The second-greatest living Briton

[the Empress]

People don't have to experience things to be able to make a judgement. They can gather evidence through research, inlcuding documentation, oral histories, artifacts etc. If someone wanted to nominate Jade Goody that would be their choice, that doesn't mean you yourself have to vote for them or even like them. Why would you therefore be vexed? I mean, they're not oppressing you with their admiration of her. The fact that they nominate her implies that they like and/or admire and/or empathise with her, not that they're evil/stupid or whatever. Frankly I could see someone nominating Jade Goody because she's someone who isn't that smart who managed to make alot of money, and because she (whatever her motivation) has highlighted cervical cancer; hell it may have motivated their parent to get a smear which saved their life. So, even if eye rolled, I wouldn't condemn them for such a nomination.

Respecting someone does not mean that that they embrace whole-heartedly all of that person's beliefs and lifestyle. For example, I admire/am fascinated by Napoleon Bonaparte and Napoleon III for many reasons (they'd be in my list of historic greats), but that doesn't mean I believe world domination etc. is a great thing or that I am incapable of judgement because I did not live in that era. I found your earlier example of Wellington kind of interesting; y'know, he didn't like low-class soldiers much.

Basically, I think you just need to chill RedCelt.

Bah. No-one's going on any foe list. Disagree as I might, it's darn good fun.

I tried to distance myself from the 'I hate conservatives' nonsensical upbringing I had a few years ago. I'm no fan of Margaret Thatcher, and find it baffling how infatuated folks are with her, but the madcap hatred is perplexing.

Are you a fan of Blair? Or Brown? Pick a politician (or prominent figure) you dislike.

Oh, I know...

Imagine that a generation from now someone wants to nominate Jade Goody as "Best Brit Ever". They never experienced Jade Goody firsthand, but they're assured (quite possibly by their parents) that she was the best thing since sliced bread. Would you perhaps feel a tad vexed that someone who didn't have the delight of experiencing Jade Goody would insist that she was deserving of the title?

[RedCelt69]

I really wish I hadn't clicked "display this post" out of morbid fascination.

I really wish that, having done so, you hadn't decided to click "Reply" and type out the above, making sure everyone knew about your morbid fascination - omitting what motivated you to do so. Morbid fascination, again?

People don't have to experience things to be able to make a judgement. They can gather evidence through research, inlcuding documentation, oral histories, artifacts etc.

Granted. But having done so, I'd be wary of considering myself better able to judge than someone who was there at the time. I think Churchill was a great PM - he had his faults, but as a leader during wartime, the UK could have done much much worse. Now, if someone who actually experienced Churchillian Britain told me that life under his premiership was hideous (other than the obvious reasons life during and after wartime would be considered hideous) I'd have to revise my opinion about the great man not being quite so... great.

If someone wanted to nominate Jade Goody that would be their choice, that doesn't mean you yourself have to vote for them or even like them. Why would you therefore be vexed? I mean, they're not oppressing you with their admiration of her. The fact that they nominate her implies that they like and/or admire and/or empathise with her, not that they're evil/stupid or whatever.

You're walking down the street and, for no apparent reason, you are assaulted by a ned. A by-stander watches while he repeatedly punches and kicks you to the ground before staggering off to the next pub. The by-stander approaches you and says "you have to admire his upper-cut... quite magnificently executed."

Now... would you be annoyed about the observation?

Given a position of objectivity, you may well be able to admire the arc his fist makes as it heads towards your throat... but you're hardly likely to think so when you are so personally involved. And you might be resentful of someone pointing it out to you.

Respecting someone does not mean that that they embrace whole-heartedly all of that person's beliefs and lifestyle. For example, I admire/am fascinated by Napoleon Bonaparte and Napoleon III for many reasons (they'd be in my list of historic greats), but that doesn't mean I believe world domination etc. is a great thing or that I am incapable of judgement because I did not live in that era. I found your earlier example of Wellington kind of interesting; y'know, he didn't like low-class soldiers much.

