World's Greatest Draft (1 Viewer)

[mad sweeney]

A decathlon uses "equipment" to allow each participant to test their might/athleticism against each other. The javelin is the same for each participant. The discus, same. Hurdles, same height. Pole, same. Metal ball, same weight. 100 meters, same distance. Bottom line, the competition pits one individual versus one or more individuals competing against each other. I doubt you find anybody ever swear on their life that a basketball player, baseball player, wrestler even, cricket player, pound for pound, ability per ability is a better pure athlete than a decathlete. If decathlons were easy... everyone would do it.

Im sure LeBron James decided not to try decathlons because they were too hard and it had nothing to do with the lure of hundreds of millions of dollars awaiting him at age 18 as a basketball player.

Decathletes are just slackers that couldn't cut it in hockey...

 

[rodg12]

A decathlon uses "equipment" to allow each participant to test their might/athleticism against each other. The javelin is the same for each participant. The discus, same. Hurdles, same height. Pole, same. Metal ball, same weight. 100 meters, same distance. Bottom line, the competition pits one individual versus one or more individuals competing against each other. I doubt you find anybody ever swear on their life that a basketball player, baseball player, wrestler even, cricket player, pound for pound, ability per ability is a better pure athlete than a decathlete. If decathlons were easy... everyone would do it.

Im sure LeBron James decided not to try decathlons because they were too hard and it had nothing to do with the lure of hundreds of millions of dollars awaiting him at age 18 as a basketball player.

 

[Mario Kart]

BS. Saying you'll 'let' me keep believing what I believe and putting quotes around idea when talking about what I think makes an athlete - that's talking down to me. At least admit it. Your definition of athlete is comical. Even one of your examples of an athlete use multiple pieces of equipment. Namely the shot put, discus, javelin and pole (for the pole vault) used in the decathlon. Might want to rethink that one.

Doesn't happen

and rodg claims I talk down to people. Uh, huh.

What does that have to do with it? It's not an insult, you don't rethink things. You stick to your ideas. You refuse to admit Tzu was a bad pick at 1.01 and continue to believe he was not only the best pick for the category but that he was the SOD. So you don't rethink things. It's not talking down at all and it has absolutely nothing to do with you rtalking down to rodg. Sorry

Different strokes for different folks. Sun Tzu was a great pick. He would not have made it back to me at #40... so when would I have taken him? Just because the judge saw it different, does not mean from a historical point of reference that Sun Tzu is not more influential for the world than others have been. I drafted with the world view and world history in mind... not a blip on the screen from time to time. Sorry, you do not view things like me, that is you and I am me. I have looked at things from many points of view... hence why I did not go with a consensus pick of Jesus at number one. Sorry you do not agree with my way of thinking but I will just have to live on. If I changed my views to fit your views, what does that make me? Again, sorry.

 

[Mario Kart]

A decathlon uses "equipment" to allow each participant to test their might/athleticism against each other. The javelin is the same for each participant. The discus, same. Hurdles, same height. Pole, same. Metal ball, same weight. 100 meters, same distance. Bottom line, the competition pits one individual versus one or more individuals competing against each other. I doubt you find anybody ever swear on their life that a basketball player, baseball player, wrestler even, cricket player, pound for pound, ability per ability is a better pure athlete than a decathlete. If decathlons were easy... everyone would do it.

Im sure LeBron James decided not to try decathlons because they were too hard and it had nothing to do with the lure of hundreds of millions of dollars awaiting him at age 18 as a basketball player.

dparker will have to clarify the meaning of his post. But, from how I read it, he was simply stating that the money was in basketball compared to decathlons. If he is trying to infer that Lebron would be successful in decathlons, that is another debate. With that said, Lebron would have never made it as a decathlete and he picked the sport he can crab dribble his way to millions. Decathletes >>>>>>>>> basketball players (in terms of athletic ability)

 

[wikkidpissah]

anybody wanna argue with me about WGD stuff so we can get this thread to 200 pgs?

Sure, let's go.Pick any one of these ten; you take one side, I'll take the other.

The 10 Biggest Intellectual Fights Of All time

Seriously, though, I just want one person to explain to me what "the triumph of Bohr" was; I still can't understand what the debate was about.

8. Einstein vs. QT: The Gambling God

“God does not play dice with the universe,” said the man who became an icon of physics with his theories of special and general relativity, Albert Einstein. In 1927 Einstein began a series of debates with quantum explorer Niels Bohr about quantum indeterminism, its epistemological basis and interpretation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr-Einstein_debates

The arguments revolved around what is known as the measurement problem and whether or not particles in the quantum state were really both wave and particle at the same time until measurements were made. Einstein wanted to insist that the apparent indeterminacy at the quantum level was just a (temporary) inability to measure certain properties, while Bohr maintained the impossibility of determining precise values of certain properties because at the quantum level the values were by nature uncertain. Bohr eventually won on the striking results of the Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen [EPR] experiment which arose from these debates and established the phenomenon of quantum non-locality.

well, i was kinda hoping for something more along the lines of who would win between Princess Diana & Jackie O at jello wrestling or whether, if he had farted in the tub, Archimedes would have discovered thermodynamics. got anything along those lines? i DO believe that personality has both physical & quantum properties, with the skin of the human serving as a similar dividing line as the shell of an atom, as violently opposed in source & purpose as those within & without an atom. that do anything for you?

 

[mad sweeney]

BS. Saying you'll 'let' me keep believing what I believe and putting quotes around idea when talking about what I think makes an athlete - that's talking down to me. At least admit it. Your definition of athlete is comical. Even one of your examples of an athlete use multiple pieces of equipment. Namely the shot put, discus, javelin and pole (for the pole vault) used in the decathlon. Might want to rethink that one.

Doesn't happen

and rodg claims I talk down to people. Uh, huh.

What does that have to do with it? It's not an insult, you don't rethink things. You stick to your ideas. You refuse to admit Tzu was a bad pick at 1.01 and continue to believe he was not only the best pick for the category but that he was the SOD. So you don't rethink things. It's not talking down at all and it has absolutely nothing to do with you rtalking down to rodg. Sorry

Different strokes for different folks. Sun Tzu was a great pick. He would not have made it back to me at #40... so when would I have taken him? Just because the judge everyone saw it different, does not mean from a historical point of reference that Sun Tzu is not more influential for the world than others have been. I drafted with the world view and world history in mind... not a blip on the screen from time to time. Sorry, you do everyone does not view things like me, that is you everyone and I am me. I have looked at things from many points of view... hence why I did not go with a consensus pick of Jesus at number one. Sorry you doeveryone does not agree with my way of thinking but I will just have to live on. If I changed my views to fit your everyone's views, what does that make me? Again, sorry.

Fixed I'm sure you were the only one drafting with world history and a world view in mind

Gotta love those blips. Alexander, Napoleon, Hannibal, Ghengis Khan. Yup, just a bunch of blips that only conquered the world. What's that accomplishment compared to a guy who never conquered anything but wrote down the habits of those that did. You do realize that along with the Art of War military schools teach the strategies of all those people too. It's not like AoW supplanted every other teaching method of every conquering general in history. As a matter of fact, I'd be willing to bet that those military leaders all did most of what Tzu covers in his book without the benefit of ever hearing about him. As opposed to Tzu who wrote about how others did their "blips".

Seriously, blips? How the hell is Alexander the Great a blip?!

BTW. You should've gone with Alexander instead of Jesus or Tzu!

BYW part 2: See what I mean about you not re-thinking things. You couldn't have proved my point any more then you just did.

 

[rodg12]

A decathlon uses "equipment" to allow each participant to test their might/athleticism against each other. The javelin is the same for each participant. The discus, same. Hurdles, same height. Pole, same. Metal ball, same weight. 100 meters, same distance. Bottom line, the competition pits one individual versus one or more individuals competing against each other.

I doubt you find anybody ever swear on their life that a basketball player, baseball player, wrestler even, cricket player, pound for pound, ability per ability is a better pure athlete than a decathlete. If decathlons were easy... everyone would do it.

Im sure LeBron James decided not to try decathlons because they were too hard and it had nothing to do with the lure of hundreds of millions of dollars awaiting him at age 18 as a basketball player.

dparker will have to clarify the meaning of his post. But, from how I read it, he was simply stating that the money was in basketball compared to decathlons. If he is trying to infer that Lebron would be successful in decathlons, that is another debate. With that said, Lebron would have never made it as a decathlete and he picked the sport he can crab dribble his way to millions. Decathletes >>>>>>>>> basketball players (in terms of athletic ability)

Since there's so much difference, all those decathletes must be able to do things like this then, right?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-9TAoPPgKQ

I'd agree with you that the elite decathletes are probably the best pure athletes in the world. But, the difference between them and elite basketball players (Jordan, Lebron, Kobe) isn't as great as you make it out to be. I'll also say that the elite basketball players are much closer to them than greco-roman wrestlers.

 

[timschochet]

Different strokes for different folks. Sun Tzu was a great pick. He would not have made it back to me at #40... so when would I have taken him? Just because the judge saw it different, does not mean from a historical point of reference that Sun Tzu is not more influential for the world than others have been. I drafted with the world view and world history in mind... not a blip on the screen from time to time. Sorry, you do not view things like me, that is you and I am me. I have looked at things from many points of view... hence why I did not go with a consensus pick of Jesus at number one. Sorry you do not agree with my way of thinking but I will just have to live on. If I changed my views to fit your views, what does that make me? Again, sorry.

I wasn't going to bring this up again, Mario, but since you keep bringing it up, I have to point out that you've made this claim several times and it's simply not true! None of the other drafters who suggested they would have selected Sun Tzu ever said they would have taken him in the first round. They would not have done so. Sun Tzu, at best, was a 7th or 8th round pick- maybe. You would have had no risk at all if you had not taken him in the first 6 rounds. Sorry, Mario, but you are the only one who does not realize this.

