Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Yeah, I ain't gonna catch him, unless there's some miracle (for instance, if the inventions judge really admires condoms.)
1. D'oh!2. Will do. I can't promise anything, though. There is a good chance that, if I haven't gotten into them by now, I likely never will. Still.
Sorry. I didn't realize that compilations, no matter how artfully compiled, were off-limits. No wonder nobody took The Anthology of American Folk Music. It is the essential American album.
Hey Ollie, since you like some of the old-time country guys like Hank Sr, Willie, Patsy and Loretta, how do you feel about Bob Wills and the Texas Playboys and his latter day successor, Ray Benson and Asleep at the Wheel?And since you mention Gram Parsons, how do you feel about Lowell George and Little Feat or Pure Prairie League
Ray Charles can sing better than almost anybody. I just think that the arrangements on that record weaken the songs.
You have no idea what a big step that was for me to admit.
I don't know. I also love Exile, Rubber Soul, and Live At The Apollo! All three are also clearly essential records by an essential artist. I also love Every Picture Tells A Story, in which Ron Wood and Rod Stewart reach their highest level of artistic achievement. But I should have gone with the Dylan...
I love Bob Willis. I don't think I've ever heard Ray Benson or Asleep at the Wheel.I don't feel anything at all about Little Feat, and I've never heard of the Pure Prarie League.
Actually, I did. Moops and Steve Tasker both replied that they were still on board to rank Sculptures and Inventions, respectively. Moops even posted in the thread that he was still on board.Did anyone let the judges who were not participants know that this thing is over? From what I am hearing the answer is NO (seriously, wtf?), but I thought I would ask anyway.
[EDIT] Sorry. Didn't realize that Pure Prarie Leage were the dudes who sang "Amie".Listening to that song as I type this.I still have no opinion at all.
Tasker got a PM a while back that said this was almost over. He never got the final go ahead.Actually, I did. Moops and Steve Tasker both replied that they were still on board to rank Sculptures and Inventions, respectively. Moops even posted in the thread that he was still on board.Did anyone let the judges who were not participants know that this thing is over? From what I am hearing the answer is NO (seriously, wtf?), but I thought I would ask anyway.
If you love Bob Wills, you'd probably like The Wheel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asleep_at_the_wheel
Years later (1981, IIRC), also sang "Let Me Love You Tonight" with Vince Gill on lead vocals. I'd bet my house that you'd passionately hate that song. Way too commercial.
Okay. I think the song "Amie" is pretty awful, even with the 15-part harmonies. I do, however, like the song "Early Morning Riser", though I don't know why. It has a neat little guitar solo at the end that fades out, then fades back in before finally fading out for good. Kind of neat. They are better than the Eagles by virtue of not being the Eagles. It is no "Return of The Grievous Angel", though.
I didn't say the Police suck. I said that, to me, they are unremarkable in every way. They've got a ways to go before they get to suck. I merely reported a story where Steve Albini and Tim Midgett said that they suck, and, yes, they were stating their own personal taste. And if by "sometimes" you mean "almost never" then I agree with you.Doug B said:
He's incredible, yeah.
IMHO, "popularity", "quality", and "artistic merit" do not correlate in any way -- neither positively nor negatively."Almost never" is putting it too strongly. "Not often" is more like it. Maybe I'm splitting hairs.
I haven't seen anything from whomever it was that was supposed to judge Scientific Discoveries. I've been playing around with them and have them about 2/3rds judged myself. I'd gladly step in and finish if it speeds things along.jamyp said:Tasker got a PM a while back that said this was almost over. He never got the final go ahead.rodg12 said:Actually, I did. Moops and Steve Tasker both replied that they were still on board to rank Sculptures and Inventions, respectively. Moops even posted in the thread that he was still on board.jamyp said:Did anyone let the judges who were not participants know that this thing is over? From what I am hearing the answer is NO (seriously, wtf?), but I thought I would ask anyway.
Since I don't know the qualifications of the current SD judge, and I do know that Genedoc is, well, a gene doc, I'd rather he be the judge anyway.I haven't seen anything from whomever it was that was supposed to judge Scientific Discoveries. I've been playing around with them and have them about 2/3rds judged myself. I'd gladly step in and finish if it speeds things along.jamyp said:Tasker got a PM a while back that said this was almost over. He never got the final go ahead.rodg12 said:Actually, I did. Moops and Steve Tasker both replied that they were still on board to rank Sculptures and Inventions, respectively. Moops even posted in the thread that he was still on board.jamyp said:Did anyone let the judges who were not participants know that this thing is over? From what I am hearing the answer is NO (seriously, wtf?), but I thought I would ask anyway.
