Banshees Scream

Since the Golden Age of Deathlist (I'm the Advisor) I've been contemplating the situation surrounding Alois Brunner who I feel is most likely still alive in Syria cooped up in a little downstairs apartment. I feel if he was ever officially found alive, he probably wouldn't stand trial due to the extreme of his age. Thinking along the lines of if he is alive, I ask myself the question 'if he does' croak will they just come out with the big news that he is dead .. blah blah blah. The whole situation is very unreliable to me and while I'm here I must confirm that Hugo Bleicher's demise in July 2002 was a fraud, I did it about a year ago just to test how long that information would remain. Being realistic, it's somebody who will probably never get an obituary if he is alive and if he is dead (which it's very probable) I thought that was a reasonable estimation.

Dear Godot, There has been times where I might have said or used improper words that were either out of place or words that did not fulfill your grammatical expectations. It's not that I don't try but it's just sometimes I forget, it's done unconsciously. From now on just for you I will use the word 'there' only when I'm referring to a place and the word 'their' only when I'm speaking of people. PS: Anybody who seriously puts somebody on full ignore has no capacity, and it's a lame way to deal with a person who you either dislike or disagree with. If I didn't like somebody I would be up front with them on the issue, and hopefully come to positive terms instead of acting like a woman trying to torture her boyfriend by putting her social skills on mute. That's really how I see members who choose to put me on ignore - or pretty much anybody for that matter besides Iain because he has made false statements which are very f****n annoying. So from now on I'll use the [there\their\) family how they should be used, just as long as you stop acting like a unsatisfied wife. Is it a deal? I like Godot, I have no problems coming to positive terms with you - or anyone for that matter. It all comes down to being rational, and if you want to be rational - so will I.

The problem is 'how exactly' can you prove ghosts exist if they did exist? I've resided my opinion that the super natural is science - but science unexplained. You see the mind is something that we only understand about 32% of. It's possible that electricities or certain gases provoke illusions\sounds that don't exist. I believe this could be an explanation for some cases but as far as scratch marks\physical encounters\ go it just doesn't add up. A certain sensitivity of the mind might be able to pick up occurrences that are or have gone on in a certain period of time in a certain area. The answer to these questions lies in the future exploration of the human mind and understanding it's true properties and what else it has to offer.

I can imagine Grim Reaper being the goody goody of the crowd - only one beer and a half for him and then it's back to the dorm to study Algebraic expression. Then in the upper right corner on the cheap TV which hangs Carey Grant is shown being carried away dead by the medical team on the stretcher. Then Grim Reaper had a few more beers and he figured it all out. Only if people really listened to their ideas more often. One day it just might spark something genius.

Talking about the subjects on this list I have already convinced myself that the year 2007 will not hold an impressive outcome as most years have done previously. My main gamble was Mark W. Felt or Yitzhak Shamir, both who are very old and both who obviously cannot think very clearly. The facts are that their is only one month left in the year and believe it or not =- last year we had three hits from this point on and three hits with value - so no it wasn't Iain Smith) If there was ever a post that had any connection to Claude Levi Strauss - it would be from Guest Richard who has demonstrated the tease but all in all to me (If you really read it) he gives absolutely no information what so ever. Take away the capital U and it's iain posting ............................... It's very aggravating to see Michael Foot still alive - and Claude Levi Strauss - and most of all Ariel Sharon which I think it should be against the law to keep anybody over 75 in a coma over more then eighteen months. After that the plug gets pulled and then the family now has money for extra things.

Dear No Noose Is A Good Noose, I think somebody's whole competitive approach is now Derby Dead Pool history. I can only predetermine the probable outcome. But Hey! That doesn't mean you still can't ... hang - around Be good '

Fellatio Nelson you have clearly been under the wrong influences. Being twenty five, it's improbable that you are going to meet the standards most deadpoolers play for. It's that simple. I can see from your view point but this is more of a game that is based around production, rather then just a list filled with young reality TV stars who don't wear seat belts and who check into rehab routinely so they can get on page 2 in the big magazine. If that is how you would play it, that's a different game. I have nothing against that game, but the so called comparison 'in so many words' that you just made is like comparing 'chess and checkers' for example.

DDP is not a business - but as with most things there is a respectable way to manage your efforts. It's not only about banning the 'sixteen year olds' because a couple of them have cancer, it's about banning the sixteen year olds because it's just insanely wrong to have somebody that age on a death list. If somebody (hypothetically) walked up to me on the street and said 'What do you know about 'Derby Dead Pool' I wouldn't mind explaining to that individual what it's about and where the money is - But I wouldn't want to tell that person about how J0$ie Gr0vE is somebody's Joker. Anyway as far as sending entries go I feel it seriously might be a better idea if you wait until at least two weeks into December. This way it's not likely anybody will have three or four substitutes.