Well, to pick another (quite literally) great person from history, how about Alexander the Great? He is widely considered to be an amazing general/king/self-proclaimed deity. But how about you were to travel back in time and walk up to an orphan snivelling in the shell of what used to be his home surrounded by the smouldering remains of what used to be his family prior to Alexander sweeping on through. What reaction do you think you would get if you were to tell him how great Alexander was?

Basically, I think you just need to chill RedCelt.

Most likely, yes. You certainly wouldn't be the first to tell me so. Unfortunately, idiocy winds me up...

You're an idiot. I think the above speaks for itself.

...as does being unjustly labelled as such.

<shrug>

Mea culpa.

[the Empress]

as I previously explained you used the word 'counterpart', which meant you were saying that Thatcherites serve a similar function to Nazis.

Your replies are totally random. How is a nomination in anyway equivalent to being attacked by a Ned?

[RedCelt69]

coun⋅ter⋅part
–noun
1. a person or thing closely resembling another, esp. in function: Our president is the counterpart of your prime minister.

Someone in the UK who is likely to nomimate Thatcher because their political stance is aligned to Thatcher... their counterpart in Austria is someone likely to nominate Hitler because their political stance is aligned to Hitler.

I picked Hitler from the list of "great" people provided by Duggeh because I knew that he (Hitler, not Duggeh) and Mozart were both from Austria. Stalin, I vaguely recall, was from somewhere other than Russia itself. Ukraine, possibly? Not sure. To save myself a Google, I stuck with my choice... which resulted in someone's faulty logic (and a propensity to jump to dodgy conclusions) asserting that I had called them a nazi.

Which has resulted in numerous subsequent posts explaining why I did no such thing. A bit of a false economy. Next time, I'll just use Google.

What has being attacked by a ned got to do with nominating someone? If it helps you with the analogy, pretend the by-stander goes off and nominates the ned for... oh, I dunno... Citizen of the Year?

[the Empress]

Ok, myself and other people have already pointed out how your sentence read and the grammer behind it. Maybe we should have a poll, by which it can be demonstrated that the majority of people would read it as Thatcherite=Nazi. What you should have said was 'sorry, that's not what I meant. I was making a spurious comparison.'

To break things down further for you: greatness is not idealism or perfection however defined. If you nominate a person, there will be aspects, actions or achievements which you consider great, which is the reason you've nominated them. It doesn't mean everything they have ever done was perfect.

You're obviously not a historian, so I'll give you a bit more help. Historians or investigators may understand situations better than those living events because, in hindsight and with time, they can gather more information. This is unrelated to an emotional response. So, using your random example, if a person was attacked by a Ned they probably wouldn't know the reason for this. Subsequent investigation may reveal that it was a racial attack or that the Ned had a mental illness. In the latter case, the blame for such an attack may fall an establishment which failed to diagnose this or medicate for it. The implications of the event change depending on how much information you have. You didn't need to have been the victim to evaluate that event.

Because a personal admires a particular politician or whatever, it doen't mean you can infer their beliefs. People are more complex than that. I suspect however this whole discussion will prove fruitless.

[Frank]

Someone in the UK who is likely to nomimate Thatcher because their political stance is aligned to Thatcher... their counterpart in Austria is someone likely to nominate Hitler because their political stance is aligned to Hitler.

Again, on the whole 'likely' front: The evidence behind such a claim? I honestly haven't studied it, or heard of folks who've studied it. Or read about it.

The habits of humans is something mildly fascinating, but I'm reasonably confident that it won't be exactly as our intuitions tell us. Given that instinctive (even in intellectual instincts) things are often unreliable, I'm content to call shenanigans on the idea that folks hereabouts (i.e. on the Sinner) would necessarily nominate Thatcher out of political empathy.

Strangely, I don't have a major dislike for many politicians. Charles Clarke, I suppose. But even that's hardly well informed. I believe it's a Spanish phrase: "Opinions are like arses, everybody has one"

My point is then that I don't think folks opinions on something are necessarily representative of their thoughts, their history or other relevent feature. I'd be inclined to hear lists of examples, but then I'd be able to think of a bundle of counterexamples too, leaving us with a pile of anecdotes and not terribly much else to inform or arm ourselves with against 'stupidity', or rather: ignorance of the 'truth' of the matter.

A better discussion, in that regard, would be hearing what folks think would actually be sensible criteria for which to measure the greatest living Briton. Suggestions, anyone?

Criteria

Well, for my part, I'd suggest intelligence and productivity. Not necessarily academic intelligence, but that sort of wise intelligence, they speak out thoughtfully and with considered (not necessarily considerate) opinions. Someone who's actually pretty good at thinking.

Similarly, with productivity, someone who's given alot, who's done alot. Unfortunately this aspect of 'greatness' will perhaps mean that it'll be someone who's had a lot of help along the way. I.e. they've been afforded the fruitful opportunities and yet have also made a good effort on top of that.

Wit. It's not a killer part of the bargain, but a sensible and appealing wit is something I'd be inclined to rate highly too. This immediately elevates public figures (Steven Fry, for instance) because it's hard to judge the wit of someone you don't hear from very often...

[RedCelt69]

Ok, myself and other people

Translation: Myself and Duggeh

have already pointed out how your sentence read and the grammer behind it.

The grammar behind it? Can grammar be behind something, or is grammar the compositional nature of the language being used?

Let me remind myself (and you)...

The only way you can possibly view Thatcher as a strong contender for greatest ever Briton is if, like your counterparts in Austria who would vote for Hitler, your politics were aligned to the person you were voting for.

That's clear, then. Should I have expected a response from an offended Austrian, claiming that I had called him a Thatcherite? No. Why? Because I didn't. I've already spelled it out multiple times now and I'm heartily sick of spoon-feeding you. If you're still not clear on why the above in no way makes the claim that Thatcherites are Nazis (or vice versa) then join a remedial English class.

Maybe we should have a poll, by which it can be demonstrated that the majority of people would read it as Thatcherite=Nazi.

Why bother with a poll when you have already attested to the result? Since when has truth been democratic?

What you should have said was 'sorry, that's not what I meant. I was making a spurious comparison.'

So. I should have said "sorry" for your lack of intelligence? I meant exactly what I said and said exactly what I meant. It wasn't a spurious comparison. It was a perfectly legitimate comparison.
Furthermore, had I made such a logical/linguistic error, the last thing I would have done is to apologise to someone who said:-

your word play there was exceptionally weak and obvious.

Especially when the aforementioned person's most noteworthy habit is to post exceptionally weak and obvious jpegs.

You're obviously not a historian, so I'll give you a bit more help. Historians or investigators may understand situations better than those living events because, in hindsight and with time, they can gather more information. This is unrelated to an emotional response. So, using your random example, if a person was attacked by a Ned they probably wouldn't know the reason for this. Subsequent investigation may reveal that it was a racial attack or that the Ned had a mental illness. In the latter case, the blame for such an attack may fall an establishment which failed to diagnose this or medicate for it. The implications of the event change depending on how much information you have. You didn't need to have been the victim to evaluate that event.

So you'd tell the orphan that Alexander was great and be surprised if you got a negative reaction?

[the Empress]

[

your word play there was exceptionally weak and obvious.

Especially when the aforementioned person's most noteworthy habit is to post exceptionally weak and obvious jpegs.

I don't know why you repeated that. Except you're annoyed because Dug's funnier than you? Or that he doesn't find you funny. You don't have to be dour *all the time*. Chill.

You're obviously not a historian, so I'll give you a bit more help. Historians or investigators may understand situations better than those living events because, in hindsight and with time, they can gather more information. This is unrelated to an emotional response. So, using your random example, if a person was attacked by a Ned they probably wouldn't know the reason for this. Subsequent investigation may reveal that it was a racial attack or that the Ned had a mental illness. In the latter case, the blame for such an attack may fall an establishment which failed to diagnose this or medicate for it. The implications of the event change depending on how much information you have. You didn't need to have been the victim to evaluate that event.

So you'd tell the orphan that Alexander was great and be surprised if you got a negative reaction?

