World's Greatest Draft (1 Viewer)

[Mario Kart]

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.

Did I ignore your "warning"? You bet I did because I see the Military category differently. I was not in this to appease the judging parameters or appease conventional thinking. I was in this to gain knowledge and pick the best team I could. I made a couple of errors in that I could have had other people later. Sun Tzu was not one of those errors on both accounts (best team and could draft later). Like my post above, different judges would rank these differently, so picking Sun Tzu at 1.01 is just fine by me in just about any Military parameters outlined.

 

[Ozymandias]

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.

Did I ignore your "warning"? You bet I did because I see the Military category differently. I was not in this to appease the judging parameters or appease conventional thinking. I was in this to gain knowledge and pick the best team I could. I made a couple of errors in that I could have had other people later. Sun Tzu was not one of those errors on both accounts (best team and could draft later). Like my post above, different judges would rank these differently, so picking Sun Tzu at 1.01 is just fine by me in just about any Military parameters outlined.

Well, Sun Tzu was about winning wars. Apparently, you drafted to "make a statement".He certainly would not have accused you of being flexible and adaptable.

 

[mad sweeney]

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.

Did I ignore your "warning"? You bet I did because I see the Military category differently. I was not in this to appease the judging parameters or appease conventional thinking. I was in this to gain knowledge and pick the best team I could. I made a couple of errors in that I could have had other people later. Sun Tzu was not one of those errors on both accounts (best team and could draft later). Like my post above, different judges would rank these differently, so picking Sun Tzu at 1.01 is just fine by me in just about any Military parameters outlined.

Well, Sun Tzu was about winning wars. Apparently, you drafted to "make a statement".He certainly would not have accused you of being flexible and adaptable.

Boo. That's talking down to him you know. Might as well just say he doesn't rethink things...

 

[mad sweeney]

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)...

And you're still ignoring the fact that Tim's use of the word saint wasn't meant to include religious saints, though several qualify. I take it back, you're not ignoring it, you just decided it didn't mean what he said it meant and imposed your religious view onto it. That way you get to add it to yet another "Larry as Christian Martyr" aspect in the draft.The category was meant for saint to by another word for humanitarian. The judge and drafters are under no compunction to equally mix the 3 elements of the category even if they draft/judge an actual religious saint. Do you REALLY not see how the use of the word saint for a humanitarian makes no logical saint? Really?

 

[Ozymandias]

SHOCKING!!

The two categories where your guys were overrated.

Considering the world, they were ranked appropriately. Considering Amero-centric thinking, they were ranked inappropriately. I believe you have showed your card throughout the thread as to which you think is "better".

You have yet to provide any evidence supporting the ranking of Karelin. None whatsoever. I've read about the sport. It is not close to in the top 20 in world popularity. Not close. Please provide some evidence to back this ranking....As for Litszt, whatever. I don't necessarily believe he was the best performer of ALL TIME, but big deal. I do know for a fact he hasn't been heard by anywhere close to as many people as The Beatles.

Popularity does not make one great. Karelin was at the top of his game, in his sport, at the highest level, against all competitors for 10+ years. Name anyone who holds that resume and I will listen. The guy did not surrender a point in 6+ years of competition... at the highest level, against all competitors. I don't know what more you would like. His records will probably not be broken unless another phenom comes along. Also, his sport was all him... no equipment, no ball, no racket, no QB, no bat... him and him alone (maybe some powder and tape). That type of athlete ranks higher in my book... and world standards, than someone who uses a ball, racket, bat or whatever else. Had decathlete's been taken... they are much better athletes than most that were even drafted if they maintained their prowess for longer than others. Roman Serble could have been ranked #1 but the Thorpe ranking also makes sense.Again, popularity does not make a performer great. Liszt "popularized" performing when it came to music. The Elton John's probably thank Liszt. The Beatles were good performers but what did they do to revolutionize "performing"? Sing a song, play a guitar, what else did they do? I made an inquiry about Marcel Marceau for this category but was denied as it pertained to music only. Otherwise, Marceau would be, or should be, in the top 5 easily.

Just so you know, Edwin Moses won 122 consecutive finals between 1977 and 1987, setting a world record 4 times, and winning 2 Olympic Gold medals. Would have won a third, probably, but for the boycott in 1980. Are you listening now? Perhaps Karelin's accomplishment was not as unique as you think it was. Edwin Moses didn't even come up for discussion.

 

[BobbyLayne]

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)...

And you're still ignoring the fact that Tim's use of the word saint wasn't meant to include religious saints, though several qualify. I take it back, you're not ignoring it, you just decided it didn't mean what he said it meant and imposed your religious view onto it. That way you get to add it to yet another "Larry as Christian Martyr" aspect in the draft.The category was meant for saint to by another word for humanitarian. The judge and drafters are under no compunction to equally mix the 3 elements of the category even if they draft/judge an actual religious saint. Do you REALLY not see how the use of the word saint for a humanitarian makes no logical saint? Really?

timschochet laid out the rules before the draft:Rules:

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

We have no idea what the original Humanitarian/Saint/Martyr judge had in mind as GT Billy never offered his criteria. After half the Villains were selected - 40% of whom were Nazis - he offered we were missing the mark in the other category he was judging, that what he really wanted was sadistic sickos. Of course he quit within minutes of offering his preliminary rankings so it was all moot.

