World's Greatest Draft (1 Viewer)

[Mr. Retukes]

Larry, isn't there a verse in the Bible about being a tattletale and a sore loser? Somewhere in the back maybe?

 

[timschochet]

Matchups this week:

Monday: Arsenal of Doom vs. higgins

Tuesday: BobbyLayne vs. DC Thunder

Wednesday: thatguy vs. Mario Kart

Thursday: Mad Sweeney vs. Andy Dufresne

Friday: FUBAR vs. John Madden's Lunchbox

 

[larry_boy_44]

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.

that's cool... I just figured you should know is all... I don't care at all

 

[sjacksonfan]

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.

that's cool... I just figured you should know is all... I don't care at all

If you didn't care at all you wouldn't have sent him a PM.

 

[larry_boy_44]

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.

that's cool... I just figured you should know is all... I don't care at all

If you didn't care at all you wouldn't have sent him a PM.

sent him a PM 'cuz I thought he should know...the real question (and telling fact) is that 4 people have posted and commented on my post since I made it who never once posted in this thread beforehand...

 

[sjacksonfan]

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.

that's cool... I just figured you should know is all... I don't care at all

If you didn't care at all you wouldn't have sent him a PM.

sent him a PM 'cuz I thought he should know...the real question (and telling fact) is that 4 people have posted and commented on my post since I made it who never once posted in this thread beforehand...

Sounds like you care. I never heard of this thread before Tim's hilarious post.

 

[mad sweeney]

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.

that's cool... I just figured you should know is all... I don't care at all

If you didn't care at all you wouldn't have sent him a PM.

sent him a PM 'cuz I thought he should know...the real question (and telling fact) is that 4 people have posted and commented on my post since I made it who never once posted in this thread beforehand...

Sounds like you care. I never heard of this thread before Tim's hilarious post.

I could be wrong and don't know how to go through and find older posts, but it seem to me that you've posted in this thread before. Not to mention the fact that it's been at the top of the front page for most of the last couple of weeks. So I find it hard to believe that you never heard of this thread before.

 

[larry_boy_44]

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.

that's cool... I just figured you should know is all... I don't care at all

If you didn't care at all you wouldn't have sent him a PM.

sent him a PM 'cuz I thought he should know...the real question (and telling fact) is that 4 people have posted and commented on my post since I made it who never once posted in this thread beforehand...

Sounds like you care. I never heard of this thread before Tim's hilarious post.

I could be wrong and don't know how to go through and find older posts, but it seem to me that you've posted in this thread before. Not to mention the fact that it's been at the top of the front page for most of the last couple of weeks. So I find it hard to believe that you never heard of this thread before.

I checked, he never has posted in this thread before just now...

 

[mad sweeney]

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.

that's cool... I just figured you should know is all... I don't care at all

If you didn't care at all you wouldn't have sent him a PM.

sent him a PM 'cuz I thought he should know...the real question (and telling fact) is that 4 people have posted and commented on my post since I made it who never once posted in this thread beforehand...

These are the kinds of maggots that exploit a cheat on videogames and think they're the winner for it. I will never understand that mentality and I don't want to. No offense to Fennis or to the eventual winner of this draft, but this kind of nonsensery is why I have said a few times that I don't value the FFA vote very much. Of course, some of the judges turned out to be little better.

Sorry to hear about it Larry. As much as I've bagged on your picks, I hate to see people do that nonsense to you. That's a definite bias...

 

[mad sweeney]

If you didn't care at all you wouldn't have sent him a PM.

sent him a PM 'cuz I thought he should know...the real question (and telling fact) is that 4 people have posted and commented on my post since I made it who never once posted in this thread beforehand...

Sounds like you care. I never heard of this thread before Tim's hilarious post.

I could be wrong and don't know how to go through and find older posts, but it seem to me that you've posted in this thread before. Not to mention the fact that it's been at the top of the front page for most of the last couple of weeks. So I find it hard to believe that you never heard of this thread before.

I checked, he never has posted in this thread before just now...

Must've been a different thread then but I still refuse to believe that after almost 200 pages he just heard of the thread with Tim's last post...

