World's Greatest Draft (1 Viewer)

[dparker713]

Seeing as there will be many obscure names, I think it would be helpful if everyone was able to post their team with sentence long highlights for each member and have them used in the initial post for the voting.

 

[Doug B]

Seeing as there will be many obscure names, I think it would be helpful if everyone was able to post their team with sentence long highlights for each member and have them used in the initial post for the voting.

This helped a lot in the GAD voting, IMHO.

 

[Thorn]

3. Tim and others thinking Freud needs to be so high really are off base. Frankly, I think Tim owes a consistency explanation to thatguy. Nostradamus gets no love because his ideas turned out wrong, but Frued deserves #2 for being wrong? No way.

Ok, I'm off

Freud is the foundation of a lot of further ideas and thought.Nostradamus is the foundation for tarot card readers on Hollywood Blvd.

The point is, both of them turned out to be wrong. Why should one enjoy more credit?

When I have to start explaining why Sigmund Freud and Nostradamus are not comparable, that's when I know this draft is just about over.

Don't get me wrong, I think they both ought to receive a lower ranking in a draft like this. Freud's ideas just aren't taken very seriously these days. That's a fact.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

19. Intellectual May overlap with philosopher, but here I'm looking more for people who have written/argued about politics, human culture, and human interaction rather than broader issues of existence.

If I pooched the screw with Freud I'll take my lumps, but help me out here in terms of the top 5:The category was designed, as per the rules, to include people who wrote and studied the interactions between people, culture and politics. How exactly does a doctor who studied the subconscious and it's effect on ourselves measure up to the titans of political and economic thought?

This is why my top 5 were who they were. Those top 5 define this category as created by the rules. I would think that a bigger attack is why I have Jung so much higher given the rules, no?

 

[Thorn]

19. Intellectual May overlap with philosopher, but here I'm looking more for people who have written/argued about politics, human culture, and human interaction rather than broader issues of existence.

If I pooched the screw with Freud I'll take my lumps, but help me out here in terms of the top 5:The category was designed, as per the rules, to include people who wrote and studied the interactions between people, culture and politics. How exactly does a doctor who studied the subconscious and it's effect on ourselves measure up to the titans of political and economic thought?

This is why my top 5 were who they were. Those top 5 define this category as created by the rules. I would think that a bigger attack is why I have Jung so much higher given the rules, no?

IMO you did fine. Freud has iconagraphy, but I really don't believe he ought to be ranked near the top.

 

[Doug B]

19. Intellectual May overlap with philosopher, but here I'm looking more for people who have written/argued about politics, human culture, and human interaction rather than broader issues of existence.

If I pooched the screw with Freud I'll take my lumps, but help me out here in terms of the top 5:The category was designed, as per the rules, to include people who wrote and studied the interactions between people, culture and politics. How exactly does a doctor who studied the subconscious and it's effect on ourselves measure up to the titans of political and economic thought?

This is why my top 5 were who they were. Those top 5 define this category as created by the rules. I would think that a bigger attack is why I have Jung so much higher given the rules, no?

IMO you did fine. Freud has iconagraphy, but I really don't believe he ought to be ranked near the top.

Yes. Yankee, you ranked Freud about where he should be.

 

[HERBERT THE HIPPO]

19. Intellectual May overlap with philosopher, but here I'm looking more for people who have written/argued about politics, human culture, and human interaction rather than broader issues of existence.

If I pooched the screw with Freud I'll take my lumps, but help me out here in terms of the top 5:The category was designed, as per the rules, to include people who wrote and studied the interactions between people, culture and politics. How exactly does a doctor who studied the subconscious and it's effect on ourselves measure up to the titans of political and economic thought?

This is why my top 5 were who they were. Those top 5 define this category as created by the rules. I would think that a bigger attack is why I have Jung so much higher given the rules, no?

Just put Umberto at #1 and be done with it.....

 

[BobbyLayne]

The biggest issue with the Intellectuals category is half the Top Ten is languishing in the Philosopher category.

 

[DCThunder]

If anybody is looking for a good, short novel, read "City of Thieves" by David Benioff. It's about the Siege of Leningrad and the search for a dozen eggs. Excellent story and very insightful into the mind of a Russian citizen caught in the Siege.

Check it out!

 

[BobbyLayne]

Both volumes are completely edited. Just have to write the intro and fill an index and then upload them. If I am lucky, I can have them completed by dinner time Saturday night. I have been editing the 2nd volume all day today and now I am tired.

As of right now the volumes are ~850 pages in 6x9 page layout and the smallest margins possible. Also with 9-pt font.

