists.

* The £4 million James Clerk Maxwell Centre of the Edinburgh Academy was opened in 2006 to mark his 175th anniversary.

* James Clerk Maxwell Road in Cambridge, which runs beside the Cavendish Laboratory.

* The University of Salford's main building was named after him.

* Maxwell bridge, a bridge circuit involving resistors, a capacitor and an inductor

* A statue on Edinburgh's George Street

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ok, I'm going rebel here. For now. I may move this guy later but I really want him on my team and I'm following the Yankee23fan rule for the draft here in taking him.

I select as my rebel, Maximilien Robespierre
This would also make a fine villain, IMO.
 
You know what Larry, you seem to really want to absolve Martin Luther of his rabid anti-Semitism, and you also seem to want to criticize those who even bring up the term anti-Semitism, and I can't help you with either point. I've tried to make my position clear. I actually find several of your statements on these issues to be quite offensive- I doubt you mean to be offensive intentionally, but they're offensive nonetheless. So in the interests of trying to continue with the draft (which I think you've done quite well with) I'm going to drop this subject and I politely ask you do the same. I will no longer respond to posts regarding Martin Luther and anti-Semitism because I find that your responses are angering me and there is no place for that in this draft.
:goodposting: Tim, I think this is the right move.
 
I said it about celebrity and Ill say it about musician. IMO, you guys are being too narrow in your choices.
Fennis, you have an interesting point, and of course it applies to everything. If we were running this draft in Japan, it would likely be very different, and many Japanese people would probably be represented already (is there even one in this draft)?On the other hand, the United States is, throughout it's history, the most international nation on Earth. We, along with our allies in the West, export most of the world's culture, and the amount we don't export is usually very imitative. Why then, shouldn't the celebrity and musician lists be dominated by American and Western figures?
I don’t mind Western, especially in musician, but they are being too modern.
 
the Beatles are #1 in the performer category absolutely...

but two American jazz musicians next?

Really?

taking into consideration the whole world?

sorry, I think both those picks are reaches...
Jazz is ENORMOUSLY popular around the world, especially in Europe Belgium.
Fixed.I've already made my feelings known in other threads that i don't get jazz.

I can appreciate the superb skill of Armstrong & Davis and I know Uncle H likes them, but to equate the popularity of Jazz with the Beatles is a losing argument.

Playing skill, different story.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top