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)

When did I contradict myself? I merely said body of work makes a nice tie breaker and should be taken into account accordingly. I never said that the primary factor in the rankings shouldn't be ones contribution to his designated category. You're putting words in my mouth. Lastly, I said that this issue caused problems in the last draft. It did. There is no contradiction there. It's a statement of fact.
Fair enough. I apologize. I got your comments mixed up in the mess. Understand, I've been replying to a number of different people for over an hour now. Draft on.
Fair enough back at ya. FWIW I think leader is one category where other contributions really should be trumped almost entirely by what the person did as a leader. I think it's other categories where it gets a bit more fuzzy. Like a painter who is also a renowned sculptor, or vice versa. Or even in the case of Poe, a guy who was a great poet and short story writer, but can only be placed in one of the two categories. There a lot of tweeners like that, and I think in these cases, full body of work should be taken into account. It should not be the be all end all, of course, but I think it should carry a small weight.
 
When did I contradict myself? I merely said body of work makes a nice tie breaker and should be taken into account accordingly. I never said that the primary factor in the rankings shouldn't be ones contribution to his designated category. You're putting words in my mouth. Lastly, I said that this issue caused problems in the last draft. It did. There is no contradiction there. It's a statement of fact.
Fair enough. I apologize. I got your comments mixed up in the mess. Understand, I've been replying to a number of different people for over an hour now. Draft on.
You need to keep up and be able to have several inconsequental and totally meaningless iconversations with istrangers in this thread or your are going to be ilost.
 
Oh, before I leave, I just wanted to point out that the people who picked Marcus Aurellius and Winston Churchill might want to slot them as Leaders now.

Churchill didn't work as a novel/short story writer, but I'm well acquainted with literary achievements, so you can get credit for them with me. Same with Marcus Aureillus. I've read his Meditations several times.

I love this new criteria. I get to judge philosophy and literature now too!

I can totally see how it must have solved numerous problems in the GAD. :thumbup:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Whether Frederick Douglass is taken as a rebel or an intellectual (or a WC), it's one of the weakest picks in this draft. Douglass is very important to American history, but his importance to world history is tiny. He doesn't belong, sorry.
steaming pile of specious, anyone?
If you disagree with me, you're certainly quite welcome to state your reasons.
That would be my greatest waste of time since I stopped smoking rock & scrubbing tile grout. Rigid AND inconsistent is too deadly a combo for my humble skills.
 
When did I contradict myself? I merely said body of work makes a nice tie breaker and should be taken into account accordingly. I never said that the primary factor in the rankings shouldn't be ones contribution to his designated category. You're putting words in my mouth. Lastly, I said that this issue caused problems in the last draft. It did. There is no contradiction there. It's a statement of fact.
Fair enough. I apologize. I got your comments mixed up in the mess. Understand, I've been replying to a number of different people for over an hour now. Draft on.
Fair enough back at ya. FWIW I think leader is one category where other contributions really should be trumped almost entirely by what the person did as a leader. I think it's other categories where it gets a bit more fuzzy. Like a painter who is also a renowned sculptor, or vice versa. Or even in the case of Poe, a guy who was a great poet and short story writer, but can only be placed in one of the two categories. There a lot of tweeners like that, and I think in these cases, full body of work should be taken into account. It should not be the be all end all, of course, but I think it should carry a small weight.
Yea, I know. You may have noticed that I tend to get sarcastic when annoyed. I'm judging leaders as leaders. In truth, I won't even consider Churchill or Aurelius' writings. As for the Pope....FUBAR, go ahead and slot him as a leader. I'll analyze his mad leading skillz.
 
Ok, who is helping larry?
actually no one...I just don't think pop culture matters to world history as much as it does to American history (even if we all want to pretend it doesn't)...:thumbup:plus I'm better prepared... I winged it a bit too much in the GAD...plus I've always been interested in history of the church (which includes politics and philosophy), so i probably know world history more than I care to know US history (which is essentially still at a high school level)...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I will judge him on how he managed Vatican City.
I think this is a problem for the same reason that we discussed in the other thread. To me, and to many others there, and hopefully here, the purpose of the categories was not simply to get the best painter or singer against his peers, but to make sure that in the top 400 people drafted, there was a wide mix of different people and not just military commanders and politicians, kings and popes.To me the categories are for that purpose and the people selected while being fit into a category need to be judged for their whole life and not just the category they sit in. For your example, to judge a pope - any pope - strictly on his administrative skills in running the Vatican is pretty much a useless endeavor.
I agree with this. And the problem we encountered in the last draft was that Tim told judges to rank based solely on contribution in the category selected because he would go back and adjust the rankings to take into account body of work. He never did this.
I graded my category based on overall accomlishments.....
 
MisfitBlondes said:
MisfitBlondes said:
I'm still judging based on boobs. :popcorn:
Female only, or do we get credit for the frumpy man boobs that alot of these guys probably have? NTTAWWT if that's your thing.
Females obviously get higher ratings but man boobs are funny...in a disturbing way.
Cool. I will start to target awesome female boobage and guys that need a Manzier.:bumpingupdollypartonandwilliamhowardtaft:
 
I just took a look at the original list I made when this was just getting started and there are only 2 people left on it. I guess it's time to make another one.