Thanks.Been holding off on getting the bifocals the last two exams, guess I'll finally give in now.

 

[flysack]

3. Tim and others thinking Freud needs to be so high really are off base. Frankly, I think Tim owes a consistency explanation to thatguy. Nostradamus gets no love because his ideas turned out wrong, but Frued deserves #2 for being wrong? No way.Ok, I'm off

Freud is the foundation of a lot of further ideas and thought.Nostradamus is the foundation for tarot card readers on Hollywood Blvd.

The point is, both of them turned out to be wrong. Why should one enjoy more credit?

Not everything Freud said was "wrong." Much of what he wrote was developed and adopted in various other fields, including psychology. He was an enormous spark that ignited bonfires. Nostradamus was spark that ignited conspiracy theories and 9/11 freaks. I can't believe I'm arguing this. Congrats on the fishing trip.

 

[flysack]

When I have to start explaining why Sigmund Freud and Nostradamus are not comparable, that's when I know this draft is just about over.

 

[krista4]

Kurt Vonnegut, Slaughterhouse Five

I was going to suggest 'Breakfast of Champions'.Great book for promoting outside of the box thinking . . .

Great recommendation.

 

[flysack]

By the way, because of this draft I picked up a copy of Proust's Swann's Way and started reading it yesterday. It was a good day to read, in the upper sixties with little wind and lots of sun. I went down by the river and read about an invalid who can't get out of bed and felt vigorous for sitting there as other people jogged by or rode their bikes.

Thanks World's Greatest Draft!

 

[flysack]

Vonnegut is another guy I need to devour. After Slaughterhouse-Five and God Bless You, Dr. Kevorkian, I'm never got into him.

I respect his wit but his style has never been to my taste. I recognize that it's quality stuff, it's just that's I'd always rather be reading someone else.

Cat's Cradle has been on my reading list for years. It keeps getting leapfrogged by other books, like Proust.

 

[krista4]

Vonnegut is another guy I need to devour. After Slaughterhouse-Five and God Bless You, Dr. Kevorkian, I'm never got into him.

I respect his wit but his style has never been to my taste. I recognize that it's quality stuff, it's just that's I'd always rather be reading someone else.

Cat's Cradle has been on my reading list for years. It keeps getting leapfrogged by other books, like Proust.

I'm a fan of Cat's Cradle. You could knock it out in an afternoon.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Kurt Vonnegut, Slaughterhouse Five

I was going to suggest 'Breakfast of Champions'.Great book for promoting outside of the box thinking . . .

Great recommendation.

By the time I was ten years old I was really into sports, read all kinds of biographies and compilations, looked at the MacMillan Baseball Encyclopedia daily (every stat from 1876 on - over 1,000 pages).For my 10th or 11th birthday some half-wit relative gave me Breakfast of Champions, thinking it was a sports book.

Life-changer.

 

[flysack]

Kurt Vonnegut, Slaughterhouse Five

I was going to suggest 'Breakfast of Champions'.Great book for promoting outside of the box thinking . . .

Great recommendation.

By the time I was ten years old I was really into sports, read all kinds of biographies and compilations, looked at the MacMillan Baseball Encyclopedia daily (every stat from 1876 on - over 1,000 pages).For my 10th or 11th birthday some half-wit relative gave me Breakfast of Champions, thinking it was a sports book.

Life-changer.

I love book stories like these.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Kurt Vonnegut, Slaughterhouse Five

I was going to suggest 'Breakfast of Champions'.Great book for promoting outside of the box thinking . . .

Great recommendation.

By the time I was ten years old I was really into sports, read all kinds of biographies and compilations, looked at the MacMillan Baseball Encyclopedia daily (every stat from 1876 on - over 1,000 pages).For my 10th or 11th birthday some half-wit relative gave me Breakfast of Champions, thinking it was a sports book.

Life-changer.

I love book stories like these.

 

[timschochet]

19. Intellectual May overlap with philosopher, but here I'm looking more for people who have written/argued about politics, human culture, and human interaction rather than broader issues of existence.

If I pooched the screw with Freud I'll take my lumps, but help me out here in terms of the top 5:The category was designed, as per the rules, to include people who wrote and studied the interactions between people, culture and politics. How exactly does a doctor who studied the subconscious and it's effect on ourselves measure up to the titans of political and economic thought?

This is why my top 5 were who they were. Those top 5 define this category as created by the rules. I would think that a bigger attack is why I have Jung so much higher given the rules, no?