 

[dparker713]

A decathlon uses "equipment" to allow each participant to test their might/athleticism against each other. The javelin is the same for each participant. The discus, same. Hurdles, same height. Pole, same. Metal ball, same weight. 100 meters, same distance. Bottom line, the competition pits one individual versus one or more individuals competing against each other. I doubt you find anybody ever swear on their life that a basketball player, baseball player, wrestler even, cricket player, pound for pound, ability per ability is a better pure athlete than a decathlete. If decathlons were easy... everyone would do it.

Im sure LeBron James decided not to try decathlons because they were too hard and it had nothing to do with the lure of hundreds of millions of dollars awaiting him at age 18 as a basketball player.

dparker will have to clarify the meaning of his post. But, from how I read it, he was simply stating that the money was in basketball compared to decathlons. If he is trying to infer that Lebron would be successful in decathlons, that is another debate. With that said, Lebron would have never made it as a decathlete and he picked the sport he can crab dribble his way to millions. Decathletes >>>>>>>>> basketball players (in terms of athletic ability)

Its quite simple, you claim that if decathlons were easy everyone would do them. You fail to realize that many top 'pound for pound' athletes do not even consider decathlons. Do you really think Ronaldo thought, 'hey, everyone I know plays football, the top plays live like kings, but I really want to prove to everyone Im the best pound for pound athlete. I just can't hack it though cause decathlons are really hard and so much more competitive than becoming a professional footballer (you know, the sport more people in the world play then anything else)As for LeBron, I've no idea how he would do as a decathlete. He's got an amazing quickness for a man his size and he's huge. Had he trained as a decathlete, I think he'd do quite well at all the throwing events and he'd kick the crap out of them in the high and long jumps due to his amazing explosion. Im sure he'd suffer at the running events. But there are many different athletic pursuits and I hardly agree that a decathlon is the best means of determining the best overall athlete - Superstars anyone?!?

 

[Mario Kart]

Different strokes for different folks. Sun Tzu was a great pick. He would not have made it back to me at #40... so when would I have taken him? Just because the judge saw it different, does not mean from a historical point of reference that Sun Tzu is not more influential for the world than others have been. I drafted with the world view and world history in mind... not a blip on the screen from time to time. Sorry, you do not view things like me, that is you and I am me. I have looked at things from many points of view... hence why I did not go with a consensus pick of Jesus at number one. Sorry you do not agree with my way of thinking but I will just have to live on. If I changed my views to fit your views, what does that make me? Again, sorry.

I wasn't going to bring this up again, Mario, but since you keep bringing it up, I have to point out that you've made this claim several times and it's simply not true! None of the other drafters who suggested they would have selected Sun Tzu ever said they would have taken him in the first round. They would not have done so. Sun Tzu, at best, was a 7th or 8th round pick- maybe. You would have had no risk at all if you had not taken him in the first 6 rounds. Sorry, Mario, but you are the only one who does not realize this.

I did not bring it up again. It was brought up earlier tonight. And, to say he is a 7th/8th rounder would have been highway robbery. Sun Tzu made an impact in the world back then and he is still making an impact today in the same medium as well as others. Alexander, as sweeney mentioned above, made a big impact when he was alive... what is his impact today? To me, that is the difference. Which way did I want to go with 1.01? I went with lasting and continued impact rather than a great impact during his time (blip on the screen). Tzu had impact through much of what the world history has been made up of without much recognition through his work.

 

[Thorn]

Different strokes for different folks. Sun Tzu was a great pick. He would not have made it back to me at #40... so when would I have taken him? Just because the judge saw it different, does not mean from a historical point of reference that Sun Tzu is not more influential for the world than others have been. I drafted with the world view and world history in mind... not a blip on the screen from time to time. Sorry, you do not view things like me, that is you and I am me. I have looked at things from many points of view... hence why I did not go with a consensus pick of Jesus at number one. Sorry you do not agree with my way of thinking but I will just have to live on. If I changed my views to fit your views, what does that make me? Again, sorry.

I wasn't going to bring this up again, Mario, but since you keep bringing it up, I have to point out that you've made this claim several times and it's simply not true! None of the other drafters who suggested they would have selected Sun Tzu ever said they would have taken him in the first round. They would not have done so. Sun Tzu, at best, was a 7th or 8th round pick- maybe. You would have had no risk at all if you had not taken him in the first 6 rounds. Sorry, Mario, but you are the only one who does not realize this.

Not that I think it's a good pick, but there was this post on the first page.Oh, and FWIW Rod, it is "peace" when one uses it as Mario did, in the sense that one has made their peace with the disagreement and is exiting the debate. One can use "piece" when it's in the sense of 'a piece of my mind', though that's rarely the case when it's 'said my peace.'

 

[dparker713]

Different strokes for different folks. Sun Tzu was a great pick. He would not have made it back to me at #40... so when would I have taken him? Just because the judge saw it different, does not mean from a historical point of reference that Sun Tzu is not more influential for the world than others have been. I drafted with the world view and world history in mind... not a blip on the screen from time to time. Sorry, you do not view things like me, that is you and I am me. I have looked at things from many points of view... hence why I did not go with a consensus pick of Jesus at number one. Sorry you do not agree with my way of thinking but I will just have to live on. If I changed my views to fit your views, what does that make me? Again, sorry.

I wasn't going to bring this up again, Mario, but since you keep bringing it up, I have to point out that you've made this claim several times and it's simply not true! None of the other drafters who suggested they would have selected Sun Tzu ever said they would have taken him in the first round. They would not have done so. Sun Tzu, at best, was a 7th or 8th round pick- maybe. You would have had no risk at all if you had not taken him in the first 6 rounds. Sorry, Mario, but you are the only one who does not realize this.

Post 50You might want to check that again Tim. You guys seem to ignore that there were only two military theorists worth drafting and Sun Tzu influences much more than just warfare - half the business advice books out there are thinly vailed retellings of The Art of War. It of course couldnt be the SOD, but Sun Tzu has been highly influential in several aspects of human endevour and there is no indication that will subside anytime soon.

 

[Thorn]

Different strokes for different folks. Sun Tzu was a great pick. He would not have made it back to me at #40... so when would I have taken him? Just because the judge saw it different, does not mean from a historical point of reference that Sun Tzu is not more influential for the world than others have been. I drafted with the world view and world history in mind... not a blip on the screen from time to time. Sorry, you do not view things like me, that is you and I am me. I have looked at things from many points of view... hence why I did not go with a consensus pick of Jesus at number one. Sorry you do not agree with my way of thinking but I will just have to live on. If I changed my views to fit your views, what does that make me? Again, sorry.

I wasn't going to bring this up again, Mario, but since you keep bringing it up, I have to point out that you've made this claim several times and it's simply not true! None of the other drafters who suggested they would have selected Sun Tzu ever said they would have taken him in the first round. They would not have done so. Sun Tzu, at best, was a 7th or 8th round pick- maybe. You would have had no risk at all if you had not taken him in the first 6 rounds. Sorry, Mario, but you are the only one who does not realize this.

I did not bring it up again. It was brought up earlier tonight. And, to say he is a 7th/8th rounder would have been highway robbery. Sun Tzu made an impact in the world back then and he is still making an impact today in the same medium as well as others. Alexander, as sweeney mentioned above, made a big impact when he was alive... what is his impact today? To me, that is the difference. Which way did I want to go with 1.01? I went with lasting and continued impact rather than a great impact during his time (blip on the screen). Tzu had impact through much of what the world history has been made up of without much recognition through his work.

Have you ever admitted that you might have made a mistake at anything?

 

[mad sweeney]

Different strokes for different folks. Sun Tzu was a great pick. He would not have made it back to me at #40... so when would I have taken him? Just because the judge saw it different, does not mean from a historical point of reference that Sun Tzu is not more influential for the world than others have been. I drafted with the world view and world history in mind... not a blip on the screen from time to time. Sorry, you do not view things like me, that is you and I am me. I have looked at things from many points of view... hence why I did not go with a consensus pick of Jesus at number one. Sorry you do not agree with my way of thinking but I will just have to live on. If I changed my views to fit your views, what does that make me? Again, sorry.

I wasn't going to bring this up again, Mario, but since you keep bringing it up, I have to point out that you've made this claim several times and it's simply not true! None of the other drafters who suggested they would have selected Sun Tzu ever said they would have taken him in the first round. They would not have done so. Sun Tzu, at best, was a 7th or 8th round pick- maybe. You would have had no risk at all if you had not taken him in the first 6 rounds. Sorry, Mario, but you are the only one who does not realize this.

I did not bring it up again. It was brought up earlier tonight. And, to say he is a 7th/8th rounder would have been highway robbery. Sun Tzu made an impact in the world back then and he is still making an impact today in the same medium as well as others. Alexander, as sweeney mentioned above, made a big impact when he was alive... what is his impact today? To me, that is the difference. Which way did I want to go with 1.01? I went with lasting and continued impact rather than a great impact during his time (blip on the screen). Tzu had impact through much of what the world history has been made up of without much recognition through his work.

Do you seriously think no one studies Alexander's military tactics? That him spreading Macedonian culture throughout the Middle East through to India has had no lasting impact? Outside of China, Tzu's book has had very little if any effect on the Western world until what, the 18th century?

Your idea of Tzu having as much impact as he did is way overboard. Like I said above, you act as if Tzu is the only thing taught in the military and that none of the actual generals have had their tactics studied (despite the facts that Ozy brought up about Von C). Tzu is one part of military theory, just because he's on the corporate best seller list doesn't mean he's supplanted 3000 years of actual accomplishments.

