What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

World's Greatest Draft (1 Viewer)

BobbyLayne said:
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.

:lmao:
Isn't etymology one of those psuedo sciences like astrolgy and phrenology?
No. It's the history of words. My source is the OED.

Also, I read the OED almost daily. Sometimes I get lost reading all the crazy quotes from the 17th century and the such.

Also also, eff you Bobby! :lmao:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fat Drunk and Stupid said:
you've drafted an imaginary team full of dead people. you all realize this, right?
This draft was a means to end. The end is an extensive discussion of the greatest accomplishments of mankind, and how those accomplishments should be measured against each other. I think this sort of discussion is worthy, and I also find it fascinating. If that makes me a geek in your eyes or anyone else's so be it.
 
BobbyLayne said:
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.

:cry:
really?it just... sounds wrong...

 
BobbyLayne said:
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.

:nerd:
really?it just... sounds wrong...
I like the sound of aliai more, too. But spellcheck informs it is incorrect. Then again, spellcheck also informs me that "spellcheck" is incorrect.
 
BobbyLayne said:
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.

:nerd:
Isn't etymology one of those psuedo sciences like astrolgy and phrenology?
No. It's the history of words. My source is the OED.

Also, I read the OED almost daily. Sometimes I get lost reading all the crazy quotes from the 17th century and the such.

Also also, eff you Bobby! :)
You answered that as if you took it seriously!
 
BobbyLayne said:
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.

:)
really?it just... sounds wrong...
I like the sound of aliai more, too. But spellcheck informs it is incorrect. Then again, spellcheck also informs me that "spellcheck" is incorrect.
:nerd: "Aliai" is more mellifluous.
 
dparker713 said:
Gigantomachia said:
Yankee23Fan said:
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.
What?All I said is that I place empirical evidence over myth. And what do I care what plebes think about philosophy?
 
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.
:blackdot: 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.
One last time, boy.The only evidence you can produce for your claims that Solomon wrote books is from the same Bible you claim he was part of writing.That does not count as valid evidence, sorry. boy.
 
BobbyLayne said:
Gigantomachia said:
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?
:unsure: What is the etymology of Gigantomachia?

Must be the same root word for fraud.

 
BobbyLayne said:
Gigantomachia said:
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?
:unsure: What is the etymology of Gigantomachia?

Must be the same root word for fraud.
We have fragments from Democritus and Epicurus. Confucius's existence is not in doubt, as is Solomon's, and Socrates is caught between Greeks who we at least have fragments for and Solomon for whom we have only myth. We know Socrates was real, but we have no idea what is "philosophy" was. Confucius might be argued similarly, but there are other issues we would have to address that are unique to eastern texts, but that is another story.
 
dparker713 said:
Gigantomachia said:
Yankee23Fan said:
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.
What?All I said is that I place empirical evidence over myth. And what do I care what plebes think about philosophy?
this is why you were a bad judge...
 
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.
:fishing: 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.
One last time, boy.The only evidence you can produce for your claims that Solomon wrote books is from the same Bible you claim he was part of writing.That does not count as valid evidence, sorry. boy.
:lmao: really?I know the Bible pretty well and I promise you that at no point in Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, or Proverbs does it say that Solomon is the author... and nowhere in the Book of Kings does it say it, either...Those books are attributed to him for the same reason that Sun Tzu is attributed the Art of War and Homer is attributed the Iliad and the Oddysey, because that's who everyone has always thought wrote them...and the "boy" thing is hilarious and shows how much of a pretentious ####### you really are...
 
this is why you were a bad judge...
Because I held philosophy above myth?Wow, if that is the measure so be it.
no, you are a bad judge because you took your personal bias, and ignored the purpose/meaning of the category in order to cater to that bias...Solomon has three books attributed to him and is as "real" as at least a dozen other figures (something like 5 of which are in the category he is in) and you ignore that fact for the others because the Bible isn't involved in their life...:fishing:you weren't suppose to grind your personal axes, you were supposed to judge impartially... You failed to do that, and the more you talk now, the more I feel I actually ranked you too high...
 