And Godot bitches about it right. I'm making my rise this year in DDP and rules such as sixteen year olds being tolerated are unprofessional. But ... of course ... we must not forget .... that .... it is ...... unlikely their will be anybody that age that takes the ticket and cashes it in so it's not such a big deal when the curtain drops.

I agree with you. Instead of looking at the whole ordeal as individual situations, look at them as if they were all one category.

If all the Bali Bombers are executed in January for example that would amount to 1\3 of Meet Your Maker's score as it stands now - not even counting the possibility of Ali Ghufron being your Joker for example. One individual per team (as FF said) is balanced and this way it eliminates the possibility of a Noose approach. It's problematic to only exclude announced executions because more executions go unannounced then they go announced. I think this plan works out for everybody and as far as 'predetermined death dates go' I say ban them all the way home. As far as placing Chemical Ali as your Joker? (That is all up to you) I wouldn't see that as a significant factor if only one candidate set for execution is allowed. Reasonable? I think it makes sense.

But isn't it obvious that the Bali Bombers - Chemical Ali - and all the other chemical testing\terroristic clowns will eventually be executed next year? Is it not obvious? My question is: How many of these clowns do you know that actually have their dates available? It's never that obvious. So it's a weak compromise because at the show down of what matters it's not about announcement it's about outcome. When they hung Saddam Hussein everybody found that out ... a few days before. It never takes that long. It's there and then. Triple O If you want an idea about how to set the execution rules I think 'one individual on death row per team' is the solution. It allows and it defies, it balances the game. This would be the most effective strategy because minimizing value might take more time. One possible execution candidate a team eliminates the Noose approach, which I can only expect a increase in teams like that.

So Triple O has made some valid points not to say how rational he has been throughout the whole situation. I really don't think the sharing of his selections was mandatory 'in so many words' but if anything it was hard truth of 'I'm running DDP as an organizer' and I'm not running it as anything else. I think all is in it's place besides what is going down as far as those predetermined candidates go.

Handrejka, look. It's practical to hear an organizer swear that they will never do more then lay eyes on another unique pick other then their own. It's probable that they are lying and that they will pocket unique picks from other unique teams. I guess that is the luxury of being a DDP organizer, having the luxury of theft. Now I'm not saying Triple O will be raving through every list for a unique pick, because generally I think his form in DDP isn't desperate. Anyway I'm trying to accommodate this list of mine and I'm in doubt for some of these Canadian names I have because I'm not sure if the BBC\New York Times will be loud with an obituary for them. Other names by the way like 'Sydney Pollock'- 'Shi Ming Teh' 'Phillip Griffith Jones' are all very anti - communication as far as their illness goes so already having a stacked list I have some decisions to make. By the way, I think conjoined twins count as ... .. Well if you have any conjoined twins with terminal cancer ....... guess who is my joker!

(Raising my hands up in the air) .. Come again?

I really have nothing to say here besides my total enjoyment of reading that first line. Now it has nothing to do with getting rid of Godot because he is better then most mail boxes but it revolves around on how dead serious he is on this matter. I want see Meinhardt Rabbe on this list as much as anyone else, the only question is his obituary status. I mean he had a very solid scene in the Wizard Of Oz and most ironically I think he was trying to hold up a 'Certificate Of Death' which if anything makes him a eye brow raising candidate. O and Godot I'm honored to here that my posts are at a standard of punishment. I'm still guarding the prize of greatness from unenthusiastic and grammar soliciting regulars.

I can honesty say that I will at least have three or four teams jk...

Gather round' people. We are in double digits! Hear it.

... I can't say it was the most hardcore footage that I've ever seen in my life but I know that the chick in the white gown is not somebody who you want to hear ten minutes after you wake up in the morning. Listening to that woman is like a clock ticking -a chalk board screeching - a radio functioning - Ellen sobbing - all in one. The second sense is hearing and only if we could all go deaf at a chosen minute and then turn hearing back on just as a light switch can be turned on - I would enjoy hearing more. . . Only if.

It's really anti - information as far as his cancer coverage goes. In his Wikipedia it states that he is a Vegan which is a harsh diet to live by. I can't help myself but 'from my perspective' the guy is a little bit of a wack job if you were to ask me. It says he often names his political opponents as 'princes of evil' or 'princes or dark' and himself as 'prince of light So basically he has a mid evil vocabulary. It's worse then Fellatio Nelson avatars. Anyway I could see him in. It's just I like information in front of me but based on the facts that he will not run again tells you he might be worth the gamble.