But what were the drafters looking for? The first two picks Mother Teresa and William Wilberforce, folks with a religious background known primarily as humanitarians. The third pick for the category was Joan of Arc, who became a Catholic Saint in 1920, but who is known primarily as a Martyr. Fourth pick, Albert Sweitzer. Fifth pick, MLK.

Just in case there was any confusion over timschochet's usage of the Saint in this category, he had this to say about Yankee23Fan's 7th round pick of St Augustine, and you objected to his characterization:

Yankee I like almost all your picks, except for one misplaced category, and one pick I think you overrate:

The misplaced category is St. Augustine. He is one of the most important religious figures in history, and I know he is a Saint as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, but he hardly defines what I meant by the category term "saint"; I was relating that to humanitarian. I think Augustine is far more suited to the religious figure category.

The overrated pick is Madonna. I really like Madonna, always have, but one of the top 20 musician/performers in history? By record sales, sure. By merit, I just can't go there.

if you didn't mean saint as in "saint", why'd you say it?I guess when I hear the word "saint" in terms of historical people, I think of Catholic Saints... most of my list in that category are saints...

And some of them certainly would be good choices, though not all of them. You know what I mean when someone says, "that person was a saint"; I meant in connection with humanitarians and martyrs, people who have bravely tried to do good things.

That should have settled it; but let's say for the sake of argument, larry_boy_44, that you are a man of priniciples.Let's say that regardless of timschochet's incorrect interpretation of his own rules, regardless of 'the judge not properly weighing the three categories', you're going to stick to what you believe is right. By golly, look who LB took with his next pick.

The Virgin Mary

Holy cow! (not literally, but you know what I mean...)

Stroke of genius, LB, selecting the MOST VENERATED SAINT in the entire Roman Catholic church. Possibly better suited as a religious figure considering Marian theology, but still, this is a courageous pick, putting the Blessed Virgin, the Mother of God, Our Lady, right up against all those Humanitarian giants...

What's that? Oh...Celebrity. You put the #1 Saint (using the definition you provided, "I hear the word "saint" in terms of historical people, I think of Catholic Saints... most of my list in that category are saints") into the fluffiest category we had, the one we could have dropped and been missing none of the World's Greatest.

I get it, though...if you are not a Catholic, then you don't pray to her to intercede, you don't elevate her to the same status. Understood. So let's see...after Mario Kart seals winning the draft with his two turn picks (Ho Chi Minh and Gavrilo Princip), you decide to draft a Humanitarian/Saint/Martyr. Since you are a man of principle, no doubt you will take a Martyr, someone who died for their beliefs. If not, assuredly you will take a Saint. Who, though? Paul is off the board...wait, I know...just look at the Book of Acts. Sure the last 18 chapters focus almost exclusively on Paul and his missionary journey's, but who does the first 40% focus on? Simon Peter, the rock on whom the church was built...true genius at work with this pick, LB. You are making a statement here - taking not only a Saint, but two birds with one stone, a Martyr as well. Even if you do not believe in papal authority, even Protestants acknowledge the Primacy of Simon Peter.

St Francis of Assisi

Wait - wat? You drafted a Humanitarian?

OK, now I am confused. One drafter - Usual21, 19th in the judging, natch - used this category as a "pseudo religious figure" category. You say that drafters massively undervalued two-thirds of the category, yet when you had the opportunity to draft your category pick, you passed on the #1 and #2 Catholic Saints to draft a Saint who...drum roll...is known primarily as a Humanitarian.

You are going to hold the judge to a balancing standard which was not laid out before the draft in the rules, nor was it developed as part of the discussion during the draft.

You are going to take me to task for not valuing Martyrs or Saints as highly in judging, and you have the gall to chide your fellow drafters for undervaluing Saints and Martyrs, but when it came time for your own pick, YOU PICKED A HUMANITARIAN.

Hypocrisy at its finest. Kudos.

 

[BobbyLayne]

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...

I don't mean to imply you are as dumb as a box of rocks, but you might want to look up monk sometime.Franciscans are friars. Friars differ from monks in that they are called to live the evangelical counsels (vows of poverty, chastity and obedience) in service to a community, rather than through cloistered asceticism and devotion. Whereas monks live cloistered away from the world in a self-sufficient community, friars are supported by donations or other charitable support.

most "monks" are Franciscans - OK, laying aside your incorrect usage of the terminology, you might want to look into a few Orders like the Rule of St Benedict or the Rule of St Augustine or Jesuits or Dominicans before you make that statement.

 

[BobbyLayne]

11.02 St. Francis of Assisi, Humanitarian/Saint/Martyr

Francis of Assisi (Giovanni Francesco Bernardone; born 1181/1182 – October 3, 1226) was a friar and the founder of the Order of Friars Minor, more commonly known as the Franciscans.

He is known as the patron saint of animals, the environment and Italy, and it is customary for Catholic churches to hold ceremonies honoring animals around his feast day of 4 October.

redacted for the sake of brevity; why did LB chose Saint Francis?

to sum up:

- He was born to a well-off family and instead of using that money to live a life of riches and excess, he instead lived a life of poverty and preaching the gospel and doing good things.

