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 (3 Viewers)

it answers the question by pointing out the absurdity of Andy's request... Any doesn't require 1/6 of the evidence for at least a half dozen other people drafted that he requires for Biblical characters simply because they are in the Bible...

My answer was in response to Andy's complete lack of perspective into his own bias that he has been letting run rampant in this thread...

you'll note that in my response to Andy I told him if he found me 6 different sources that verified that Homer, Aristotle, or Sun Tzu lived that I'd find him some non-Biblical sources that talk about Peter or Paul or Jesus... I even bolded it for you since you have obviously missed it up to now...
You're a real piece of work Larry. Reminds me of Cliff Clabin when someone asked him "What color is the sky in your world?" Andy asks if there's anything other than a disputable source and you pop up with a bunch of stuff from the same disputed source and then go on the offensive about it.

You accusing someone of lack of perspective and bias is probably the funniest thing I've read in this draft.
The Bible isn't "a disputable source", its numerous sources that each have completely separate and varying degrees of certainty to their existence...Which is the whole problem with you (and Andy's) bias showing up like this... It isn't based in reality.

The Bible is NOT "one disputable source". It never has been. Are some portions of it and some stories in it considered questionable? Absolutely, some of them are considered outright false scientifically and historically... But most of the people after, say, Judges are considered to have lived, ESPECIALLY when referring to the New Testament (where there is little doubt that they lived)...

You (and Andy) are just letting your bias against Christianity and religion cloud your judgment... There is no doubt that Peter or Paul or Jesus lived, there is doubt about what they all did, yeah, but there is no doubt that they existed and were important in the formation of the religion we call Christianity.
The Bible isn't disputable, but there's uncertainty about some of it. That would make it a disputable source Larry.I AM NOT DISPUTING, NOR HAVE I DISPUTED THE EXISTENCE OF ANY OF THE BIBLICAL DRAFTEES IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM, only their divine acts.

You can blame it on my "anti Christianity" bias if it makes you feel morally superior (which is untrue, I don't believe in any of the religions) but the fact is that you answered absolutely 0% of Andy's request and you can't even seem to keep little facts (like how I am not disputing their existence) straight from post to post. I see with clear eyes homey, your bias and belief is what's clouding things.
again, you are missing what I said due to your bias...My argument wasn't that the Bible is indisputable (as I said some of the stories are considered false historically/scientifically)... My argument is that the Bible is NOT ONE SOURCE!

The Bible is attributed to a bunch of different writers, and we know of at least 8 (writer of Matthew, writer of Mark, writer of Luke/Acts, writer of John, I-III John, Revelation/Paul/James/Jude/Peter) writers for the Old Testament... plus there is Moses and the first 5 books, David and Psalms (among others actually), Solomon and Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, & Song of Songs, the various prophets and their particular writings, plus whoever wrote Chronicles and the Book of Kings (I Samuel-II Kings)...

my bias has nothing to do with this because I BELIEVE that the Bible is truth and absolute in some way at all times, but that is not what I am arguing here. I am arguing here that the Bible is multiple sources and, in the instance of New Testament characters, more than enough different sources to accept them as verified real people who actually lived.

again, maybe you should put your bias down and re-read what i said, because I said it clearly the first time, the second time, the third time, and now, finally, the fourth time...
Try to follow me here Larry. If the Bible is indisputable, then it is not disputable. If the Bible, as you say above, is false in some areas then it is not indisputable. If it is not indisputable, then it is disputable. I don't care how many people added to it, it is not a historic (nor in the least bit unbiased) document. It's a bunch of testimonies to faith.All of your lathered persecuted-by-bias repetition still doesn't amount up to anything extra-Biblical. Not a single one of those multiple sources within the Bible is an extra-Biblical source so you can say it 7 times 700 times if you want and you still won't have come up with one extra-Biblical source. Which was the point of Andy's post that you continue to try and bluster your way around.

And for some reason it still seems like you think I doubt the existence of those people...

Bias, bias, bias, bias. So easy to throw the term around.

 
no, I stated that there are enough separate sources that it is more than safe to assume that they did (and to assume that they didn't is not a supportable position)...
No you didn't. All you did was cite several Christian and Christian-related sources. For crying out loud, just throw out the name Josephus. Even if it is spotlighting, at least it will show that you can consider something outside the bible as a resource for your argument.
I also pointed out that you are a hypocrite and are only saying this because you obviously have a very strong bias and some real emotional issues towards Christianity that you should probably work out because you never once stated any of these objections over non-Biblical people in history...
And, again, I already admitted that for this draft I was applying a double standard. But since you either have a bias of your own toward non-christians or just have reading comprehension issues, there's noting I can do for you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You're right, Larry. Bad flysack, bad. You fool. You ignoramus.

I'd like to substitute my MOBY **** pick with the whale Jonas lived in.

There! That's much better.

For my next pick, I'll take Puff The Magic Dragon - Celebrity (who lived with the dinosaurs).
yeah, again, your going so far off the deep end that all you are doing is harming your own credibility...
So you're saying Puff didn't live with the dinosaurs? :goodposting:
 
You're right, Larry. Bad flysack, bad. You fool. You ignoramus.

I'd like to substitute my MOBY **** pick with the whale Jonas lived in.

There! That's much better.

For my next pick, I'll take Puff The Magic Dragon - Celebrity (who lived with the dinosaurs).
yeah, again, your going so far off the deep end that all you are doing is harming your own credibility...
So you're saying Puff didn't live with the dinosaurs? :goodposting:
I'd like to see you put a saddle on Puff. :wub:
 
Plato wrote about Socrates and that seems to be sufficient for you
Fair point. But I've already said that I'm willing to drop my argument that these selections shouldn't have been allowed.What we're debating now is whether or not there is sufficient proof to say that these people existed at all.Two different ideas.
The evidence of Jesus and the apostles IMO is beyond a reasonable doubt given the scholarship on historical Jesus. I dont think its irrefutable like Larry, but it would take some fairly conclusive evidence, which we're not likely to get.
 