I have to say it's a little irritating to me that every judge that gets criticized inevitably falls back on the rules. Are you honestly suggesting that I set these up so that a guy like Freud shouldn't be considered? Why do you think I included the words, "human interaction"? When I concieved of the intellectual category, it was because two guys came to mind: Freud and Rosseau, and I thought- these two don't really fit as philosophers. Even if Rosseau gets taken there, Freud for sure never will be. That thinking led me to create this category.

Yankee, if you truly the believe that the man who popularized for the world the study of the human mind as a motivation for human interaction (notice that phrase) belongs ranked around the middle of the Intellectual category, you have a perfect right to do so. But please don't try to use the rules as an excuse. This was your call.

 

[Mario Kart]

Both volumes are completely edited. Just have to write the intro and fill an index and then upload them. If I am lucky, I can have them completed by dinner time Saturday night. I have been editing the 2nd volume all day today and now I am tired.

As of right now the volumes are ~850 pages in 6x9 page layout and the smallest margins possible. Also with 9-pt font.

Thanks.Been holding off on getting the bifocals the last two exams, guess I'll finally give in now.

9-pt is not bad at all. Would you rather have 12-pt?

 

[wikkidpissah]

Round One

1. Mario Kart- Sun Tzu

2. Larry Boy 44 Jesus of Nazareth

3. Arsenal of Doom William Shakespeare

4. FUBAR Muhammad

5. Acer FC Albert Einstein

6. Yankee23 Fan Adolf Hitler

7. Thorn Christopher Columbus

8. DC Thunder Leonardo Da Vinci

9. Doug B Michelangelo

10. Mad Sweeney Isaac Newton

11. Big Rocks Napoleon Bonaparte

12. higgins Josef Stalin

13. John Madden's Lunchbox Alexander The Great

14. Usual21 Ludwig Von Beethoven

15. thatguy Johannes Gutenberg

16. Andy Dufresne Plato

17. Herbert The Hippo Nikola Tesla

18. Bobbylayne Aristotle

19. Mister CIA Charles Darwin

20. Abrantes Mohandes Gandhi

Best Pick: Aristotle - excellent value @ 18, ruined when placed in the philosopher cat instead of intellect. it is said that philosophy is the study of what is not yet proved. under those terms, Aristotle was barely a philosopher at all for, with the undrafted Heraclitus, he gave the world its hunger for proof in virtually every area of human consideration. Runnerup: DaVinci. i'm a bright guy, unlimited by education, and ive taken the license of trying to hop into the heads of greats i attempt to understand. Leonardo's is the only intellect inside of which i am entirely lost. top 3, easy.

Worst Pick: Do I have to say? I understand, from having 1.01 in the GAD (where i chose Jefferson as a symbol of the dreams, frontiers & pursuit of happiness upon which this country is based & it just sucked), the desire to declare one's love for this miraculous orb by an original choice at the top spot, but one should, at the very least, ask oneself if the pick would be missed badly if never chosen at all & Sun Tzu does not scale that bar. Runnerup: Plato. being a total leftie, i'm sposeta have a poster of Plato on my wall to kiss like a tween, but his is the only utopia in which i never wanted to live. Tesla went too high as well.

Most interesting pick: Napoleon. I've read 30some books on this guy (i was outlining a novel based on a woman who shows us through the incredible eras of the Ancien Regime, Revolution, Terror, Empire & Restoration in France by sleeping with most of the principals) & it's unfortunate that he suffers for lack of a cat which encapsulates his greatness. general (he prolly woulda got 1.01 in Austerlitz), leader of the first true nation on the continent, lawgiver of import to this day, villain, even. unfortunately that doesnt add up to better than a #5 or so in any cat. runnerup: Beethoven. As i've said, i have a problem with him being the #1 composer cuz he wrote some truly awful stuff (Fidelio, Diabelli Var.) when the others of the Big 3 were so immaculate in that respect but, when i want to cry in the face of beauty, i put on the 9th so, there u go.

 

[krista4]

wikkid's round-by-round write-ups are the highlight of the draft.

 

[Mario Kart]

1. Mario Kart- Sun TzuWorst Pick: Do I have to say? I understand, from having 1.01 in the GAD (where i chose Jefferson as a symbol of the dreams, frontiers & pursuit of happiness upon which this country is based & it just sucked), the desire to declare one's love for this miraculous orb by an original choice at the top spot, but one should, at the very least, ask oneself if the pick would be missed badly if never chosen at all & Sun Tzu does not scale that bar. Runnerup: Plato. being a total leftie, i'm sposeta have a poster of Plato on my wall to kiss like a tween, but his is the only utopia in which i never wanted to live. Tesla went too high as well.