this is why you were a bad judge...
Because I held philosophy above myth?Wow, if that is the measure so be it.
That's ok though. Half the judges had Larry's guy fill the "too low" slot in his reviews. Clearly LB is not biased.
oh come on, most of them were just filler, that or they had nothing to do with my guy since it was a large group of people who were in the "too low" spot...its not like you can count Queen, Babe Ruth, or Solomon as actual "too low" picks, because they ahd nothing to do with me and had everything to do with the judge judging the category in a way that wasn't what the draft was about...
 
this is why you were a bad judge...
Because I held philosophy above myth?Wow, if that is the measure so be it.
That's ok though. Half the judges had Larry's guy fill the "too low" slot in his reviews. Clearly LB is not biased.
oh come on, most of them were just filler, that or they had nothing to do with my guy since it was a large group of people who were in the "too low" spot...its not like you can count Queen, Babe Ruth, or Solomon as actual "too low" picks, because they ahd nothing to do with me and had everything to do with the judge judging the category in a way that wasn't what the draft was about...
...according to your interpretation of it.And you clearly biased your ranking of judges based on how they judged compared to your interpretation of it. Which btw, your interpretation of what saint meant in the saints category is still very wrong.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gigantomachia, I have a serious question I'd like you to answer:

Forgetting for a moment the question of existence for both Socrates and King Solomon, I would like to know your opinion of what they were supposed to have written. Specifically with regard to Solomon, I would like you to discuss how important a philisophical work are the three books from the Bible he was supposed to have written.

 
this is why you were a bad judge...
Because I held philosophy above myth?Wow, if that is the measure so be it.
That's ok though. Half the judges had Larry's guy fill the "too low" slot in his reviews. Clearly LB is not biased.
oh come on, most of them were just filler, that or they had nothing to do with my guy since it was a large group of people who were in the "too low" spot...its not like you can count Queen, Babe Ruth, or Solomon as actual "too low" picks, because they ahd nothing to do with me and had everything to do with the judge judging the category in a way that wasn't what the draft was about...
...according to your interpretation of it.And you clearly biased your ranking of judges based on how they judged compared to your interpretation of it. Which btw, your interpretation of what saint meant in the saints category is still very wrong.
that just means that Tim incorrectly used the word...when you use "saint" in the same way as "martyr", it means "catholic saint"... :goodposting: I didn't decide that, its how it is...
 
Because I held philosophy above myth?

Wow, if that is the measure so be it.
That's ok though. Half the judges had Larry's guy fill the "too low" slot in his reviews. Clearly LB is not biased.
oh come on, most of them were just filler, that or they had nothing to do with my guy since it was a large group of people who were in the "too low" spot...its not like you can count Queen, Babe Ruth, or Solomon as actual "too low" picks, because they ahd nothing to do with me and had everything to do with the judge judging the category in a way that wasn't what the draft was about...
...according to your interpretation of it.And you clearly biased your ranking of judges based on how they judged compared to your interpretation of it. Which btw, your interpretation of what saint meant in the saints category is still very wrong.
that just means that Tim incorrectly used the word...when you use "saint" in the same way as "martyr", it means "catholic saint"... :goodposting: I didn't decide that, its how it is...
Can you direct me to the rule that states that please? While you're at it, how about the rule about when you use the word saint right next to the word humanitarian. And then tell me which one of those definitions of saint works best with the category description given " These people devoted their lives (in some cases sacrificed them) for the betterment of human life." For some reasons (logic and context for two of them) it doesn't seem to me like Tim is the one that used the wrong meaning of the word. Because try as I might, I just can't seem to find any minute reference to religion in any way shape or form here.Also, not sure if you knew this but martyrs are not reserved solely to religious figures:

mar⋅tyr

   /ˈmɑrtər/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [mahr-ter] Show IPA

–noun

1. a person who willingly suffers death rather than renounce his or her religion.

2. a person who is put to death or endures great suffering on behalf of any belief, principle, or cause: a martyr to the cause of social justice.

3. a person who undergoes severe or constant suffering: a martyr to severe headaches.

4. a person who seeks sympathy or attention by feigning or exaggerating pain, deprivation, etc.