That's fine with me, but we'd have to find another judge for your picks, as I am unqualified.I haven't seen anything from whomever it was that was supposed to judge Scientific Discoveries. I've been playing around with them and have them about 2/3rds judged myself. I'd gladly step in and finish if it speeds things along.jamyp said:Tasker got a PM a while back that said this was almost over. He never got the final go ahead.rodg12 said:Actually, I did. Moops and Steve Tasker both replied that they were still on board to rank Sculptures and Inventions, respectively. Moops even posted in the thread that he was still on board.jamyp said:Did anyone let the judges who were not participants know that this thing is over? From what I am hearing the answer is NO (seriously, wtf?), but I thought I would ask anyway.
I second that emotion.Since I don't know the qualifications of the current SD judge, and I do know that Genedoc is, well, a gene doc, I'd rather he be the judge anyway.I haven't seen anything from whomever it was that was supposed to judge Scientific Discoveries. I've been playing around with them and have them about 2/3rds judged myself. I'd gladly step in and finish if it speeds things along.jamyp said:Tasker got a PM a while back that said this was almost over. He never got the final go ahead.rodg12 said:Actually, I did. Moops and Steve Tasker both replied that they were still on board to rank Sculptures and Inventions, respectively. Moops even posted in the thread that he was still on board.jamyp said:Did anyone let the judges who were not participants know that this thing is over? From what I am hearing the answer is NO (seriously, wtf?), but I thought I would ask anyway.
timschochet said:
Same is true for a lot of early artists (Louis Jordan, T-Bone Walker, etc.)Also, pretty sure the same is true for the previously mentioned Muddy album . . .
Pretty sure you won't regret listening to this one.A few others I think belonged in this draft...Oliver Humanzee said:
Not according to Kukla, Fran, and Ollie Know-All - Know-NothingInteresting how he has to relate everything to his pedestrian attempts as a musician, and to the garbage known as "Jesus Lizard"It is obvious his failed musical attempts have soured him on many outstanding offerings because they also bear the burden of popularity.Have you just realized this whole Category has been about "Personal Taste", sprinkled with "The Humantic"s stories of what greasy, screaming, smelly, under-appreciated punk genius he drank rotgut vodka with?Doug B said:
A couple of things stood out to me. I was expecting Darwinian Evolution and Vaccination to be tiered higher. However, the more I looked at their rankings, the more I agreed with them. What great discoveries in medicine would you drop in order to raise vaccination? Anatomy? Physiology? Blood Group discovery? Hard to argue with the impact of any of those discoveries. Anyway, should be an interesting discussion.
Another Hose JobGreat - the discovery of oxygen or the circulatory system is high, but are they really greater than organ transpantation......................................
Age has precious little to do with the rankings. The discovery of how the circulatory system works has direct implications on every field of medicine. Without a working knowledge of the circulatory system and blood groups, there is no organ transplantation. Organ transplantation save lives in the developed world almost exclusively, and even then it usually adds little more than a few years to a life. And the discovery of oxygen has major, critical implications in several field of study.
I obviously love wine more than most, but seriously, if wine had never been discovered, our lives as we know wouldn't be fundamentally different.
There were only 55-56 things tiered - I left my own out. Pasteurization is a narrow application of germ theory. Germ theory was revolutionary; pasteurization as a discovery was simply a narrow proof of the larger principle.
There were hugely important discoveries that predated and laid the foundation for both of those.
Yeah, I've seen that list. It's a list of influential scientists, not individual discoveries, which makes it not terribly helpful.
There were hugely important discoveries that predated and laid the foundation for both of those.
My attempts at musicianship may have been pedestrian, but at least I was willing to participate in rock n' roll, rather than to passively sit there, consume, then glibly judge what I have consumed.And if I relate my judgement to my role as particpant it is only because, well, I wouldn't know how to do it otherwise. You learn a few things about music when you spend a decade or so of your life attempting to create it, execute it, and disseminate the creations of others. Way it goes, I guess. I just fail to see how a life spent rocking would somehow make me less qualified to have an opinion.
