» Site Navigation |
|
» Online Users: 893 |
0 members and 893 guests |
No Members online |
Most users ever online was 9,654, 05-18-2025 at 04:16 AM. |
|
 |
|
01-02-2014, 07:36 PM
|
#1
|
I am beyond a rank!
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,196
|
Re: Death Pool 2014. 10th Anniversary Special!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I thought we decided a person didn't become a celebrity just because s/he commited heinous crimes (although John Demjanjuk might be only that) a couple of years ago.
Becoming a celebrity on the basis of anticipated death seems like it shouldn't count. On the other hand, she's enterprising and a so is Barely for picking her.
|
I don't really care if my picks are determined to be real celebrities or not -- that's why I submitted alternates when I sent in my list. But, I don't think the test should rely on whether a person is only famous for committing a crime. Does that mean that we couldn't put Charles Manson on our lists? Or the Lockerbie bomber? I remember a few people, including me, having him a few years ago and I don't recall any debate about whether he was a celebrity, even though he's only famous for committing a heinous crime. What about Jack Kevorkian -- wasn't he on a few lists in years past? I would argue that there are tons of people that have been on our lists over the years that have not been questioned, even though they were only famous for committing crimes. Or maybe I was the only person who ever had those people on my list, and y'all have just caught on to my methods?
As to Fawkes, I was hesitant to include her for the reasons that NCS stated, but it was such a softball, I couldn't resist.
__________________
A lifetime of questionable choices has given me douche-ray vision.
|
|
|
01-02-2014, 11:00 PM
|
#2
|
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 86,147
|
Re: Death Pool 2014. 10th Anniversary Special!
Quote:
Originally Posted by barely_legal
I don't really care if my picks are determined to be real celebrities or not -- that's why I submitted alternates when I sent in my list. But, I don't think the test should rely on whether a person is only famous for committing a crime. Does that mean that we couldn't put Charles Manson on our lists? Or the Lockerbie bomber? I remember a few people, including me, having him a few years ago and I don't recall any debate about whether he was a celebrity, even though he's only famous for committing a heinous crime. What about Jack Kevorkian -- wasn't he on a few lists in years past? I would argue that there are tons of people that have been on our lists over the years that have not been questioned, even though they were only famous for committing crimes. Or maybe I was the only person who ever had those people on my list, and y'all have just caught on to my methods?
As to Fawkes, I was hesitant to include her for the reasons that NCS stated, but it was such a softball, I couldn't resist.
|
It's getting late in the voting process, and I've already voted, so don't take this as crass advice, it is simply me trying to be helpful: If you participated in TMBD2 you might want to repost the photo. People on the fence move for any number of reasons.
__________________
I will not suffer a fool- but I do seem to read a lot of their posts
|
|
|
01-04-2014, 02:26 AM
|
#3
|
For the People
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: on the coast
Posts: 1,009
|
Not Waking Up, even for Little Susie
Phil Everly, of the Everly Brothers, dead at 74.
So influential for so long. From The Beatles to Elliott Smith, and a whole lot of great music in between.
__________________
"You're going to miss everything cool and die angry."
|
|
|
01-04-2014, 08:32 PM
|
#4
|
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 86,147
|
Re: Not Waking Up, even for Little Susie
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Manfred
|
Are you a vampire?
__________________
I will not suffer a fool- but I do seem to read a lot of their posts
|
|
|
01-05-2014, 04:25 PM
|
#5
|
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 86,147
|
Re: Death Pool 2014. 10th Anniversary Special!
wrong board
__________________
I will not suffer a fool- but I do seem to read a lot of their posts
Last edited by Hank Chinaski; 01-05-2014 at 08:01 PM..
|
|
|
01-06-2014, 12:38 PM
|
#6
|
Flaired.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Out with Lumbergh.
Posts: 9,954
|
Re: Death Pool 2014. 10th Anniversary Special!
Quote:
Originally Posted by barely_legal
I don't really care if my picks are determined to be real celebrities or not -- that's why I submitted alternates when I sent in my list. But, I don't think the test should rely on whether a person is only famous for committing a crime. Does that mean that we couldn't put Charles Manson on our lists? Or the Lockerbie bomber? I remember a few people, including me, having him a few years ago and I don't recall any debate about whether he was a celebrity, even though he's only famous for committing a heinous crime. What about Jack Kevorkian -- wasn't he on a few lists in years past? I would argue that there are tons of people that have been on our lists over the years that have not been questioned, even though they were only famous for committing crimes. Or maybe I was the only person who ever had those people on my list, and y'all have just caught on to my methods?
