Jump to content

Deadlines? What Deadlines?

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Deadlines? What Deadlines?

  1. 1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

    I said from *my* Twitter account. You can’t because there isn’t one.

    You seem sure that I’m a Twitter user because you apparently don’t understand how embedded links work. I also post links from YouTube as well. Guess what? No YouTube channel.  

    Another observation: you seem fond of a form of argumentation that boils down to, “Gee, you sure like to ‘X’ a lot”. I got news for you; that’s not the own you think it is. 

  2. 1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

    Why act like you don’t use Twitter when you continually post links from there? Just bizarre. Own up to it mate. 

    Fine. Since you have it all figured out and have twice now called me a liar, show me one example of me posting something on this thread that came from my Twitter account, Genius.


    Not just me is it. You aren’t even from the UK, have no idea who British celebs are, and you are telling us who is famous ??  

    Once again you get it wrong. Color me surprised. 

  3. 10 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

    Hmm for someone without a Twitter account you seem to be able to post a lot of links from Twitter. Sorry if I don’t believe you.

    Literally anyone in the world can post links from Twitter. Someone as media savvy as yourself should know this.


    Either way, ask your average Brit who Dan Wooton is and they will give you a confused look and a shrug. Some bloke off a tv channel nobody watches is hardly a celeb.

    Yeah, you keep saying that. 

  4. 29 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

    Three words: Twitter echo chamber 

    Don’t have a Twitter account. Sorry.

    31 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

    But we're talking about British coverage and all three of those people (plus Brand) are much more famous in the UK than Wootton is. You can't go 'Wootton is famous, his show is the most-watched on GB News' then ignore that Huw Edwards presented BBC News and Gary Lineker leads Match of the Day.

    The UK press have certainly gone after more obscure personalities with more vigor. 

    Regarding those other guys, I’m not commenting on whether or not the level of coverage or even the type of coverage was appropriate. I’m disputing the claim that Wooton is too low-interest to warrant greater interest. 

    In addition to GB news, he also writes for the Daily Mail. He was a presenter on ITV for a time.

    He testified at Levinson.

    He was a figure in the Caroline Flack tragedy.

    He injected himself into the Depp-Heard insanity. He was sued by Depp for libel. You think the millions of people who felt honor-bound to take a side in that insanity have never heard of this guy?

    He’s been called out publicly by several high-profile figures, including a mention in the fastest selling non-fiction book of all time. Out of the millions of people who purchased “Spare”, you think none of them were tempted to google, “Sad Little Man”? 

  5. 11 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

    You spend inordinate amounts of time posting about UK media, I hardly think you or spocky are representative of the wider public 

    I mean if you don’t even know who Phillip Schofield or Gary Lineker are then you clearly don’t understand Britain one bit

    I’m certainly not an expert. And yet, this guy Dan Wooton, who you claim is a figure so obscure that he doesn’t warrant any high profile press coverage; Clueless as I am, I know who he is. I think you’re underestimating his notoriety. 

  6. 1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

    Brand is a well known figure, has been on tv and hollywood movies and is globally recognisable. Dan Wooton is a virtual unknown, I doubt many people who even watch GB news know who he is. 

    I don’t even live in the UK and I know who he is. And he has the highest rated show on GB news if I’m not mistaken. And he’s done several other things to gain him notoriety. This idea that no one is covering him because he’s too low profile is laughable. 

    The other guys: Schofield, Edwards, throw Lineker in as well (though not for the same reason); I had no idea who they were until recently. 

  7. 11 hours ago, Spockydog said:

    The idea that anyone at News International is in any way ennobled for writing about Brand, when Wooton, one of their own, is accused of equally revolting activities, yet they've not printed a word about him. 

    Especially after the recent freak outs regarding other British media figures (who's names escape me at the moment).

    I'm convinced Wooton's got dirt on someone big.

  8. 1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

    This is why I may prefer trump over desantis.

    Desantis is an ideological faschist. Trump is a fascist by instinct and only when convient. 

    Trump's brain is disintegrating and he never shuts his yap so he's capable of saying anything*. Once in a while it'll actually sound pretty good. Monkeys and typewriters and that sort of thing. 

    *See his eulogy at Diamond's funeral. Also, why the hell is he droning on about the panama canal lately? 

  9. 1 hour ago, polishgenius said:

    No, I acknowledged you weren't doing it on purpose. I was trying not to be unfair. Maybe that made me unclear: you were making a Tankie argument. Tankies suck and hearing the same arguments as they make again and again and again is wearing. Even if I didn't think you realised you were doing it. 