I've no problem admitting I had Pi and Pythagorean Theorem both all over the place and will readily listen to input from mathematicians on where they'd slot them, which is why this is the preliminary tiering. I ended up putting them where I did because it seemed to me after some reading that Pi has broader applications that the Pythagorean Theorem, and the Pythagorean Theorem seemed a much narrower slice of mathematics. But like I said, I'd have no problem with someone who has a mathematics background correcting me. ALL OF SCIENCE is a pretty overwhelming category to judge.
The first dinosaur fossil find revolutionized a number of fields (evolutionary biology, geology, zoology, history, etc) and created one of it's own (paleontology). There are not many discoveries in history that can make such a claim. As for the Scientific Method, it's applications as a framework for how science is performed, what science is, and what it is not are as broad reaching as any concept I can think of. Whether a physicist or a biologist or a chemist, the basic framework of how we ask questions of the universe around us is united by the framework of the scientific method.
As a whole your tiers look significantly different than mine would, but then again you are in first and I'm not. Thanks for answering, its not easy being a judge.I've no problem admitting I had Pi and Pythagorean Theorem both all over the place and will readily listen to input from mathematicians on where they'd slot them, which is why this is the preliminary tiering. I ended up putting them where I did because it seemed to me after some reading that Pi has broader applications that the Pythagorean Theorem, and the Pythagorean Theorem seemed a much narrower slice of mathematics. But like I said, I'd have no problem with someone who has a mathematics background correcting me. ALL OF SCIENCE is a pretty overwhelming category to judge.
Tides, this is an internet draft. Are you ####### kidding me?TidesofWar said:
I'm more than open to suggestions/comments, which is why this is fun and why I did it the way I did. There are plenty of things I'd be more than willing to move tiers if someone who knows could explain to me why they belong somewhere else. Where ________ fits into the entire world history of scientific discovery is a huge question. I put a premium on 1) things that created new fields of study and impacted several other fields, 2) things that defined or overturned existing paradigms or dogma, and 3) things that go a long way towards explaining our place in the universe. Pasteurization was a great example. It probably would have fared better as an invention, because as a discovery, it's meh. It's a very narrow subset of something else that was a big discovery (germ theory). Germ theory impacted many different fields of study and created new ones. Pasteurization, much less so.As a whole your tiers look significantly different than mine would, but then again you are in first and I'm not. Thanks for answering, its not easy being a judge.I've no problem admitting I had Pi and Pythagorean Theorem both all over the place and will readily listen to input from mathematicians on where they'd slot them, which is why this is the preliminary tiering. I ended up putting them where I did because it seemed to me after some reading that Pi has broader applications that the Pythagorean Theorem, and the Pythagorean Theorem seemed a much narrower slice of mathematics. But like I said, I'd have no problem with someone who has a mathematics background correcting me. ALL OF SCIENCE is a pretty overwhelming category to judge.
Forget all that. How about I just pay you cash to move me up?I'm more than open to suggestions/comments, which is why this is fun and why I did it the way I did. There are plenty of things I'd be more than willing to move tiers if someone who knows could explain to me why they belong somewhere else. Where ________ fits into the entire world history of scientific discovery is a huge question. I put a premium on 1) things that created new fields of study and impacted several other fields, 2) things that defined or overturned existing paradigms or dogma, and 3) things that go a long way towards explaining our place in the universe. Pasteurization was a great example. It probably would have fared better as an invention, because as a discovery, it's meh. It's a very narrow subset of something else that was a big discovery (germ theory). Germ theory impacted many different fields of study and created new ones. Pasteurization, much less so.As a whole your tiers look significantly different than mine would, but then again you are in first and I'm not. Thanks for answering, its not easy being a judge.I've no problem admitting I had Pi and Pythagorean Theorem both all over the place and will readily listen to input from mathematicians on where they'd slot them, which is why this is the preliminary tiering. I ended up putting them where I did because it seemed to me after some reading that Pi has broader applications that the Pythagorean Theorem, and the Pythagorean Theorem seemed a much narrower slice of mathematics. But like I said, I'd have no problem with someone who has a mathematics background correcting me. ALL OF SCIENCE is a pretty overwhelming category to judge.
Wow. OH is so up in your kitchen right nowTidesofWar said:
