History is a funny sort of thing. As humans, we often take an extremely complex event and filter the information from that event that best captures the story in our minds. As a result of the limited nature of the human brain, often fascinating and/or critical information is lost. In this list, I wanted to capture some of the often overlooked and under-reported information surrounding major historical events. This list is in no way definitive and somewhat U.S.-centric. It would be great to see future lists that cover the topic in respect to other countries.
While the moon landing may be the single most remembered event in the history of mankind and President John Kennedy, as the man who championed and led this accomplishment, often forgotten is Kennedy’s true motive for the daunting task. In a conversation with James Webb, the director of NASA at the time, Kennedy was quoted as saying, “Everything we do ought to really be tied into getting on to the Moon ahead of the Russians [...] otherwise we shouldn’t be spending that kind of money, because I’m not interested in space [...] The only justification for [the cost] is because we hope to beat [the USSR] to demonstrate that instead of being behind by a couple of years, by God, we passed them.” Due to this passion to push the U.S. past the Soviets, Kennedy essentially diverted all of NASA’s funds to the moon landing, much to the dismay of Webb, who favored a broader approach of discovery and programs.
Due to the powerful images conjured up while recalling the horrific incident in Jonestown that saw 900+ men, women and children die through suicide or murder, the world often only remembers the victims that were actually in the compound itself and forgets the victims that tried to flee with Congressman Leo Ryan, who was there to determine whether or not U.S. citizens were being held against their will. The day before the mass suicide, Ryan and other U.S. government officials landed in Guyana. During their visit, many of the cult members asked to leave with Ryan’s delegations. Arriving at the airport, the delegation was ambushed by the cult, one of who had embedded himself into the group asking to leave. The embedded cult member drew a gun on the plane and summarily shot the passengers. Additionally, the cult disbanded a small force and attacked the delegation from a tractor with a trailer. Congressman Ryan was one of those murdered, becoming the first and only U.S. Congressman killed in the line of duty in the history of the U.S.
When U.S. history recalls Japan in WWII, it often only remembers the mushroom clouds that scarred Japan’s physical geography and overlooks the strong psychological moorings that were devastated after the surrender. Following the surrender of Japan, U.S. General MacCarthur forced Hirohito to issue the, “Humanity Declaration,” or the Ningen-sengen. In the declaration, the Emperor proclaimed that in fact and contrary to the Shinto religion, which the culture at the time was largely built upon, he was not a god. Interestingly however, the confession was given in an archaic, court form of Japanese allowing the Emperor to be deliberately vague. It is theorized that he substituted the much more common word, “arahitogami” or “living god”, with the much more unique word “akitsumikami,” meaning an, “incarnation of god.” Many scholars have noted that one could be a living god, without being an incarnation of god.
Again, because of the sensational images of the two, 110-story Twin Towers of the World Trade Center falling, many people forget the overall tremendous devastation that the acts truly resulted in. On 9/11, in addition to the Twin Towers- 7 World Trade Center (47-stories tall), 6 World Trade Center (8-stories tall), 3 World Trade Center and the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church were all completely destroyed, the latter entirely buried by debris of Tower 2. Also, 5 World Trade Center (9-stories tall), 4 World Trade Center (9-stories tall), the Deutsche Bank Building (40-stories tall), and Manhattan Community College’s Filterman Hall (15-stories tall) were all damaged beyond repair and have been or are slated for demolition.
Immediately following the 2004 Tsunami, the world was so rocked with the staggering death toll of nearly 240,000 individuals that it is often forgotten that many of the more rural and traditional citizens were able to survive through an indigenous understanding of the signs of an incoming tsunami. For example, scientists in the area initially were convinced that the aboriginal population of the Andaman Islands would be significantly ravaged by the tsunami, however, all but one of the tribes in the islands (oddly enough, the one that had largely converted to Christianity and thus, a change of lifestyle,) suffered only minor casualties. When questioned, the tribesmen explained to the scientists that the land and ocean often fought over boundaries and when the earth shook they knew that the sea would soon enter the land until the two could realign their borders. Because of this, the villagers fled to the hills and suffered little or no casualties. Additionally of note is the story of Tilly Smith, a 10-year-old British student vacationing on Mikakhao Beach in Thailand. Tilly, had recently studied tsunamis in school and immediately recognized the frothing bubbles and receding ocean as a harbinger of a tsunami. Along with her parents, they warned the beach and it was entirely evacuated safely.
While nearly everyone can name the place (The Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles) and perpetrator of the assassination (Sirhan Sirhan), few people recall the man who captured and disarmed the gunman. That man was Rosie Grier, an American Football sensation (Super Bowl Champion, 2 time pro-bowler, member of the Ram’s “Fearsome Foursome,” and 5 time All Pro defensive tackle.) On the night of the assassination, Grier was the bodyguard for Kennedy’s pregnant wife. Along with Rafer Johnson, an Olympic gold medal decathlete, Grier heard the shots and tackled Sirhan. Grier, then jammed his finger behind the trigger of the gun and broke Sirhan’s arm. Grier then fought off those that were literally ready to rip Sirhan apart. Later Grier, would explain that, “I would not allow more violence.” Additionally, Grier would later testify to Judge Lance Ito during the O.J. Simpson trial that he had been present when O.J. confessed to the crimes in prison. Judge Ito however, ruled that the testimony was inadmissible.