And Tim, several people including myself said they were thinking about him in the first. Mine was said before I had done any research and I mentioned that he was one guy that I thought would no way be gone by pick 10. Big Rocks at 11 said he wished Tzu wou;dve fallen to him. I seriously doubt he would've lasted back to Mario. However, at 1.01 you need a definite #1 in his category and MK's the only person that thinks Tzu's book makes him better than all the "blips" who actually accomplished everything and changed the world around them forever.

 

[Mario Kart]

Different strokes for different folks. Sun Tzu was a great pick. He would not have made it back to me at #40... so when would I have taken him? Just because the judge saw it different, does not mean from a historical point of reference that Sun Tzu is not more influential for the world than others have been. I drafted with the world view and world history in mind... not a blip on the screen from time to time. Sorry, you do not view things like me, that is you and I am me. I have looked at things from many points of view... hence why I did not go with a consensus pick of Jesus at number one. Sorry you do not agree with my way of thinking but I will just have to live on. If I changed my views to fit your views, what does that make me? Again, sorry.

I wasn't going to bring this up again, Mario, but since you keep bringing it up, I have to point out that you've made this claim several times and it's simply not true! None of the other drafters who suggested they would have selected Sun Tzu ever said they would have taken him in the first round. They would not have done so. Sun Tzu, at best, was a 7th or 8th round pick- maybe. You would have had no risk at all if you had not taken him in the first 6 rounds. Sorry, Mario, but you are the only one who does not realize this.

I did not bring it up again. It was brought up earlier tonight. And, to say he is a 7th/8th rounder would have been highway robbery. Sun Tzu made an impact in the world back then and he is still making an impact today in the same medium as well as others. Alexander, as sweeney mentioned above, made a big impact when he was alive... what is his impact today? To me, that is the difference. Which way did I want to go with 1.01? I went with lasting and continued impact rather than a great impact during his time (blip on the screen). Tzu had impact through much of what the world history has been made up of without much recognition through his work.

Have you ever admitted that you might have made a mistake at anything?

Yes.

 

[BobbyLayne]

anybody wanna argue with me about WGD stuff so we can get this thread to 200 pgs?

Sure, let's go.Pick any one of these ten; you take one side, I'll take the other.

The 10 Biggest Intellectual Fights Of All time

Seriously, though, I just want one person to explain to me what "the triumph of Bohr" was; I still can't understand what the debate was about.

8. Einstein vs. QT: The Gambling God

“God does not play dice with the universe,” said the man who became an icon of physics with his theories of special and general relativity, Albert Einstein. In 1927 Einstein began a series of debates with quantum explorer Niels Bohr about quantum indeterminism, its epistemological basis and interpretation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr-Einstein_debates

The arguments revolved around what is known as the measurement problem and whether or not particles in the quantum state were really both wave and particle at the same time until measurements were made. Einstein wanted to insist that the apparent indeterminacy at the quantum level was just a (temporary) inability to measure certain properties, while Bohr maintained the impossibility of determining precise values of certain properties because at the quantum level the values were by nature uncertain. Bohr eventually won on the striking results of the Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen [EPR] experiment which arose from these debates and established the phenomenon of quantum non-locality.

well, i was kinda hoping for something more along the lines of who would win between Princess Diana & Jackie O at jello wrestling or whether, if he had farted in the tub, Archimedes would have discovered thermodynamics. got anything along those lines? i DO believe that personality has both physical & quantum properties, with the skin of the human serving as a similar dividing line as the shell of an atom, as violently opposed in source & purpose as those within & without an atom. that do anything for you?

1. Princess Di was 5'10", Jackie O 5'7". The lady from Wales swam and ran on a regular basis, liked to rollerblade, downhill skier. Jacquelyn was an equestrian and was also a skier. Advantage Diana.2. Perhaps; but I doubt "Give me a place to sit, and I will move the earth" would have become a catch phrase.

3. Gonna ponder that one...

 

[rodg12]

Different strokes for different folks. Sun Tzu was a great pick. He would not have made it back to me at #40... so when would I have taken him? Just because the judge saw it different, does not mean from a historical point of reference that Sun Tzu is not more influential for the world than others have been. I drafted with the world view and world history in mind... not a blip on the screen from time to time. Sorry, you do not view things like me, that is you and I am me. I have looked at things from many points of view... hence why I did not go with a consensus pick of Jesus at number one. Sorry you do not agree with my way of thinking but I will just have to live on. If I changed my views to fit your views, what does that make me? Again, sorry.

I wasn't going to bring this up again, Mario, but since you keep bringing it up, I have to point out that you've made this claim several times and it's simply not true! None of the other drafters who suggested they would have selected Sun Tzu ever said they would have taken him in the first round. They would not have done so. Sun Tzu, at best, was a 7th or 8th round pick- maybe. You would have had no risk at all if you had not taken him in the first 6 rounds. Sorry, Mario, but you are the only one who does not realize this.

Not that I think it's a good pick, but there was this post on the first page.Oh, and FWIW Rod, it is "peace" when one uses it as Mario did, in the sense that one has made their peace with the disagreement and is exiting the debate. One can use "piece" when it's in the sense of 'a piece of my mind', though that's rarely the case when it's 'said my peace.'

Really? My bad then. I apologize for the comment, Mario. Oh, and it's rodg.

 

[mad sweeney]

anybody wanna argue with me about WGD stuff so we can get this thread to 200 pgs?

Sure, let's go.Pick any one of these ten; you take one side, I'll take the other.

The 10 Biggest Intellectual Fights Of All time

Seriously, though, I just want one person to explain to me what "the triumph of Bohr" was; I still can't understand what the debate was about.

8. Einstein vs. QT: The Gambling God

“God does not play dice with the universe,” said the man who became an icon of physics with his theories of special and general relativity, Albert Einstein. In 1927 Einstein began a series of debates with quantum explorer Niels Bohr about quantum indeterminism, its epistemological basis and interpretation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr-Einstein_debates

The arguments revolved around what is known as the measurement problem and whether or not particles in the quantum state were really both wave and particle at the same time until measurements were made. Einstein wanted to insist that the apparent indeterminacy at the quantum level was just a (temporary) inability to measure certain properties, while Bohr maintained the impossibility of determining precise values of certain properties because at the quantum level the values were by nature uncertain. Bohr eventually won on the striking results of the Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen [EPR] experiment which arose from these debates and established the phenomenon of quantum non-locality.

well, i was kinda hoping for something more along the lines of who would win between Princess Diana & Jackie O at jello wrestling or whether, if he had farted in the tub, Archimedes would have discovered thermodynamics. got anything along those lines? i DO believe that personality has both physical & quantum properties, with the skin of the human serving as a similar dividing line as the shell of an atom, as violently opposed in source & purpose as those within & without an atom. that do anything for you?

1. Princess Di was 5'10", Jackie O 5'7". The lady from Wales swam and ran on a regular basis, liked to rollerblade, downhill skier. Jacquelyn was an equestrian and was also a skier. Advantage Diana.2. Perhaps; but I doubt "Give me a place to sit, and I will move the earth" would have become a catch phrase.

3. Gonna ponder that one...

Both of them went for Mediterranean types after their Anglo firstie didn't work out...BTW, Jackie is on the cover of LIFE this week in a piece about remembering her. Those of you that don't think she was a celebrity ought to look at it.

 

[Mario Kart]

Post 50

You might want to check that again Tim. You guys seem to ignore that there were only two military theorists worth drafting and Sun Tzu influences much more than just warfare - half the business advice books out there are thinly vailed retellings of The Art of War. It of course couldnt be the SOD, but Sun Tzu has been highly influential in several aspects of human endevour and there is no indication that will subside anytime soon.

Thank you dparker713.Tzu's book goes beyond military application. Alexander's impact was great, I never denied that. Before the 1800's there was a lot of the world that most likely studied Sun Tzu... as well as Alexander. Sun Tzu's impact militarily and with other applications is not going to die off anytime soon. That should also be taken into consideration.

As far as a definite #1. Jesus was not even a #1 in his category so your issue is with the judges and not with me. I guess with 1.01, I should have drafted Shakesphere.

 

[mad sweeney]

Post 50

You might want to check that again Tim. You guys seem to ignore that there were only two military theorists worth drafting and Sun Tzu influences much more than just warfare - half the business advice books out there are thinly vailed retellings of The Art of War. It of course couldnt be the SOD, but Sun Tzu has been highly influential in several aspects of human endevour and there is no indication that will subside anytime soon.

Thank you dparker713.Tzu's book goes beyond military application. Alexander's impact was great, I never denied that. Before the 1800's there was a lot of the world that most likely studied Sun Tzu... as well as Alexander. Sun Tzu's impact militarily and with other applications is not going to die off anytime soon. That should also be taken into consideration.

As far as a definite #1. Jesus was not even a #1 in his category so your issue is with the judges and not with me. I guess with 1.01, I should have drafted Shakesphere.

Or Alexander as you said your other choice for the pick was. He got #1 btw...I'm sure in your research you could point somewhere that shows Tzu's book "most likely" being studied pre-19th century.

 

[dparker713]

Post 50

You might want to check that again Tim. You guys seem to ignore that there were only two military theorists worth drafting and Sun Tzu influences much more than just warfare - half the business advice books out there are thinly vailed retellings of The Art of War. It of course couldnt be the SOD, but Sun Tzu has been highly influential in several aspects of human endevour and there is no indication that will subside anytime soon.

Thank you dparker713.Tzu's book goes beyond military application. Alexander's impact was great, I never denied that. Before the 1800's there was a lot of the world that most likely studied Sun Tzu... as well as Alexander. Sun Tzu's impact militarily and with other applications is not going to die off anytime soon. That should also be taken into consideration.