Rich guy lives a life of poverty doing good works, e.g., Humanitarian

- The founder of the order of Franciscan monks.

Friars, but whatevs.

- Known for his charity and willingness to live a life of poverty in what is now known as the Franciscan way.

In other words, known as a Humanitarian

- Crossed the battle lines of the Crusades and spoke with the Sultan of Egypt.

Saint, Martyr or Humanitarian? As I noted in my rankings, he was ahead of his time in some areas.

- Challenged Muslim scholars in Egypt to a "test of true religion" where Francis would walk into a fire and if he walked out, they would admit that Christ is the true God. The scholars refused but the Sultan was so impressed that he allowed Francis to preach to the people in his country.

This seems quite relevant.

- He is believed to have received the Stigmata late in his life as witnesses saw the five wounds of Christ's death on the cross on his body.

SEE ABOVE.

- Was made a Saint shortly after his death.

This I could give some weight toward.

- He is the patron Saint of the environment and animals, believing that we very much should respect the environment and help maintain it.

Stretching a bit here, but I did give him credit for it.

- Considered to be the first Italian poet by many literary critics.

This makes him interesting, but it isn't relevant to the category.

- His writings (and poetry) not only has immense spiritual value, but much literary value as well.

SEE ABOVE - THIS ISN'T A LIT CAT

- Believed that the people should be able to pray to God in their own language instead of in Latin.

SEE ABOVE - THIS IS NOT A PSEUDO RELIGIOUS FIGURE CAT

- Also has attributed to him my favorite quote ever: "Preach the Gospel at all times and, if necessary, use words."

SEE ABOVE - THIS IS NOT A PSEUDO RELIGIOUS FIGURE CAT.

Awesome guy, very worthy of being here and gets bonus points for his poetry and other writings, his environmentalism, and non-violent response to the Crusades and his journeys past the battle lines of the Crusades. I'd been thinking of him for a while now, and I'm actually kind of angry with myself that I didn't pick him earlier after reading everything he did in his life, because he did so much more than I even thought he did... He deserved to be drafted much much higher than this.

I'm glad you drafted him, he is an interesting character. But it was a serious struggle weeding out all the B.S. in your writeup (stigmata, preaching to birds, baptizing a wolf) to discern what was relevant to the category. Easily the worst writeup I had to deal with in terms of coherent thought and presentation.

 

[thatguy]

Larry, one, you're way off on your ranking of BL. He was a top 3 judge, arguably number 1 (though Krista and him are more like 1a and 1b in my book). Of course, everyone else involved in this draft knows this. You're entitled to your opinion, I suppose, but in this case your opinion is wrong. BL put more time and thought into his rankings than anyone else, I can virtually guarantee you that, and it really is a slight to him to rank him so low based on your own biased opinions.

Second, Albert Schweitzer was VERY religious. Not sure where you get off saying he wasn't religious. His primary claim to fame of course was his missionary work, although he is well known for being an outspoken advocate of helping your fellow man, but realize that he did what he did for religious reasons.

 

[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...

I don't mean to imply you are as dumb as a box of rocks, but you might want to look up monk sometime.Franciscans are friars. Friars differ from monks in that they are called to live the evangelical counsels (vows of poverty, chastity and obedience) in service to a community, rather than through cloistered asceticism and devotion. Whereas monks live cloistered away from the world in a self-sufficient community, friars are supported by donations or other charitable support.

most "monks" are Franciscans - OK, laying aside your incorrect usage of the terminology, you might want to look into a few Orders like the Rule of St Benedict or the Rule of St Augustine or Jesuits or Dominicans before you make that statement.

I knew that didn't sound right, but I was half asleep when I wrote it....Friar's is definitely what I meant... I just couldn't come up with the word at that moment...

 

[larry_boy_44]

Second, Albert Schweitzer was VERY religious. Not sure where you get off saying he wasn't religious. His primary claim to fame of course was his missionary work, although he is well known for being an outspoken advocate of helping your fellow man, but realize that he did what he did for religious reasons.

I'm not saying he wasn't religious, I'm saying that the saint/martyr part of the category doesn't really apply to him even though he was religious... He wasn't a pick made because he was religious, he was a pick made because he was a humanitarian...

 

[BobbyLayne]

Second, Albert Schweitzer was VERY religious. Not sure where you get off saying he wasn't religious. His primary claim to fame of course was his missionary work, although he is well known for being an outspoken advocate of helping your fellow man, but realize that he did what he did for religious reasons.

I'm not saying he wasn't religious, I'm saying that the saint/martyr part of the category doesn't really apply to him even though he was religious... He wasn't a pick made because he was religious, he was a pick made because he was a humanitarian...