    I have no idea what this means.


    I apologise to everyone else for being a debbie downer on a fun topic but seeing 'Stalin only co-invaded Poland with the Nazis because the West forced him into it by turning his alliance down' made me fume. 

    I never said, "the west forced him" into anything. Nevertheless, it was obvious in the late 1930's that things were in play and the Soviets were still isolated. They desperately wanted to form a military alliance for their own security and Germany was not their first choice. That's documented.

    Was he a fucking monster? Absolutely. Extraordinarily so. But history is full of them. 

    During the Russian civil war, American, British, and French troops were sent into Russia to fight on the side of the Whites. I'd have to find the reference but one of the American Officers said of the White Russian Generals that he had never seen people that put a lower value on human life. Not to mention all the atrocities that happened under the Tsars. Monsters were basically what they had to offer. The ones that weren't monsters ended up in the ground. 

  10. 2 hours ago, polishgenius said:

    Look I'm sorry I know what you're saying here re: notoriety =/= morality and that Stalin clearly affected history whatever we may think of him, but even with that caveat several of your points now have come across as perilously close to 'actually Stalin wasn't that bad' and even though I'm pretty sure that's not what you're trying to say... please stop doing that.

    I shall endeavour to continue to not do the thing that I have not done and you acknowledge I have not done but sort of sounds like I’m doing but not really. 


  11. 36 minutes ago, maarsen said:

    Stalin did enter the war on the Axis side.

    Correct. After signing the Molotov Ribbentrop pact, they decided to seal the deal by tag teaming Poland. 

    But remember, Stalin only did a deal with Hitler after the Brits and the French basically told him to fuck off. The Brits sent some clown to Moscow with no mandate to negotiate anything and I don’t think the French ever even met with them. 

  12. 2 hours ago, Mladen said:

    OPPENHEIMER currently at Box Office: $912M

    Only second highest grossing drama film in history (behind TITANIC)

    The highest grossing biopic of all time (surpassed BOHEMINA RHAPSODY which is at $910M)

    The second highest grossing R-rated movie (behind JOKER)


    This movie is a perfect mix of high profile critics darling and box office success that can do well at Oscars... We'll see.

    Yeah, pretty crazy. The first time in 20 years or something that the 3 highest grossing films world wide have been non sequels. 

    Then again, maybe Aquaman or the Marvels can make a morbillion dollars. 

  13. 3 hours ago, polishgenius said:

    Sure, and Stalin was consequential in many ways


    He didn't open up the Eastern front: that was Hitler

    Correct. He was not the one to break the non-aggression pact with Germany. That certainly diminishes him as a political animal; as it came as a total surprise. But I don’t see how that diminishes him as a historical figure.


    You'll never convince me that Stalin as a politician/speaker had the inspirational effect Churchill did in galvanising Russia's resistance

    While I am amenable to education on this score, since I don't really know, I'm fairly sure he wasn't responsible for the tactics responsible for driving Germany back either. 

    I’d imagine he was at least as involved as Churchill was in Britain and Roosevelt was in the USA.

    Stalin definitely has a cult of personality vibe about him. I don’t know what kind of public speaker he was. Stalin didn’t need to speak. :mellow:


    Hell, even the industrial mobilisation- that would have happened whoever was leader. It was an inevitable response to the invasion.

    Dead wrong. Remember that Stalin’s career starts long before ww2. In the wake of the revolution and the subsequent civil war, they were left with the wreckage of a country that was a basket case to begin with. A country that never really had their Industrial Revolution and was mostly illiterate potato and wheat farmers who were shitfaced for half the year. And they were isolated. They had no allies. The other great powers were hostile to them. They understood that they had to industrialize to survive. 

    The means were horrifying and brutal, sure, but it’s not like they were the first nation to build wealth by turning people into livestock. Those people that got sent off to gulags and forced labor camps were the grist that made Soviet industrialization happen. 

    The industrial policy of the 20’s and 30’s was deliberate and might not have happened under anyone else. If the whites actually win the civil war, not only does it not happen, but when ww2 happens, there’s a good chance they enter the war on the side of the axis, and the world today is a fascist hellscape. 

    For example, in the 30’s when the rest of the world was dealing with the Great Depression, American architects and engineers were in the ussr building factories. It turns out that a factory for building tractors or construction equipment can easily be restructured to build tanks if it’s designed that way from the start. This would be important later. 