As far as a definite #1. Jesus was not even a #1 in his category so your issue is with the judges and not with me. I guess with 1.01, I should have drafted Shakesphere.

Dont get me wrong, I dont think it was value at 1. But there is no way he should get back to you at 40, and its your team and he was your guy - so you do what you need to do to get him on your team.

 

[Big Rocks]

Just for the record (as pointed out above) if Sun Tzu was available at my pick of 1.11, I would have given him serious consideration, along with several others (I realllllllllly wanted Newton). But I would not have placed him in the military category.

 

[wikkidpissah]

anybody wanna argue with me about WGD stuff so we can get this thread to 200 pgs?

Sure, let's go.Pick any one of these ten; you take one side, I'll take the other.

The 10 Biggest Intellectual Fights Of All time

Seriously, though, I just want one person to explain to me what "the triumph of Bohr" was; I still can't understand what the debate was about.

8. Einstein vs. QT: The Gambling God

“God does not play dice with the universe,” said the man who became an icon of physics with his theories of special and general relativity, Albert Einstein. In 1927 Einstein began a series of debates with quantum explorer Niels Bohr about quantum indeterminism, its epistemological basis and interpretation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr-Einstein_debates

The arguments revolved around what is known as the measurement problem and whether or not particles in the quantum state were really both wave and particle at the same time until measurements were made. Einstein wanted to insist that the apparent indeterminacy at the quantum level was just a (temporary) inability to measure certain properties, while Bohr maintained the impossibility of determining precise values of certain properties because at the quantum level the values were by nature uncertain. Bohr eventually won on the striking results of the Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen [EPR] experiment which arose from these debates and established the phenomenon of quantum non-locality.

well, i was kinda hoping for something more along the lines of who would win between Princess Diana & Jackie O at jello wrestling or whether, if he had farted in the tub, Archimedes would have discovered thermodynamics. got anything along those lines? i DO believe that personality has both physical & quantum properties, with the skin of the human serving as a similar dividing line as the shell of an atom, as violently opposed in source & purpose as those within & without an atom. that do anything for you?

1. Princess Di was 5'10", Jackie O 5'7". The lady from Wales swam and ran on a regular basis, liked to rollerblade, downhill skier. Jacquelyn was an equestrian and was also a skier. Advantage Diana.2. Perhaps; but I doubt "Give me a place to sit, and I will move the earth" would have become a catch phrase.

3. Gonna ponder that one...

1. well, u failed to consider the jello aspect (simple wrestling was way too easily answered with the size difference & there being no evidence of Jackie #####slapping any of Jack's special assistants) and the squirm factor of the smaller woman but, then, i've done handicapping podcasts for www.wideworldofsquirts.com (the Tiffany of jello-wrestling websites).2. but "Does displace stink or what?!" mighta been big.

3. have your id call my doppelganger - we'll do lunch....

 

[BobbyLayne]

Although moderately disappointed www.wideworldofsquirts.com does not exist, I do feel pretty good about my latest investment at GoDaddy.com.

 

[timschochet]

Just for the record (as pointed out above) if Sun Tzu was available at my pick of 1.11, I would have given him serious consideration, along with several others (I realllllllllly wanted Newton). But I would not have placed him in the military category.

All right, so two of you guys are nuts instead of one!Just kidding. So I was wrong, Mario. But I still don't see it.

 

[rodg12]

Although moderately disappointed www.wideworldofsquirts.com does not exist, I do feel pretty good about my latest investment at GoDaddy.com.

 

[Mario Kart]

Just for the record (as pointed out above) if Sun Tzu was available at my pick of 1.11, I would have given him serious consideration, along with several others (I realllllllllly wanted Newton). But I would not have placed him in the military category.

All right, so two of you guys are nuts instead of one!Just kidding. So I was wrong, Mario. But I still don't see it.

The draft would have been pretty boring if there were twenty similar personalities and twenty people with a similar thought process as well as twenty people with similar backgrounds. Instead, we got the draft we did.

 

[wikkidpissah]

Although moderately disappointed www.wideworldofsquirts.com does not exist, I do feel pretty good about my latest investment at GoDaddy.com.

if u wanna register www.latinachubbymature.com as well, i've got a few loops of a "Housekeeping Gone Wild" series i started a while back that i can upload to you cheap.

 

[larry_boy_44]

17. Humanitarian/Saint/Martyr - BobbyLayne

He judged humanitarians way too highly and the saints/martyrs way too low. And, no, Mother Theresa doesn't count as a saint/martyr, she's a humanitarian. So 4 out of the top 5 (11 out of the top 12) were humanitarians while # 12, 15, 17, and 19 were all saints/martyrs.

Too High: Mother Theresa - she has a big name... Probably would have been better off as a celebrity and should not have been ranked so high. She did not affect the world nearly as much as pretty much every other person on this list.

Too Low: St. Francis of Assisi & Saint Peter, both of these picks should have been higher in order to show a balance between the three parts of this category. Instead the humanitarians got massively overrated and the saints/martyrs got underrated.

10 of the 20 people in this category were religious figures or individuals for whom their belief in Christ was central to their life's work. On that basis, I think the distribution was pretty even-handed.#1 - The top ranking went to Albert Schweitzer, who spent six years studying music, philosophy and theology before he opted for medical school. He was a pastor before he was a physician, and his decision to become a doctor was within the context of becoming a medical missionary. Although most often revered as an exemplorary humanitarian Schweitzer was a significant theologian in his time. Many of his studies focused on the life of Jesus and contemporary interpretations of the bible. In 1906 he published The Quest of the Historical Jesus and followed it with The Psychiatric Study of Jesus in 1911 as part of his medical dissertation. His studies of the new and old testament greatly influenced other biblical scholars. Let's put it this way: he is ten times greater the apologetics scholar C.S. Lewis is held up to be; the latter never advanced beyond his undergraduate studies at Oxford (Greek and Latin Literature, Philosophy and Ancient History, and English - no theological or graduate studies).

#4 - Joan of Arc, Saint

#5 - Mother Teresa, named Blessed of Calcutta, on the path to Sainthood, Roman Catholic nun

#6 - Bishop Desmond Tutu, clergy

#7 - William Wilberforce, evangelical Christian, as with Schweitzer, long held up as a great Christian hero in the U.K.

#8 - MLK, clergy

#13 & #15 - Saint Peter and Saint Francis - on what basis should they be held higher? This categoy is not the pseudo-religious figure category to stick Saints you don't think will get a fair shake going up against Mohammed and Paul of Tarsus. Based on his leadership in the early church and his two epistles, this seemed like an apporpriate ranking to me for the apostle. As for Francis, what should I have given more weight to...his stigmata...or the baptism of the wolf?

#17 & #19 - Saint Nicholas and John the Baptist

Six of the top 8 in the category were individuals who lived Christ-centered lives while making significant contributions to mankind.

Anyway, I researched everybody in the category, and dedicated a lot of time and effort to both the rankings and the writeups. I'm proud of the job I did regardless of what you or anyone else thinks.

first of all, i'm sorry if you are offended... i was worried about this (and its part of why it took so long), because someone real and someone who was here had to be ranked low and then I had to justify the low ranking...Please don't take it personal, it wasn't meant personally...

as far as your rankings:

Albert Schwietzer is not religious and he is definitely not a saint or a martyr... just because he studied theology doesn't qualify him for sainthood or martyrdom...

Joan of Arc is, and I give you credit for having one saint/martyr high...

Mother Theresa is neither saint nor martyr and is known most for her humanitarian work, not her religious beliefs...

Desmond Tutu is not known for his religious work and, again, is neither saint nor martyr... He is in the category for his humanitarian work...

William Wilberforce might have been religious, but he is known for humanitarian work in abolishing the slave trade...

MLK is not known for religion, he is known for fighting for civil rights...

That means there are 5 people in the category who are saints/martyrs:

1. Joan of Arc

2. St. Peter

3. St. Francis of Assisi

4. St. Nicolas (Santa Claus)

5. John the Baptist

they are ranked 4, 13, 15, 17, & 19... While the humanitarians are 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20...

That makes no sense considering the category... There should have been, on average, on saint/martyr in every 4 spots, not 1 in the top 12 and 4 in the bottom 8...

 

[larry_boy_44]

Newton is very deserving of the top spot over Einstein. Both were absolutely brilliant, but Newton to me is the clear #1.

Yup.

like I said, Einstein was a reach as a "too low", but the rankings were good and it was hard to pick someone else... That's why I picked #2 as the "too low" person, because Einstein is at least debatable as #1...

 

[larry_boy_44]

Different strokes for different folks. Sun Tzu was a great pick. He would not have made it back to me at #40... so when would I have taken him? Just because the judge saw it different, does not mean from a historical point of reference that Sun Tzu is not more influential for the world than others have been. I drafted with the world view and world history in mind... not a blip on the screen from time to time. Sorry, you do not view things like me, that is you and I am me. I have looked at things from many points of view... hence why I did not go with a consensus pick of Jesus at number one. Sorry you do not agree with my way of thinking but I will just have to live on. If I changed my views to fit your views, what does that make me? Again, sorry.

I wasn't going to bring this up again, Mario, but since you keep bringing it up, I have to point out that you've made this claim several times and it's simply not true! None of the other drafters who suggested they would have selected Sun Tzu ever said they would have taken him in the first round. They would not have done so. Sun Tzu, at best, was a 7th or 8th round pick- maybe. You would have had no risk at all if you had not taken him in the first 6 rounds. Sorry, Mario, but you are the only one who does not realize this.

not true, actually...in fact, the bottom post on page 1 of the thread is someone lamenting losing Sun Tzu in the 1st round because they intended on picking him and thought he'd get to them...