Plato wrote about Socrates and that seems to be sufficient for you
Fair point. But I've already said that I'm willing to drop my argument that these selections shouldn't have been allowed.What we're debating now is whether or not there is sufficient proof to say that these people existed at all.

Two different ideas.
The evidence of Jesus and the apostles IMO is beyond a reasonable doubt given the scholarship on historical Jesus. I dont think its irrefutable like Larry, but it would take some fairly conclusive evidence, which we're not likely to get.
I can agree with that. I'm just looking for one link to said scholarship. Larry doesn't seem to have any.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Am I the only one that thinks that Niels Bohr may be a SOD taken here, that he might arguably be a top 3-5 pick? We're talking about quantum physics here!

 
Am I the only one that thinks that Niels Bohr may be a SOD taken here, that he might arguably be a top 3-5 pick? We're talking about quantum physics here!
Tremendous scientist. One that has had as profound an impact on modern society as any contemporary.Isn't it amazing how many truly astounding scientists humanity has had in the last couple centuries?Flashes of genius, whether attributed to god or via genetic chance, are truly remarkable.
 
You're a real piece of work Larry. Reminds me of Cliff Clabin when someone asked him "What color is the sky in your world?"

Andy asks if there's anything other than a disputable source and you pop up with a bunch of stuff from the same disputed source and then go on the offensive about it.

You accusing someone of lack of perspective and bias is probably the funniest thing I've read in this draft.
The Bible isn't "a disputable source", its numerous sources that each have completely separate and varying degrees of certainty to their existence...Which is the whole problem with you (and Andy's) bias showing up like this... It isn't based in reality.

The Bible is NOT "one disputable source". It never has been. Are some portions of it and some stories in it considered questionable? Absolutely, some of them are considered outright false scientifically and historically... But most of the people after, say, Judges are considered to have lived, ESPECIALLY when referring to the New Testament (where there is little doubt that they lived)...

You (and Andy) are just letting your bias against Christianity and religion cloud your judgment... There is no doubt that Peter or Paul or Jesus lived, there is doubt about what they all did, yeah, but there is no doubt that they existed and were important in the formation of the religion we call Christianity.
The Bible isn't disputable, but there's uncertainty about some of it. That would make it a disputable source Larry.I AM NOT DISPUTING, NOR HAVE I DISPUTED THE EXISTENCE OF ANY OF THE BIBLICAL DRAFTEES IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM, only their divine acts.

You can blame it on my "anti Christianity" bias if it makes you feel morally superior (which is untrue, I don't believe in any of the religions) but the fact is that you answered absolutely 0% of Andy's request and you can't even seem to keep little facts (like how I am not disputing their existence) straight from post to post. I see with clear eyes homey, your bias and belief is what's clouding things.
again, you are missing what I said due to your bias...My argument wasn't that the Bible is indisputable (as I said some of the stories are considered false historically/scientifically)... My argument is that the Bible is NOT ONE SOURCE!

The Bible is attributed to a bunch of different writers, and we know of at least 8 (writer of Matthew, writer of Mark, writer of Luke/Acts, writer of John, I-III John, Revelation/Paul/James/Jude/Peter) writers for the Old Testament... plus there is Moses and the first 5 books, David and Psalms (among others actually), Solomon and Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, & Song of Songs, the various prophets and their particular writings, plus whoever wrote Chronicles and the Book of Kings (I Samuel-II Kings)...

my bias has nothing to do with this because I BELIEVE that the Bible is truth and absolute in some way at all times, but that is not what I am arguing here. I am arguing here that the Bible is multiple sources and, in the instance of New Testament characters, more than enough different sources to accept them as verified real people who actually lived.

again, maybe you should put your bias down and re-read what i said, because I said it clearly the first time, the second time, the third time, and now, finally, the fourth time...
Try to follow me here Larry. If the Bible is indisputable, then it is not disputable. If the Bible, as you say above, is false in some areas then it is not indisputable. If it is not indisputable, then it is disputable. I don't care how many people added to it, it is not a historic (nor in the least bit unbiased) document. It's a bunch of testimonies to faith.All of your lathered persecuted-by-bias repetition still doesn't amount up to anything extra-Biblical. Not a single one of those multiple sources within the Bible is an extra-Biblical source so you can say it 7 times 700 times if you want and you still won't have come up with one extra-Biblical source. Which was the point of Andy's post that you continue to try and bluster your way around.

And for some reason it still seems like you think I doubt the existence of those people...

Bias, bias, bias, bias. So easy to throw the term around.
I never said it was indisputable...Again, I think you need to go back and re-read what I actually said, because I don't think you have the first clue of what I"ve been saying this whole time...

 
Am I the only one that thinks that Niels Bohr may be a SOD taken here, that he might arguably be a top 3-5 pick? We're talking about quantum physics here!
Tremendous scientist. One that has had as profound an impact on modern society as any contemporary.Isn't it amazing how many truly astounding scientists humanity has had in the last couple centuries?

Flashes of genius, whether attributed to god or via genetic chance, are truly remarkable.
It's actually a little frightening. Did you see or read Watchmen? I got the sense that in the character of Dr. Manhattan, the writer is referring not so obliquely to the discoveries of Einstein, Bohr, and a few of their colleagues, and how they have changed (and perhaps doomed) our planet.
 
Plato wrote about Socrates and that seems to be sufficient for you
Fair point. But I've already said that I'm willing to drop my argument that these selections shouldn't have been allowed.What we're debating now is whether or not there is sufficient proof to say that these people existed at all.

Two different ideas.
The evidence of Jesus and the apostles IMO is beyond a reasonable doubt given the scholarship on historical Jesus. I dont think its irrefutable like Larry, but it would take some fairly conclusive evidence, which we're not likely to get.
I can agree with that. I'm just looking for one link to said scholarship. Larry doesn't seem to have any.
Yuo're both yelling at each other to provide links, instead of spending 10 seconds doing a search yourselves. Seems rather silly.
 