Who wasn't picked as a Humanitarian?Humanitarians/Saints/Martyrs Judge- BobbyLayne (timschochet judged Oskar Schindler)

1. Albert Schweitzer - Humanitarian

2. Florence Nightingale - Humanitarian

3. Jonas Salk - Humanitarian

4. Joan of Arc - Saint, but known primarily as a Martyr

5. Mother Teresa - Blessed Sister will become a Saint (3/4ths of the way there), but known primarily as a Humanitarian

6. Desmond Tutu - Humanitarian

7. William Wilburforce - Humanitarian

8. Martin Luther King - Humanitarian

9. Simon Wiesenthal - Humanitarian (not really according to timschochet and Ozy, but I didn't penalize him for it)

10. Oskar Schindler - Humanitarian

11. Henry Dunant - Humanitarian

12. Eleanor Roosevelt - Humanitarian

13. Saint Peter - Martyr, but known primarily as a Saint

14. Helen Keller - Humanitarian

15. Saint Francis of Assisi - Saint, but known primarily as a Humanitarian

16. Andrei Sakharov - Humanitarian/Martyr (not really, but I expanded the definition so as to not penalize him)

17. Saint Nicholas - Saint, but known primarily as a Humanitarian

18. Maurice Pate - Humanitarian

19. John The Baptist - Saint, but known primarily as a Martyr

20. Warren Buffet - Humanitarian

Three - Joan of Arc, Peter, and the Baptist. You say I didn't weigh them enough. Where would you have ranked them? Who do they go in front of in terms of their contribution to mankind throughout human history?

As for your pick, you did pick him as a Humanitarian, correct? Because even though you had several paragraphs about his stigmata, you later admitted you did not, as a non-Catholic, believe in the validity of it, and as Mad Sweeney pointed out, mysticism or miracles cannot be considered for purposes of this draft.

I discounted Francis preaching a sermon to birds. You're OK with that, right? I discounted Francis baptizing a wolf, another inclusion in your writeup. That's correct, don't you think?

His writings make him an interesting character, but this is no more a pseudo Lit category than it is a pseudo religious category. So I appropriately discounted that.

You basically picked him because he was a rich guy who took a vow of poverty. I took that into consideration, as well as his founding the Franciscan Order, and his significant visit to the Holy Lands and meeting with The Sultan.

Based on that, he got ranked 15th. Who should he have ranked higher over, in your opinion?

 

[wikkidpissah]

what a bunch Assissis!

 

[Ozymandias]

what a bunch Assissis!

You're one Tzu.

 

[Uncle Humuna]

what a bunch Assissis!

You're one Tzu.

You should start a Liszt

 

[wikkidpissah]

what a bunch Assissis!

You're one Tzu.

You should start a Liszt

Watt?

 

[Ozymandias]

what a bunch Assissis!

You're one Tzu.

You should start a Liszt

I will Eco that request.

 

[Ozymandias]

Considering the world, they were ranked appropriately. Considering Amero-centric thinking, they were ranked inappropriately. I believe you have showed your card throughout the thread as to which you think is "better".

You have yet to provide any evidence supporting the ranking of Karelin. None whatsoever. I've read about the sport. It is not close to in the top 20 in world popularity. Not close. Please provide some evidence to back this ranking....As for Litszt, whatever. I don't necessarily believe he was the best performer of ALL TIME, but big deal. I do know for a fact he hasn't been heard by anywhere close to as many people as The Beatles.

Popularity does not make one great. Karelin was at the top of his game, in his sport, at the highest level, against all competitors for 10+ years. Name anyone who holds that resume and I will listen. The guy did not surrender a point in 6+ years of competition... at the highest level, against all competitors. I don't know what more you would like. His records will probably not be broken unless another phenom comes along. Also, his sport was all him... no equipment, no ball, no racket, no QB, no bat... him and him alone (maybe some powder and tape). That type of athlete ranks higher in my book... and world standards, than someone who uses a ball, racket, bat or whatever else. Had decathlete's been taken... they are much better athletes than most that were even drafted if they maintained their prowess for longer than others. Roman Serble could have been ranked #1 but the Thorpe ranking also makes sense.Again, popularity does not make a performer great. Liszt "popularized" performing when it came to music. The Elton John's probably thank Liszt. The Beatles were good performers but what did they do to revolutionize "performing"? Sing a song, play a guitar, what else did they do? I made an inquiry about Marcel Marceau for this category but was denied as it pertained to music only. Otherwise, Marceau would be, or should be, in the top 5 easily.

Just so you know, Edwin Moses won 122 consecutive finals between 1977 and 1987, setting a world record 4 times, and winning 2 Olympic Gold medals. Would have won a third, probably, but for the boycott in 1980. Are you listening now? Perhaps Karelin's accomplishment was not as unique as you think it was. Edwin Moses didn't even come up for discussion.

The Athletes judge was aware of Edwin Moses and how dominant he was in his sport. Too bad he wasn't drafted then this would have actually been a valid point. As it is, Karelin's ranking reflects his dominance. Karelin was a national hero in Russia and deservedly so.

Actually, at last count, there are 12,362 Heroes of the Soviet Union, including the tractor guy.

 

[Uncle Humuna]

what a bunch Assissis!

You're one Tzu.

You should start a Liszt

Watt?

Kant you understand?

 

[BobbyLayne]

Hold on a Monet.

Wren did He say that?

Mann, you're such a Dumas.

 

[wikkidpissah]

what a bunch Assissis!

You're one Tzu.

You should start a Liszt

Watt?

Kant you understand?

Jesus! just cuz i have comprehension probs, there's no need to call me names like that.....

