Quote:
Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I had hoped two things would happen by asking the cons for five Nobel nominations.
One, I hoped to show that they could not name five ideologically pure living individuals whom they would admire for advancing the cause of peace. I accomplished this by Bilmore and Club expressly admitting they couldn't come up with five, and Slave tacitly admitting so by including Bono.
|
"Ideologically pure"? I missed that distinction. In that case, I didn't name any.
Quote:
Two, I hoped against hope that the con side would tacitly admit that the Nobel has more moral authority than their Coulteresque constant repetition of the Carter/Arafat awards would indicate --- as if these two were the only ones ever to have won the award (in Arafat's case, he wasn't even the only recipient that year).
I had hoped merely that they would name people who as a categorical matter leant credence to the Nobel committee's equanimity and fundamental even-handedness in awarding the Peace Prize. They surpassed my wildest dreams by repeatedly naming people WHOM THEY HAD FORGOTTEN HAD PREVIOUSLY WON THE AWARD. All in all, it looks like calling the Nobel Committee a bunch of dupes and internationalist assholes is thoroughly debunked. What, we're going to shit on them now for not naming Reagan before he died?
|
I named people I thought were deserving. None of them will win the award. That was my point. Carter won, for the explicit reasons laid out by the committee. What was your point, again?
Yes, you are. You're confused about which game, though.