In conclusion, there is much, much more contextual evidence to point towards the humanitarian definition of saint over the nonexistent evidence of the Catholic version of Saint (which btw requires nominating people whose deeds involve miracles that are inapplicable for the draft, even further proof that it isn't what the category was designed for)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What?All I said is that I place empirical evidence over myth. And what do I care what plebes think about philosophy?
Fairly absurd. Philosphy has no more basis in reality than myth. I would LOVE for you to prove me wrong with empirical evidence, but you have as much chance of doing that as Larry Boy has chance to prove Dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time.
 
Gigantomachia, I have a serious question I'd like you to answer:Forgetting for a moment the question of existence for both Socrates and King Solomon, I would like to know your opinion of what they were supposed to have written. Specifically with regard to Solomon, I would like you to discuss how important a philisophical work are the three books from the Bible he was supposed to have written.
Socrates did not write anything, and no one I have ever met denies this."If" Solomon existed, and that is a damn big if, the works attributed to him are theological, not philosophical. That difference seems beyond many in here. That being said, those works had a sociological impact but no influence on philosophy whatsoever; at least not directly. Philosophy was born from the Greek desire to understand "being" and has no direct relationship with any given theology. Granted, after scholasticism philosophers such as Descartes argue that no longer will philosophy be the hand maiden to religions, showing there was influence in a sense, but mostly negatively and as something to be overcome, not praised.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
All I said is that I place empirical evidence over myth. And what do I care what plebes think about philosophy?
There it is. The arrogant narcissism that makes those who "study" that field of uselessness think that they somehow have risen above the rest of us to a place that only they can understand. It's actually amazing that he graces us with his presence here. It must be tough to come this far down off the tower to mingle. Maybe it's an initiation thing.
 
All I said is that I place empirical evidence over myth. And what do I care what plebes think about philosophy?
There it is. The arrogant narcissism that makes those who "study" that field of uselessness think that they somehow have risen above the rest of us to a place that only they can understand. It's actually amazing that he graces us with his presence here. It must be tough to come this far down off the tower to mingle. Maybe it's an initiation thing.
Did a philosopher drop you on your head as a baby or something?
 
All I said is that I place empirical evidence over myth. And what do I care what plebes think about philosophy?
There it is. The arrogant narcissism that makes those who "study" that field of uselessness think that they somehow have risen above the rest of us to a place that only they can understand. It's actually amazing that he graces us with his presence here. It must be tough to come this far down off the tower to mingle. Maybe it's an initiation thing.
Did a philosopher drop you on your head as a baby or something?
Again - something has to be wrong with someone who doesn't see the supreme value of this useless "study." Although, I guess that given the actual arrogance required to attain entry into the club, so to speak, you must believe by definition that something is truly wrong with everyone else not in the club. I would be careful if I were you - your continued attempt at having a conversation with someone that doesn't revere your fecklessly meaningless mental masturbation that some call a study might bring you closer to us. At some point they might kick you out of the club for even thinking that you need to have a conversation with me.I do find it funny that you are incapable of defending the purposeless and vain field you try to project here on a regular basis. You always fall back on childish comments, like calling larry "boy," and describing those of us that can actually think for ourselves and don't need some professor to do it for us as plebes. Rinse. Repeat. Nothing else. Ever. Although, I guess when one is clothed in a garment of waste it's hard to prject anything worthwhile.
 
Yankee23Fan said:
Gigantomachia said:
All I said is that I place empirical evidence over myth. And what do I care what plebes think about philosophy?
There it is. The arrogant narcissism that makes those who "study" that field of uselessness think that they somehow have risen above the rest of us to a place that only they can understand. It's actually amazing that he graces us with his presence here. It must be tough to come this far down off the tower to mingle. Maybe it's an initiation thing.
Did a philosopher drop you on your head as a baby or something?
Again - something has to be wrong with someone who doesn't see the supreme value of this useless "study." Although, I guess that given the actual arrogance required to attain entry into the club, so to speak, you must believe by definition that something is truly wrong with everyone else not in the club. I would be careful if I were you - your continued attempt at having a conversation with someone that doesn't revere your fecklessly meaningless mental masturbation that some call a study might bring you closer to us. At some point they might kick you out of the club for even thinking that you need to have a conversation with me.I do find it funny that you are incapable of defending the purposeless and vain field you try to project here on a regular basis. You always fall back on childish comments, like calling larry "boy," and describing those of us that can actually think for ourselves and don't need some professor to do it for us as plebes. Rinse. Repeat. Nothing else. Ever. Although, I guess when one is clothed in a garment of waste it's hard to prject anything worthwhile.
Luckily for me your opinion doesn't mean much. :lmao:
 