 
8.07 - Frederick Douglas - Intellectual

Frederick Douglass was an American abolitionist, women's suffragist, editor, orator, author, statesman and reformer. Called "The Sage of Anacostia" and "The Lion of Anacostia", Douglass is one of the most prominent figures in African-American and United States history. In 1872, Douglass became the first African American nominated as a Vice Presidential candidate in the U.S., running on the Equal Rights Party ticket with Victoria Woodhull, the first woman to run for President of the United States.

He was a firm believer in the equality of all people, whether black, female, Native American, or recent immigrant. He was fond of saying, "I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong." Frederick Douglass was one of the foremost leaders of the abolitionist movement, which fought to end slavery within the United States in the decades prior to the Civil War.

A brilliant speaker, Douglass was asked by the American Anti-Slavery Society to engage in a tour of lectures, and so became recognized as one of America's first great black speakers. He won world fame when his autobiography was publicized in 1845. Two years later he bagan publishing an antislavery paper called the North Star.

Douglass served as an adviser to President Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War and fought for the adoption of constitutional amendments that guaranteed voting rights and other civil liberties for blacks. Douglass provided a powerful voice for human rights during this period of American history and is still revered today for his contributions against racial injustice.
I think it would behoove you to move him to Rebel.
:blackdot: WHY? It doesn't matter according to your own argument. It's his body of work that matters.
I see where you are coming from but I think you are taking it a little far. It's not just draft someone who can fit in a slot and look at their body of work. It is look at their contributions in that category but also consider things outside of that. Its why in the GAD, I rated Bill Gates very highly as a business mogul. Great businessman, even better humanitarian. I think Sam Walton was every bit the businessman Gates is, but when you look at the whole picture I don't think he measured up. I think that is all everyone is saying. Seeing as I am not drafting or judging I don't really have a side in this just saying what I think is fair.
 
Round Nine

1. Mario Kart Antonio Vivaldi

2. Larry Boy 44 Isambard Kingdom Brunel

3. Arsenal of Doom

4. FUBAR

5. Acer FC

6. Yankee23 Fan

7. Thorn

8. DC Thunder

9. Doug B

10. Mad Sweeney

11. Big Rocks

12. higgins

13. John Madden's Lunchbox

14. Usual21

15. thatguy

16. Andy Dufresne

17. Herbert The Hippo

18. Bobbylayne

19. Mister CIA

20. Abrantes

 
I see where you are coming from but I think you are taking it a little far. It's not just draft someone who can fit in a slot and look at their body of work. It is look at their contributions in that category but also consider things outside of that.
That certainly seems like a reasonable middle ground.The problem is the pick that started all this arguing was trying to do precisely what I'm talking about. FUBAR wanted to pick Pope John Paul II as a Leader because he was a head of state, but he clearly wanted me to judge him as a religious leader. He got cute and tried to manipulate the middle ground you've suggested. That said, I'm judging leaders as leaders first. I won't negate their other contributions to humanity, but on the same token I won't weigh them as heavily as I do their statesmanship, etc. That's my middle solution. In FUBAR's case, in all fairness, I would do something else with the pope.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I see where you are coming from but I think you are taking it a little far. It's not just draft someone who can fit in a slot and look at their body of work. It is look at their contributions in that category but also consider things outside of that.
That certainly seems like a reasonable middle ground.The problem is the pick that started all this arguing was trying to do precisely what I'm talking about. FUBAR wanted to pick Pope John Paul II as a Leader because he was a head of state, but he clearly wanted me to judge him as a religious leader. He got cute and tried to manipulate the middle ground you've suggested. That said, I'm judging leaders as leaders first. I won't negate their other contributions to humanity, but on the same token I won't weigh them as heavily as I do their statesmanship, etc. That's my middle solution. In FUBAR's case, in all fairness, I would do something else with the pope.
I think thats fair. With leaders I don't think it will be that big of an issue anyway. I think it comes into play more with guys like Michelangelo, Descartes, etc who would be severely downgraded if you didn't take their whole body of work into consideration. With leaders more than likely it is their leadership of their country and possibly military exploits.
 
Sorry for the delay, was on Daddy duty. I feel a little compelled to go with this pick, as I think the 2nd tier of composers is actually getting a little short. There are a few beyond the big three that have a deep body of work regarded as masterpieces, and this is certainly one of them. Also one of my personal favorites.

Frédéric Chopin - Composer

Frédéric Chopin (Polish: Fryderyk [Franciszek] Chopin, sometimes Szopen; French: Frédéric [François] Chopin; surname pronunciation in English: IPA: /ˈʃoʊpæn/ and French: French pronunciation: [ʃɔpɛ̃]; 1 March 1810[1] – 17 October 1849) was a Polish composer and virtuoso pianist of the Romantic period. He is widely regarded as one of the world's great composers for piano.[2]

Chopin was born in the village of Żelazowa Wola, in the Duchy of Warsaw, to a French-expatriate father and a Polish mother, and in his early life was regarded as a child-prodigy[3][4] pianist. In November 1830, at the age of twenty, he went abroad; following the suppression of the Polish November Uprising of 1830–1831, he became one of many expatriates of the Polish "Great Emigration."