Am I the only one that thinks that Niels Bohr may be a SOD taken here, that he might arguably be a top 3-5 pick? We're talking about quantum physics here!
Tremendous scientist. One that has had as profound an impact on modern society as any contemporary.Isn't it amazing how many truly astounding scientists humanity has had in the last couple centuries?Flashes of genius, whether attributed to god or via genetic chance, are truly remarkable.
More than that, it is a process of building on what has gone before. Ninety nine percent of the college graduates in the history of the world have lived in the past 200 years. There may have been geniuses out on the farm behind two horses pulling a plow, but they never got any education, and so their contribution was to make plowing a little easier, or select the best seed to plant. It is the gradual accumulation of knowledge that is the basis for the advance.
 
Am I the only one that thinks that Niels Bohr may be a SOD taken here, that he might arguably be a top 3-5 pick? We're talking about quantum physics here!
Tremendous scientist. One that has had as profound an impact on modern society as any contemporary.Isn't it amazing how many truly astounding scientists humanity has had in the last couple centuries?

Flashes of genius, whether attributed to god or via genetic chance, are truly remarkable.
It's actually a little frightening. Did you see or read Watchmen? I got the sense that in the character of Dr. Manhattan, the writer is referring not so obliquely to the discoveries of Einstein, Bohr, and a few of their colleagues, and how they have changed (and perhaps doomed) our planet.
Reminds me of the line from Jurassic Park - "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to consider whether or not they SHOULD!"
 
The Bible isn't "a disputable source", its numerous sources that each have completely separate and varying degrees of certainty to their existence...

Which is the whole problem with you (and Andy's) bias showing up like this... It isn't based in reality.

The Bible is NOT "one disputable source". It never has been. Are some portions of it and some stories in it considered questionable? Absolutely, some of them are considered outright false scientifically and historically... But most of the people after, say, Judges are considered to have lived, ESPECIALLY when referring to the New Testament (where there is little doubt that they lived)...

You (and Andy) are just letting your bias against Christianity and religion cloud your judgment... There is no doubt that Peter or Paul or Jesus lived, there is doubt about what they all did, yeah, but there is no doubt that they existed and were important in the formation of the religion we call Christianity.
The Bible isn't disputable, but there's uncertainty about some of it. That would make it a disputable source Larry.I AM NOT DISPUTING, NOR HAVE I DISPUTED THE EXISTENCE OF ANY OF THE BIBLICAL DRAFTEES IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM, only their divine acts.

You can blame it on my "anti Christianity" bias if it makes you feel morally superior (which is untrue, I don't believe in any of the religions) but the fact is that you answered absolutely 0% of Andy's request and you can't even seem to keep little facts (like how I am not disputing their existence) straight from post to post. I see with clear eyes homey, your bias and belief is what's clouding things.
again, you are missing what I said due to your bias...My argument wasn't that the Bible is indisputable (as I said some of the stories are considered false historically/scientifically)... My argument is that the Bible is NOT ONE SOURCE!

The Bible is attributed to a bunch of different writers, and we know of at least 8 (writer of Matthew, writer of Mark, writer of Luke/Acts, writer of John, I-III John, Revelation/Paul/James/Jude/Peter) writers for the Old Testament... plus there is Moses and the first 5 books, David and Psalms (among others actually), Solomon and Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, & Song of Songs, the various prophets and their particular writings, plus whoever wrote Chronicles and the Book of Kings (I Samuel-II Kings)...

my bias has nothing to do with this because I BELIEVE that the Bible is truth and absolute in some way at all times, but that is not what I am arguing here. I am arguing here that the Bible is multiple sources and, in the instance of New Testament characters, more than enough different sources to accept them as verified real people who actually lived.

again, maybe you should put your bias down and re-read what i said, because I said it clearly the first time, the second time, the third time, and now, finally, the fourth time...
Try to follow me here Larry. If the Bible is indisputable, then it is not disputable. If the Bible, as you say above, is false in some areas then it is not indisputable. If it is not indisputable, then it is disputable. I don't care how many people added to it, it is not a historic (nor in the least bit unbiased) document. It's a bunch of testimonies to faith.All of your lathered persecuted-by-bias repetition still doesn't amount up to anything extra-Biblical. Not a single one of those multiple sources within the Bible is an extra-Biblical source so you can say it 7 times 700 times if you want and you still won't have come up with one extra-Biblical source. Which was the point of Andy's post that you continue to try and bluster your way around.

And for some reason it still seems like you think I doubt the existence of those people...

Bias, bias, bias, bias. So easy to throw the term around.
I never said it was indisputable...Again, I think you need to go back and re-read what I actually said, because I don't think you have the first clue of what I"ve been saying this whole time...
Weird, that's what the bolded part in the first quote here says.
 
Am I the only one that thinks that Niels Bohr may be a SOD taken here, that he might arguably be a top 3-5 pick? We're talking about quantum physics here!
Tremendous scientist. One that has had as profound an impact on modern society as any contemporary.Isn't it amazing how many truly astounding scientists humanity has had in the last couple centuries?Flashes of genius, whether attributed to god or via genetic chance, are truly remarkable.
The scientist category is incredibly deep, but Bohr is a great choice and should prove to be great value.
 
no, I stated that there are enough separate sources that it is more than safe to assume that they did (and to assume that they didn't is not a supportable position)...
No you didn't. All you did was cite several Christian and Christian-related sources. For crying out loud, just throw out the name Josephus. Even if it is spotlighting, at least it will show that you can consider something outside the bible as a resource for your argument.
I also pointed out that you are a hypocrite and are only saying this because you obviously have a very strong bias and some real emotional issues towards Christianity that you should probably work out because you never once stated any of these objections over non-Biblical people in history...
And, again, I already admitted that for this draft I was applying a double standard. But since you either have a bias of your own toward non-christians or just have reading comprehension issues, there's noting I can do for you.
I know there are extra-Biblical reasonings for these people... but your objection didn't deserve the dignity of being given a proper answer because it was based in absurdity and bias and dislike towards the religion...
 