Yankee23Fan said:
Gigantomachia said:
All I said is that I place empirical evidence over myth. And what do I care what plebes think about philosophy?
There it is. The arrogant narcissism that makes those who "study" that field of uselessness think that they somehow have risen above the rest of us to a place that only they can understand. It's actually amazing that he graces us with his presence here. It must be tough to come this far down off the tower to mingle. Maybe it's an initiation thing.
Did a philosopher drop you on your head as a baby or something?
Again - something has to be wrong with someone who doesn't see the supreme value of this useless "study." Although, I guess that given the actual arrogance required to attain entry into the club, so to speak, you must believe by definition that something is truly wrong with everyone else not in the club. I would be careful if I were you - your continued attempt at having a conversation with someone that doesn't revere your fecklessly meaningless mental masturbation that some call a study might bring you closer to us. At some point they might kick you out of the club for even thinking that you need to have a conversation with me.I do find it funny that you are incapable of defending the purposeless and vain field you try to project here on a regular basis. You always fall back on childish comments, like calling larry "boy," and describing those of us that can actually think for ourselves and don't need some professor to do it for us as plebes. Rinse. Repeat. Nothing else. Ever. Although, I guess when one is clothed in a garment of waste it's hard to prject anything worthwhile.
Luckily for me your opinion doesn't mean much. :shrug:
Likewise.
 
if we ever do this again, we need to find a way to temper the "common" understanding of these topics with the academic understanding of them...

I mean, does it really matter if the couple thousand English Lit doctorates think someone is the greatest writer ever when the 7 billion other people on earth disagree? (just making an extreme example to make a point)

I don't think that, sadly, this draft really reflected that and most of it had to do with judging (and I blame very few of the judges for taking this too far)... But there has to be a way to look at some of these subjects and give value to academic writings/topics/whatever and still understand that there is more to them than just that...

 
Followup Post:

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. :lmao:
Which translation?I started reading The Guermantes Way yesterday (translated by C.K. Scott Moncrief). Found a 1925 first edition over the weekend for $6.50 in a used book store on Smith Street (Brooklyn).

 
Followup Post:

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. :rant:
Which translation?I started reading The Guermantes Way yesterday (translated by C.K. Scott Moncrief). Found a 1925 first edition over the weekend for $6.50 in a used book store on Smith Street (Brooklyn).
Because of this draft I started reading The Brothers Karmazov for the third time and when finished will move onto Crime and Punishment for the second time (will be the first time in many years though, so I'm looking forward to it).
 
if we ever do this again, we need to find a way to temper the "common" understanding of these topics with the academic understanding of them...I mean, does it really matter if the couple thousand English Lit doctorates think someone is the greatest writer ever when the 7 billion other people on earth disagree? (just making an extreme example to make a point)I don't think that, sadly, this draft really reflected that and most of it had to do with judging (and I blame very few of the judges for taking this too far)... But there has to be a way to look at some of these subjects and give value to academic writings/topics/whatever and still understand that there is more to them than just that...
Still not buying the premise that more popular=greater.I'd rather take the advice of academics that have studied and studied literature anc dompared them across time to other literature as well as their sociocultural impact versus what 7 billion people think "is a good read" on the john or in a plane. Otherwise we'd have Dan Brown and JK Rowling as the greatest writers
 
Followup Post:

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. :scared:
Which translation?I started reading The Guermantes Way yesterday (translated by C.K. Scott Moncrief). Found a 1925 first edition over the weekend for $6.50 in a used book store on Smith Street (Brooklyn).
Modern Library. Also trans. by C.K. Scott Moncrief and Terence Kilmartin.
 