 

[Uncle Humuna]

Hold on a Monet.Wren did He say that?Mann, you're such a Dumas.

Yo-Yo Ma

 

[Ozymandias]

Hold on a Monet.Wren did He say that?Mann, you're such a Dumas.

Yo-Yo Ma

I'll say Amin to that.

 

[HERBERT THE HIPPO]

Hold on a Monet.Wren did He say that?Mann, you're such a Dumas.

Yo-Yo Ma

I'll say Amin to that.

Get out of here you Ashoka, go Homer and play with your Dali.......

 

[Gigantomachia]

I just want to quickly explain why I had Socrates and the other Greeks so low on the list. Basically, it is due to the lack of direct evidence supporting their positions. Socrates and Solomon are last because neither wrote anything down. That might work for religion, but not philosophy. Maybe Socrates is who Plato makes him out to be, though even the latter remains a matter of contention with scholars, but the bottom line is I CANNOT KNOW who Socrates was or what his "philosophy" was. Just because a tradition has repeatedly made claims does not make those claims philosophically relevant. This a matter of argument granted, but one which I am comfortable having in a rational well-thought-out manner. This applies to the pre-Socratics in general as well as Epicurus of whom we really know through Lucretius, so you see the problems.

Not to mention that there were some brilliant philosophers who we actually know existed and who wrote their philosophical positions down made me quite unimpressed with those last picks on the list. Seems like it would not have taken much more time to find philosophers we can actually discuss with respect to their philosophies without having to assume we know who a person was through someone else.

So cry me a river.

 

[flysack]

Followup Post:

1. I want to apologize for flaking out at the end of this and half-azzing the Leader rankings. Well, I didn't half-### them. I thought them out, I just didn't bother explaining my picks. I was dragged down by some very repetitive and annoying posts in here, when I should have rose above the crap-tide and continued posting quality write-ups. Instead I became irritated and annoyed and said "EFF IT." That wasn't fair to the great contributors in this thread, people such as ThatGuy, Ozy, Tim, BobbyLayne, Krista4, and others.

2. Because of this draft, I began reading Swann's Way by Proust. After just 100 pages, I regret not ranking Proust #5. If you recall, I wavered greatly on the #5 spot in the Novel/Short Story rankings. Proust clearly belongs there, if not higher. He is clearly one of the most talented writers who ever wrote in the novel form. His characterization is among the best I've ever read (and this is after only 100 pages!) and his descriptions are among the most penetrating, vivid passages I've ever read - he's the only writer I've read whose description and prose fluidity rivals Don Delillo. It's poetry.

So, thanks to the WGD for prompting me to finally read Proust. I've been both astounded and inspired.

 

[FUBAR]

Hold on a Monet.Wren did He say that?Mann, you're such a Dumas.

Yo-Yo Ma

I'll say Amin to that.

Get out of here you Ashoka, go Homer and play with your Dali.......

or well, how about a nice cup of Dickens Cider?

 

[Ozymandias]

This has been more than a smorgasbord of names; it's been a Buffet.

But I just can't Handel any more.

 

[thatguy]

Flysack, I'm curious, what are your thoughts on Pynchon? I love him.

 

[Mister CIA]

This has been more than a smorgasbord of names; it's been a Buffet.But I just can't Handel any more.

Somebody is not gellin' like Magellan.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I just want to quickly explain why I had Socrates and the other Greeks so low on the list. Basically, it is due to the lack of direct evidence supporting their positions. Socrates and Solomon are last because neither wrote anything down.

this is plainly not true...There is as much reason to think that Solomon wrote Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs as there is to assume that someone named Homer wrote the Iliad and the Odyssey or that someone named Sun Tzu wrote the Art of War...

 

[FUBAR]

This has been more than a smorgasbord of names; it's been a Buffet.But I just can't Handel any more.

Somebody is not gellin' like Magellan.

it's funny that you would sadat.

 

[Gigantomachia]

I just want to quickly explain why I had Socrates and the other Greeks so low on the list. Basically, it is due to the lack of direct evidence supporting their positions. Socrates and Solomon are last because neither wrote anything down.

this is plainly not true...There is as much reason to think that Solomon wrote Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs as there is to assume that someone named Homer wrote the Iliad and the Odyssey or that someone named Sun Tzu wrote the Art of War...

No, there is not.

 

[flysack]

Flysack, I'm curious, what are your thoughts on Pynchon? I love him.

Big fan, though I haven't read all his work.

Started Against the Day twice and never finished it.

V. and Gravity's Rainbow are among my personal favorites though.

As an artist, there's 3 writers I look to as "godfathers" (so to speak): Don Delillo, William Faulkner, and Thomas Pynchon.

Faulkner is clearly the best, and something of a godfather to Delillo and Pynchon.

I've often thought that if you could mix everything good about Pynchon with everything good about Delillo, you'd have the best American writer - ever. Even though they're from the same generation and sensibility, their writing is nearly the opposite of each other. Pynchon's flaws are Delillo's strengths, Delillo's flaws are Pynchon's strengths.

While Delillo completely ignores plot and structure (White Noise being the exception), his prose is the most beautiful prose I've ever read. It's even better than Nabokov.