Am I the only one that thinks that Niels Bohr may be a SOD taken here, that he might arguably be a top 3-5 pick? We're talking about quantum physics here!
Tremendous scientist. One that has had as profound an impact on modern society as any contemporary.Isn't it amazing how many truly astounding scientists humanity has had in the last couple centuries?Flashes of genius, whether attributed to god or via genetic chance, are truly remarkable.
More than that, it is a process of building on what has gone before. Ninety nine percent of the college graduates in the history of the world have lived in the past 200 years. There may have been geniuses out on the farm behind two horses pulling a plow, but they never got any education, and so their contribution was to make plowing a little easier, or select the best seed to plant. It is the gradual accumulation of knowledge that is the basis for the advance.
Well sure. It's what Newton meant when he said "If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of Giants."One of those giants hasn't been selected yet, and I'm a bit surprised by it.
 
Is Wikipedia an acceptable source? It states that St. Paul existed and really wrote a majority of what's attributed to him. Who picked him anyway?

Of the thirteen letters traditionally attributed to Paul and included in the Western New Testament canon, there is little or no dispute that Paul actually wrote at least seven, those being Romans, First Corinthians, Second Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, First Thessalonians, and Philemon. Hebrews, which was ascribed to him in antiquity, was questioned even then, never having an ancient attribution, and in modern times is considered by most experts as not by Paul (see also Antilegomena). The authorship of the remaining six Pauline epistles is disputed to varying degrees.
 
no, I stated that there are enough separate sources that it is more than safe to assume that they did (and to assume that they didn't is not a supportable position)...
No you didn't. All you did was cite several Christian and Christian-related sources. For crying out loud, just throw out the name Josephus. Even if it is spotlighting, at least it will show that you can consider something outside the bible as a resource for your argument.
I also pointed out that you are a hypocrite and are only saying this because you obviously have a very strong bias and some real emotional issues towards Christianity that you should probably work out because you never once stated any of these objections over non-Biblical people in history...
And, again, I already admitted that for this draft I was applying a double standard. But since you either have a bias of your own toward non-christians or just have reading comprehension issues, there's noting I can do for you.
I know there are extra-Biblical reasonings for these people... but your objection didn't deserve the dignity of being given a proper answer because it was based in absurdity and bias and dislike towards the religion...
:thumbup: You're something else.If I say "pretty please with sugar on top" will you deign me prostrated enough at your feet?

 
The Bible isn't disputable, but there's uncertainty about some of it. That would make it a disputable source Larry.

I AM NOT DISPUTING, NOR HAVE I DISPUTED THE EXISTENCE OF ANY OF THE BIBLICAL DRAFTEES IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM, only their divine acts.

You can blame it on my "anti Christianity" bias if it makes you feel morally superior (which is untrue, I don't believe in any of the religions) but the fact is that you answered absolutely 0% of Andy's request and you can't even seem to keep little facts (like how I am not disputing their existence) straight from post to post. I see with clear eyes homey, your bias and belief is what's clouding things.
again, you are missing what I said due to your bias...My argument wasn't that the Bible is indisputable (as I said some of the stories are considered false historically/scientifically)... My argument is that the Bible is NOT ONE SOURCE!

The Bible is attributed to a bunch of different writers, and we know of at least 8 (writer of Matthew, writer of Mark, writer of Luke/Acts, writer of John, I-III John, Revelation/Paul/James/Jude/Peter) writers for the Old Testament... plus there is Moses and the first 5 books, David and Psalms (among others actually), Solomon and Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, & Song of Songs, the various prophets and their particular writings, plus whoever wrote Chronicles and the Book of Kings (I Samuel-II Kings)...

my bias has nothing to do with this because I BELIEVE that the Bible is truth and absolute in some way at all times, but that is not what I am arguing here. I am arguing here that the Bible is multiple sources and, in the instance of New Testament characters, more than enough different sources to accept them as verified real people who actually lived.

again, maybe you should put your bias down and re-read what i said, because I said it clearly the first time, the second time, the third time, and now, finally, the fourth time...
Try to follow me here Larry. If the Bible is indisputable, then it is not disputable. If the Bible, as you say above, is false in some areas then it is not indisputable. If it is not indisputable, then it is disputable. I don't care how many people added to it, it is not a historic (nor in the least bit unbiased) document. It's a bunch of testimonies to faith.All of your lathered persecuted-by-bias repetition still doesn't amount up to anything extra-Biblical. Not a single one of those multiple sources within the Bible is an extra-Biblical source so you can say it 7 times 700 times if you want and you still won't have come up with one extra-Biblical source. Which was the point of Andy's post that you continue to try and bluster your way around.

And for some reason it still seems like you think I doubt the existence of those people...

Bias, bias, bias, bias. So easy to throw the term around.
I never said it was indisputable...Again, I think you need to go back and re-read what I actually said, because I don't think you have the first clue of what I"ve been saying this whole time...
Weird, that's what the bolded part in the first quote here says.
no, it isn't...You should re-read it again and consider the context that the comment was made in... I was disagreeing that the Bible is one source, not stating that it is indisputable... That is made obvious by the next phrase which says "its numerous sources that each have separate and varying degrees of certainty"...

I was actually agreeing that the validity of Biblical texts IS disputable... which is my whole point about how people are so intent to tell me I'm wrong that they aren't even reading what they are disagreeing with and its making them look incredibly stupid...