Your response has nothing to do with what you've qouted, but OK. I'm not really up on Alexander the Great but I'll respond with logic. I wouldn't tell this imaginery orphan anything. His contributions to military tactics may be what you're interested in and admire; *that* is the great achievement you would associate with him. It has nothing to do with orphans. He was a great warrior, you're not saying he was a great humanitarian.

I'm going to speculate here that the real problem you have with this thread is that you reject the history of great men, where great is: 'larger than others of its kind, of major significance or importance, remarkable or out of the ordinary in degree or magnitude or effect', and prefer some other thinking, such as feminist history. Which frankly would be a more interesting argument.

Also, don't you know? I kick orphans.

[Zanbato]

This is highly amusing.

Personally, I'd vote David Attenborough.

Although I rarely agree with RedCelt, to me the initial post makes sense. The key word is would, and if it changes the tone of the statement. I don't neccessarily agree.

[Quote='RedCelt69']The only way you can possibly view Thatcher as a strong contender for greatest ever Briton is if, like your counterparts in Austria who would vote for Hitler, your politics were aligned to the person you were voting for.[/quote]

[David Bean]

Goodness! And there was me innocently trying, in my gauche fashion, to provoke a simple, optimistic discussion of great Britons who are alive today, and look what it started!

RedCelt, I like you. I mean, IRL I hate you and everything you stand for, but on The Sinner, I like you. You're good for this place; you bring a level of debate, analysis and, crucially, provocation we haven't seen for a long time. You're the new Paul.

But I must dispute your implicit comparison between Margaret Thatcher and Adolph Hitler, and the supporters of each. If you're not seriously trying to suggest some kind of ideological connection between the two - and if you do believe such a correspondence exists, may I suggest you seriously rethink your beliefs about political philosophy - then wouldn't that have been an easy unforced error to avoid?

Nevertheless, getting back to the subject at hand, thanks to those who pointed out Prof. Hawking - I'd entirely forgotten him. So what do people think, leaving politics aside and ignoring Thatcher, if we can, as my original post was meant to avoid OT debates about the monarchy (there's your answer, RedCelt, as to what inspired the wording of the post: I was trying to avoid exactly the kind of irrelevant conflict you just provoked!), what do we think - Hawking or Berners-Lee? I'm torn, honestly. Or should someone else take the top spot?

[Al]

RedCelt...you're the new Paul.

I was thinking the exact same thing earlier this very evening. The realisation got me musing on the following question: who would win if RedCelt and Paul were locked in a room together? The answer, of course, is we would.

[Fawksie]

You're the new Paul.

Tall order!

[Duggeh]

No he isn't, because Paul just gently let nonsense tumble out of him like a waterfall of letters into a pool of words where the fish ate all the vowels. Our esteemed left wing fist thumper here is far more shouty and abrasive.

[RedCelt69]

I don't know why you repeated that.

Because it ensured that any potential apology (had one been earned) would not be forthcoming.

Except you're annoyed because Dug's funnier than you? Or that he doesn't find you funny. You don't have to be dour *all the time*. Chill.

Funnier than me? It hadn't crossed my mind. Nor is it a concept that would cross my mind. Humour is extremely subjective. I mean, I'm assured that people exist who find Lee Evans a comic genius. No, honestly. Apparently they do.
If the "funnier than thou" concept had been of any relevance, I would presumably be competing against the people who created the "funny" images in the first place, rather than the person who copies and pastes it into the Sinner. <shrug>

Your response has nothing to do with what you've qouted, but OK. I'm not really up on Alexander the Great but I'll respond with logic. I wouldn't tell this imaginery orphan anything. His contributions to military tactics may be what you're interested in and admire; *that* is the great achievement you would associate with him. It has nothing to do with orphans. He was a great warrior, you're not saying he was a great humanitarian.

Aaaaaand at this point I simply give up. My point has been made. Explaining why none of the above is even remotely relevant to my point would take too long. Procrastination over and back to writing my essays.

RedCelt, I like you. I mean, IRL I hate you and everything you stand for

IRL? Have we met? I mean, in a town the size of St Andrews we're very likely to have met... but knowingly?
Everything I stand for? Really? Everything?
How do you know everything I stand for? I'm not altogether sure that I know everything I stand for and I'm, well... me. On lots of subjects I don't stand anywhere... either because I haven't given it enough thought to form an opinion or because I simply don't care.