SOD and

 

[timschochet]

I agree with WP about the worst pick of the 1st round; that was easy. But the best pick of the 1st round was Isaac Newton. Why? Because this is a list of the greatest people who ever lived, and Isaac Newton is the greatest human being who ever lived. He should have been the clear #1 pick, IMO; he is the most influential man of all time.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Best Pick: Aristotle - excellent value @ 18, ruined when placed in the philosopher cat instead of intellect. it is said that philosophy is the study of what is not yet proved. under those terms, Aristotle was barely a philosopher at all for, with the undrafted Heraclitus, he gave the world its hunger for proof in virtually every area of human consideration.

That information would have been useful...

five weeks ago!!!



Philosophers

6. Aristotle - BobbyLayne



Love Wikkidpissah summaries, this should be good.

 

[Mario Kart]

I agree with WP about the worst pick of the 1st round; that was easy.

No, clearly not the worst pick in the first round.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I have to say it's a little irritating to me that every judge that gets criticized inevitably falls back on the rules. Are you honestly suggesting that I set these up so that a guy like Freud shouldn't be considered? Why do you think I included the words, "human interaction"?

So, when judging intellectual I should have looked at athletic ability? The rules matter because they are the rules. It's irritating that the guy in charge of the thing that set them up somehow now thinks that they shouldn't be followed because the guy he thinks should have been #1 in a category wasn't there.And newsflash - again, he was never going to be my #1. He wasn't making the top 5. Similarly, he wasn't getting that high for shiny either if he was the judge. Your moaning about Freud - which isn't the slam dunk you think it is - is laughable.

When I concieved of the intellectual category, it was because two guys came to mind: Freud and Rosseau, and I thought- these two don't really fit as philosophers. Even if Rosseau gets taken there, Freud for sure never will be. That thinking led me to create this category.

Fair enough. When I saw the category I thought of Machiavelli and Smith.

Yankee, if you truly the believe that the man who popularized for the world the study of the human mind as a motivation for human interaction (notice that phrase) belongs ranked around the middle of the Intellectual category, you have a perfect right to do so. But please don't try to use the rules as an excuse. This was your call.

I'm not excusing anything. AGain, he was never getting into my top 5. You are failing to see that. You are also failing to see that he wasn't getting there for shiny either. So the original judge and the substitute judge looked at the category entirely different then you did. In the end, you were never getting Freud close to #1 unless you forced it the way you tried to force it. So, again, what's the problem?

 

[mad sweeney]

I agree with WP about the worst pick of the 1st round; that was easy.

No, clearly not the worst pick in the first round.

Very clear to everyone but you. Also I dunno if you were joking or not but the first overall pick, by definition, cannot be the SOD. HTH

 

[wikkidpissah]

Round Two

1. Abrantes Confucius

2. Mister Cia Gautama Buddha

3. Bobby Layne Wolfgang Mozart

4. Herbert The Hippo Socrates

5. Andy Dufresne Genghis Khan

6. thatguy Leo Tolstoy

7. Usual21 Abraham Lincoln

8. John Madden's Lunchbox The Beatles

9. higgins Mother Teresa

10. Big Rocks Galileo Galilei

11. Mad Sweeney Augustus Caesar

12. Doug B Julius Caesar

13. DC Thunder Mao Zedong

14. Thorn Paul of Tarsus

15. Yankee23fan Adam Smith

16. Acer FC Subutai

17. FUBAR Benjamin Franklin

18. Arsenal of Doom Constantine

19. Larry Boy 44 Johann Sebastian Bach

20. Mario Kart Giovanni da Pian del Carpine

best pick: Paul. simply put, the person most responsible for why the world i live in is as ####ed up as it is. It is as unfortunate for Christ's message that this man became his mouthpiece as it is fortunate for Christianity that he was. Plus, in this age, the first greast publicist is 1st rd value. runnerup: i should prolly take Constantine here, considering who my picks for best of 2nd & 3rd are, as he completes the triad as "most responsible for Christianity", but i'll go Mozart. not as majestic as Beethoven or foundational as Back, but so lively, so inventive, so perfect.

worst pick: Beatles. suffering from Napoleon Syndrome here, catwise. too diffuse, too instant, too poor a fit in either musical category to be taken this high. runnerup: Mother Theresa. blantant grab at an instant #1 (which didnt work out) - we're not far enough down thru masters here for that.

most interesting: Mao. could be the man of the 20th C, could be Vlad with a manual. not qualified to say, but the fact that he might be both makes him the most fascinating of the draft's most interesting round. runnerup: Subutai. im a hopeless occidentophile, so this was my 1st huh. just the little ive read on him since makes me want to shore up that aspect of my ignorance.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I agree with WP about the worst pick of the 1st round; that was easy. But the best pick of the 1st round was Isaac Newton. Why? Because this is a list of the greatest people who ever lived, and Isaac Newton is the greatest human being who ever lived. He should have been the clear #1 pick, IMO; he is the most influential man of all time.