 
Question concerning the categories. I'm unclear on the judging parameters for the Musician/Performer category. Are the chosen figures in this category being judged purely on their performance? Say Band X has terrible songwriting skills, but puts on one of the greatest live acts of all time. Is that what this category is looking for? Pure performance? Or is the whole package taken into account?
Whole package. I did not mean live performances, per se. Recordings are fine too. I'm just separating this from the writers of the music, (though even that you can take into account.)It's basically a means to include popular music in the mix.
I probably should have posted before the 1st musician/performer was selected, but this needs further clarification.Firstly, Tim, could you claifiy what you mean by musician/performer.Does this include singers?How about other forms of entertainment (e.g. dancers? comedians? general entertainers?)On first glance, separating out composing/song-writing should make this category easier, but it some ways, it muddies the water.Many modern day musicians' song-writing capabilities are included when judging their merits as musicians.As stated, for this category, this will not be included at all in the judging.What will be factored in are the following (in order of importance):1) Artistic expertice - the ability to emote with an instrument (further definition to come later).2) Technical mastery of one's instrument.3) Innovativeness/importance in musical history4) Popularity (which is almost an intrinsic requirement, since an artist needs to be known, to be selected).More to come . . .
Bump
 
Larry, you've made your point. If people still disagree with you, then obviously they don't find your point to be convincing. But simply repeating the same thing over and over serves no good purpose.

 
Question concerning the categories. I'm unclear on the judging parameters for the Musician/Performer category. Are the chosen figures in this category being judged purely on their performance? Say Band X has terrible songwriting skills, but puts on one of the greatest live acts of all time. Is that what this category is looking for? Pure performance? Or is the whole package taken into account?
Whole package. I did not mean live performances, per se. Recordings are fine too. I'm just separating this from the writers of the music, (though even that you can take into account.)It's basically a means to include popular music in the mix.
I probably should have posted before the 1st musician/performer was selected, but this needs further clarification.Firstly, Tim, could you claifiy what you mean by musician/performer.Does this include singers?How about other forms of entertainment (e.g. dancers? comedians? general entertainers?)On first glance, separating out composing/song-writing should make this category easier, but it some ways, it muddies the water.Many modern day musicians' song-writing capabilities are included when judging their merits as musicians.As stated, for this category, this will not be included at all in the judging.What will be factored in are the following (in order of importance):1) Artistic expertice - the ability to emote with an instrument (further definition to come later).2) Technical mastery of one's instrument.3) Innovativeness/importance in musical history4) Popularity (which is almost an intrinsic requirement, since an artist needs to be known, to be selected).More to come . . .
Bump
I'm sorry, UH, I thought I answered this much earlier. Are you still looking for a clarification?
 
Larry, you've made your point. If people still disagree with you, then obviously they don't find your point to be convincing. But simply repeating the same thing over and over serves no good purpose.
the only reason I've repeated anything is because the same thing keeps getting attributed to me that any third grader who actually read any of what I said would know that I didn't say... :cool:
 
Larry, you've made your point. If people still disagree with you, then obviously they don't find your point to be convincing. But simply repeating the same thing over and over serves no good purpose.
Well, what if he yelled it louder and louder?I mean, there are sizes of type that haven't been used yet.
 
I'm going Performer/Musician here to get that category out of the way. The Beatles are the clear #1 here and JML and I actually talked about that before the draft started and how they needed to be a top 10 pick given the categories.

After them, there are a ton of acts that have worldwide fame, so you can go in a bunch of directions. I'll take the highest grossing female performer in history. Yeah, I'll go with the nice sincere and quiet italian girl here.

I select, Madonna , an American recording artist, actress and entrepreneur. Born in Bay City, Michigan and raised in Rochester Hills, Michigan, Madonna moved to New York City in 1977, for a career in modern dance. After performing as member of the pop musical groups Breakfast Club and Emmy, she released her self-titled debut album in 1983, and then produced three consecutive number-one studio albums on the Billboard 200 in the 1980s and four more since year 2000.

Madonna is known for exploring religious symbolism and sexual themes in her work. This drew criticism from the Vatican in the late 1980s. In 1992, she founded an entertainment company, Maverick, which published a book of photographs (Sex). She also released a studio album (Erotica) and starred in a film (Body of Evidence) with erotic themes. These works generated negative publicity and coincided with a fall in commercial sales in the 1990s.

Madonna's career was revived in 1998, when the release of her album Ray of Light garnered critical acclaim. Madonna has acted in 22 films. Although most failed critically and commercially, she earned a Golden Globe Award for her role in the 1996 film Evita. In 1996 Madonna gave birth to a daughter, Lourdes Maria (also known as Lola) by personal trainer Carlos Leon before marrying film director Guy Ritchie in 2000. She and Ritchie have two sons, Rocco and David Banda, a Malawian boy they adopted in 2006, which caused media allegations they violated that country's adoption laws.

She has been regarded as "one of the greatest pop acts of all time" and dubbed the "Queen of Pop" by various sources. She is ranked by the Recording Industry Association of America as the best-selling female rock artist of the twentieth century and the second top-selling female artist in the United States with 63 million certified albums.

Guinness World Records list her as the world's most successful female recording artist of all time and the top-earning female singer in the world with an estimated net worth of US$490 million, having sold over 200 million records worldwide.
Well, if I panned the Miles Davis pick, you can imagine how I feel about this.uActually, I guess it could go either direction, so let me explicitly state - oof.

A quick glance at my previously posted judgin criteria will make it evident.

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

Would anyone argue that she has incredible musical ability? Not many.

2) Technical mastery of one's instrument.

Would anyone argue that she has an amazing voice? Probably not.

3) Innovativeness/importance in musical history

One could argue I suppose, that she paved the way for the female pop divas of the 80's and 90's, but did she really break any ground musically? No.

4) Popularity.

This is the one area where she can at least be in the conversation.

Needless to say, she didn't make the top of my list.

To me, this is like choosing Danielle Steele or Jackie Collins for the Novelist category . . .

 
Last edited by a moderator:
There are plenty, but these are the main gnostic gospels - and they're extra-biblicalGospel of Mary (recovered in 1896)[9] Gospel of Thomas (versions found in Oxyrhynchus, Egypt in 1898, and again in the Nag Hammadi Library)[10] Gospel of Truth (Nag Hammadi Library) Gospel of Philip (Nag Hammadi Library) Gospel of Judas (recovered via the antiquities black market in 1983, and then reconstructed in 2006)
Come on Larry. I'm giving you every chance here. These books are either apocryphal or Gnostic writings written specifically for early Christian followers and/or sub-sects.
You do realize that anything written about Jesus automatically became a gospel, right? This argument is like asking for definitions of words without using any sort of dictionary.
 