 

[larry_boy_44]

sent him a PM 'cuz I thought he should know...the real question (and telling fact) is that 4 people have posted and commented on my post since I made it who never once posted in this thread beforehand...

Sounds like you care. I never heard of this thread before Tim's hilarious post.

I could be wrong and don't know how to go through and find older posts, but it seem to me that you've posted in this thread before. Not to mention the fact that it's been at the top of the front page for most of the last couple of weeks. So I find it hard to believe that you never heard of this thread before.

I checked, he never has posted in this thread before just now...

Must've been a different thread then but I still refuse to believe that after almost 200 pages he just heard of the thread with Tim's last post...

he didn't...what happened was someone who posts on :e: (there are a few who have been involved in this thread from the start who post there) told everyone else that this got posted here, so they all have "hit" this thread now to stir trouble...they have no life I guess...

 

[sjacksonfan]

I could be wrong and don't know how to go through and find older posts, but it seem to me that you've posted in this thread before. Not to mention the fact that it's been at the top of the front page for most of the last couple of weeks. So I find it hard to believe that you never heard of this thread before.

I checked, he never has posted in this thread before just now...

I don't know what either of you are insinuating here. Tim's post is hilarious. I've never voted in this thing nor do i know what or why it is you're even drafting.

 

[sjacksonfan]

he didn't...

what happened was someone who posts on :e: (there are a few who have been involved in this thread from the start who post there) told everyone else that this got posted here, so they all have "hit" this thread now to stir trouble...



they have no life I guess...

You're the one getting worked up over an internet draft.

 

[larry_boy_44]

he didn't...

what happened was someone who posts on :e: (there are a few who have been involved in this thread from the start who post there) told everyone else that this got posted here, so they all have "hit" this thread now to stir trouble...



they have no life I guess...

You're the one getting worked up over an internet draft.

I'm not worked up... I privately alerted tim because I thought he should know, not because I wanted something to be done...I really don't care... I enjoyed drafting... If I was gonna let the FFA vote ruin this for me, I wouldn't have done it...

 

[Fennis]

These are the kinds of maggots that exploit a cheat on videogames and think they're the winner for it. I will never understand that mentality and I don't want to. No offense to Fennis or to the eventual winner of this draft, but this kind of nonsensery is why I have said a few times that I don't value the FFA vote very much. Of course, some of the judges turned out to be little better.Sorry to hear about it Larry. As much as I've bagged on your picks, I hate to see people do that nonsense to you. That's a definite bias...

No offense taken. FWIW, in the GAD, I said there shouldnt even be voting. However, I admit that I am glad I won, since I clearly had the best team.

 

[Mario Kart]

You're the one getting worked up over an internet draft.

Move along now.

 

[sjacksonfan]

:backsawayslowly:

 

[AcerFC]

Matchups this week:Monday: Arsenal of Doom vs. higginsTuesday: BobbyLayne vs. DC ThunderWednesday: thatguy vs. Mario KartThursday: Mad Sweeney vs. Andy DufresneFriday: FUBAR vs. John Madden's Lunchbox

Am I out already?

 

[Ozymandias]

Matchups this week:Monday: Arsenal of Doom vs. higginsTuesday: BobbyLayne vs. DC ThunderWednesday: thatguy vs. Mario KartThursday: Mad Sweeney vs. Andy DufresneFriday: FUBAR vs. John Madden's Lunchbox

Am I out already?

I don't know. Were you in the closet?

 

[AcerFC]

Matchups this week:Monday: Arsenal of Doom vs. higginsTuesday: BobbyLayne vs. DC ThunderWednesday: thatguy vs. Mario KartThursday: Mad Sweeney vs. Andy DufresneFriday: FUBAR vs. John Madden's Lunchbox

Am I out already?

I don't know. Were you in the closet?

 

[Gigantomachia]

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...

