Jump to content

The Pie and Bovril Dead Pool 2022


Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, Mark Connolly said:

Yeah, that's fair enough.

I suppose we are effectively trying to establish when someone who is ineligible can become eligible as a pick. Does her fame for raising awareness of the campaign, and her fundraising, exceed her initial fame for being ill, or does it permanently exclude her? Would, for example, Doreen Lawrence be eligible, if effectively she was famous for being the mother of a victim of a heinous crime? And was Chooky Embra himself actually eligible, given he was basically famous for being married to one of the most famous women in the world?

I don't really care either way tbh, I just find it an interesting discussion, and it distracts me from the fact my team can't be botherd dying.

I think the 'famous for being ill' rule and 'famous person's relative' rule are somewhat different in nature.

With the 'famous for being ill' rule, that type of fame is ruled ineligible, so it's next to impossible for such a person to actually be a valid pick.

With 'famous person's relative', the notion is that that, by itself, doesn't make someone famous, but it IS possible for such a person to actually become validly famous; the test is usually of the 'Has their own Wikipedia entry' ilk.

Famous for being ill -> famous but a type of fame that is disqualified

Famous person's relative -> not necessarily famous, but can become famous (even via their relationship with another person), so the likes of Doreen Lawrence and Sylvester Stallone's maw are legit picks.

Anyways, the Duke of Edinburgh was a European Royal to begin with, so he'd have likely gotten a qualifying obit if he hadn't married Liz.

Edited by Aim Here
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bishop Briggs said:

It's you, however, who has nul points. You're obviously very bitter that your Aim Here, so far, has been off target . 😂

Absolutely. I'm trying to get everyone who's died so far this year rendered ineligible!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Aim Here said:

I think the 'famous for being ill' rule and 'famous person's relative' rule are somewhat different in nature.

With the 'famous for being ill' rule, that type of fame is ruled ineligible, so it's next to impossible for such a person to actually be a valid pick.

With 'famous person's relative', the notion is that that, by itself, doesn't make someone famous, but it IS possible for such a person to actually become validly famous; the test is usually of the 'Has their own Wikipedia entry' ilk.

Famous for being ill -> famous but a type of fame that is disqualified

Famous person's relative -> not necessarily famous, but can become famous (even via their relationship with another person), so the likes of Doreen Lawrence and Sylvester Stallone's maw are legit picks.

Anyways, the Duke of Edinburgh was a European Royal to begin with, so he'd have likely gotten a qualifying obit if he hadn't married Liz.

The invalid pick I mentioned yesterday was for Harvey Price. I thought he fell under both categories.

I was thinking today about who would actually, genuinely qualify as "famous" for being ill. Deborah James you could argue has her podcast and her column and her fundraising. Is anyone who is terminally ill going to be famed for that unless they publicise it somehow? I think the closest I could think of was the Elephant Man and we're quite past that as a society. 

I can see a new Lauren Hill rule coming in, purely to save myself the headache of trying to work this out (and it not being fair on people hedging their bets on whether someone qualifies or not).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Miguel Sanchez said:

The invalid pick I mentioned yesterday was for Harvey Price. I thought he fell under both categories.

I was thinking today about who would actually, genuinely qualify as "famous" for being ill. Deborah James you could argue has her podcast and her column and her fundraising. Is anyone who is terminally ill going to be famed for that unless they publicise it somehow? I think the closest I could think of was the Elephant Man and we're quite past that as a society. 

I can see a new Lauren Hill rule coming in, purely to save myself the headache of trying to work this out (and it not being fair on people hedging their bets on whether someone qualifies or not).

The perks of 'high office' mate, things evolve. Its a good job P&B is populated by balanced and reasonable types who will understand your position........ :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, chomp my root said:

The perks of 'high office' mate, things evolve. Its a good job P&B is populated by balanced and reasonable types who will understand your position........ :unsure:

I think it's the worst decision since a French chauffeur said "Sure, I'll drive Di and Dodi doon la tunnel".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...