No he isn't. The #1 in this draft was easy and it seems that the only people that don't agree with that (as far as I can tell) are you and NC, the atheists, and the guy that had the 1.01 and took Tzu.If, you know, people are allowed to have different opinions then you.

 

[timschochet]

I'm not excusing anything.

Then why did you bring it up? You brought up the rules, I didn't. If Freud would never have made your top 5, fine. Your opinion, you're entitled to it. But don't come back the next day and suggest the rules would have excluded Freud from the top 5, anyhow. That's bull#### and you know it.

 

[timschochet]

I agree with WP about the worst pick of the 1st round; that was easy. But the best pick of the 1st round was Isaac Newton. Why? Because this is a list of the greatest people who ever lived, and Isaac Newton is the greatest human being who ever lived. He should have been the clear #1 pick, IMO; he is the most influential man of all time.

No he isn't. The #1 in this draft was easy and it seems that the only people that don't agree with that (as far as I can tell) are you and NC, the atheists, and the guy that had the 1.01 and took Tzu.If, you know, people are allowed to have different opinions then you.

Cheap shot, and totally unwarranted. Newton is more influential than Jesus Christ, IMO, because his discoveries have affected the whole world in much more profound ways. Jesus affected Christianity, and as I have pointed out numerous times, he shares this with Paul and a few others.With all due respect, I truly believe you are unable to remove your belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ from this discussion, and that does not allow you to have an objective opinion here.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I'm not excusing anything.

Then why did you bring it up? You brought up the rules, I didn't. If Freud would never have made your top 5, fine. Your opinion, you're entitled to it. But don't come back the next day and suggest the rules would have excluded Freud from the top 5, anyhow. That's bull#### and you know it.

I think the rules do exclude him based on the 5 people above him. And the few people that have brought up this point are right as well - there are others in this category that went in other categories that are higher then Freud as well.The only bull#### I see in this discussion is your attempt to force the judging a certain way because you didn't like where your favorite guy went, then your #####ing and moaning that you had to judge someone in one category like you did in every other category, but your belief that Freud should have been higher anyone. I mean, if anyone truly nailed himself to a cross in this thing it was you and that display.You could have ranked Smith anywhere you wanted. Had I not typed his name into the list, the list still would have been the same in its order. If shiny had judged the category, Freud would have been in roughly the same place, and so would have Smith. Although I guess your misplaced childish antics would have been directed at him then, and not me. Which is no problem; I deal with people like you all day, whether they be adversaries, judges or court staff. It's no different. Like them, you need to get over yourself.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I agree with WP about the worst pick of the 1st round; that was easy. But the best pick of the 1st round was Isaac Newton. Why? Because this is a list of the greatest people who ever lived, and Isaac Newton is the greatest human being who ever lived. He should have been the clear #1 pick, IMO; he is the most influential man of all time.

No he isn't. The #1 in this draft was easy and it seems that the only people that don't agree with that (as far as I can tell) are you and NC, the atheists, and the guy that had the 1.01 and took Tzu.If, you know, people are allowed to have different opinions then you.

Cheap shot, and totally unwarranted. Newton is more influential than Jesus Christ, IMO, because his discoveries have affected the whole world in much more profound ways. Jesus affected Christianity, and as I have pointed out numerous times, he shares this with Paul and a few others.With all due respect, I truly believe you are unable to remove your belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ from this discussion, and that does not allow you to have an objective opinion here.

I'm the one with cheap shots now? Me? Have you read the past 5 pages in this thread? Or your own words regarding me lately? Please.And I respectfully believe that you are unable to remove your atheism from what should be common sense in this discussion. Your posts about Christ early in this thread were so off the wall that you couldn't even keep up the charade of them. And yo continue to voice the opinion of Thomas Mann like it was your own regarding Paul - and in doing so you miss the point so much that it is becoming laughable.

 

[timschochet]

I'm not excusing anything.

Then why did you bring it up? You brought up the rules, I didn't. If Freud would never have made your top 5, fine. Your opinion, you're entitled to it. But don't come back the next day and suggest the rules would have excluded Freud from the top 5, anyhow. That's bull#### and you know it.