    Basically I think Stalin just happened to be in charge at the time and anyone else in the same position would have had the same effect. 

    As I said, if it’s anyone else (eg Trotsky) history happens different. Stalin was not a passive figure. 

  14. 11 minutes ago, polishgenius said:


    I just don't think you have to, or even can, hand any credit whatsoever to Stalin for that, and let's not forget that he did his own war criming on the way to liberate Europe from the Nazi war criming

    Sure you can. It’s possible to be a monster and still be a consequential figure. And if one of those consequences is you preempt other monsters, just as well. 

    Speaking of which, has Gengis Khan been mentioned? Throw in Alexander the Great as well. Those two should be at the top of the list actually. 

  15. 8 minutes ago, polishgenius said:




    Fine, Zhukov then. 

    Regardless, the eastern front in ww2 wasn’t a sideshow. It was the show. The red scare and Cold War kind of papered over this.

    If Soviet resistance to the Nazi invasion collapses any time before there’s a real second front in Europe, the world looks like a very different place today. 

  16. 1 hour ago, dog-days said:

    Octavian shows up in two Shakespeare plays, surviving both and ending up as Top Roman; Caesar just gets one and dies halfway through it. 

    Yeah, but the play is name after him.


    Octavian manages not just to entertain the history academics but also provides amusement to theologians as they ponder why on earth he'd declare a census that required everyone to return to their place of birth. 



    Finally, Octavian was played by BRIAN BLESSED in I Claudius and so has automatically won. At being the bestest Roman, but also at everything else. 

    Yeah that’s kind of cool ngl. 

    1 hour ago, polishgenius said:

    Churchill was a shite politician. Almost all he really has on his track record is leading Britain through the war. He was voted out literally immediately afterwards because he ran a terrible campaign that let Attlee in, his second tenure a few years later was marked by him trying and failing to keep the British Empire together, and as others have mentioned, before the war his record was... not great. Some positives, but some absolutely ferocious failures and mistakes, including the aforementioned Galipolli and sending the Black and Tans into Ireland. Even 'being right about Hitler' is really a mixed bag as far as proving his worth as a politician goes, because he didn't convince the nation of that until far too late. I've seen it said that his reputation was bad to the point that him denouncing Hitler actually made opposing the Nazis less credible, because if Churchill felt that strongly about it he was probably wrong. 

    Yeah, but I’ll give Churchill this: regarding ww2, absolutely the right guy at the right time. 

    Stalin doesn’t get enough credit for winning ww2. 

  17. 6 minutes ago, Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II said:

    He was a short lived politician who grabbed power after a civil war to became a power hungry dictator which immediately resulted in his assassination and chaos…I’d argue that Winston Churchill is an example of a great politician, and he did so while operating within an actual functioning democracy as well. Agree with the general part though.There have been plenty of politicians like Caesar in Africa and South America in the last 100 years causing coups and chaos, without Octavians genius the Roman Empire would’ve never been established. 

    He was Dictator for 5 years, but he was a significant player in Roman politics for decades. In a system as competitive and dysfunctional as the late republic, that's saying something. He was a brilliant politician and an extremely successful military leader. He was also an author who's writings are still read today.  He has a month named after him.

    There is some speculation that he was aware of the assassination plot and let it play out due to his declining health. 

    Churchill, when he was First Sea Lord of the Admiralty, was one of the architects of Galipoli, which was a disater. In the years before ww2, he favored building more ships whereas Chamberlain directed investment into spitfires and radar, which would come in handy during the battle of britain. 

    Chamberlain is an interesting subject for this topic. 

  18. 40 minutes ago, Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II said:

    The thread isn’t about competency or whether they were actual inventors, it’s about fame and name recall so while I agree some of them are just businessmen and shit explorers, their fame lives on today unlike most of their competitors 

    “…Ahead of the rest of their field…”

    I thought it was common knowledge that Columbus was kind of a fuck up and Edison was more of a ruthless business man than a clever inventor. He electrocuted an elephant once in a pissing contest over alternating current. 

  19. 19 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

    … F1…

    Well, as I interpret the thread topic, “ahead of the rest of their field”, guys like Schumacher, Senna, Hamilton, etc don’t really qualify. Super talented, sure. But just doing it a bit better than their competitors. You could throw Prost into that list as well.

    As far as innovators, my money would be on Jackie Stewart and Niki Lauda. The way they approached their driving was fundamentally different and really the template for everyone who came after. 

  • Create New...