In Paris, Chopin made a comfortable living as a composer and piano teacher, while giving few public performances. Though an ardent Polish patriot,[5][6] in France he used the French versions of his names and eventually, to avoid having to rely on Imperial Russian documents, became a French citizen.[7][8][9] After some ill-fated romantic involvements with Polish women, from 1837 to 1847 he had a turbulent relationship with the French writer George Sand (Aurore Dudevant). Always in frail health, he died in Paris in 1849, at the age of thirty-nine, of chronic pulmonary tuberculosis.[10][11]

Chopin's extant compositions were written primarily for the piano as a solo instrument. Though they are technically demanding,[12] his style emphasises nuance and expressive depth. Chopin invented musical forms such as the ballade[13] and was responsible for major innovations in forms such as the piano sonata, mazurka, waltz, nocturne, étude, impromptu and prélude. His works are masterpieces and mainstays of Romanticism in 19th-century classical music.

I'll post some links to his music later when I have more time.

 
I see where you are coming from but I think you are taking it a little far. It's not just draft someone who can fit in a slot and look at their body of work. It is look at their contributions in that category but also consider things outside of that.
That certainly seems like a reasonable middle ground.The problem is the pick that started all this arguing was trying to do precisely what I'm talking about. FUBAR wanted to pick Pope John Paul II as a Leader because he was a head of state, but he clearly wanted me to judge him as a religious leader. He got cute and tried to manipulate the middle ground you've suggested. That said, I'm judging leaders as leaders first. I won't negate their other contributions to humanity, but on the same token I won't weigh them as heavily as I do their statesmanship, etc. That's my middle solution. In FUBAR's case, in all fairness, I would do something else with the pope.
Fly, just curious as to why you couldn't judge John Paul II as the Leader of the Roman Catholic Church which has millions of members in all countries around the world. He heads up a Church breaucracy with a judiciary and legislature. All the cardinals and archbishops and bishops report to him. Yeah he has a small army, the Swiss Guards, but the Pope as the Vicar of Christ is both a spiritual and temporal leader for all Roman Catholics and can be judged as such, IMHO.
 
I see where you are coming from but I think you are taking it a little far. It's not just draft someone who can fit in a slot and look at their body of work. It is look at their contributions in that category but also consider things outside of that.
That certainly seems like a reasonable middle ground.The problem is the pick that started all this arguing was trying to do precisely what I'm talking about. FUBAR wanted to pick Pope John Paul II as a Leader because he was a head of state, but he clearly wanted me to judge him as a religious leader. He got cute and tried to manipulate the middle ground you've suggested. That said, I'm judging leaders as leaders first. I won't negate their other contributions to humanity, but on the same token I won't weigh them as heavily as I do their statesmanship, etc. That's my middle solution. In FUBAR's case, in all fairness, I would do something else with the pope.
Fly, just curious as to why you couldn't judge John Paul II as the Leader of the Roman Catholic Church which has millions of members in all countries around the world. He heads up a Church breaucracy with a judiciary and legislature. All the cardinals and archbishops and bishops report to him. Yeah he has a small army, the Swiss Guards, but the Pope as the Vicar of Christ is both a spiritual and temporal leader for all Roman Catholics and can be judged as such, IMHO.
political leader (what the leader category is for) <> religious leader (what the pope is)unless I can put Jesus in leader category since he's worshipped as God and, well, people then follow and are subject to Him...
 
I see where you are coming from but I think you are taking it a little far. It's not just draft someone who can fit in a slot and look at their body of work. It is look at their contributions in that category but also consider things outside of that.
That certainly seems like a reasonable middle ground.The problem is the pick that started all this arguing was trying to do precisely what I'm talking about. FUBAR wanted to pick Pope John Paul II as a Leader because he was a head of state, but he clearly wanted me to judge him as a religious leader. He got cute and tried to manipulate the middle ground you've suggested.

That said, I'm judging leaders as leaders first. I won't negate their other contributions to humanity, but on the same token I won't weigh them as heavily as I do their statesmanship, etc.

That's my middle solution. In FUBAR's case, in all fairness, I would do something else with the pope.
Fly, just curious as to why you couldn't judge John Paul II as the Leader of the Roman Catholic Church which has millions of members in all countries around the world. He heads up a Church breaucracy with a judiciary and legislature. All the cardinals and archbishops and bishops report to him. Yeah he has a small army, the Swiss Guards, but the Pope as the Vicar of Christ is both a spiritual and temporal leader for all Roman Catholics and can be judged as such, IMHO.
political leader (what the leader category is for) <> religious leader (what the pope is)unless I can put Jesus in leader category since he's worshipped as God and, well, people then follow and are subject to Him...
Did you even read what you quoted? DC gave a very detailed reasoning as to why the Pope should be considered as a leader. He has an army. He heads a legislature. Don't see for what reason you would think to jump in there and compare that to Jesus, but that seems to be your M.O.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Don't know much about Brahms, don't like much about Vivaldi, but I LOVE Chopin. Beautiful piano music. Next to Beethovan, my favorite piano music to listen to.