Pynchon is a master of plot and structure, but his prose can be atrocious. I think he was at his best in his first novel, V.. Even though GR is the superior novel, it suffers from Pynchon's genius. It's as if after V. Pynchon grew too smart for his own good, too encyclopedic, and his prose has suffered ever since.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I just want to quickly explain why I had Socrates and the other Greeks so low on the list. Basically, it is due to the lack of direct evidence supporting their positions. Socrates and Solomon are last because neither wrote anything down.

this is plainly not true...There is as much reason to think that Solomon wrote Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs as there is to assume that someone named Homer wrote the Iliad and the Odyssey or that someone named Sun Tzu wrote the Art of War...

No, there is not.

really? So exactly what evidence is there that a guy named Sun Tzu wrote the Art of War other than the name on the book? Same with the Iliad and the Odyssey?You are plainly and blatantly showing bias here, Giga...

 

[mad sweeney]

I just want to quickly explain why I had Socrates and the other Greeks so low on the list. Basically, it is due to the lack of direct evidence supporting their positions. Socrates and Solomon are last because neither wrote anything down.

this is plainly not true...There is as much reason to think that Solomon wrote Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs as there is to assume that someone named Homer wrote the Iliad and the Odyssey or that someone named Sun Tzu wrote the Art of War...

No, there is not.

really? So exactly what evidence is there that a guy named Sun Tzu wrote the Art of War other than the name on the book? Same with the Iliad and the Odyssey?You are plainly and blatantly showing bias here, Giga...

Crusader Boy44. Continuing to prove that you don't overdefend the Bible!

 

[larry_boy_44]

I just want to quickly explain why I had Socrates and the other Greeks so low on the list. Basically, it is due to the lack of direct evidence supporting their positions. Socrates and Solomon are last because neither wrote anything down.

this is plainly not true...There is as much reason to think that Solomon wrote Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs as there is to assume that someone named Homer wrote the Iliad and the Odyssey or that someone named Sun Tzu wrote the Art of War...

No, there is not.

really? So exactly what evidence is there that a guy named Sun Tzu wrote the Art of War other than the name on the book? Same with the Iliad and the Odyssey?You are plainly and blatantly showing bias here, Giga...

Crusader Boy44. Continuing to prove that you don't overdefend the Bible!

I'm not defending the Bible...I'm saying its absurd to judge Sun Tzu based on the Art of War, but not to judge Solomon based on Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs...

 

[thatguy]

Flysack, I'm curious, what are your thoughts on Pynchon? I love him.

Big fan, though I haven't read all his work.

Started Against the Day twice and never finished it.

V. and Gravity's Rainbow are among my personal favorites though.

As an artist, there's 3 writers I look to as "godfathers" (so to speak): Don Delillo, William Faulkner, and Thomas Pynchon.

Faulkner is clearly the best, and something of a godfather to Delillo and Pynchon.

I've often thought that if you could mix everything good about Pynchon with everything good about Delillo, you'd have the best American writer - ever. Even though they're from the same generation and sensibility, their writing is nearly the opposite of each other. Pynchon's flaws are Delillo's strengths, Delillo's flaws are Pynchon's strengths.

While Delillo completely ignores plot and structure (White Noise being the exception), his prose is the most beautiful prose I've ever read. It's even better than Nabokov.

Pynchon is a master of plot and structure, but his prose can be atrocious. I think he was at his best in his first novel, V.. Even though GR is the superior novel, it suffers from Pynchon's genius. It's as if after V. Pynchon grew too smart for his own good, too encyclopedic, and his prose has suffered ever since.

I've been meaning to get into Delillo but so far have only read White Noise. What books of his would you recommend I start with?

 

[AcerFC]

Tim,

What are the match ups this week. I want to have a write up ready

 

[flysack]

Flysack, I'm curious, what are your thoughts on Pynchon? I love him.

Big fan, though I haven't read all his work.

Started Against the Day twice and never finished it.

V. and Gravity's Rainbow are among my personal favorites though.

As an artist, there's 3 writers I look to as "godfathers" (so to speak): Don Delillo, William Faulkner, and Thomas Pynchon.

Faulkner is clearly the best, and something of a godfather to Delillo and Pynchon.

I've often thought that if you could mix everything good about Pynchon with everything good about Delillo, you'd have the best American writer - ever. Even though they're from the same generation and sensibility, their writing is nearly the opposite of each other. Pynchon's flaws are Delillo's strengths, Delillo's flaws are Pynchon's strengths.

While Delillo completely ignores plot and structure (White Noise being the exception), his prose is the most beautiful prose I've ever read. It's even better than Nabokov.

Pynchon is a master of plot and structure, but his prose can be atrocious. I think he was at his best in his first novel, V.. Even though GR is the superior novel, it suffers from Pynchon's genius. It's as if after V. Pynchon grew too smart for his own good, too encyclopedic, and his prose has suffered ever since.

I've been meaning to get into Delillo but so far have only read White Noise. What books of his would you recommend I start with?

Most would direct you to Underworld, his behemoth magnus opus, but Americana is better, IMO. Why?

It's his most purely inspired novel. While Underworld is more polished (and written 20 years after his first novel), Americana explodes across the page and never lets up. It will make you sit back, blink, think holy crap, then reread a page or two at least three times. It's amazing. I read a page or two from it every single day - and I'm not exaggerating. I really do.