There are plenty, but these are the main gnostic gospels - and they're extra-biblicalGospel of Mary (recovered in 1896)[9] Gospel of Thomas (versions found in Oxyrhynchus, Egypt in 1898, and again in the Nag Hammadi Library)[10] Gospel of Truth (Nag Hammadi Library) Gospel of Philip (Nag Hammadi Library) Gospel of Judas (recovered via the antiquities black market in 1983, and then reconstructed in 2006)
Come on Larry. I'm giving you every chance here. These books are either apocryphal or Gnostic writings written specifically for early Christian followers and/or sub-sects.
You do realize that anything written about Jesus automatically became a gospel, right? This argument is like asking for definitions of words without using any sort of dictionary.
Only those things written by people associated with the church and/or the following.
 
Going into the draft I knew that musician/performer would be my most difficult pick because there are so many that I like. We could draft 100 deep at the position and I'd be pleased with pick #100. So, while I'm tempted to wait for the my pick at this position, I cannot wait to make this pick. Truly one of music's giants -

12.02 - Frank Zappa - Musician/Performer

From AllMusic.com

Biography by William Ruhlmann

Frank Zappa was one of the most accomplished composers of the rock era; his music combines an understanding of and appreciation for such contemporary classical figures as Stravinsky, Stockhausen, and Varèse with an affection for late-'50s doo *** rock & roll and a facility for the guitar-heavy rock that dominated pop in the '70s. But Zappa was also a satirist whose reserves of scorn seemed bottomless and whose wicked sense of humor and absurdity have delighted his numerous fans, even when his lyrics crossed over the broadest bounds of taste. Finally, Zappa was perhaps the most prolific record-maker of his time, turning out massive amounts of music on his own Barking Pumpkin label and through distribution deals with Rykodisc and Rhino after long, unhappy associations with industry giants like Warner Brothers and the now-defunct MGM.

Zappa became interested in music early and pursued his studies in school, up through a six-month stint at Chaffey College in Alta Loma, CA. He scored a couple of low-budget films and used the money to buy a low-budget recording studio. In 1964, he joined a local band called the Soul Giants, which, over the course of the next two years, evolved into the Mothers, who played songs written by Zappa. The band was signed to the Verve division of MGM by producer Tom Wilson in 1966 and recorded its first album, a two-LP set called Freak Out!, which introduced Zappa's interests in both serious music and pop as well as his scathing wit. (Verve insisted on adding "of Invention" to the band's name.)

Subsequent albums extended the musical and lyrical themes of the debut, and they came frequently. Three albums, for example, hit the charts in 1968: We're Only in It for the Money, a Mothers album that made fun of hippies and Sgt. Pepper; Lumpy Gravy, a Zappa solo album recorded with an orchestra; and Cruising With Ruben & the Jets, on which the Mothers played neo-doo ***. Toward the end of the '60s, Zappa expanded the Mothers lineup, turning more toward instrumental jazz-rock, much of which displayed his technically accomplished guitar playing. But by the end of the decade, he had broken up the band.

In 1970, however, Zappa reassembled a new edition of the Mothers, featuring former Turtles lead singers Mark Volman and Howard Kaylan as frontmen. The lineup moved the group more in the direction of X-rated comedy, notably on the album Fillmore East: June 1971, but it was short-lived: during a performance at the Rainbow Theatre in London, Zappa was pushed from the stage by a demented fan and seriously injured.

While he recovered, Zappa released several albums, then he re-formed the Mothers with himself as lead singer and made pop/rock albums such as Over-nite Sensation that were among his best-selling records ever. By the end of the '70s, Zappa was recording on his own labels, distributed in some cases by the majors, and he had attracted a consistent cult following for both his humor and his complex music. (Zappa's band, in fact, became a training ground for high-quality rock musicians, much as Miles Davis' was for jazz players.)

In the '80s, Zappa gained the rights to his old albums and began to reissue them, at first on his own and then through the pioneering Rykodisc CD label. He wrote his autobiography and embarked on a world tour in 1988. That was the end of his live performing, except for such isolated appearances as one in Czechoslovakia at the invitation of its post-Communist president, Zappa fan Vaclav Havel. In late 1991, it was confirmed that Zappa was seriously ill with cancer. Nevertheless, his schedule of album releases continued to be rapid. Zappa died in December of 1993, with a number of posthumous releases to follow.
From Wiki
Legacy

Zappa earned widespread critical acclaim in his lifetime and after his death. The 2004 Rolling Stone Album Guide writes: "Frank Zappa dabbled in virtually all kinds of music—and, whether guised as a satirical rocker, jazz-rock fusionist, guitar virtuoso, electronics wizard, or orchestral innovator, his eccentric genius was undeniable". Even though his work found inspiration from many different genres, Zappa was seen establishing a coherent and personal expression. In 1971, biographer David Walley noted that "The whole structure of his music is unified, not neatly divided by dates or time sequences and it is all building into a composite". On commenting on Zappa's music, politics and philosophy, Barry Miles noted in 2004 that they cannot be separated: "It was all one; all part of his 'conceptual continuity'".

Guitar Player Magazine devoted a special issue to Zappa in 1992, and asked on the cover "Is FZ America's Best Kept Musical Secret?" Editor Don Menn remarked that the issue was about "The most important composer to come out of modern popular music". Among those contributing to the issue was composer and musicologist Nicolas Slonimsky, who conducted premiere performances of works of Ives and Varèse in the 1930s. He became friends with Zappa in the 1980s, and said "I admire everything Frank does, because he practically created the new musical millennium. He does beautiful, beautiful work ... It has been my luck to have lived to see the emergence of this totally new type of music." Conductor Kent Nagano remarked in the same issue that "Frank is a genius. That's a word I don't use often ... In Frank's case it is not too strong ... He is extremely literate musically. I'm not sure if the general public knows that". Pierre Boulez stated in Musician Magazine's posthumous Zappa tribute article that Zappa "was an exceptional figure because he was part of the worlds of rock and classical music and that both types of his work would survive." Many music scholars acknowledge Zappa as one of the most influential composers of his generation. As an electric guitarist, he has become highly regarded.