 
I see where you are coming from but I think you are taking it a little far. It's not just draft someone who can fit in a slot and look at their body of work. It is look at their contributions in that category but also consider things outside of that.
That certainly seems like a reasonable middle ground.The problem is the pick that started all this arguing was trying to do precisely what I'm talking about. FUBAR wanted to pick Pope John Paul II as a Leader because he was a head of state, but he clearly wanted me to judge him as a religious leader. He got cute and tried to manipulate the middle ground you've suggested.

That said, I'm judging leaders as leaders first. I won't negate their other contributions to humanity, but on the same token I won't weigh them as heavily as I do their statesmanship, etc.

That's my middle solution. In FUBAR's case, in all fairness, I would do something else with the pope.
Fly, just curious as to why you couldn't judge John Paul II as the Leader of the Roman Catholic Church which has millions of members in all countries around the world. He heads up a Church breaucracy with a judiciary and legislature. All the cardinals and archbishops and bishops report to him. Yeah he has a small army, the Swiss Guards, but the Pope as the Vicar of Christ is both a spiritual and temporal leader for all Roman Catholics and can be judged as such, IMHO.
political leader (what the leader category is for) <> religious leader (what the pope is)unless I can put Jesus in leader category since he's worshipped as God and, well, people then follow and are subject to Him...
Did you even read what you quoted? DC gave a very detailed reasoning as to why the Pope should be considered as a leader. He has an army. He heads a legislature. Don't see for what reason you would think to jump in there and compare that to Jesus, but that seems to be your M.O.
the difference is that the pope's legislature and government and judiciary is based solely upon God and people choosing to follow it...everything the pope decides is meaningless to non-Catholics...

everything a King decides is relevant and necessary to all people in his kingdom... Every act the president signs is law and is relevant to all people living in America...

you can choose to just quit following the pope and there is absolutely no consequence for those actions. They can't jail you, they can't declare war, they can't do anything... its all for show...

 
Would anyone discount Chopin because his work is primarily piano, as opposed to other composers who wrote for orchestras? It's an interesting question.

 
Okay I'll post it again:

How I will be judging Villain:

I am looking for the sickest, most demented, psychopathic, inhumane creature that ever walked the planet. Body count is good but freaky, warped and sick is better. I want the person who when you say their name it gets a physical reaction from you. I'm looking for a sick SOB.

How I will be judging Martyr:

I am looking for perfection, a saint who walked the earth. The nicest of the nice, the best of the best. A person whom when they die/died the world grieved. Once again actions speak louder than anything. What they do/did in private is almost as important as what they did/do in public.

I will answer any questions if asked.

(I purposely sat up for this as Flysack cracked on me earlier for writing run on's. I type with my laptop on my chest as I lay down so unfortunately structure isn't the most important thing for me.)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
the difference is that the pope's legislature and government and judiciary is based solely upon God and people choosing to follow it...

everything the pope decides is meaningless to non-Catholics...

everything a King decides is relevant and necessary to all people in his kingdom... Every act the president signs is law and is relevant to all people living in America...

you can choose to just quit following the pope and there is absolutely no consequence for those actions. They can't jail you, they can't declare war, they can't do anything... its all for show...
I don't think this is quite true. You can still be excommunicated, right? Isn't that something that most Catholics would consider dreadful?
 
the difference is that the pope's legislature and government and judiciary is based solely upon God and people choosing to follow it...everything the pope decides is meaningless to non-Catholics...everything a King decides is relevant and necessary to all people in his kingdom... Every act the president signs is law and is relevant to all people living in America...you can choose to just quit following the pope and there is absolutely no consequence for those actions. They can't jail you, they can't declare war, they can't do anything... its all for show...
Yea, and everything the Prime Minister of England decides is meaningless to me. What does that prove? I am not Catholic, not overly religious and I still can respect the impact this Pope has had the world and the Catholic faith. He fits much better as a religious figure, but trying to throw Jesus into this discussion where he has no place is just silly.
 
the difference is that the pope's legislature and government and judiciary is based solely upon God and people choosing to follow it...

everything the pope decides is meaningless to non-Catholics...

everything a King decides is relevant and necessary to all people in his kingdom... Every act the president signs is law and is relevant to all people living in America...

you can choose to just quit following the pope and there is absolutely no consequence for those actions. They can't jail you, they can't declare war, they can't do anything... its all for show...
I don't think this is quite true. You can still be excommunicated, right? Isn't that something that most Catholics would consider dreadful?
if you stop being Catholic (ie stop following the pope), it doesn't matter...that or if you join a "different" Catholic church (eastern orthodox, russian orthodox, anglican (essentially))...

 
the difference is that the pope's legislature and government and judiciary is based solely upon God and people choosing to follow it...