It is flawed, in that, like many of Delillo's novels, the structure is an afterthought and therefore something of a mess. But you won't care.

 

[mad sweeney]

this is plainly not true...There is as much reason to think that Solomon wrote Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs as there is to assume that someone named Homer wrote the Iliad and the Odyssey or that someone named Sun Tzu wrote the Art of War...

No, there is not.

really? So exactly what evidence is there that a guy named Sun Tzu wrote the Art of War other than the name on the book? Same with the Iliad and the Odyssey?You are plainly and blatantly showing bias here, Giga...

Crusader Boy44. Continuing to prove that you don't overdefend the Bible!

I'm not defending the Bible...I'm saying its absurd to judge Sun Tzu based on the Art of War, but not to judge Solomon based on Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs...

You're saying there's a bias, not an inconsistency or mistake, but a bias. What is the "clear bias" you're speaking of then? Is it a bias against you? Or is it a bias against a Biblical character, a claim you have raised repeatedly in the draft. Maybe you just used the wrong word, but with your posting history anytime you level a bias charge against someone it's way more likely than not that it's a Biblical Challenge.

 

[larry_boy_44]

really? So exactly what evidence is there that a guy named Sun Tzu wrote the Art of War other than the name on the book? Same with the Iliad and the Odyssey?You are plainly and blatantly showing bias here, Giga...

Crusader Boy44. Continuing to prove that you don't overdefend the Bible!

I'm not defending the Bible...I'm saying its absurd to judge Sun Tzu based on the Art of War, but not to judge Solomon based on Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs...

You're saying there's a bias, not an inconsistency or mistake, but a bias. What is the "clear bias" you're speaking of then? Is it a bias against you? Or is it a bias against a Biblical character, a claim you have raised repeatedly in the draft. Maybe you just used the wrong word, but with your posting history anytime you level a bias charge against someone it's way more likely than not that it's a Biblical Challenge.

I'm saying there is a bias because, quite frankly, its nicer than saying "you're an idiot"...He provided no evidence or reasoning to explain why Solomon's writings get less credibility than Homer or Sun Tzu's... He just declared that they did and then gave credit to a number of other ancient figures who have no evidence that they actually existed solely based upon writings credited to them...Which is exactly what we have with Solomon, but he still dismissed him without any explanation other than simply to state that that is how it is...But the fact is, that my belief in the Bible has nothing to do with this... But I stated when I drafted him (And it was understood by everyone but the judge) that Solomon was drafted based upon the writings attributed to him, not the Biblical myths around the character and WHEN I DRAFTED HIM the judge said he was a great pick...

 

[BobbyLayne]

Flysack, I'm curious, what are your thoughts on Pynchon? I love him.

Big fan, though I haven't read all his work.

Started Against the Day twice and never finished it.

V. and Gravity's Rainbow are among my personal favorites though.

As an artist, there's 3 writers I look to as "godfathers" (so to speak): Don Delillo, William Faulkner, and Thomas Pynchon.

Faulkner is clearly the best, and something of a godfather to Delillo and Pynchon.

I've often thought that if you could mix everything good about Pynchon with everything good about Delillo, you'd have the best American writer - ever. Even though they're from the same generation and sensibility, their writing is nearly the opposite of each other. Pynchon's flaws are Delillo's strengths, Delillo's flaws are Pynchon's strengths.

While Delillo completely ignores plot and structure (White Noise being the exception), his prose is the most beautiful prose I've ever read. It's even better than Nabokov.

Pynchon is a master of plot and structure, but his prose can be atrocious. I think he was at his best in his first novel, V.. Even though GR is the superior novel, it suffers from Pynchon's genius. It's as if after V. Pynchon grew too smart for his own good, too encyclopedic, and his prose has suffered ever since.

Years ago I read a great quote from Delillo; he was commenting on something Norman Mailer had said, that he (Mailer) wasn't a better writer because his contemporaries were mediocre. Now that's a total crock thing to say, but Delillo just shrugged and said "Nobody in Pynchon's generation can say that"

 

[flysack]

Years ago I read a great quote from Delillo; he was commenting on something Norman Mailer had said, that he (Mailer) wasn't a better writer because his contemporaries were mediocre. Now that's a total crock thing to say, but Delillo just shrugged and said "Nobody in Pynchon's generation can say that"

A. Among the literary/writer community, Delillo is known as a really nice guy. Never says a bad thing about anyone. If you know anything about writers, this is somewhat rare, especially for a guy as brilliant as him. B. Norman Mailer was an example of what writers usually are, except Mailer was far worse. C. Pynchon and Delillo are friends. Both live in (or near) NYC. Rushdie is also known to hang with them.D. I know most of this from obsessive reading, but also because a former mentor of mine has the same literary agent as Pynchon --- a woman who also happens to be Pynchon's wife.

 

[mad sweeney]

Crusader Boy44. Continuing to prove that you don't overdefend the Bible!

I'm not defending the Bible...I'm saying its absurd to judge Sun Tzu based on the Art of War, but not to judge Solomon based on Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs...