I think the rules do exclude him based on the 5 people above him. And the few people that have brought up this point are right as well - there are others in this category that went in other categories that are higher then Freud as well.The only bull#### I see in this discussion is your attempt to force the judging a certain way because you didn't like where your favorite guy went, then your #####ing and moaning that you had to judge someone in one category like you did in every other category, but your belief that Freud should have been higher anyone. I mean, if anyone truly nailed himself to a cross in this thing it was you and that display.You could have ranked Smith anywhere you wanted. Had I not typed his name into the list, the list still would have been the same in its order. If shiny had judged the category, Freud would have been in roughly the same place, and so would have Smith. Although I guess your misplaced childish antics would have been directed at him then, and not me. Which is no problem; I deal with people like you all day, whether they be adversaries, judges or court staff. It's no different. Like them, you need to get over yourself.

Where Shining Path would have ranked Smith is irrelevant. The fact is that I asked YOU not to rank him. I asked you here not to do it, and you ignored it and ranked him at #1. Given this, I can't take anything seriously that you write about the rules.Which one of us, do you think, was really guilty of "misplaced childish antics?"

 

[higgins]

I think you two should duke it out.

 

[timschochet]

I agree with WP about the worst pick of the 1st round; that was easy. But the best pick of the 1st round was Isaac Newton. Why? Because this is a list of the greatest people who ever lived, and Isaac Newton is the greatest human being who ever lived. He should have been the clear #1 pick, IMO; he is the most influential man of all time.

No he isn't. The #1 in this draft was easy and it seems that the only people that don't agree with that (as far as I can tell) are you and NC, the atheists, and the guy that had the 1.01 and took Tzu.If, you know, people are allowed to have different opinions then you.

Cheap shot, and totally unwarranted. Newton is more influential than Jesus Christ, IMO, because his discoveries have affected the whole world in much more profound ways. Jesus affected Christianity, and as I have pointed out numerous times, he shares this with Paul and a few others.

With all due respect, I truly believe you are unable to remove your belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ from this discussion, and that does not allow you to have an objective opinion here.

I'm the one with cheap shots now? Me? Have you read the past 5 pages in this thread? Or your own words regarding me lately? Please.And I respectfully believe that you are unable to remove your atheism from what should be common sense in this discussion. Your posts about Christ early in this thread were so off the wall that you couldn't even keep up the charade of them. And yo continue to voice the opinion of Thomas Mann like it was your own regarding Paul - and in doing so you miss the point so much that it is becoming laughable.

You mean Michael Hart. And from the moment I brought that idea up, I gave him credit. I've never claimed to have come up with that idea. My atheism, in terms of this discussion, gives me a clearer view because neither of us are supposed to consider Christ's divinity. Since I begin with that perspective anyhow, I think I'm able to better understand it than you are.

 

[wikkidpissah]

Round Three

1. Mario Kart Geoffrey Chaucer

2. Larry Boy 44 Homer

3. Arsenal of Doom Martin Luther

4. FUBAR Ferdinand Magellan

5. Acer FC Thomas Edison

6. Yankee23 Fan T'sai Lun

7. Thorn James Joyce

8. DC Thunder Karl Marx

9. Doug B George Washington

10. Mad Sweeney James Watt

11. Big Rocks Charles Dickens

12. higgins Marco Polo

13. John Madden's Lunchbox Louis Pasteur

14. Usual21 James Cook

15. thatguy Niccolò Machiavelli

16. Andy Dufresne Heinrich Himmler

17. Herbert The Hippo Moses

18. Bobbylayne John Locke

19. Mister CIA Cleopatra

20. Abrantes Pele

best pick: Luther. first rd value here. god, i wish i could admire this guy, because our release from the hegemony of popes & kings was the most important & compelling story of the past millenium & Marty's the 1st guy over the wall. but i cant, cuz he's also the guy responsible for sealing Him in as the boss of our insides, when i really think He wanted us to transcend that. runnerup: Washington, i still feel kinda guilty for taking Jefferson over him because, not only is America the best thing we've ever done, but declining its throne is the most sublety beautiful & majestic act in the history of this extraordinary nation, so i'll give my props here.

worst pick: Joyce. i have a very prol criteria for judging art i do not understand. i simply ask "well, then - is it a prayer?" the best art is such & i can abide a failure to comprehend under that basis. i do not hear the prayer in Joyce, so then he's aa trickster & the world is lousy with tricksters. runnerup: Himmler. a villain of the 1st order, but he was chust vollowing orderSS.

most interesting: Marx. being a surfcommie, ive read a lot of his stuff & it is easily the most misunderstood oeuvre in the history of letters. a better psychologist than Freud (hi, tim!), there was a poet & a priest in that soul & we forget it for what has be wrought in his name. shame, shame. we dont hold it against Adam Smith that the greed in the human heart makes his capitalism as pie-in-the-sky as Marx's communism. a beer with Karl & Christ woulda been a dam good day - i think they woulda got along & we coulda ####ed up a temple bigtime. runnerup Edison: my grandpa, the man most responsible for the shape of my mind, worshipped Edison (left a 4,000 piece collection of Edison materials & memorobilia to the Newport Vt library). hi, grandpa!!