 

[mad sweeney]

17. Humanitarian/Saint/Martyr - BobbyLayne

He judged humanitarians way too highly and the saints/martyrs way too low. And, no, Mother Theresa doesn't count as a saint/martyr, she's a humanitarian. So 4 out of the top 5 (11 out of the top 12) were humanitarians while # 12, 15, 17, and 19 were all saints/martyrs.

Too High: Mother Theresa - she has a big name... Probably would have been better off as a celebrity and should not have been ranked so high. She did not affect the world nearly as much as pretty much every other person on this list.

Too Low: St. Francis of Assisi & Saint Peter, both of these picks should have been higher in order to show a balance between the three parts of this category. Instead the humanitarians got massively overrated and the saints/martyrs got underrated.

10 of the 20 people in this category were religious figures or individuals for whom their belief in Christ was central to their life's work. On that basis, I think the distribution was pretty even-handed.#1 - The top ranking went to Albert Schweitzer, who spent six years studying music, philosophy and theology before he opted for medical school. He was a pastor before he was a physician, and his decision to become a doctor was within the context of becoming a medical missionary. Although most often revered as an exemplorary humanitarian Schweitzer was a significant theologian in his time. Many of his studies focused on the life of Jesus and contemporary interpretations of the bible. In 1906 he published The Quest of the Historical Jesus and followed it with The Psychiatric Study of Jesus in 1911 as part of his medical dissertation. His studies of the new and old testament greatly influenced other biblical scholars. Let's put it this way: he is ten times greater the apologetics scholar C.S. Lewis is held up to be; the latter never advanced beyond his undergraduate studies at Oxford (Greek and Latin Literature, Philosophy and Ancient History, and English - no theological or graduate studies).

#4 - Joan of Arc, Saint

#5 - Mother Teresa, named Blessed of Calcutta, on the path to Sainthood, Roman Catholic nun

#6 - Bishop Desmond Tutu, clergy

#7 - William Wilberforce, evangelical Christian, as with Schweitzer, long held up as a great Christian hero in the U.K.

#8 - MLK, clergy

#13 & #15 - Saint Peter and Saint Francis - on what basis should they be held higher? This categoy is not the pseudo-religious figure category to stick Saints you don't think will get a fair shake going up against Mohammed and Paul of Tarsus. Based on his leadership in the early church and his two epistles, this seemed like an apporpriate ranking to me for the apostle. As for Francis, what should I have given more weight to...his stigmata...or the baptism of the wolf?

#17 & #19 - Saint Nicholas and John the Baptist

Six of the top 8 in the category were individuals who lived Christ-centered lives while making significant contributions to mankind.

Anyway, I researched everybody in the category, and dedicated a lot of time and effort to both the rankings and the writeups. I'm proud of the job I did regardless of what you or anyone else thinks.

first of all, i'm sorry if you are offended... i was worried about this (and its part of why it took so long), because someone real and someone who was here had to be ranked low and then I had to justify the low ranking...Please don't take it personal, it wasn't meant personally...

as far as your rankings:

Albert Schwietzer is not religious and he is definitely not a saint or a martyr... just because he studied theology doesn't qualify him for sainthood or martyrdom...

Joan of Arc is, and I give you credit for having one saint/martyr high...

Mother Theresa is neither saint nor martyr and is known most for her humanitarian work, not her religious beliefs...

Desmond Tutu is not known for his religious work and, again, is neither saint nor martyr... He is in the category for his humanitarian work...

William Wilberforce might have been religious, but he is known for humanitarian work in abolishing the slave trade...

MLK is not known for religion, he is known for fighting for civil rights...

That means there are 5 people in the category who are saints/martyrs:

1. Joan of Arc

2. St. Peter

3. St. Francis of Assisi

4. St. Nicolas (Santa Claus)

5. John the Baptist

they are ranked 4, 13, 15, 17, & 19... While the humanitarians are 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20...

That makes no sense considering the category... There should have been, on average, on saint/martyr in every 4 spots, not 1 in the top 12 and 4 in the bottom 8...

It's only a matter of time and then Mother Theresa will be a saint so that's 2 in the top 5. It's not like this is supposed to be an even scale either. Just because this category encompasses 3 sub categories doesn't mean they have to be evenly spaced or achieve some equal opportunity in the rankings. Perhaps you should direct your "outrage" at the drafters who took humanitarians at a 3:1 ratio to saints/martyrs.

 

[larry_boy_44]

17. Humanitarian/Saint/Martyr - BobbyLayne

He judged humanitarians way too highly and the saints/martyrs way too low. And, no, Mother Theresa doesn't count as a saint/martyr, she's a humanitarian. So 4 out of the top 5 (11 out of the top 12) were humanitarians while # 12, 15, 17, and 19 were all saints/martyrs.

Too High: Mother Theresa - she has a big name... Probably would have been better off as a celebrity and should not have been ranked so high. She did not affect the world nearly as much as pretty much every other person on this list.

Too Low: St. Francis of Assisi & Saint Peter, both of these picks should have been higher in order to show a balance between the three parts of this category. Instead the humanitarians got massively overrated and the saints/martyrs got underrated.

10 of the 20 people in this category were religious figures or individuals for whom their belief in Christ was central to their life's work. On that basis, I think the distribution was pretty even-handed.#1 - The top ranking went to Albert Schweitzer, who spent six years studying music, philosophy and theology before he opted for medical school. He was a pastor before he was a physician, and his decision to become a doctor was within the context of becoming a medical missionary. Although most often revered as an exemplorary humanitarian Schweitzer was a significant theologian in his time. Many of his studies focused on the life of Jesus and contemporary interpretations of the bible. In 1906 he published The Quest of the Historical Jesus and followed it with The Psychiatric Study of Jesus in 1911 as part of his medical dissertation. His studies of the new and old testament greatly influenced other biblical scholars. Let's put it this way: he is ten times greater the apologetics scholar C.S. Lewis is held up to be; the latter never advanced beyond his undergraduate studies at Oxford (Greek and Latin Literature, Philosophy and Ancient History, and English - no theological or graduate studies).

#4 - Joan of Arc, Saint

#5 - Mother Teresa, named Blessed of Calcutta, on the path to Sainthood, Roman Catholic nun

#6 - Bishop Desmond Tutu, clergy

#7 - William Wilberforce, evangelical Christian, as with Schweitzer, long held up as a great Christian hero in the U.K.

#8 - MLK, clergy

#13 & #15 - Saint Peter and Saint Francis - on what basis should they be held higher? This categoy is not the pseudo-religious figure category to stick Saints you don't think will get a fair shake going up against Mohammed and Paul of Tarsus. Based on his leadership in the early church and his two epistles, this seemed like an apporpriate ranking to me for the apostle. As for Francis, what should I have given more weight to...his stigmata...or the baptism of the wolf?

#17 & #19 - Saint Nicholas and John the Baptist

Six of the top 8 in the category were individuals who lived Christ-centered lives while making significant contributions to mankind.

Anyway, I researched everybody in the category, and dedicated a lot of time and effort to both the rankings and the writeups. I'm proud of the job I did regardless of what you or anyone else thinks.

first of all, i'm sorry if you are offended... i was worried about this (and its part of why it took so long), because someone real and someone who was here had to be ranked low and then I had to justify the low ranking...Please don't take it personal, it wasn't meant personally...

as far as your rankings:

Albert Schwietzer is not religious and he is definitely not a saint or a martyr... just because he studied theology doesn't qualify him for sainthood or martyrdom...

Joan of Arc is, and I give you credit for having one saint/martyr high...

Mother Theresa is neither saint nor martyr and is known most for her humanitarian work, not her religious beliefs...

Desmond Tutu is not known for his religious work and, again, is neither saint nor martyr... He is in the category for his humanitarian work...

William Wilberforce might have been religious, but he is known for humanitarian work in abolishing the slave trade...

MLK is not known for religion, he is known for fighting for civil rights...

That means there are 5 people in the category who are saints/martyrs:

1. Joan of Arc

2. St. Peter

3. St. Francis of Assisi

4. St. Nicolas (Santa Claus)

5. John the Baptist

they are ranked 4, 13, 15, 17, & 19... While the humanitarians are 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20...

That makes no sense considering the category... There should have been, on average, on saint/martyr in every 4 spots, not 1 in the top 12 and 4 in the bottom 8...

It's only a matter of time and then Mother Theresa will be a saint so that's 2 in the top 5. It's not like this is supposed to be an even scale either. Just because this category encompasses 3 sub categories doesn't mean they have to be evenly spaced or achieve some equal opportunity in the rankings. Perhaps you should direct your "outrage" at the drafters who took humanitarians at a 3:1 ratio to saints/martyrs.

I believe I stated that the drafters were wrong to do that, too...but the judge should not encourage that by ranking the humanitarians (and those known for humanitarian works) higher than the religious figures...

and, sorry, Mother Theresa is NOT a religious figure, she's a humanitarian figure... even if she becomes a saint, it'll only be because the church ignores the supernatural requirements that used to be involved in becoming a saint... what you are doing is like saying MLK or Desmond Tutu are religious figures, they aren't... they're humanitarian figures who were religious men...

 

[Mario Kart]

Never thought I would see larry arguing against "religious figures".

 

[larry_boy_44]

Never thought I would see larry arguing against "religious figures".

lol, they aren't really religious figures, they religious people who did great non-religious things and are known for those things...we don't know MLK 'cuz he was a great clergyman... We know him as a great humanitarian who was also a minister...