You're saying there's a bias, not an inconsistency or mistake, but a bias. What is the "clear bias" you're speaking of then? Is it a bias against you? Or is it a bias against a Biblical character, a claim you have raised repeatedly in the draft. Maybe you just used the wrong word, but with your posting history anytime you level a bias charge against someone it's way more likely than not that it's a Biblical Challenge.

I'm saying there is a bias because, quite frankly, its nicer than saying "you're an idiot"...He provided no evidence or reasoning to explain why Solomon's writings get less credibility than Homer or Sun Tzu's... He just declared that they did and then gave credit to a number of other ancient figures who have no evidence that they actually existed solely based upon writings credited to them...Which is exactly what we have with Solomon, but he still dismissed him without any explanation other than simply to state that that is how it is...But the fact is, that my belief in the Bible has nothing to do with this... But I stated when I drafted him (And it was understood by everyone but the judge) that Solomon was drafted based upon the writings attributed to him, not the Biblical myths around the character and WHEN I DRAFTED HIM the judge said he was a great pick...

Being biased and being an idiot are completely different things. If you're saying he has a bias then there has to be a target for the bias. Are you saying he's biased against you? That's what it's sounded like. The last paragraph has nothing to do with what we're discussing. My point was that you have many, many times been overzealous in defending what you perceived to be slights against the Bible or Biblical people.So are you calling him an idiot or are you saying he's prejudiced you and/or the Bible?

 

[larry_boy_44]

Crusader Boy44. Continuing to prove that you don't overdefend the Bible!

I'm not defending the Bible...I'm saying its absurd to judge Sun Tzu based on the Art of War, but not to judge Solomon based on Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs...

You're saying there's a bias, not an inconsistency or mistake, but a bias. What is the "clear bias" you're speaking of then? Is it a bias against you? Or is it a bias against a Biblical character, a claim you have raised repeatedly in the draft. Maybe you just used the wrong word, but with your posting history anytime you level a bias charge against someone it's way more likely than not that it's a Biblical Challenge.

I'm saying there is a bias because, quite frankly, its nicer than saying "you're an idiot"...He provided no evidence or reasoning to explain why Solomon's writings get less credibility than Homer or Sun Tzu's... He just declared that they did and then gave credit to a number of other ancient figures who have no evidence that they actually existed solely based upon writings credited to them...Which is exactly what we have with Solomon, but he still dismissed him without any explanation other than simply to state that that is how it is...But the fact is, that my belief in the Bible has nothing to do with this... But I stated when I drafted him (And it was understood by everyone but the judge) that Solomon was drafted based upon the writings attributed to him, not the Biblical myths around the character and WHEN I DRAFTED HIM the judge said he was a great pick...

Being biased and being an idiot are completely different things. If you're saying he has a bias then there has to be a target for the bias. Are you saying he's biased against you? That's what it's sounded like. The last paragraph has nothing to do with what we're discussing. My point was that you have many, many times been overzealous in defending what you perceived to be slights against the Bible or Biblical people.So are you calling him an idiot or are you saying he's prejudiced you and/or the Bible?

my point is that there is a direct contradiction in how he judged Solomon vs. how a dozen or more other people were judged... Whatever reason he had for it, he gave absolutely no justification for it other than that's what he did and we all should deal with it.and I don't know what he's biased again, but the facts are that he said it was a good pick, and then said it didn't qualify when he judged the category... So... which is it and why the change of mind?

 

[timschochet]

I received this message from Larry Boy 44. I am posting it here, because I prefer not to leave these things secret:

http://www.establishedboard.com/forum/inde...144&st=1950 (btw link is NSFW, its :e

they have admitted (and multiple judges are aware) that someone (Truck) used all of his aliases to purposefully screw my team over in the voting...

not saying it should change anything, but just figured you should know that it was basically bragged about that aliai were used to screw my team over...



Larry

If this is true, Larry, then I am really sorry for you. I have had people vote against me and brag about doing so for no other reason than they did not like me; nothing to do with my picks. It's too bad when people do stuff like this. The FFA voting is open to everyone; that's the way we chose to set this up, so unfortunately there's nothing that can be done regarding this matter. But it's really unfair and I don't know why people would get their kicks attempting to subvert all of the work that everyone put into this draft, yourself included.

 

[Steve Tasker]

 

[Mr Capicollo]

I received this message from Larry Boy 44. I am posting it here, because I prefer not to leave these things secret:

http://www.establishedboard.com/forum/inde...144&st=1950 (btw link is NSFW, its :e

they have admitted (and multiple judges are aware) that someone (Truck) used all of his aliases to purposefully screw my team over in the voting...

not saying it should change anything, but just figured you should know that it was basically bragged about that aliai were used to screw my team over...



Larry

If this is true, Larry, then I am really sorry for you. I have had people vote against me and brag about doing so for no other reason than they did not like me; nothing to do with my picks. It's too bad when people do stuff like this. The FFA voting is open to everyone; that's the way we chose to set this up, so unfortunately there's nothing that can be done regarding this matter. But it's really unfair and I don't know why people would get their kicks attempting to subvert all of the work that everyone put into this draft, yourself included.

 

[Mario Kart]

Tim,What are the match ups this week. I want to have a write up ready