if we ever do this again, we need to find a way to temper the "common" understanding of these topics with the academic understanding of them...I mean, does it really matter if the couple thousand English Lit doctorates think someone is the greatest writer ever when the 7 billion other people on earth disagree? (just making an extreme example to make a point)I don't think that, sadly, this draft really reflected that and most of it had to do with judging (and I blame very few of the judges for taking this too far)... But there has to be a way to look at some of these subjects and give value to academic writings/topics/whatever and still understand that there is more to them than just that...
Still not buying the premise that more popular=greater.I'd rather take the advice of academics that have studied and studied literature anc dompared them across time to other literature as well as their sociocultural impact versus what 7 billion people think "is a good read" on the john or in a plane. Otherwise we'd have Dan Brown and JK Rowling as the greatest writers
Not saying that popularity is the sole measure of greatness...I'm saying that in order to decipher what is truly great, something that looks at every aspect of greatness (and popularity is one of them) should be used... To purely look at popularity is just as wrong as it is to purely look at academic views... Both are valid types of greatness, but since we weren't drafting "academically great" books, then, really, more than just academics should have been considered... (note: I'm not saying this wasn't done, just speaking as an example)Does that make sense?I'm not saying to swing too far to a populist opinion, I'm saying that we should be trying to meet someplace in the middle...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mario Kart's write up to go into the threads where my team will be voted on. I may not be able to repost in tomorrow's thread at the beginning so I am replying here and sending a PM to Tim to post with or under the two teams getting voted on. TIA

Mario Kart's Final Team

Leaders - Franklin Delano Roosevelt (post #5479) (16.20)

- FDR saw a country through one of the worst wars and worst times in the history of man to lead his country forward into a new era of power. From the ashes of WWII a lone country emerged as the world's superpower and have not relented since. FDR changed the focus of America from a country to a world leader.

Military - Sun Tzu (post #45) (1.01)

- One of the two leading war theorists the world has ever known. I picked Sun Tzu due to his longevity of influence in the world. While he may not be attributed to many wars due to documentation, his influence in the Eastern hemisphere has been huge throughout the last ~2500 years. The Art of War, the book attributed to him, is still used today in war studies as well as modern business practices, sporting events, strategy games, and even reality television.

Scientist - Dmitri Mendeleev (post #4660) (13.01)

- a modern chemist and inventor. He is given credit for creating the modern Periodic Table which enabled him and future chemists to test and theorize, correctly, other elements and their properties.

Inventor - Guglielmo Marconi (post #5479) (17.01)

- Marconi is given credit for the invention of the radio. While it is true there were other communication methods on a broad scale, the radio gave the possibility of mass communication from towns, to villages, to individual homes. A new wave of mass media, entertainment, and news was a new medium for the common person.

Discoverer/Explorer - Giovanni da Pian del Carpine (post #1281) (2.20)

- Carpine is not a well known explorer but his accomplishments should be. He was the first to chronicle his adventures into the great Mongol Empire and report what happened. His travels on land opened up Europe to the Mongols and paved the way for future explorations as the wealth gained from Carpine's notes.

Humanitarian/Saint/Martyr - Henry Dunant (post #5205) (15.01)

- Dunant has been credited for the origination of The Red Cross. The organization knows no race, color, creed or religion and has helped countless lives since its origination. Not only has it helped in the past but it will continue to help for many years to come.

Novelist/Short stories - J. R. R. Tolkien (post #3003)(6.20)

- Tolkien wrote the popular 20th century novel The Lord of The Rings. This piece of literature, along with other titles in the same world he created have been read throughout the world in countless countries. The series spawned a new wave of literature in the fantasy realm which has carried over into many movies, books, art that we see today.

Playwrights/Poets - Geoffrey Chaucer (post #1295) (3.01)

- Chaucer is known for his frame narrative titled, The Canterbury Tales. Even more importantly about his work, Tales created a bridge from Latin to Old English. What this did was essentially move modern literature away from the Latin language, as the prominent language, and gave rise to the English word as the dominant language. What followed is the popularity of the language much of the world speaks today instead of, possibly, Latin. Carpe Diem.