 

[Mario Kart]

Never thought I would see larry arguing against "religious figures".

lol, they aren't really religious figures, they religious people who did great non-religious things and are known for those things...we don't know MLK 'cuz he was a great clergyman... We know him as a great humanitarian who was also a minister...

Wrong. You might know him because of his humanitarian work but he was a great clergyman before that. He was able to make a people fight for something... that is not humanitarian work.What is a clergyman to you, larry? Why aren't MLK, Tutu, Teresa religious figures in your mind? Seriously, I have never heard anyone argue they were not.

 

[mad sweeney]

17. Humanitarian/Saint/Martyr - BobbyLayne

He judged humanitarians way too highly and the saints/martyrs way too low. And, no, Mother Theresa doesn't count as a saint/martyr, she's a humanitarian. So 4 out of the top 5 (11 out of the top 12) were humanitarians while # 12, 15, 17, and 19 were all saints/martyrs.

Too High: Mother Theresa - she has a big name... Probably would have been better off as a celebrity and should not have been ranked so high. She did not affect the world nearly as much as pretty much every other person on this list.

Too Low: St. Francis of Assisi & Saint Peter, both of these picks should have been higher in order to show a balance between the three parts of this category. Instead the humanitarians got massively overrated and the saints/martyrs got underrated.

10 of the 20 people in this category were religious figures or individuals for whom their belief in Christ was central to their life's work. On that basis, I think the distribution was pretty even-handed.#1 - The top ranking went to Albert Schweitzer, who spent six years studying music, philosophy and theology before he opted for medical school. He was a pastor before he was a physician, and his decision to become a doctor was within the context of becoming a medical missionary. Although most often revered as an exemplorary humanitarian Schweitzer was a significant theologian in his time. Many of his studies focused on the life of Jesus and contemporary interpretations of the bible. In 1906 he published The Quest of the Historical Jesus and followed it with The Psychiatric Study of Jesus in 1911 as part of his medical dissertation. His studies of the new and old testament greatly influenced other biblical scholars. Let's put it this way: he is ten times greater the apologetics scholar C.S. Lewis is held up to be; the latter never advanced beyond his undergraduate studies at Oxford (Greek and Latin Literature, Philosophy and Ancient History, and English - no theological or graduate studies).

#4 - Joan of Arc, Saint

#5 - Mother Teresa, named Blessed of Calcutta, on the path to Sainthood, Roman Catholic nun

#6 - Bishop Desmond Tutu, clergy

#7 - William Wilberforce, evangelical Christian, as with Schweitzer, long held up as a great Christian hero in the U.K.

#8 - MLK, clergy

#13 & #15 - Saint Peter and Saint Francis - on what basis should they be held higher? This categoy is not the pseudo-religious figure category to stick Saints you don't think will get a fair shake going up against Mohammed and Paul of Tarsus. Based on his leadership in the early church and his two epistles, this seemed like an apporpriate ranking to me for the apostle. As for Francis, what should I have given more weight to...his stigmata...or the baptism of the wolf?

#17 & #19 - Saint Nicholas and John the Baptist

Six of the top 8 in the category were individuals who lived Christ-centered lives while making significant contributions to mankind.

Anyway, I researched everybody in the category, and dedicated a lot of time and effort to both the rankings and the writeups. I'm proud of the job I did regardless of what you or anyone else thinks.

first of all, i'm sorry if you are offended... i was worried about this (and its part of why it took so long), because someone real and someone who was here had to be ranked low and then I had to justify the low ranking...Please don't take it personal, it wasn't meant personally...

as far as your rankings:

Albert Schwietzer is not religious and he is definitely not a saint or a martyr... just because he studied theology doesn't qualify him for sainthood or martyrdom...

Joan of Arc is, and I give you credit for having one saint/martyr high...

Mother Theresa is neither saint nor martyr and is known most for her humanitarian work, not her religious beliefs...

Desmond Tutu is not known for his religious work and, again, is neither saint nor martyr... He is in the category for his humanitarian work...

William Wilberforce might have been religious, but he is known for humanitarian work in abolishing the slave trade...

MLK is not known for religion, he is known for fighting for civil rights...

That means there are 5 people in the category who are saints/martyrs:

1. Joan of Arc

2. St. Peter

3. St. Francis of Assisi

4. St. Nicolas (Santa Claus)

5. John the Baptist

they are ranked 4, 13, 15, 17, & 19... While the humanitarians are 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20...

That makes no sense considering the category... There should have been, on average, on saint/martyr in every 4 spots, not 1 in the top 12 and 4 in the bottom 8...

It's only a matter of time and then Mother Theresa will be a saint so that's 2 in the top 5. It's not like this is supposed to be an even scale either. Just because this category encompasses 3 sub categories doesn't mean they have to be evenly spaced or achieve some equal opportunity in the rankings. Perhaps you should direct your "outrage" at the drafters who took humanitarians at a 3:1 ratio to saints/martyrs.

I believe I stated that the drafters were wrong to do that, too...but the judge should not encourage that by ranking the humanitarians (and those known for humanitarian works) higher than the religious figures...

and, sorry, Mother Theresa is NOT a religious figure, she's a humanitarian figure... even if she becomes a saint, it'll only be because the church ignores the supernatural requirements that used to be involved in becoming a saint... what you are doing is like saying MLK or Desmond Tutu are religious figures, they aren't... they're humanitarian figures who were religious men...

Good thing the category isn't religious figures then (see below). MT will be a saint despite the lack of miracles, the Church will make up something to let her in. Although I have it on good authority that some of the miracles of the non Italian saints was card tricks. You're also very interested in what the category was supposed to mean and Tim clearly stated that his intent with the word 'saint' wasn't to include actual religious saints as a subcategory but the less literal meaning of the word 'saint'. A term often used to describe, oh say, humanitarians and other do-gooders.

The judge should most definitely not be encouraged to rank people other than how (s)he feels they should be ranked just to fit some equation. Just because you feel there should be some ratio or equal dispersement of saints into the rankings doesn't mean they actually should. BL asked how you would rank Francis higher, under what pretense should he go higher? Should he get a bump over someone else so it goes in order? Not a chance.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Never thought I would see larry arguing against "religious figures".

lol, they aren't really religious figures, they religious people who did great non-religious things and are known for those things...we don't know MLK 'cuz he was a great clergyman... We know him as a great humanitarian who was also a minister...

Wrong. You might know him because of his humanitarian work but he was a great clergyman before that. He was able to make a people fight for something... that is not humanitarian work.What is a clergyman to you, larry? Why aren't MLK, Tutu, Teresa religious figures in your mind? Seriously, I have never heard anyone argue they were not.

they were religious, but they aren't known for religion... They aren't known for spreading the word of God, they are known for fighting human injustice, that is still a godly thing but it is not religious...What MLK and Tutu especially did wasn't drawing people to God, it wasn't fighting for their rights here on earth where are...

look at what Jesus said. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's... Basically he told his disciples not to get involved in politics, not to worry about it and let God handle it...

that isn't saying that they did bad things, we are also to take care of the sick and the dying and the poor... BUT a saint is something different. Being a saint doesn't just mean you are a good person, it also means God has worked SUPERNATURALLY through your life. Being a martyr means you literally died for God, not just for a good cause (although, really, that's more considering only religious martyrs, not just "martyrs"...)

if MLK wasn't a Civil Rights leader, we wouldn't talk about him today. If Desmond Tutu didn't fight against Apartheid and win the Nobel Peace Prize, we wouldn't be talking about him... if William Wilberforce didn't fight against slavery we wouldn't be talking about him...

but we talk about John the Baptist's effect on Christianity... We talk about Peter's effect on Christianity... We talk about St. Francis' effect on Christianity...

Sure, St. Nicolas is an exception, but he was still sainted (and still has supernatural things attributed to him)... I'm not sure that Theresa will ever get sainted because, as far as I know, no supernatural acts have been attributed to her and at least 2 proven cases of the supernatural (healings, etc.) must be documented by the church in order for someone to be sainted...

 

[larry_boy_44]

10 of the 20 people in this category were religious figures or individuals for whom their belief in Christ was central to their life's work. On that basis, I think the distribution was pretty even-handed.

#1 - The top ranking went to Albert Schweitzer, who spent six years studying music, philosophy and theology before he opted for medical school. He was a pastor before he was a physician, and his decision to become a doctor was within the context of becoming a medical missionary. Although most often revered as an exemplorary humanitarian Schweitzer was a significant theologian in his time. Many of his studies focused on the life of Jesus and contemporary interpretations of the bible. In 1906 he published The Quest of the Historical Jesus and followed it with The Psychiatric Study of Jesus in 1911 as part of his medical dissertation. His studies of the new and old testament greatly influenced other biblical scholars. Let's put it this way: he is ten times greater the apologetics scholar C.S. Lewis is held up to be; the latter never advanced beyond his undergraduate studies at Oxford (Greek and Latin Literature, Philosophy and Ancient History, and English - no theological or graduate studies).

#4 - Joan of Arc, Saint

#5 - Mother Teresa, named Blessed of Calcutta, on the path to Sainthood, Roman Catholic nun

#6 - Bishop Desmond Tutu, clergy

#7 - William Wilberforce, evangelical Christian, as with Schweitzer, long held up as a great Christian hero in the U.K.

#8 - MLK, clergy

#13 & #15 - Saint Peter and Saint Francis - on what basis should they be held higher? This categoy is not the pseudo-religious figure category to stick Saints you don't think will get a fair shake going up against Mohammed and Paul of Tarsus. Based on his leadership in the early church and his two epistles, this seemed like an apporpriate ranking to me for the apostle. As for Francis, what should I have given more weight to...his stigmata...or the baptism of the wolf?