First off all, Sun Tzu was not a philosopher--unless you mean Zhuangzi but I do not think you do--and therefore is moot with respect to my claims about what it means to be a PHILOSOPHER. Second, I ranked everyone low whose work remains debatable due to lack of support beyond the tradition. That is to say, I can find references to all the thinkers other than Solomon in more than one source, but when it comes to Solomon his existence is supported ONLY by the biblical tradition, i.e, those who already have faith in the religion. That might count for religious studies into the mind set of believers, but it says nothing about philosophy whatsoever. As to Homer, even Plato questions his existence so I am not sure why the other judge is overly confident in his existence, though as Plato says, all of Athens was raised on Homer even if he never existed. In fact, much of what became philosophy grew from Plato's skepticism about the sources of Homeric writings, i.e., morality as such.Try to keep up boy.

 

[Gigantomachia]

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...

I have provided more than enough support for my rankings, that you do not like them is your own trip. If you think I am idiot I am game for a challenge "boy."As to saying your pick was great, I was trying to be nice at the time, though I knew there was no way it would rank above philosophers who I can KNOW actually existed. If you do not like that method, too bad for you.

 

[timschochet]

Matchups this week:Monday: Arsenal of Doom vs. higginsTuesday: BobbyLayne vs. DC ThunderWednesday: thatguy vs. Mario KartThursday: Mad Sweeney vs. Andy DufresneFriday: FUBAR vs. John Madden's Lunchbox

Am I out already?

You're going to match up aganst Yankee a week from tommorow.

 

[AcerFC]

Matchups this week:Monday: Arsenal of Doom vs. higginsTuesday: BobbyLayne vs. DC ThunderWednesday: thatguy vs. Mario KartThursday: Mad Sweeney vs. Andy DufresneFriday: FUBAR vs. John Madden's Lunchbox

Am I out already?

You're going to match up aganst Yankee a week from tommorow.

Gives me a nice amount of time for writeupsWho am I kidding, I will do it next Tuesday morning

 

[Mike Shanahan Fan]

Hey Larry...I said that I stuffed the ballot box against you, but maybe I didn't do it.

Bwahahahahahaha!

Love,

MSF

 

[larry_boy_44]

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...

First off all, Sun Tzu was not a philosopher--unless you mean Zhuangzi but I do not think you do--and therefore is moot with respect to my claims about what it means to be a PHILOSOPHER. Second, I ranked everyone low whose work remains debatable due to lack of support beyond the tradition. That is to say, I can find references to all the thinkers other than Solomon in more than one source, but when it comes to Solomon his existence is supported ONLY by the biblical tradition, i.e, those who already have faith in the religion. That might count for religious studies into the mind set of believers, but it says nothing about philosophy whatsoever. As to Homer, even Plato questions his existence so I am not sure why the other judge is overly confident in his existence, though as Plato says, all of Athens was raised on Homer even if he never existed. In fact, much of what became philosophy grew from Plato's skepticism about the sources of Homeric writings, i.e., morality as such.Try to keep up boy.

see, again, you missed my point...I didn't draft Solomon because of the religious tradition surrounding him, I drafted him because of the books attributed to him... There is a HUGE difference...

 

[larry_boy_44]

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...

I have provided more than enough support for my rankings, that you do not like them is your own trip. If you think I am idiot I am game for a challenge "boy."As to saying your pick was great, I was trying to be nice at the time, though I knew there was no way it would rank above philosophers who I can KNOW actually existed. If you do not like that method, too bad for you.

the sure sign of someone desperate to win, but has ran out of things to say to me: calling me "boy" repeatedly because of my login is "larry_boy_44"...lol I've never seen a remotely intelligent person do it, so you can feel good that you are probably the smartest person to do it... But then again being smarter than those idiots isn't really a feat of any value...However, the fact that you are continually missing, is that I didn't pick Solomon for the myths surrounding him. I picked him for the 3 books attributed to him, you have things to judge and you refused to judge them and THAT is why you got ranked low as a judge.I would have ranked you that low whether it was my pick or anyone else's pick that got screwed over that way.

 

[krista4]

Seems to me that larry's not worked up here and is being cool about the ballot-box stuffing. He even said in his PM to tim that he didn't think it should change anything. And it really couldn't, since there is probably some alias voting in each match-up.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

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...