everything the pope decides is meaningless to non-Catholics...

everything a King decides is relevant and necessary to all people in his kingdom... Every act the president signs is law and is relevant to all people living in America...

you can choose to just quit following the pope and there is absolutely no consequence for those actions. They can't jail you, they can't declare war, they can't do anything... its all for show...
I don't think this is quite true. You can still be excommunicated, right? Isn't that something that most Catholics would consider dreadful?
if you stop being Catholic (ie stop following the pope), it doesn't matter...that or if you join a "different" Catholic church (eastern orthodox, russian orthodox, anglican (essentially))...
Larry, you're making comments about something I'm guessing you know very little about. I have some Greek Orthodox friends, and they do not consider themselves a "different" Catholic church and I think they would be upset by that comparison.Also, suggesting to any Catholic reading this that excommunication "doesn't matter" is sure to cause a very negative reaction.

 
the difference is that the pope's legislature and government and judiciary is based solely upon God and people choosing to follow it...

everything the pope decides is meaningless to non-Catholics...

everything a King decides is relevant and necessary to all people in his kingdom... Every act the president signs is law and is relevant to all people living in America...

you can choose to just quit following the pope and there is absolutely no consequence for those actions. They can't jail you, they can't declare war, they can't do anything... its all for show...
I don't think this is quite true. You can still be excommunicated, right? Isn't that something that most Catholics would consider dreadful?
if you stop being Catholic (ie stop following the pope), it doesn't matter...that or if you join a "different" Catholic church (eastern orthodox, russian orthodox, anglican (essentially))...
Larry, you're making comments about something I'm guessing you know very little about. I have some Greek Orthodox friends, and they do not consider themselves a "different" Catholic church and I think they would be upset by that comparison.Also, suggesting to any Catholic reading this that excommunication "doesn't matter" is sure to cause a very negative reaction.
that why I put quotes around "different"... the difference is in church governmental structure (and some actual ways they worship/run mass/etc.)... does that make sense?basically at some point there was a split over leadership and, at least in most cases, they have their own "pope" or don't have a pope at all...

and excommunication matters to Catholics... but if a non-Catholic is excommunicated it doesn't matter to them personally... If a Catholic who is in a sect who doesn't believe the pope is a proper authority is excommunicated by the pope, they probably wouldn't care either...

does that make sense?

 
larry_boy_44 said:
that why I put quotes around "different"... the difference is in church governmental structure (and some actual ways they worship/run mass/etc.)... does that make sense?

basically at some point there was a split over leadership and, at least in most cases, they have their own "pope" or don't have a pope at all...

and excommunication matters to Catholics... but if a non-Catholic is excommunicated it doesn't matter to them personally... If a Catholic who is in a sect who doesn't believe the pope is a proper authority is excommunicated by the pope, they probably wouldn't care either...

does that make sense?
It does, except 1. I know for a fact that Greek Orthodox do not consider themselves "Catholics in a different sect"; they consider themselves a separate church which has nothing to do with the Catholic church. I could just as easily call you a Catholic in a different sect, or any Protestant for that matter, with just as much accuracy. I would not do so out of respect for your beliefs.

2. Your whole point is that the Pope cannot be considered a leader because he exerts no authority over his followers. When we speak of his followers, we are not talking about Greek Orthodox, or other Christians, or non-religious Catholics. We're talking about religious Catholics, and the Pope does exert authority over them. And if they disobey his authority, there is a threat of excommunication, and this is a serious business that I believe you're choosing to downplay.

 
1. I know for a fact that Greek Orthodox do not consider themselves "Catholics in a different sect"; they consider themselves a separate church which has nothing to do with the Catholic church. I could just as easily call you a Catholic in a different sect, or any Protestant for that matter, with just as much accuracy. I would not do so out of respect for your beliefs.
I am aware of this... it was what I was getting at...
 
Larry, apparently from what I'm reading there appears to be some dispute over whether or not the Persian mathematician you selected (whom I had never heard of) actually did create algebra. There appear to be others who also lay claim to this feat.

 
Larry, apparently from what I'm reading there appears to be some dispute over whether or not the Persian mathematician you selected (whom I had never heard of) actually did create algebra. There appear to be others who also lay claim to this feat.
there is one other person who some claim invented it...but it is still named after a word in his language, and there are ideas in Algebra named after him (Algorithms)...plus he popularized the decimal numbering system which is just as big if not bigger than algebra (imagine a mathematical world where the decimal point and decimals didn't exist)
Those who support Al-Khwarizmi point to the fact that he introduced the methods of "reduction" and "balancing" (the transposition of subtracted terms to the other side of an equation, that is, the cancellation of like terms on opposite sides of the equation) which the term al-jabr originally referred to, and that he gave an exhaustive explanation of solving quadratic equations, supported by geometric proofs, while treating algebra as an independent discipline in its own right. His algebra was also no longer concerned "with a series of problems to be resolved, but an exposition which starts with primitive terms in which the combinations must give all possible prototypes for equations, which henceforward explicitly constitute the true object of study." He also studied an equation for its own sake and "in a generic manner, insofar as it does not simply emerge in the course of solving a problem, but is specifically called on to define an infinite class of problems."
I'm not quite sure how someone else invented Algebra, if my guy invented those things...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Larry, apparently from what I'm reading there appears to be some dispute over whether or not the Persian mathematician you selected (whom I had never heard of) actually did create algebra. There appear to be others who also lay claim to this feat.
there is one other person who some claim invented it...but it is still named after a word in his language, and there are ideas in Algebra named after him (Algorithms)...plus he popularized the decimal numbering system which is just as big if not bigger than algebra (imagine a mathematical world where the decimal point and decimals didn't exist)
You make good points...What another incredibly difficult category to rank. For me, Newton is a clear #1; after that, I'm totally lost. I was really impressed by what I read about James Maxwell, too.
 