I don't know about Sydney Lumet. I was watched him receive the 'Lifetime Achievement' award recently (A year or two ago) and he looked like he could be around for another decade. This Estelle Getty (who seriously) played like a ninety year old woman twenty years ago might be a one way ticket. Sydney Pollack is one of those that drive me to debate because I can't find a reliable source that contains information relating to his so called 'cancer'. So who knows.

I've been in a situation like this before. That turns me on. I feel women who feel the need to take full authority of a man are only really looking for affection or some form of bondage. Now what that woman seriously needs is discipline and that might even mean a spanking. Now if she is a considerably attractive woman (Brunette)- (Jersey accent maybe) - (A 'if I weren't robbing you I would want you) kind of stair I would say some form of discipline or seduction would call ... unless it's one of those Jerry Springer moms trying to feed her four children ... then it's a horrible occurrence.

After analyzing some of the main opinions here I've drawn up the essential conclusions and probable outcomes to the following questions. I feel this is fair. Unique Picks - Three points. Unique is unique, it should not go unrecognized. Amount of Substitutes - Three. If anybody needs a fourth substitute - guess what bitch! You sent your list too early! Team Entry Limits - One team, one person. Anybody could create another E - Mail address but in the books this rule makes perfect sense. Famous for being Famous - It all comes down to the qualified obituary. You can list your neighbor, you can list the mail man, you can list the Japanese man who collects tin cans and plastic bottles from your garbage ... hell you can list your mother... it all comes down to the obituary. Age Limits - Eighteen. If you are under eighteen 'like TMIB' said it is likely that you are only famous for your illness. Second, listing anybody under eighteen years of age is just wrong. Hear it. Obituary Requirements - BBC - New York Times - and personally I would like to see CNN as a source and MPFC said it better then I did. It looks like our organizer Triple O will refuse to allow CNN as a valid source, but at least the New York Times will make it's debut. It's good enough for me because it should cover all my candidates anyway. Executions - The point of a predetermined death being excluded has made the fair argument of how 'not all' inmates\Iraqi extremists are hung\executed by a firing squad when they are expected to be. For this reason I think it's rational to say all executions score-value should be minimized 50%. I could call that fair. Wallpaper - I really don't care. From reading it looks like Rude Kid wanted the wall paper to stay old school so in the end it doesn't matter much to me. So fair is fair? I could call these rules fair.

The word reduction comes to mind but the word exclusion is in mind. In numbers about half of my list could possibly be all candidates who are likely to be executed in 2008. The bottom line is something has to be done and if cutting the value of a predetermined death is the solution, it works for me. If you want my advice, banning all predetermined deaths will make your life much easier. I believe DDP is made for unique selections and that fame qualifications should mainly be determined by a Wikipedia entry. The rule of having local candidates (Criminals\Murders) should be judged on just the individual alone. Overall it's likely that the individuals selected from this local category will not drop dead, and if they do drop dead it will be because of a predetermined death. Eighteen years of age. If there is anything that will give DDP a negative, it's sixteen year old girls with cancer. Personally it's doubtful that anybody famous enough at that age would have cancer, but when the curtain drops it should be eighteen the legal age in a majority of countries. It's not only for the guilt of the purpose, but for the respect of this game. I don't see the addition of CNN as being the grand theft of DDP's heritage\foundation. I just see CNN as a source for many famed individuals who won't be mentioned by the BBC because they didn't make political speeches in Brittan, they didn't make films in Brittan, they didn't tell jokes in Brittan and the list hits the floor. I see the constant defense of DDP and the efforts to keep it British. I see their defense in fear of it becoming American and to rationalize .. I can't help but recognize that the DDP is defended against myself at some extreme. The whole ordeal is being overlooked, it has nothing to do with the origination of DDP but it revolves around the obituary sources and most of all the evolution of DDP. The origination of DDP will never die, but the addition of other sources make the game itself more global. I believe DDP is the greatest game of death on the internet and the greatest of all. To make it everybody's game just makes it that much better. Overall the New York Times is better then nothing. Now everything is settled then. I bet money you will be checking out other candidates 'seriously 'how could you not?' But having to put up five hundred teams deserves two or three last minute picks (not to mention a round of applause). For f****n cryin out loud. If I were running DDP I would take two or three names. It's just when you make your opening presentation you want to sound honest, and honesty is reliability. I trust the future success of DDP and I trust the decisions made by myself and others on this matter. I hope everything follows through accordingly.

You can watch Fox news all you want Nap (I don't usually watch it) I trust CNN and it's the essential source for headline news. Now I'll sit and wait until I hear who over takes DDP and then we will discuss the fate of the rules.