When the news broke that the Russian military had ended the standoff where 850 people were held hostage by a Chechen separatist group in Moscow, the focus of the news quickly turned to the dramatic rescue. Due to this, the heroism and sacrifice of Olga Romanova, is often overlooked. When Romanova, a 26 year-old perfume-shop clerk, heard of the crisis, she left the safety of her parent’s house and walked to the Theatre alone. Convinced that she could reason with the terrorists and at the very least convince them to free the women and children, Romanova somehow managed to bypass the intense security in the area and enter the theatre. She then confronted the rebels and pleaded for the immediate release of the hostages. The terrorists, suspecting that she was FSB, marched her into an adjoining room and executed her with a shot to the head.
Due to the iconic photo of a student lying dead and another leaning over his body and weeping, the Kent State Massacre has largely been accepted as a single event that took place in Ohio and resulted in 4 students being killed by the U.S. National Guard. What is often forgotten about the event is the sheer size and scale of the overall national unrest at the time of the shootings. Immediately following the shooting and centered on the common sentiment of, “they can’t kill us all,” 900 college campuses were closed because of violent and non-violent protests. Also, 100,000 people descended on Washington D.C., smashing car windows, lighting fires, looting and barricading streets and freeways. The President of the United States was evacuated to Camp David and the 82nd Airborne was brought in to defend the white house. Additionally, Nixon organized a special commission to focus solely on campus unrest. Ray Price, Nixon’s chief speechwriter was quoted as saying, “that’s not student protest, that’s civil war.” Overall, 4,000,000 people took place in the protests. It was at the time, the only nation wide protest on college campuses.
When the Altamont Concert is remembered, it is often solely for the Hell’s Angels providing “security,” and the ensuing riot that left an 18-year old man dead. According to sources, the Rolling Stones had hired the Hell’s Angels to keep people off the stage and to escort the Stones through the site. According to some witnesses, the Angels were hired for $500.00 worth of beer. As the evening went on, the crowd and the Angels got increasingly agitated with one another. The crowd pressed to the stage and the Angels fought them back. In the ensuing melee, Meredith Hunter was killed and the death has ever since been remembered as an example of the Angel’s inherent lawlessness and violence. However, what is not often remembered is the actual event that spawned the killing. Meredith Hunter, high on methamphetamine was captured on camera approaching the stage and brandishing a pistol. In response to the imminent danger, an angel drew a knife and stabbed him. The act of violence was determined by a judge to be an act of justifiable homicide as the Angel had every reason to believe his life was in jeopardy.
The Boston massacre was one of the most critical events that led the colonies of America to revolt against King George III. While it is well remembered in this fashion, the fates of the British soldiers that fired on the civilians are often forgotten. In fact, the Captain that was present and 8 of the soldiers were arrested and tried. What is interesting is that the defender of the soldiers was none other than, John Adams, founding father and future President of the United States. No lawyer in Boston would take the case and so the court pled with Adams to represent the men. Although, he was hesitant, he so believed that everyone deserved a fair trial that he finally relented. Adams successfully convinced the jury that 6 of the men were afraid for their life and therefore, had the right to defend themselves. Interestingly, two of the men were convicted of murder, however, Adams presented a loophole to the court whereby according to English law, if the men could read then they could claim to be clergy and thereby were not bound by secular law. Adams had the men read out-loud from the Bible and the charges were reduced to manslaughter for which they were punished by a branding on the thumb.
@Woyzeck (106):
Damn good point.
@undaunted warrior (117):
Everything I found backed up my point. I find it rather insolent of you to tell me to go and look this up. I knew exactly what I was saying and I’m not pulling this stuff out of my arse. If you want to debate this with me then present some *****ing facts and figures, don’t tell me to go and look it up on the *****ing internet.
nice!
I must agree with several of Randal’s points regarding my list. He clearly is an educated man. Unfortunately however, he also brilliantly demonstrates a well known principal in the service industry called the, “the evil waitress option.” And before he points it out, yes, I myself am only a lowly former bartender/waiter. In brief, the principal relates to several studies that show that mean waiters/waitresses are constantly tipped higher than their kinder counterparts. It is hypothesized that this is because when the average customer is treated poorly, it feeds into their belief that they are out of their element (the nice restaurant) and conveys to them the professionalism and expertise of the server. Regardless of the servers actual ability. Randall’s behavior on this forum is abhorrent but he understands that it is this behavior that gives him authority. Again, unfortunately his intelligence is clearly above average and it would be nice to see him trust that that alone would communicate his expertise. My bartender reading tells me that he feels unappreciated at the University (possibly, rightfully so) and therefore bullies everyone on the forum with his superior intelligence. Should we ever run into each other over drinks, I’d love to discuss a multitude of topics with him but come on man, where is your civility?