In 1994, jazz magazine Down Beat's critics poll placed Zappa in its Hall of Fame. Zappa was posthumously inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1995. There, it was written that "Frank Zappa was rock and roll's sharpest musical mind and most astute social critic. He was the most prolific composer of his age, and he bridged genres—rock, jazz, classical, avant-garde and even novelty music—with masterful ease". He received the Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award in 1997. In 2005, the US National Recording Preservation Board included We're Only in It for the Money in the National Recording Registry as "Frank Zappa's inventive and iconoclastic album presents a unique political stance, both anti-conservative and anti-counterculture, and features a scathing satire on hippiedom and America's reactions to it". The same year, Rolling Stone magazine ranked him 71 on its list of the 100 Greatest Artists of All Time - I shudder to think of the 70 listed above him.
Montana

Camarillo Brillo

Peaches En Regalia .... never has so much been packed into so little time.

City of Tiny Lites

Shut Up and Play Yer Guitar

Don't Eat The Yellow Snow

Apostrophe'

Also, one of my favorite quotes ever, is a personal curse Zappa said he like to use - "May your #### come to life and kiss you."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
There are plenty, but these are the main gnostic gospels - and they're extra-biblical

Gospel of Mary (recovered in 1896)[9]

Gospel of Thomas (versions found in Oxyrhynchus, Egypt in 1898, and again in the Nag Hammadi Library)[10]

Gospel of Truth (Nag Hammadi Library)

Gospel of Philip (Nag Hammadi Library)

Gospel of Judas (recovered via the antiquities black market in 1983, and then reconstructed in 2006)
Come on Larry. I'm giving you every chance here. These books are either apocryphal or Gnostic writings written specifically for early Christian followers and/or sub-sects.
You do realize that anything written about Jesus automatically became a gospel, right? This argument is like asking for definitions of words without using any sort of dictionary.
Only those things written by people associated with the church and/or the following.
and someone else should write about Jesus?how about Mohammad writing about Jesus? Is that a good, outside the bible, source?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Going into the draft I knew that musician/performer would be my most difficult pick because there are so many that I like. We could draft 100 deep at the position and I'd be pleased with pick #100. So, while I'm tempted to wait for the my pick at this position, I cannot wait to make this pick. Truly one of music's giants -

12.02 - Frank Zappa - Musician/Performer
:moneybag: I'm not sure where he'll rank, but he is a giant.
 
I select, Madonna , an American recording artist, actress and entrepreneur. Born in Bay City, Michigan and raised in Rochester Hills, Michigan, Madonna moved to New York City in 1977, for a career in modern dance. After performing as member of the pop musical groups Breakfast Club and Emmy, she released her self-titled debut album in 1983, and then produced three consecutive number-one studio albums on the Billboard 200 in the 1980s and four more since year 2000.
3) Innovativeness/importance in musical historyOne could argue I suppose, that she paved the way for the female pop divas of the 80's and 90's, but did she really break any ground musically? Not really.
Im no Madonna fan, but I think you're giving her short shrift here. She was never an innovator herself, but she's worked with/copied/ripped off plenty of innovators and mainstreamed them.
 
There are plenty, but these are the main gnostic gospels - and they're extra-biblical

Gospel of Mary (recovered in 1896)[9]

Gospel of Thomas (versions found in Oxyrhynchus, Egypt in 1898, and again in the Nag Hammadi Library)[10]

Gospel of Truth (Nag Hammadi Library)

Gospel of Philip (Nag Hammadi Library)

Gospel of Judas (recovered via the antiquities black market in 1983, and then reconstructed in 2006)
Come on Larry. I'm giving you every chance here. These books are either apocryphal or Gnostic writings written specifically for early Christian followers and/or sub-sects.
You do realize that anything written about Jesus automatically became a gospel, right? This argument is like asking for definitions of words without using any sort of dictionary.
Only those things written by people associated with the church and/or the following.
and someone else should write about Jesus?how about Mohammad writing about Jesus? Is that a good, outside the bible, source?
Well why shouldn't they?I know next to nothing about Mohammad, so I can't answer that.

 
12.5 - James Cleveland "Jesse" Owens - athlete
James Cleveland "Jesse" Owens (September 12, 1913 – March 31, 1980) was an American track and field athlete. He participated in the 1936 Summer Olympics in Berlin, Germany, where he achieved international fame by winning four gold medals: one each in the 100 meters, the 200 meters, the long jump, and as part of the 4x100 meter relay team. In 1936 Jesse Owens became the first American to win four Olympic gold medals in track and field.In 1936 Owens arrived in Berlin to compete for the United States in the Summer Olympics. Adolf Hitler was using the games to show the world a resurgent Nazi Germany.[4] He and other government officials had high hopes German athletes would dominate the games with victories (the German athletes did indeed achieve a top of the table medal haul). Meanwhile, Nazi propaganda promoted concepts of "Aryan racial superiority" and depicted ethnic Africans as inferior.[4][5] Owens surprised many[4] by winning four gold medals: On August 3, 1936 he won the 100m sprint, defeating Ralph Metcalfe; on August 4, the long jump (later crediting friendly and helpful advice which led him to triumph over German competitor Luz Long[6]); on August 5, the 200m sprint; and, after he was added to the 4 x 100 m relay team, his fourth on August 9 (a performance not equaled until Carl Lewis won gold medals in the same events at the 1984 Summer Olympics).Just before the competitions Owens was visited in the Olympic village by Adi Dassler, the founder of Adidas. He persuaded Owens to use Adidas shoes and it was the first sponsorship for a male African-American athlete.[7]Despite Hitler's feelings, Owens was cheered enthusiastically by 110,000 people in Berlin's Olympic Stadium and later ordinary Germans sought his autograph when they saw him in the streets. Owens was allowed to travel with and stay in the same hotels as whites, an irony at the time given that blacks in the United States were denied equal rights. After a New York ticker-tape parade in his honor, Owens had to ride the freight elevator to attend his own reception at the Waldorf-Astoria.[6]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I select, Madonna , an American recording artist, actress and entrepreneur. Born in Bay City, Michigan and raised in Rochester Hills, Michigan, Madonna moved to New York City in 1977, for a career in modern dance. After performing as member of the pop musical groups Breakfast Club and Emmy, she released her self-titled debut album in 1983, and then produced three consecutive number-one studio albums on the Billboard 200 in the 1980s and four more since year 2000.
3) Innovativeness/importance in musical historyOne could argue I suppose, that she paved the way for the female pop divas of the 80's and 90's, but did she really break any ground musically? Not really.
Im no Madonna fan, but I think you're giving her short shrift here. She was never an innovator herself, but she's worked with/copied/ripped off plenty of innovators and mainstreamed them.
I think if Yankee posted some audio/clips of Madonna's best work she'd be exposed as something other than top 20. That's just one way of looking at it.
 