 

[Abrantes]

I think you two should duke it out.

Again, I say "cage match".

 

[timschochet]

I'm the one with cheap shots now? Me? Have you read the past 5 pages in this thread? Or your own words regarding me lately? Please.

What cheap shot did I take against you? Honest question.

 

[wikkidpissah]

i was gonna try to knock out ten rds right away, but i dont want my efforts lost in this catfight. lemme know when u girls r done. rrrrrowwww, #####!

 

[thatguy]

i was gonna try to knock out ten rds right away, but i dont want my efforts lost in this catfight. lemme know when u girls r done. rrrrrowwww, #####!

They're done. Carry on.

 

[timschochet]

i was gonna try to knock out ten rds right away, but i dont want my efforts lost in this catfight. lemme know when u girls r done. rrrrrowwww, #####!

Oh I'm done. I've said all that needs to be said; at this point I'd just be repeating myself. I'll be content to be just another person that Yankee is forced to deal with, just like the judges, accountants, clients, associates he mentioned- all us just need to "get over ourselves."

 

[FUBAR]

i was gonna try to knock out ten rds right away, but i dont want my efforts lost in this catfight. lemme know when u girls r done. rrrrrowwww, #####!

They're done. Carry on.

Is there a way to block all posts pertaining to Sun Tzu?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

i was gonna try to knock out ten rds right away, but i dont want my efforts lost in this catfight. lemme know when u girls r done. rrrrrowwww, #####!

They're done. Carry on.

(When I confuse Thomas Mann and Michael Hart in a post and don't proof read, you know I'm tired with the whole thing.)

 

[wikkidpissah]

okeydokey. people wonder why im so rude when i refute others - it's mostly to prevent this awful back&forth. y'all are ever only gonna be right inside ur own heads. deal widdit. well, at least it gave me time to get some toast. i shall continue....

 

[wikkidpissah]

Round Four

1. Abrantes T.S. Eliot

2. Mister Cia Lao Tzu

3. Bobby Layne Hannibal

4. Herbert The Hippo Archimedes

5. Andy Dufresne Neil Armstrong

6. thatguy Ashoka The Great

7. Usual21 Muhammad Ali

8. John Madden's Lunchbox Abraham

9. higgins Bruce Lee

10. Big Rocks Donatello

11. Mad Sweeney Simon Bolivar

12. Doug B William Wilberforce

13. DC Thunder V. I. Lenin

14. Thorn Euclid

15. Yankee23fan Hippocrates

16. Acer FC Voltaire

17. FUBAR Victor Hugo

18. Arsenal of Doom Vincent Van Gogh

19. Larry Boy 44 Yuri Gargarin

20. Mario Kart Claude Monet

best pick: (tie) Voltaire/Lao Tzu. theyre only tied & 1st cuz they are the two dead heads most responsible for the life in mine. i luhhuhhuhhOVE Jean Marie Arouet de Voltaire. the best thing humans do is laugh & no one laughed better. he realised that being stuck between polymath & dilletante was the way to have the most fun. businessman, revolutionary, poet (his tome of the Lisbon Earthquake is still my favorite refutation of worship of an executive god), confessor to Frederick of Prussia & so much more. One of my TWENTY-THREE open files (dont worry - i wont finish any of em) is a play on his return to Paris after 25 yrs of exile to accept induction into the Academie Francaise. the excitement killed him & the play alternates between an exaggerated version of his acceptance speech and the ramblings of his fevered bed. it is as delightful to jump into his head as it is daunting. D'Accord!! Lao Tzu - when my wife died, i was lost in several yrs of despair & the rancid product of decades of addiction. pulled myself out without assistance & the lynchpin of my 'recovery' was reading one of the 81 chapters of the Tao each day since. to be as humble & flexible as the water which gives life to all yet does not strive is all i can ask myself and more than i can handle. wikkid say check it.

worst pick: Armstrong/Gurgarin. i know what you guys were goin for but, sorry, passengers. little more. runnerup: Donatello - just pissed that he was picked so high & his partner in crime, Brunelleschi wasnt taken at all.