GTBilly said:
Okay I'll post it again:How I will be judging Villain:I am looking for the sickest, most demented, psychopathic, inhumane creature that ever walked the planet. Body count is good but freaky, warped and sick is better. I want the person who when you say their name it gets a physical reaction from you. I'm looking for a sick SOB.How I will be judging Martyr:I am looking for perfection, a saint who walked the earth. The nicest of the nice, the best of the best. A person whom when they die/died the world grieved. Once again actions speak louder than anything. What they do/did in private is almost as important as what they did/do in public.I will answer any questions if asked.(I purposely sat up for this as Flysack cracked on me earlier for writing run on's. I type with my laptop on my chest as I lay down so unfortunately structure isn't the most important thing for me.)
:golfclap: :bye:
 
To expand further on Maxwell- after what I read today, I would have real trouble keeping him out of the top 10, perhaps top 5. Einstein called him the most important physicist since Newton.

 
flysack said:
The Real Hipster Doofus said:
I see where you are coming from but I think you are taking it a little far. It's not just draft someone who can fit in a slot and look at their body of work. It is look at their contributions in that category but also consider things outside of that.
That certainly seems like a reasonable middle ground.The problem is the pick that started all this arguing was trying to do precisely what I'm talking about. FUBAR wanted to pick Pope John Paul II as a Leader because he was a head of state, but he clearly wanted me to judge him as a religious leader. He got cute and tried to manipulate the middle ground you've suggested.

That said, I'm judging leaders as leaders first. I won't negate their other contributions to humanity, but on the same token I won't weigh them as heavily as I do their statesmanship, etc.

That's my middle solution. In FUBAR's case, in all fairness, I would do something else with the pope.
:tfp: thanks for noticing. I think you're swell too. :wall: Not trying to manipulate anything here, Pope John Paull II has been cited by many people as one of the greatest leaders, the fact that Andy listed "head of state" a the sole way to qualify for the category seems overly limiting, but I can understand that he didn't want to have us drafting leaders of industry etc. It's like President, except IIRC President was judged not only based on their impact only in the US during their term, but on their impact on the world. Such as Reagan or Eisenhower. I assumed Leader here would be judged the same way, I know I would have if I had stayed on as judge.

I have moved him.

 
Arsenal of Doom said:
Sorry for the delay, was on Daddy duty. I feel a little compelled to go with this pick, as I think the 2nd tier of composers is actually getting a little short. There are a few beyond the big three that have a deep body of work regarded as masterpieces, and this is certainly one of them. Also one of my personal favorites.

Frédéric Chopin - Composer

Frédéric Chopin (Polish: Fryderyk [Franciszek] Chopin, sometimes Szopen; French: Frédéric [François] Chopin; surname pronunciation in English: IPA: /ˈʃoʊpæn/ and French: French pronunciation: [ʃɔpɛ̃]; 1 March 1810[1] – 17 October 1849) was a Polish composer and virtuoso pianist of the Romantic period. He is widely regarded as one of the world's great composers for piano.[2]

Chopin was born in the village of Żelazowa Wola, in the Duchy of Warsaw, to a French-expatriate father and a Polish mother, and in his early life was regarded as a child-prodigy[3][4] pianist. In November 1830, at the age of twenty, he went abroad; following the suppression of the Polish November Uprising of 1830–1831, he became one of many expatriates of the Polish "Great Emigration."

In Paris, Chopin made a comfortable living as a composer and piano teacher, while giving few public performances. Though an ardent Polish patriot,[5][6] in France he used the French versions of his names and eventually, to avoid having to rely on Imperial Russian documents, became a French citizen.[7][8][9] After some ill-fated romantic involvements with Polish women, from 1837 to 1847 he had a turbulent relationship with the French writer George Sand (Aurore Dudevant). Always in frail health, he died in Paris in 1849, at the age of thirty-nine, of chronic pulmonary tuberculosis.[10][11]

Chopin's extant compositions were written primarily for the piano as a solo instrument. Though they are technically demanding,[12] his style emphasises nuance and expressive depth. Chopin invented musical forms such as the ballade[13] and was responsible for major innovations in forms such as the piano sonata, mazurka, waltz, nocturne, étude, impromptu and prélude. His works are masterpieces and mainstays of Romanticism in 19th-century classical music.