12.5 - James Cleveland "Jesse" Owens - athlete

James Cleveland "Jesse" Owens (September 12, 1913 – March 31, 1980) was an American track and field athlete. He participated in the 1936 Summer Olympics in Berlin, Germany, where he achieved international fame by winning four gold medals: one each in the 100 meters, the 200 meters, the long jump, and as part of the 4x100 meter relay team. In 1936 Jesse Owens became the first American to win four Olympic gold medals in track and field.In 1936 Owens arrived in Berlin to compete for the United States in the Summer Olympics. Adolf Hitler was using the games to show the world a resurgent Nazi Germany.[4] He and other government officials had high hopes German athletes would dominate the games with victories (the German athletes did indeed achieve a top of the table medal haul). Meanwhile, Nazi propaganda promoted concepts of "Aryan racial superiority" and depicted ethnic Africans as inferior.[4][5] Owens surprised many[4] by winning four gold medals: On August 3, 1936 he won the 100m sprint, defeating Ralph Metcalfe; on August 4, the long jump (later crediting friendly and helpful advice which led him to triumph over German competitor Luz Long[6]); on August 5, the 200m sprint; and, after he was added to the 4 x 100 m relay team, his fourth on August 9 (a performance not equaled until Carl Lewis won gold medals in the same events at the 1984 Summer Olympics).Just before the competitions Owens was visited in the Olympic village by Adi Dassler, the founder of Adidas. He persuaded Owens to use Adidas shoes and it was the first sponsorship for a male African-American athlete.[7]Despite Hitler's feelings, Owens was cheered enthusiastically by 110,000 people in Berlin's Olympic Stadium and later ordinary Germans sought his autograph when they saw him in the streets. Owens was allowed to travel with and stay in the same hotels as whites, an irony at the time given that blacks in the United States were denied equal rights. After a New York ticker-tape parade in his honor, Owens had to ride the freight elevator to attend his own reception at the Waldorf-Astoria.[6]
I applaud this pick. He was on my short list. Presuming, of course, that he actually existed. No one here was around then, were they?
 
12.5 - James Cleveland "Jesse" Owens - athlete

James Cleveland "Jesse" Owens (September 12, 1913 – March 31, 1980) was an American track and field athlete. He participated in the 1936 Summer Olympics in Berlin, Germany, where he achieved international fame by winning four gold medals: one each in the 100 meters, the 200 meters, the long jump, and as part of the 4x100 meter relay team. In 1936 Jesse Owens became the first American to win four Olympic gold medals in track and field.In 1936 Owens arrived in Berlin to compete for the United States in the Summer Olympics. Adolf Hitler was using the games to show the world a resurgent Nazi Germany.[4] He and other government officials had high hopes German athletes would dominate the games with victories (the German athletes did indeed achieve a top of the table medal haul). Meanwhile, Nazi propaganda promoted concepts of "Aryan racial superiority" and depicted ethnic Africans as inferior.[4][5] Owens surprised many[4] by winning four gold medals: On August 3, 1936 he won the 100m sprint, defeating Ralph Metcalfe; on August 4, the long jump (later crediting friendly and helpful advice which led him to triumph over German competitor Luz Long[6]); on August 5, the 200m sprint; and, after he was added to the 4 x 100 m relay team, his fourth on August 9 (a performance not equaled until Carl Lewis won gold medals in the same events at the 1984 Summer Olympics).Just before the competitions Owens was visited in the Olympic village by Adi Dassler, the founder of Adidas. He persuaded Owens to use Adidas shoes and it was the first sponsorship for a male African-American athlete.[7]Despite Hitler's feelings, Owens was cheered enthusiastically by 110,000 people in Berlin's Olympic Stadium and later ordinary Germans sought his autograph when they saw him in the streets. Owens was allowed to travel with and stay in the same hotels as whites, an irony at the time given that blacks in the United States were denied equal rights. After a New York ticker-tape parade in his honor, Owens had to ride the freight elevator to attend his own reception at the Waldorf-Astoria.[6]
Excellent.
 
I select, Madonna , an American recording artist, actress and entrepreneur. Born in Bay City, Michigan and raised in Rochester Hills, Michigan, Madonna moved to New York City in 1977, for a career in modern dance. After performing as member of the pop musical groups Breakfast Club and Emmy, she released her self-titled debut album in 1983, and then produced three consecutive number-one studio albums on the Billboard 200 in the 1980s and four more since year 2000.
3) Innovativeness/importance in musical historyOne could argue I suppose, that she paved the way for the female pop divas of the 80's and 90's, but did she really break any ground musically? Not really.
Im no Madonna fan, but I think you're giving her short shrift here. She was never an innovator herself, but she's worked with/copied/ripped off plenty of innovators and mainstreamed them.
I think if Yankee posted some audio/clips of Madonna's best work she'd be exposed as something other than top 20. That's just one way of looking at it.
I think thats entirely dependent on your criteria for greatest. For me, her ability to get girls in my college to dance shoots her well up my list.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top