I have provided more than enough support for my rankings, that you do not like them is your own trip. If you think I am idiot I am game for a challenge "boy."As to saying your pick was great, I was trying to be nice at the time, though I knew there was no way it would rank above philosophers who I can KNOW actually existed. If you do not like that method, too bad for you.

Problem is that the stance you take doesn't correlate with the rules. The biblical people were assumed to have existed. Solomon was assumed to have existed and because of that the books attributed to him should have been judged accordingly. Your bias against religion and for the mind-numbingly useless exercise you call philosophy played too much into that specific ranking. Which is fine - we all had our biases when judging. I admitted mine when it came to economics. Flysack admitted his with the writers, and so on. You seem to be the only one unwilling to admit your 'flaw.'

 

[BobbyLayne]

Seems to me that larry's not worked up here and is being cool about the ballot-box stuffing. He even said in his PM to tim that he didn't think it should change anything. And it really couldn't, since there is probably some alias voting in each match-up.

Yeah, kinda feel like so far aliases cancel each other out; its not like Doug B got voted off the island.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Matchups this week:Monday: Arsenal of Doom vs. higginsTuesday: BobbyLayne vs. DC ThunderWednesday: thatguy vs. Mario KartThursday: Mad Sweeney vs. Andy DufresneFriday: FUBAR vs. John Madden's Lunchbox

Am I out already?

You're going to match up aganst Yankee a week from tommorow.

Gives me a nice amount of time for writeupsWho am I kidding, I will do it next Tuesday morning

I would start now. You need all the help you can get. BWAHAHAHAHAHA.

 

[FUBAR]

Matchups this week:Friday: FUBAR vs. John Madden's Lunchbox

Tough draw for me IMO. JML has some heavyweights:Military Alexander The GreatScientist Louis PasteurInventor Louis BrailleHumanitarian/Saint/Martyr Florence NightingaleMuscian/ Performer The BeatlesPainter Pablo PicassoArtist/ Non Painter Alfred HitchcockCelebrity Princess DianaIntellectual PythagorasWildcard Marie CurieIt'll be tough to top that team. I may have to get more aliai.

 

[BobbyLayne]

aliases

LB is the only person who thinks the plural form is aliai

he's getting to you, FUBAR...spend enough time around him, and pretty soon you'll be starting arguments with yourself

 

[larry_boy_44]

aliasesLB is the only person who thinks the plural form is aliaihe's getting to you, FUBAR...spend enough time around him, and pretty soon you'll be starting arguments with yourself

aliases is not right!lolI have no clue what is right... but I'm pretty sure it isn't aliases...

 

[Gigantomachia]

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...

I have provided more than enough support for my rankings, that you do not like them is your own trip. If you think I am idiot I am game for a challenge "boy."As to saying your pick was great, I was trying to be nice at the time, though I knew there was no way it would rank above philosophers who I can KNOW actually existed. If you do not like that method, too bad for you.

Problem is that the stance you take doesn't correlate with the rules. The biblical people were assumed to have existed. Solomon was assumed to have existed and because of that the books attributed to him should have been judged accordingly. Your bias against religion and for the mind-numbingly useless exercise you call philosophy played too much into that specific ranking. Which is fine - we all had our biases when judging. I admitted mine when it came to economics. Flysack admitted his with the writers, and so on. You seem to be the only one unwilling to admit your 'flaw.'

That is why it is called philosophy and not "over-opinionated my view is as important as yours" thinkers. The only flaw is that you wrongly assume all things are the same when it comes to judging, which is clearly not the case. The bottom line, for a person to be considered philosophically relevant his existence cannot be in question. This is not my standard, it is the academic standard. You don't like it, #####ing about it here ain't gonna do anything; you will need more than rhetoric. But thanks for the concern.

 

[thatguy]

Seems to me that larry's not worked up here and is being cool about the ballot-box stuffing. He even said in his PM to tim that he didn't think it should change anything. And it really couldn't, since there is probably some alias voting in each match-up.

Yeah, kinda feel like so far aliases cancel each other out; its not like Doug B got voted off the island.

Well they didn't in my matchup against you in the GAD Semis, but it's all good. I expect more of the same. Keep up the good work p:epl:e:.

 

[BobbyLayne]

That is why it is called philosophy and not "over-opinionated my view is as important as yours" thinkers. The only flaw is that you wrongly assume all things are the same when it comes to judging, which is clearly not the case. The bottom line, for a person to be considered philosophically relevant his existence cannot be in question. This is not my standard, it is the academic standard. You don't like it, #####ing about it here ain't gonna do anything; you will need more than rhetoric.

But thanks for the concern.

So why did you choose to not apply that standard?what Wiki says about Confucius:



His teachings may be found in the Analects of Confucius (論語), a collection of "brief aphoristic fragments", which was compiled many years after his death. Modern historians do not believe that any specific documents can be said to have been written by Confucius,[5][6] but for nearly 2,000 years he was thought to be the editor or author of all the Five Classics[7][8] such as the Classic of Rites (editor), and the Spring and Autumn Annals (春秋) (author).

what is said about Democritus:

His exact contributions are difficult to disentangle from his mentor Leucippus, as they are often mentioned together in texts

Same as Socrates and Plato - except that you ranked Democritus above Socrates. Democritus is worth actually comparing to other philosophers, while Socrates is not?

Epicurus, whom you also ranked above Socrates and King Solomon:

Only a few fragments and letters remain of Epicurus's 300 written works. Much of what is known about Epicurean philosophy derives from later followers and commentators.

Hello?

 

[thatguy]

Thanks for the recommendations Flysack, I plan to pick those two up today.

 

[thatguy]

I find it funny, too, that you say you read a couple pages from that book every day. I do the exact same thing with The Great Gatsby. I have it in my bathroom and whenever it's time for twosies, I pick it up and start reading. I'd say I've read The Great Gatsby probably once a month for the last 4 years.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

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...

I have provided more than enough support for my rankings, that you do not like them is your own trip. If you think I am idiot I am game for a challenge "boy."As to saying your pick was great, I was trying to be nice at the time, though I knew there was no way it would rank above philosophers who I can KNOW actually existed. If you do not like that method, too bad for you.

Problem is that the stance you take doesn't correlate with the rules. The biblical people were assumed to have existed. Solomon was assumed to have existed and because of that the books attributed to him should have been judged accordingly. Your bias against religion and for the mind-numbingly useless exercise you call philosophy played too much into that specific ranking. Which is fine - we all had our biases when judging. I admitted mine when it came to economics. Flysack admitted his with the writers, and so on. You seem to be the only one unwilling to admit your 'flaw.'

That is why it is called philosophy and not "over-opinionated my view is as important as yours" thinkers. The only flaw is that you wrongly assume all things are the same when it comes to judging, which is clearly not the case. The bottom line, for a person to be considered philosophically relevant his existence cannot be in question. This is not my standard, it is the academic standard. You don't like it, #####ing about it here ain't gonna do anything; you will need more than rhetoric. But thanks for the concern.

Oh, how dare I question the academic standard of philosophy departments.... I'm sorry...... Just give me a second........... ................... side hurts........................ ......... whew.This wasn't an academic exercise. Again. You are the only one not seeing this. The rules were the rules. There was no exception for this category. Solomon existed according to the rules. Therefore, you made a huge mistake in your judging. Oh, and you have no idea how much I love the "over-opinionated my view is as important as yours," line. I'm going to use that. Thanks.

 

[dparker713]

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...

I have provided more than enough support for my rankings, that you do not like them is your own trip. If you think I am idiot I am game for a challenge "boy."As to saying your pick was great, I was trying to be nice at the time, though I knew there was no way it would rank above philosophers who I can KNOW actually existed. If you do not like that method, too bad for you.

Problem is that the stance you take doesn't correlate with the rules. The biblical people were assumed to have existed. Solomon was assumed to have existed and because of that the books attributed to him should have been judged accordingly. Your bias against religion and for the mind-numbingly useless exercise you call philosophy played too much into that specific ranking. Which is fine - we all had our biases when judging. I admitted mine when it came to economics. Flysack admitted his with the writers, and so on. You seem to be the only one unwilling to admit your 'flaw.'