I'll post some links to his music later when I have more time.
God ####### damn it.
 
World's Greatest Draft

Leader

Military

Scientist---------------------------Laurent de Lavoisier 7.05, Father of modern chemistry

Inventor

Discoverer/Explorer ------------ Ferdinand Magellan 3.05, first person to circumnavigate the globe

Humanitarian/Saint/Martyr

Novelist/short story ------------- Victor Hugo 4.17, Les Miserables and Hunchback of Notre Dame (and a great poet)

Playwright/Poet

Villain ---------------------------- Attilla the Hun, 6.17, Pimp of the Honeys.

Athlete

Composer

Musician/ Performer

Painter

Artist/ Non Painter

Philosopher

Religious Figure ------------------ Mohammad 1.05, Islam

Celebrity ------------------------- Pope John Paul II 8.17, Leader of the State of the Vatican City, instrumental in the fall of the Soviet Union

Intellectual -------------------------- Ben Franklin 2.17, it's Ben Freakin' Franklin!

Rebel --------------------------------- Nelson Mandela 5.05, anti-apartheid leader

Lover - FUBAR

Wildcard

Wildcard

Wildcard
:confused:
 
To expand further on Maxwell- after what I read today, I would have real trouble keeping him out of the top 10, perhaps top 5. Einstein called him the most important physicist since Newton.
:confused: I obviously feel the same way. As I said in my writeup, he is to Electromagnetism what Newton is to Classical Mechanics. He unified an entire branch of physics into 4 equations. It is difficult to fully grasph the implications of his work on the technology we all take for granted. It truly is one of the most remarkable accomplishments since Newton. Only Einstein's accomplishments are on par with what Maxwell did for physics.
 
Not to pat myself on the back, but :toot toot:

Sneakily put together a pretty solid little team, I think:

Military - Gustavus Adolphus, the Father of Modern Warfare

Scientist/Mathematician - Euclid, the Father of Geometry and author of the most successful textbook of all time

Inventor - Alexander Graham Bell, has to be among the titans of inventors, IMO

Discoverer/Explorer - Christopher Columbus :confused: what needs to be said?

Novelist/short story - James Joyce, snobbery aside, there is near universal agreement that he either is, or is among the very best writers of all time

Villain - Slobodan Milosevic, "credited" with the death of 200,000 Serbs in a genocide/"ethnic cleansing"

Painter - Pierre-August Renoir, I don't think he's among the elite, but certainly a true master

Religious Figure - St. Paul of Tarsus, the most important figure in Christianity after Christ, and the gap isn't that wide.

:shock:

 
Not to pat myself on the back, but :toot toot:

Sneakily put together a pretty solid little team, I think:

Military - Gustavus Adolphus, the Father of Modern Warfare

Scientist/Mathematician - Euclid, the Father of Geometry and author of the most successful textbook of all time

Inventor - Alexander Graham Bell, has to be among the titans of inventors, IMO

Discoverer/Explorer - Christopher Columbus :rant: what needs to be said?

Novelist/short story - James Joyce, snobbery aside, there is near universal agreement that he either is, or is among the very best writers of all time

Villain - Slobodan Milosevic, "credited" with the death of 200,000 Serbs in a genocide/"ethnic cleansing"

Painter - Pierre-August Renoir, I don't think he's among the elite, but certainly a true master

Religious Figure - St. Paul of Tarsus, the most important figure in Christianity after Christ, and the gap isn't that wide.

:bowtie:
:thumbdown: Well done so far.
 
I'll take another controversial pick, but for a different reason. I fought the urge to not take him, but IMHO, he deserves the top slot as much as anyone else does. He won't get it because it wouldn't "feel right" and he didn't win the war, but the guy is arguably the best General ever.

Erwin Rommel(1891-1944)German MarshalGerman field marshal Erwin Rommel, the “Desert Fox,” earned his fame for brilliant tactics and his ability to anticipate his opponents. In an army and a Reich known for brutality and inhumanities. Rommel maintained professionalism. Even Winston Churchill declared that his enemy was a “skillful opponent” and “a great general.”Rommel was born in Heidenheim, near Ulm, Germany, on November 15, 1891, his father was a schoolteacher; his mother, the daughter of the president of the Wurttemburg ducky. He enlisted in the 124th Infantry Regiment as an officer cadet in 1910 and, after attending the Danzig Infantry School, was commissioned as a lieutenant in 1912. During World War I, Rommel saw action as junior officer in France, Romania, and Italy and earned the Iron Cross, First Class. On October 26, 1917, Rommel led a bayonet assault of two hundred Germans against an Italian mountain stronghold. With few losses of his own, he captured nine thousand enemy soldiers and more than eight heavy guns. For this amazing accomplishment, Rommel was promoted to captain and decorated with Germany’s highest combat medal.Rommel remained in the postwar army and advanced steadily through the ranks as he alternated infantry command positions and instructor assignments. In 1937 he published his lectures on tactics in a book entitled Infantry Attacks. That same year, Rommel became the commander of the person-bodyguard detachment of Adolf Hitler.After a brief tour as the commandant of War Academy, Rommel returned to command Hitler’s bodyguards, with the rank of brigadier general. While a member of Hitler’s staff, Rommel closely studied and admired the emerging blitzkrieg tactics of the German army. After the fall of Poland, Rommel requested that Hitler grant him command of a division in the upcoming invasion of France. On February 15, 1940, Rommel assumed the leadership of the Seventh Panzer Division.In the May-June offensive against France, the German general perfected tactics that he would use for the rest of his life. Rommel advanced with lightning speed, balancing risk against surprise and firepower. He concentrated his tanks to break through enemy lines rather than become engaged on a broad from and the exploited his advantage in the enemy’s relatively unprotected rear areas.More importantly, Rommel, dressed the part in his medal-draped uniform, with tanker goggles perched on his forehead, led from the front. Advancing with the lead armored forces, Rommel ignored personal risks to gain firsthand knowledge on which to base instant decision. Soldiers, not accustomed to seeing generals on the front lines, fought valiantly and tenaciously because of their devotion to, and affection for, their leader.By the end of the French campaign, Rommel's rapid movement and surprise attacks had gained the Seventh Panzers the nickname “ghost division” because the enemy never knew where he would appear next. At the cost of only twenty-five hundred men and forty-two panzers, Rommel captured nearly one hundred thousand prisoners and destroyed more than 450 enemy tanks as well as thousands of support vehicles and artillery pieces.Germany awarded Rommel the Knight’s Cross, promotion to major general, and command of the Afrika Korps, destined for North Africa to support the Italians against the Allies. In North Africa, Rommel adapted the panzer tactics that had been so successful on the plains of Europe to the vast desert wastelands. Within a month of his February 1941 arrival, Rommel, with his well-trained army, had his first victory against the British and two of their senior generals as prisoners. Within a year, the Desert Fox, now a full general, was one of the most famous officers of the war.In June 1941, Rommel conducted an offensive against a larger, better-equipped British army, but because of superior maneuver and aggressiveness, he captured the key port of Tobruk on June 21. A day later, Rommel was promoted to field marshal.Tobruk, however, was to be Rommel's high point. With the major portion of the German military committed to the Russian offensive, North Africa remained a secondary battlefield, and Rommel suffered from a lack of supplies. Allied naval superiority also complicated his logistic problems and limited his resupply by sea. While German strength was dwindling, Allied advantages were mounting. The British also had found a commander in Bernard Law Montgomery capable of fighting back, and in November 1942, Rommel's problems increased when the Americans landed to his west and opened a second front.Rommel's panzer forces continued to fight well despite a growing enemy and a weakening Italian ally. Hitler, either unwilling or unable to reinforce the Afrika Korps, nevertheless ordered them to stand and fight to the last man. Rommel refused to squander the lives of his men in pointless battle and they surrendered on March 6.While angered with the failure of Rommel's army to follow his orders, Hitler recognized that he needed the field marshal’s talents and ordered Rommel's evacuation to Germany prior to the surrender. After briefly advising Hitler on the defense of Italy, Rommel went to France on July 15, 1943, and assumed responsibility for strengthening defenses against the anticipated Allied invasion. Rommel argued that they should commit the panzer reserves directly to destroy the Allied invaders as they landed, but his concerns went unheeded. All he could do was strengthen morale through his personal leadership and oversee the placement of 5 million mines and a half-million landing obstacles.Rommel was in Germany on leave when the Allies landed, and he immediately rushed to take charge of the beach defenses. Still hampered by Hitler’s continued refusal to commit the reserve Panzer Divisions, Rommel stalled the British on the beachhead by establishing a series of defensive belts along their anticipated route. He outmaneuvered the superior Allied airpower by moving his men to the rear during bombardments and returning them to the bombed defensive positions prior to ground attack.In the midst of the battle, on July 17, 1944, a British fighter plane strafed Rommel's staff car, inflicting a serious head wound on the field marshal. Rommel went back to Germany to recover, but events precluded his ever returning to command. On July 20, German officers planted a bomb in an effort to kill Hitler. Although he did not actually participate in the assassination attempt, Rommel was privy to the plan because the plotters had approached him months earlier. In the purge that followed, Rommel was listed as a conspirator when Hitler learned that the plan called for Rommel, one of the few German leaders respected by the Allies, to become head of state and negotiate a peace to save Germany from total destruction.On October 14, Hitler sent two generals to Rommel's home to offer him the choice of suicide and the safety of his family or public trial, with execution, humiliation, and punishment of his family and staff. Rommel, fifty-two, accompanied the generals on an automobile ride and took the poison they provided. After an announcement that he had died from complications from his wounds, he was buried with full military honors.
 
Anybody else finding that the names are still there but it seems the fireworks of the categories are losing a little bit. The last ten rounds are going to prove who can dig the best into the history of the world. I think the base for each team is set right now and now the separation will begin... more or less. I think everyone after round 8 is pretty even can could justify each pick accordingly. Names are getting tougher now.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top