As to Fawkes, I was hesitant to include her for the reasons that NCS stated, but it was such a softball, I couldn't resist.
|
I agree that there are a few people who are so well known for their crimes that they are notorious and therefore they qualify as a "celebrity". Charles Manson is a perfect example.* My big question for the guy on your list is does he qualify? I don't think everyone who ever killed anybody (even in cases that got a lot of press at the time) is a celebrity and my personal belief as to the pool of notorious criminals who should be included here is that it should be quite small.
Is the point of this game to find the most obscure possible person who possibly could be a "celebrity"? I think not. If you are looking up people you don't already know who appear on death watch lists on the internet, I think that is sort of against the spirit of the celebrity death pool. Just my opinion, but I guess my opinion sort of matters here. By including these questionable people who I then need to research and waste my mental energy on deciding whether technically they are celebrities, it makes my job running this pool less fun.
My decision in this case (taking into account the feedback I got on the board and via PM) is that I'll still let Ian Brady in because I let him in last year, but that doesn't mean he qualifies as a celebrity by my definition and I really think he's a lame pick. Fawkes is disqualified and I'll sub Valerie Harper in her place. I kind of wish you (including the larger you of all participants) would listen to what I'm saying here, and maybe take it to heart in the future when making your picks. But maybe that is asking too much.
Hank has suggested several times a NYT obits test, but I don't really like that test because I find it potentially over-inclusive (especially in this day and age of every news outlet competitively covering every possible story). I think in the end who qualifies as a celebrity is always going to have a subjective element to it. Now you all know a little more the way my definition of celebrity tends to go...
*I'm not gonna look it up, but if he's technically on death row, I don't think he's an eligible pick here (even if CA doesn't currently apply the death penalty).
__________________
See you later, decorator.
|
|
|
01-06-2014, 01:00 PM
|
#7
|
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 86,147
|
Re: Death Pool 2014. 10th Anniversary Special!
Quote:
Originally Posted by notcasesensitive
Hank has suggested several times a NYT obits test,
|
suggest it only to ease your hassle
Paig's sis runs a pool and uses it, and lord knows this board has always benefited from the advice given by that fam.
__________________
I will not suffer a fool- but I do seem to read a lot of their posts
|
|
|
04-10-2014, 03:07 AM
|
#8
|
Hello, Dum-Dum.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 10,117
|
Re: Death Pool 2014. 10th Anniversary Special!
|
|
|
04-15-2014, 05:53 PM
|
#9
|
Patch Diva
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Winter Wonderland
Posts: 4,607
|
Re: Death Pool 2014. 10th Anniversary Special!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch
|
I thought he would be a sure hit for me for this year. Guess I've got the Angel of Life thing going again.
|
|
|
04-17-2014, 02:59 PM
|
#10
|
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 86,147
|
Re: Death Pool 2014. 10th Anniversary Special!
__________________
I will not suffer a fool- but I do seem to read a lot of their posts
|
|
|
04-17-2014, 04:00 PM
|
#11
|
I am beyond a rank!
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,196
|
Re: Death Pool 2014. 10th Anniversary Special!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch
|
Eh, doesn't mean he can't still die. But I'm 0 for 10 so far this year so I'm not counting on back-to-back victories.
__________________
A lifetime of questionable choices has given me douche-ray vision.
|
|
|
04-17-2014, 05:41 PM
|
#12
|
Patch Diva
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Winter Wonderland
Posts: 4,607
|
More than 100 Years of Solitude
|
|
|
04-25-2014, 04:33 PM
|
#13
|
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 86,147
|
Re: Death Pool 2014. 10th Anniversary Special!
__________________
I will not suffer a fool- but I do seem to read a lot of their posts
|
|
|
08-11-2014, 07:31 PM
|
#14
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,568
|
Re: Death Pool 2014. 10th Anniversary Special!
I guess there goes the Mork and Mindy reunion.
__________________
gothamtakecontrol
|
|
|
08-19-2014, 01:32 AM
|
#15
|
Hello, Dum-Dum.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 10,117
|
Re: Death Pool 2014. 10th Anniversary Special!
|
|
|
 |
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|