That is why it is called philosophy and not "over-opinionated my view is as important as yours" thinkers. The only flaw is that you wrongly assume all things are the same when it comes to judging, which is clearly not the case. The bottom line, for a person to be considered philosophically relevant his existence cannot be in question. This is not my standard, it is the academic standard. You don't like it, #####ing about it here ain't gonna do anything; you will need more than rhetoric. But thanks for the concern.

I find it fairly absurd that an exercise as ephemeral as philosphy values the person above the ideas. Guess you guys got tired of everyone discounting your field because its entirely impractical and unsubstantiated.

 

[dparker713]

you've drafted an imaginary team full of dead people. you all realize this, right?

Some of them are still alive.

 

[thatguy]

you've drafted an imaginary team full of dead people. you all realize this, right?

Some of them are still alive.

Mine are all dead, I think.

 

[PatsWillWin]

 

[flysack]

I find it funny, too, that you say you read a couple pages from that book every day. I do the exact same thing with The Great Gatsby. I have it in my bathroom and whenever it's time for twosies, I pick it up and start reading. I'd say I've read The Great Gatsby probably once a month for the last 4 years.

I really do this with 2 books -1. Delillo's Americana2. The Dhammapada (attributed to Buddha)I consider both the closest thing to religion that I come.

 

[mad sweeney]

aliasesLB is the only person who thinks the plural form is aliaihe's getting to you, FUBAR...spend enough time around him, and pretty soon you'll be starting arguments with yourself

Even if it is right or not, aliai is a word I would use. I like to make up words, like adding -(e)ry to words like nonsense or jackass.

 

[BobbyLayne]

I find it funny, too, that you say you read a couple pages from that book every day. I do the exact same thing with The Great Gatsby. I have it in my bathroom and whenever it's time for twosies, I pick it up and start reading. I'd say I've read The Great Gatsby probably once a month for the last 4 years.

I really do this with 2 books -1. Delillo's Americana2. The Dhammapada (attributed to Buddha)I consider both the closest thing to religion that I come.

I love book stories like these.

Somebody start a "Books that are my best friends"50 page minimum, guaranteed

 

[flysack]

aliases

LB is the only person who thinks the plural form is aliai

he's getting to you, FUBAR...spend enough time around him, and pretty soon you'll be starting arguments with yourself

Even if it is right or not, aliai is a word I would use. I like to make up words, like adding -(e)ry to words like nonsense or jackass.

Word Geek Check InAlias is an interesting case (if you're a word geek), in that its etymology is Latin, but the Latin word alias is an adverb meaning "at another time" or "at other times." Hence as an adverb it's never singular or plural.

That's why we make the English noun plural by using the standard -es ending for words ending in "s."

So "aliases" is absolutely correct.

 

[flysack]

I find it funny, too, that you say you read a couple pages from that book every day. I do the exact same thing with The Great Gatsby. I have it in my bathroom and whenever it's time for twosies, I pick it up and start reading. I'd say I've read The Great Gatsby probably once a month for the last 4 years.

I really do this with 2 books -1. Delillo's Americana2. The Dhammapada (attributed to Buddha)I consider both the closest thing to religion that I come.

I love book stories like these.

Somebody start a "Books that are my best friends"50 page minimum, guaranteed

 

[mad sweeney]

aliases

LB is the only person who thinks the plural form is aliai

he's getting to you, FUBAR...spend enough time around him, and pretty soon you'll be starting arguments with yourself

Even if it is right or not, aliai is a word I would use. I like to make up words, like adding -(e)ry to words like nonsense or jackass.

Word Geek Check InAlias is an interesting case (if you're a word geek), in that its etymology is Latin, but the Latin word alias is an adverb meaning "at another time" or "at other times." Hence as an adverb it's never singular or plural.

That's why we make the English noun plural by using the standard -es ending for words ending in "s."

So "aliases" is absolutely correct.

Isn't etymology one of those psuedo sciences like astrolgy and phrenology?