#17 & #19 - Saint Nicholas and John the Baptist

Six of the top 8 in the category were individuals who lived Christ-centered lives while making significant contributions to mankind.

Anyway, I researched everybody in the category, and dedicated a lot of time and effort to both the rankings and the writeups. I'm proud of the job I did regardless of what you or anyone else thinks.

first of all, i'm sorry if you are offended... i was worried about this (and its part of why it took so long), because someone real and someone who was here had to be ranked low and then I had to justify the low ranking...Please don't take it personal, it wasn't meant personally...

as far as your rankings:

Albert Schwietzer is not religious and he is definitely not a saint or a martyr... just because he studied theology doesn't qualify him for sainthood or martyrdom...

Joan of Arc is, and I give you credit for having one saint/martyr high...

Mother Theresa is neither saint nor martyr and is known most for her humanitarian work, not her religious beliefs...

Desmond Tutu is not known for his religious work and, again, is neither saint nor martyr... He is in the category for his humanitarian work...

William Wilberforce might have been religious, but he is known for humanitarian work in abolishing the slave trade...

MLK is not known for religion, he is known for fighting for civil rights...

That means there are 5 people in the category who are saints/martyrs:

1. Joan of Arc

2. St. Peter

3. St. Francis of Assisi

4. St. Nicolas (Santa Claus)

5. John the Baptist

they are ranked 4, 13, 15, 17, & 19... While the humanitarians are 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20...

That makes no sense considering the category... There should have been, on average, on saint/martyr in every 4 spots, not 1 in the top 12 and 4 in the bottom 8...

It's only a matter of time and then Mother Theresa will be a saint so that's 2 in the top 5. It's not like this is supposed to be an even scale either. Just because this category encompasses 3 sub categories doesn't mean they have to be evenly spaced or achieve some equal opportunity in the rankings. Perhaps you should direct your "outrage" at the drafters who took humanitarians at a 3:1 ratio to saints/martyrs.

I believe I stated that the drafters were wrong to do that, too...but the judge should not encourage that by ranking the humanitarians (and those known for humanitarian works) higher than the religious figures...

and, sorry, Mother Theresa is NOT a religious figure, she's a humanitarian figure... even if she becomes a saint, it'll only be because the church ignores the supernatural requirements that used to be involved in becoming a saint... what you are doing is like saying MLK or Desmond Tutu are religious figures, they aren't... they're humanitarian figures who were religious men...

Good thing the category isn't religious figures then (see below). MT will be a saint despite the lack of miracles, the Church will make up something to let her in. Although I have it on good authority that some of the miracles of the non Italian saints was card tricks. You're also very interested in what the category was supposed to mean and Tim clearly stated that his intent with the word 'saint' wasn't to include actual religious saints as a subcategory but the less literal meaning of the word 'saint'. A term often used to describe, oh say, humanitarians and other do-gooders.

The judge should most definitely not be encouraged to rank people other than how (s)he feels they should be ranked just to fit some equation. Just because you feel there should be some ratio or equal dispersement of saints into the rankings doesn't mean they actually should. BL asked how you would rank Francis higher, under what pretense should he go higher? Should he get a bump over someone else so it goes in order? Not a chance.

I wasn't meaning to say that there should directly be a ratio...But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be a minor consideration, and having 4 of the 5 figures known purely for religious reasons in a pseudo-religious category being in the bottom 8 is proper, IMO...

 

[Mario Kart]

but we talk about John the Baptist's effect on Christianity... We talk about Peter's effect on Christianity... We talk about St. Francis' effect on Christianity...

This is where you lose the debate. I have never had a conversation about John the Baptist and his effect on Christianity. I have never talked about Peter's effect on Christianity and I never had a conversation about St. Francis' effect on Christianity. I have had conversations about Martin Luther King, Jr. about the civil rights and him as a preacher. I have had small bits here and there about Desmond Tutu. I certainly know what UNICEF and The Red Cross are and what they do. On a world scale, UNICEF and The Red Cross have had a grand effect that has spanned, probably, each continent and has not, probably, discriminated against any race, religion or creed. I could not tell you how John, Peter, or Francis have helped the world out one iota.

 

[larry_boy_44]

but we talk about John the Baptist's effect on Christianity... We talk about Peter's effect on Christianity... We talk about St. Francis' effect on Christianity...

This is where you lose the debate. I have never had a conversation about John the Baptist and his effect on Christianity. I have never talked about Peter's effect on Christianity and I never had a conversation about St. Francis' effect on Christianity. I have had conversations about Martin Luther King, Jr. about the civil rights and him as a preacher. I have had small bits here and there about Desmond Tutu. I certainly know what UNICEF and The Red Cross are and what they do. On a world scale, UNICEF and The Red Cross have had a grand effect that has spanned, probably, each continent and has not, probably, discriminated against any race, religion or creed. I could not tell you how John, Peter, or Francis have helped the world out one iota.

Francis founded the Franciscan order... most "monks" are Franciscans and they run tons of hospitals and orphanages and other things that help people... they just aren't hear about very much because its lowkey since everyone involved takes vows of poverty and such...Peter preached the first Christian sermon... If you don't know about Peter's effect on Christianity (and thus the world) then either you aren't a Christian or you don't know much about the history of your religion...and John the Baptist was the forerunner to Christ and was martyred for it... In fact, i believe John the Baptist and Peter were the ONLY martyrs on the list (maybe Joan of Arc, but I'm not sure if she's considered a martyr or not)

 

[Mario Kart]

Francis founded the Franciscan order... most "monks" are Franciscans and they run tons of hospitals and orphanages and other things that help people... they just aren't hear about very much because its lowkey since everyone involved takes vows of poverty and such...Peter preached the first Christian sermon... If you don't know about Peter's effect on Christianity (and thus the world) then either you aren't a Christian or you don't know much about the history of your religion...and John the Baptist was the forerunner to Christ and was martyred for it... In fact, i believe John the Baptist and Peter were the ONLY martyrs on the list (maybe Joan of Arc, but I'm not sure if she's considered a martyr or not)

Okay, that is all good and all, but did these people effect the world on a grand scale? It would appear, by your brief description, that the people and their continued efforts from others, have effected certain sects of people. That is to say, their efforts are directed towards one way. And, I was born Catholic and went to Catholic school for two years so I was taught the basics. First communion as well. Sorry, I don't know more about it, oops.Peter and the first sermon. Great, what worldy effect does that have? He gets credit for it, fine, but what did it do?John, great, he followed and helped Jesus. How did this effect ancient, future Japan, China, Australia and so forth? Francis, hosptials and orphanages, might have more claim here.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Francis founded the Franciscan order... most "monks" are Franciscans and they run tons of hospitals and orphanages and other things that help people... they just aren't hear about very much because its lowkey since everyone involved takes vows of poverty and such...Peter preached the first Christian sermon... If you don't know about Peter's effect on Christianity (and thus the world) then either you aren't a Christian or you don't know much about the history of your religion...and John the Baptist was the forerunner to Christ and was martyred for it... In fact, i believe John the Baptist and Peter were the ONLY martyrs on the list (maybe Joan of Arc, but I'm not sure if she's considered a martyr or not)

Okay, that is all good and all, but did these people effect the world on a grand scale? It would appear, by your brief description, that the people and their continued efforts from others, have effected certain sects of people. That is to say, their efforts are directed towards one way.Peter and the first sermon. Great, what worldy effect does that have? He gets credit for it, fine, but what did it do?John, great, he followed and helped Jesus. How did this effect ancient, future Japan, China, Australia and so forth? Francis, hosptials and orphanages, might have more claim here.

Franciscans do more than just hospitals and orphanages, but don't you see what you are doing?You are asking what HUMANITARIAN effects religious figures (Saints/Martyrs) had on the world... that's overvaluing one part of the category over the other two parts... They should have at least been somewhat equal, and they were not, it was like 90% humanitarian and 5% martyr 5% saint, and it should have at least been like 40/30/30...

 

[Mario Kart]

You are asking what HUMANITARIAN effects religious figures (Saints/Martyrs) had on the world... that's overvaluing one part of the category over the other two parts... They should have at least been somewhat equal, and they were not, it was like 90% humanitarian and 5% martyr 5% saint, and it should have at least been like 40/30/30...

I think that is the question you have not answered yet, larry. What separates the Martyrs/Saints from the pure Humanitarian's? If the category is supposed to be representative of people who advanced, say, unselfishness unto the world, how or what does a Martyr/Saint have to do to bring out the unselfishness? Advancing ones religious views unto a people does not do the world justice insofar as organizing an effort to advance people separate of those religious views. What John and Peter did was advance, essentially, their way and brought forth a larger scope to their beliefs... which can be viewed as somewhat discriminatory because the focus was narrow. What people and followers did for Francis, Teresa, King is looked to advance a people (Humans) with disregard to their religion.In short, even though Teresa, Francis, King were religious, they moved humans forward because the greater scope of humanity was larger than the scope of the religion. It appears, John and Peter moved the religion more than the greater scope of humanity. If I have that incorrect in any way, clear it up. But, if my statements are in the right direction, at least, then on a worldly scale, the three "humanitarian's" had a greater effect on the world.

 

[larry_boy_44]

You are asking what HUMANITARIAN effects religious figures (Saints/Martyrs) had on the world... that's overvaluing one part of the category over the other two parts... They should have at least been somewhat equal, and they were not, it was like 90% humanitarian and 5% martyr 5% saint, and it should have at least been like 40/30/30...