Villain - Ho Chi Minh (post #3916) (10.20)

- Minh is a bad man who may not have killed the amount of people that others have be responsible for but he did kill the minds, spirits, and hearts of, probably, just as many. He is responsible for thousands, if not millions, of exiles from their home country. Many people around the world have no home as Minh's policies turned Vietnam and its neighbors into a war zone for much of the 20th century.

Athlete - Alexander Karelin (post #6396) (20.20)

- The Russian Bear was a dominant force in his sport of Greco Roman Wrestling. One of the oldest forms of sport, The Russian Bear, posted three consecutive gold medals in the Olympics (88, 92, 96). He lost his bid for a fourth in 2000 in an upset by the score of 0-1. That was the only point given up by Karelin in more than six years of competition. The 2000 loss also ended a streak lasting 13 years of never losing a match.

Composer - Antonio Vivaldi (post #3403) (9.01)

- known for his The Four Seasons , which is a violin concerti, Vivaidi spent his time writing other concerti's, sonatas, operas and sinfonias'. He specialized, in theory, with the violin but used other stringed instruments to speak his music.

Musicians/Performers - Franz Liszt (post #6396) (21.01)

- Who is Franz Liszt? He is known as the greatest pianist to ever live. He is credited with performing music while playing the piano by showcasing bodily expressions as well as emotion with his movements that had never been seen before in the arts. Liszt paved the way for showmanship while playing music and opened the door for expression where expression was never before seen.

Painter - Claude Monet (post #2236) (4.20)

- Monet is a popular 20th century painter who helped create the Impressionist movement. Monet's focus on the creation of art rather than the finished product opened doors to reflect on the process of creation and use of color to liven up art instead of focusing on clear, concise images. The art Monet created impresses on people how people want it to impress on them. Instead of telling the viewer how the art is, the viewer tells what the art is.

Artist/Non-Painter - Auguste Rodin (post #2248) (5.01)

- best known for his work The Thinker, Rodin moved sculpting further than any artist before him. How? He brought realism into his sculptures. A person's emotion, real features were brought out by Rodin in his work. Past sculptors gave a mythological shape to their people... an ideal of what art, people are. Rodin showed that people are, in fact, the art that is powerful and not some imaginary image of what art is. Another concept Rodin brought to the table is that he wanted his work shown, copied, and recreated.

Philosopher - Hypatia of Alexandria (post #) (22.20)

- I chose Hypatia because she is the first notable woman in math and also played a role in early philosophy and astronomy. She may be best known for her death in which may have been brought upon by her beliefs. She encouraged logical and mathematical study while she defended science against religion.

Religious Figure - Pope Gregory XIII (post #3371) (8.20)

- Who is Pope Gregory XIII? He helped promote the arts and sciences into the church as Pope for starters. But, he is also the creator of the Gregorian Calendar which used science to help devise it. The Gregorian Calendar is what most of the world uses to know what day it is, what year it is, commonly, and if we did not have this system, we may not get paid on the 1st and 15th of each month... or however your paycheck comes.

Celebrity - Lucille Ball (post #6051) (19.01)

- arguably the first lady of comedy and television. In her time, Lucille Ball was known around the world, if they had televisions, and was watched like no other program at that time. With the extension of interviews, other shows, and her public life, people felt like they knew Lucille or rather Lucy and were a part of her life. The world knew her almost like family as she captivated the television screen like no other... because there were few others to do so.

Intellectual - John Maynard Keynes (post #3003) (7.01)

- you spend money, you make money, you want money, you lose money. The importance of money and our modern economic system with its faults and riches is the responsibility of Keynes. Any economics class talks about him and everybody around the world has been affected by the policies this man has made popular.

Rebel - Guy Fawkes (post #5205) (14.20)

- Remember, remember the 5th of November. The world we live in would be a much much different world had Parliament blown up on the 5th of November. Instead, we live in the world where we know Guy Fawkes as a dud, much like his explosive. What could have been? BOOM... did not go the dynamite.