As and when I discover new things I do stand for, I'll be sure to let you know so that you can update your list of things you hate. M'kay?

But I must dispute your implicit comparison between Margaret Thatcher and Adolph Hitler, and the supporters of each.

At this point I think I'm about to scream. Did I wake up in a parallel universe at some point in the last few days/weeks/months/years? A universe where logic is not adhered to and/or the inhabitants too dense to walk and chew gum at the same time?

If you're not seriously trying to suggest some kind of ideological connection between the two - and if you do believe such a correspondence exists, may I suggest you seriously rethink your beliefs about political philosophy - then wouldn't that have been an easy unforced error to avoid?

I'm not repeating it again. Read the above. Slower than last time if you already have. Move your lips whilst you're reading if it helps.

[Hennessy]

Yes, put them on your foe's list. Red Celt just earned the place on mine. No point wasting my time reading the nonsense.

Thank fuck for that! Now if only Hennessey would do the same...

It really wouldn't be worth posting if you scared off your audience, redcelt. And I notice since the occupat-a-con you've become even more clenched up, ranty and just plain crazy - which reminds me of someone else, have you ever seen this movie?

[Monkey has forgotten his password]

Second Hawking

Are you sure he's British? He has an American accent.

And Thatcher definitely wins hands down over Nelson, Churchill etc in the poll of greatest living Britons, by virtue of still being alive. Also, being unpopular and doing things the population dislike doesn't necessarily make one a bad politician. In fact I would praise Thatcher's greatness for being strong enough to make unpopular decisions (albeit ones I wouldn't necessarily agree with), much like Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

Second greatest would have to be Prince Philip:
http://www.allgreatquotes.com/prince_ph ... otes.shtml

[David Bean]

IRL? Have we met? I mean, in a town the size of St Andrews we're very likely to have met... but knowingly?

I highly doubt it, especially considering I haven't been 'at' St Andrews for about two and a half years now, and you're clearly newer here than that. I meant, and I didn't think my meaning especially opaque, in any context other than a discussion on a message board.

Everything I stand for? Really? Everything?
How do you know everything I stand for? I'm not altogether sure that I know everything I stand for and I'm, well... me. On lots of subjects I don't stand anywhere... either because I haven't given it enough thought to form an opinion or because I simply don't care.

As and when I discover new things I do stand for, I'll be sure to let you know so that you can update your list of things you hate. M'kay?

Oh, come on. That paragraph was an obvious piss-take, as any which ends with the words 'You're the new Paul' would have to be. I wasn't even particularly addressing you with that remark, but whatever; what I actually meant that yours is a worldview to which I do not subscribe. Of course I don't bear you any personal animosity, I'm not that stupid.

At this point I think I'm about to scream. Did I wake up in a parallel universe at some point in the last few days/weeks/months/years? A universe where logic is not adhered to and/or the inhabitants too dense to walk and chew gum at the same time?... I'm not repeating it again. Read the above. Slower than last time if you already have. Move your lips whilst you're reading if it helps

Thank God you aren't. If I failed to understand you then you have my apologies, but it'd only be the result of the brain damage suffered when I read it the first time, so I'd hardly be likely to go back for a second helping!

[the Empress]

I'm casting my vote for either Stephen Hawking or Richard Dawkins. I confess I'm permanently stuck on p13 of the Selfish Gene though. One day I'll finish it (along with Bryson's 'A short [yet extreemely heavy] history of everything).

NB I ended up watching loads of Richard Dawkin clips on Youtube the otherday . . . I was a bit disappointed by his prowess as an interviewer though. When he was interviewing Derren Brown, the latter seemed much sharper. As an interviewee Dawkin's pretty good, but he kept getting asked the same boring questions on the ones I watched. Anyone know of any really good interviews?

[Fawksie]

The Dawkins/Brown interview is almost unwatchable because the cunting camera keeps revolving round them. KEEP STILL!

[the Empress]

and the fact they're both standing for an hour . . . it gives it a weird, tense feel.