I think that is the question you have not answered yet, larry. What separates the Martyrs/Saints from the pure Humanitarian's? If the category is supposed to be representative of people who advanced, say, unselfishness unto the world, how or what does a Martyr/Saint have to do to bring out the unselfishness? Advancing ones religious views unto a people does not do the world justice insofar as organizing an effort to advance people separate of those religious views. What John and Peter did was advance, essentially, their way and brought forth a larger scope to their beliefs... which can be viewed as somewhat discriminatory because the focus was narrow. What people and followers did for Francis, Teresa, King is looked to advance a people (Humans) with disregard to their religion.In short, even though Teresa, Francis, King were religious, they moved humans forward because the greater scope of humanity was larger than the scope of the religion. It appears, John and Peter moved the religion more than the greater scope of humanity. If I have that incorrect in any way, clear it up. But, if my statements are in the right direction, at least, then on a worldly scale, the three "humanitarian's" had a greater effect on the world.

you are speaking of a "humanitarian" category, not a "humanitarian/saint/martyr" category...What you are describing isn't what we had, and that's the problem (and why i rated BobbyLayne so "low" as a judge, because he didn't evenly view the three aspects (humanitarianism, sainthood, and martyrdom) on an even remotely even level)...being a "saint" is a religious thing, and being a martyr is about the cause you die for, in John and Peter's case it was purely religious, so you have to look at it in terms of their religious effect/meaning... so how far they moved the scope of humanity is irrelevant, just like how much Jesus moved Buddhists and Hindus or how much Muhammad moves Christians or Taoists isn't really relevant...my entire point is that a large number of drafters (not all as some humanitarians should be picked) and the judge of the category MASSIVELY undervalued 2/3 of the what this category was stated to be about (and Tim might have meant "saint" as a good person, but when you say "saint" in the scope of history, you mean a Catholic/Christian (depending on time period) Saint and I don't see how any other understanding makes logical sense)...

 

[Mario Kart]

you are speaking of a "humanitarian" category, not a "humanitarian/saint/martyr" category...What you are describing isn't what we had, and that's the problem (and why i rated BobbyLayne so "low" as a judge, because he didn't evenly view the three aspects (humanitarianism, sainthood, and martyrdom) on an even remotely even level)...being a "saint" is a religious thing, and being a martyr is about the cause you die for, in John and Peter's case it was purely religious, so you have to look at it in terms of their religious effect/meaning... so how far they moved the scope of humanity is irrelevant, just like how much Jesus moved Buddhists and Hindus or how much Muhammad moves Christians or Taoists isn't really relevant...

6. Humanitarian/Saint/Martyr These people devoted their lives (in some cases sacrificed them) for the betterment of human life.

Wouldn't the above state the category to be about work that we have labeled "humanitarian" as opposed to someone dying for their beliefs if it meant nothing, to say, someone in a different religion?MLK devoted his life to Christ but also tried to better a large group of people. Teresa devoted her life to Christ but tried to better the lives of many people irregardless of religion (I know there is controversy about her but...). It appears Francis tried to better the lives of others as well. Is that not what the category is about?

 

[Ozymandias]

Post 50

You might want to check that again Tim. You guys seem to ignore that there were only two military theorists worth drafting and Sun Tzu influences much more than just warfare - half the business advice books out there are thinly vailed retellings of The Art of War. It of course couldnt be the SOD, but Sun Tzu has been highly influential in several aspects of human endevour and there is no indication that will subside anytime soon.

Thank you dparker713.Tzu's book goes beyond military application. Alexander's impact was great, I never denied that. Before the 1800's there was a lot of the world that most likely studied Sun Tzu... as well as Alexander. Sun Tzu's impact militarily and with other applications is not going to die off anytime soon. That should also be taken into consideration.

As far as a definite #1. Jesus was not even a #1 in his category so your issue is with the judges and not with me. I guess with 1.01, I should have drafted Shakesphere.

Yes, you would have been smart to do so. There were those who had a very good chance of being #1 in their category; choosing Sun Tzu was bound to be controversial, and would depend on having a judge who viewed him the same way you did. But the comments immediately after the pick indicated that your's was very much a minority view. But having drafted Sun Tzu #1, you would have been smart to read the tea leaves and moved him to the wild card territory. However, you didn't, even though it became apparent that he wouldn't rank that high in the military. In WC, your contention that his work is used in the business world would have had more merit. But as I said before, you chose the best Tight End in the draft. I'll give you high marks for courage, firmness, obstinacy or pigheadedness (choose your qualifier ). Low marks for flexibility and adaptability.

Maybe you should have read a little more Sun Tzu: "He taught that strategy was not planning in the sense of working through a to-do list, but rather that it requires quick and appropriate responses to changing conditions."

Perhaps you should have asked yourself" "What would Sun Tzu have done?"

 

[dparker713]

Post 50

You might want to check that again Tim. You guys seem to ignore that there were only two military theorists worth drafting and Sun Tzu influences much more than just warfare - half the business advice books out there are thinly vailed retellings of The Art of War. It of course couldnt be the SOD, but Sun Tzu has been highly influential in several aspects of human endevour and there is no indication that will subside anytime soon.

Thank you dparker713.Tzu's book goes beyond military application. Alexander's impact was great, I never denied that. Before the 1800's there was a lot of the world that most likely studied Sun Tzu... as well as Alexander. Sun Tzu's impact militarily and with other applications is not going to die off anytime soon. That should also be taken into consideration.

As far as a definite #1. Jesus was not even a #1 in his category so your issue is with the judges and not with me. I guess with 1.01, I should have drafted Shakesphere.

Yes, you would have been smart to do so. There were those who had a very good chance of being #1 in their category; choosing Sun Tzu was bound to be controversial, and would depend on having a judge who viewed him the same way you did. But the comments immediately after the pick indicated that your's was very much a minority view. But having drafted Sun Tzu #1, you would have been smart to read the tea leaves and moved him to the wild card territory. However, you didn't, even though it became apparent that he wouldn't rank that high in the military. In WC, your contention that his work is used in the business world would have had more merit. But as I said before, you chose the best Tight End in the draft. I'll give you high marks for courage, firmness, obstinacy or pigheadedness (choose your qualifier ). Low marks for flexibility and adaptability.

Maybe you should have read a little more Sun Tzu: "He taught that strategy was not planning in the sense of working through a to-do list, but rather that it requires quick and appropriate responses to changing conditions."

Perhaps you should have asked yourself" "What would Sun Tzu have done?"

I think Sun Tzu will do fairly well in the voting. If he was going to move him to improve his ranking I think intellectual would have been a better spot than WC, seeing the way Tim railed against the pick.And there is nothing saying that a judge can or can not consider the effects of people outside of the category in which they were selected, its just how some choose to judge.

 

[Ozymandias]

Post 50

You might want to check that again Tim. You guys seem to ignore that there were only two military theorists worth drafting and Sun Tzu influences much more than just warfare - half the business advice books out there are thinly vailed retellings of The Art of War. It of course couldnt be the SOD, but Sun Tzu has been highly influential in several aspects of human endevour and there is no indication that will subside anytime soon.

Thank you dparker713.Tzu's book goes beyond military application. Alexander's impact was great, I never denied that. Before the 1800's there was a lot of the world that most likely studied Sun Tzu... as well as Alexander. Sun Tzu's impact militarily and with other applications is not going to die off anytime soon. That should also be taken into consideration.

As far as a definite #1. Jesus was not even a #1 in his category so your issue is with the judges and not with me. I guess with 1.01, I should have drafted Shakesphere.

Yes, you would have been smart to do so. There were those who had a very good chance of being #1 in their category; choosing Sun Tzu was bound to be controversial, and would depend on having a judge who viewed him the same way you did. But the comments immediately after the pick indicated that your's was very much a minority view. But having drafted Sun Tzu #1, you would have been smart to read the tea leaves and moved him to the wild card territory. However, you didn't, even though it became apparent that he wouldn't rank that high in the military. In WC, your contention that his work is used in the business world would have had more merit. But as I said before, you chose the best Tight End in the draft. I'll give you high marks for courage, firmness, obstinacy or pigheadedness (choose your qualifier ). Low marks for flexibility and adaptability.

Maybe you should have read a little more Sun Tzu: "He taught that strategy was not planning in the sense of working through a to-do list, but rather that it requires quick and appropriate responses to changing conditions."

Perhaps you should have asked yourself" "What would Sun Tzu have done?"

I think Sun Tzu will do fairly well in the voting. If he was going to move him to improve his ranking I think intellectual would have been a better spot than WC, seeing the way Tim railed against the pick.And there is nothing saying that a judge can or can not consider the effects of people outside of the category in which they were selected, its just how some choose to judge.

True. But I outlined fairly carefully what I would be looking for, before the first pick. If you choose to ignore the judges' parameters, you do so at your own risk.

 

[Mario Kart]

Yes, you would have been smart to do so. There were those who had a very good chance of being #1 in their category; choosing Sun Tzu was bound to be controversial, and would depend on having a judge who viewed him the same way you did. But the comments immediately after the pick indicated that your's was very much a minority view. But having drafted Sun Tzu #1, you would have been smart to read the tea leaves and moved him to the wild card territory. However, you didn't, even though it became apparent that he wouldn't rank that high in the military. In WC, your contention that his work is used in the business world would have had more merit. But as I said before, you chose the best Tight End in the draft.

I guess if my motive was to try to outright win this thing, I would have gone Jesus with #1 and Moses with #2 (if available) and teamed them up with Mary at #3. But, that was not my motive at all.I came into this to learn, from a global perspective, who would best fit into the categories at hand. As far as Sun Tzu goes, he was placed in the correct category but was judged incorrectly. I have no say in the matter once the judges get a hold of it. I would be willing to bet in academia, given the names in the Military category, Sun Tzu ranks much higher than #16, or whatever number was given to him. Oh well, now the game is in the voters hands and I doubt they care about who was picked where since those stats are not given in the OP of the voting threads.