Wildcards - Gavrilo Princip (post #3916) (11.01)

- Princip was the spark that lit the fire. What fire? The fire that began WWI by assassinating Archduke Ferdinand of Austria. His one bullet that hit Ferdinand began a war that included Europe and later America. The result was a weakening Germany, a loss of power by Austria-Hungary, and the Treaty of Versailles. This gave power to Hitler and the Nazi's which began WWII, the Holocaust, the Atomic Bomb and later the Cold War. Would the world have had a war without Princip's bullet? Maybe, but much like the butterfly flapping its wings, that one bullet gave us the world we know today. A similar war, without that bullet, may have, probably would have had, other consequences.

Wildcards - Edwin Hubble (post #6051) (18.20)

- The Milky Way is the only galaxy... ever. That was common thought before Hubble made his theory which later becamse known as Hubble's law. Other than a beautiful near-sighted telescope, Hubble gave way to thoughts and ideas of our universe that are widely accepted today.

Wildcards - Jean Piaget (post #4660) (12.20)

- a modern scientist who did not study the Earth, or space, or plants or trees. No, he studied humans and not in a psychotic, deranged kind of way. He studied humans to better understand who we are, how we are, how we learn, how we know what we know, who is who and what is what. Piaget and his theories helped give rise to new curriculum in schools (around the world) and has given us ways to think, know, and learn more efficiently than before.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mario Kart's write up to go into the threads where my team will be voted on. I may not be able to repost in tomorrow's thread at the beginning so I am replying here and sending a PM to Tim to post with or under the two teams getting voted on. TIA

Military - Sun Tzu (post #45) (1.01)

- One of the two leading war theorists the world has ever known. I picked Sun Tzu due to his longevity of influence in the world. While he may not be attributed to many wars due to documentation, his influence in the Eastern hemisphere has been huge throughout the last ~2500 years. The Art of War, the book attributed to him, is still used today in war studies as well as modern business practices, sporting events, strategy games, and even reality television.
Well, you never expounded on his influence on reality TV. I guess we have a winner!Also, please don't let this turd of a description go through

Wildcards - Gavrilo Princip (post #3916) (11.01)

- Princip was the spark that lit the fire. What fire? The fire that began WWI by assassinating Archduke Ferdinand of Austria. His one bullet that hit Ferdinand began a war that included Europe and later America. The result was a weakening Germany, a loss of power by Austria-Hungary, and the Treaty of Versailles. This gave power to Hitler and the Nazi's which began WWII, the Holocaust, the Atomic Bomb and later the Cold War. Would the world have had a war without Princip's bullet? Maybe, but much like the butterfly flapping its wings, that one bullet gave us the world we know today. A similar war, without that bullet, may have, probably would have had, other consequences.
What a bunch of BS. I can call up 10 histories of WWI that all say WWi was inevitable. A dozen assassins sent for one act, Pricip being the actual shooter basically by mechanical accident. Several MONTHS between the assassination and the start of WWI, after major political wrangling. Really, an entire WORLD war started simply because ONE unpopular archduke was killed?! And that doesn't even touch on all the nonsensical WWII repurcussions that are nowhere near being attributed to the lack of influence Princip had. If we're going to allow self writeups, there at least needs to be a reality check involved in them...
 
Wildcards - Gavrilo Princip (post #3916) (11.01)
I get it, you don't like to deduce further actions from his bullet unto him because he did not have a say in that but this could be related to today and the War on Terror. Bin Laden was a threat, not liked, caused damage, killed people and so on, but the War on Terror did not begin until two planes felled the World Trade Centers. Ferdinand was not liked, he was not loved, but he was a part of the country and leaders. People protect themselves and their leaders, even if hated, when the country is attacked. That is what happened after Princip's bullet. That was a catalyst to the war. Nobody can deny that. Back to Bin Laden. People attribute the war in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as future terror to him, although he may not have had a hand in either. But, the War on Terror trumps all in this matter and that equates to Bin Laden. While Princip may have fired one bullet killing a leader, many of the events I listed can be traced back to that one event. Fine, you might not agree but your disagreement does not deem it so.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top