most interesting: Abraham. fascinating that he & Moses got caught in a chicken/egg squabble in the post-draft judging. arguing myths is soooo Olympian! i woulda voted for Abe. runnerup: Archimedes. i'm the son of a research scientist (invented the grow light). to my father's unending chagrin, i received not one iota of his scientific conceptual ability. Woody's boy is all arts & farces, farts & arses. thing i like best about Archimedes is that his discoveries are so "duh" that they MUST be major. nufced

 

[larry_boy_44]

I agree with WP about the worst pick of the 1st round; that was easy. But the best pick of the 1st round was Isaac Newton. Why? Because this is a list of the greatest people who ever lived, and Isaac Newton is the greatest human being who ever lived. He should have been the clear #1 pick, IMO; he is the most influential man of all time.

No he isn't. The #1 in this draft was easy and it seems that the only people that don't agree with that (as far as I can tell) are you and NC, the atheists, and the guy that had the 1.01 and took Tzu.If, you know, people are allowed to have different opinions then you.

Cheap shot, and totally unwarranted. Newton is more influential than Jesus Christ, IMO, because his discoveries have affected the whole world in much more profound ways. Jesus affected Christianity, and as I have pointed out numerous times, he shares this with Paul and a few others.With all due respect, I truly believe you are unable to remove your belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ from this discussion, and that does not allow you to have an objective opinion here.

you know how I can tell that your disdain for Christianity affects your judgement?Because your first response to anyone who thinks Jesus is the most influential person in the history of the world is that they can't remove their belief in the divinity of Jesus from the discussion...Have you ever considered that since the most powerful nations on earth for the last 1700 years have all, at worst, held a majority of people who believed in the divinity of Christ that that is why he is the most influential?Rome (and every form of it), England, France, Germany, the US, Italy, all either had some form of Christianity as its official state religion or had a vast majority of people who believed in the divinity of Christ...I mean, do you really want someone to go through and count how many people drafted in this draft lived, at minimum, a public form of Christianity? Because I bet you its 2/3 of those drafted and we picked people who lived before Jesus was born...

 

[wikkidpissah]

Round Five

1. Mario Kart Auguste Rodin

2. Larry Boy 44 Gian Lorenzo Bernini

3. Arsenal of Doom Miguel de Cervantes

4. FUBAR Nelson Mandela

5. Acer FC Michael Jordan

6. Yankee23 Fan Charlemagne

7. Thorn Gustavus Adolphus

8. DC Thunder Joan of Arc

9. Doug B Rembrandt van Rijn

10. Mad Sweeney Fyoder Dostoyevskey

11. Big Rocks Ramses The Great

12. higgins Salvador Dali

13. John Madden's Lunchbox Pablo Picasso

14. Usual21 Edgar Allen Poe

15. thatguy Rene Descartes

16. Andy Dufresne Qin Shi Huang

17. Herbert The Hippo Dante

18. Bobbylayne Marcel Proust

19. Mister CIA Rumi

20. Abrantes Cyrus The Great

best pick: Dante. my ranking of persons of letters - Bill the Bard>>>Dante>>>>>>>>>>>>>everybody else. of works - La Commedia>>>>>>>>>>>>everything else. death & love, baby. runnerup: Dostoevsky. though Dickens is an easy pick for me as the most important novelist - social impact & place in the development of the professional writer as criteria - Fyodor is my favorite. Never was deep, dark thought as gripping & compelling.

worst pick: Adolphus. more sour grapes. i can't BELIEVE Catherine, Empress of All the Russias, greatest monarch of them all, wasn't selected & im taking it out on this mere Swede. runnerup: Cervantes. hey - strong round, slim pickings. even though i get that its where novels came from, it's lost me in each of my attempts at it. i'm told by the many Castillians here in NM (early in the 20th C, Anglos "discovered" Spanish communities high in the Sangre de Cristos that still spoke only Cervantan Spanish) that he suffers greatly in translation. ill have to take their word for it.

most interesting: Rumi. next to Ireland, Turkey is my favorite country & it's mostly about the people. From Stamboul to the Menderes to Kapadokkye, they are the sweetest, most life-embracing folks i've encountered. the lingering & leftover remnants of the ethic of Sufism is a large part of that & Rumi, its muse, is the honey in their tea, the smoke in the water. runnerup: Qin Shi Huang. my only knowledge of Chinese history is from the early chapters of Durant's Story of Civilzation. I have the complete Cambridge Ancient - is their China a definitive text or is there a better book for the dilletante reader? i only have time for one. help!