@esamuherr (124):
The harder you *****, the less likely you are to wind up with wet shoes. Let Randall be the mean waiter, so long as he is right.
I ***** on all of you.
What an interesting list. All of this information was news to me. Keep it up, esamuherr!
P.S. esamuherr – good list.
@Woyzeck (125):
Woyzeck, if you were a woman I’d stand on a hilltop and proclaim my love for you.
“I ***** on all of you” not only cracked me up, but warmed my heart, as it so reflects my own feelings about most of humanity.
old guns on the list, kool history yo
@esamuherr (124):
“In brief, the principal relates to several studies that show that mean waiters/waitresses are constantly tipped higher than their kinder counterparts.”
Mean to whom?
Anyway, the principle doesn’t apply here. I am not a “service professional.” Nor do I require the attitude I make use of to convey my wisdom. I simply do it because A) it’s fun and B) I prefer to humilate asinine people rather than “be gentle with them.” That is to say, in this kind of forum and environment.
If, however, you felt I was needlessly rude to YOU, I’d submit that you’re thin-skinned and rather sensitive.
It was a good idea for a list, and I don’t have much criticism against it as far as a list goes. The only point I really dispute is #10.
“Randall’s behavior on this forum is abhorrent”
IS IT? Is it REALLY? Am I THAT bad, or are you just not all that familiar with the site? I don’t recall encountering you here before. Do you really find me “abhorrent?” Does it not occur to you that this is an open web site and not any kind of a professional entity, and is therefore, by definition, a free-for-all of opinion? I use the tools necessary to entertain and inform as I see fit, because it’s my belief that dry and dull and quietly nice would not be appreciated by most people here. This isn’t the kind of site for it.
“but he understands that it is this behavior that gives him authority.”
I beg to differ. What gives me “authority” is WHEN I am authority on a given subject–i.e., my education and knowledge and my critical thinking skills. I never take the view that my BEHAVIOR lends me any particular authority.
“Again, unfortunately his intelligence is clearly above average and it would be nice to see him trust that that alone would communicate his expertise.”
There are instances when it would, there are instances when it would not. If you knew the site well enough, you would know that I present my “persona” differently at different times, depending on just this criteria.
“My bartender reading tells me that he feels unappreciated at the University”
Nah. Sorry boy-o, wrong. They love me here.
“Should we ever run into each other over drinks, I’d love to discuss a multitude of topics with him”
And so we could. It never seems to occur to people that in REAL LIFE I am not the person I PRETEND to be on this site.
“but come on man, where is your civility?”
On the shelf gathering dust with my sentimentality and sweetness. They don’t much serve me here.
@esamuherr (124):
By the way… I AM sincerely sorry if I hurt your feelings… but I am also a writer and an editor. And when you put yourself out there, you have to expect to get jabbed now and then.
I didn’t think I was actually all that tough on you, but maybe I was. Anyway, don’t stop offering up lists. This one was a good idea. I hope you have others. Don’t be discouraged by the likes of me.
nearly all of these are well known facts and obvious (especially 10). surely better ones could be found?
the russian woman in the theatre must have been mentally handicapped. no one in their right mind would just walk in past security and talk to terrorist despite her not being personally involved or trained
@esamuherr (124): I don’t see a lot of real intelligence behind Randall. What I hope I see is just a façade.
I don’t subscribe to the 9/11 conspiracy theories, but I do have two questions about it. First off, two planes hit two towers, one plane hit the Pentagon and the last plane (“Let’s Roll!”) went down in Pennsylvania. Were any of the black boxes recovered?
Second, I don’t know any structural engineers or demolition experts personally, but how long would it take to prepare a skyscraper of the Twin Tower scope for demolition with explosives? Or for that matter, a Las Vegas casino for instance? Does preparation time take days, weeks, months?
Fair enough… I dig the idea of having an Internet persona, it just never occurred to me. Although, maybe I’ll give it a try. Regarding my not being on here all that much- thats right, Yo. I’m too busy out on the town banging hot chicks that I impress with my bad grammar-what, what!!!!
@esamuherr (124):
Ignore Randall, you’re list was very interesting. Randall will die a lonely man and although he is somewhat intelligent, he’s lost the game of life.
Seriously, your list was one of the best i’ve read for a while.
@Randall (130):
SSSSHHHHHH. You’re a middle aged man with kids, it’s time to stop coming on the internet and belittling people for your amusement. And even more importantly you need to find yourself a life where coming on the internet and belittling people doesn’t actually give you amusement. It’s….it’s just not a good place to be.
@Randall (130):
Your “persona” is to get chicks, right? We all know that the ladies like the jerks.
Looking forward to your excellent and superior list site Randall
Good List! I really enjoy this site. keep up the good work
@Randall(95)I just happen to know quite a few ‘pengs’ who also agree the physical improbability of 9/11,,,do you perhaps know the heat sink that much steel has?
@Randall(130)Having worked with steel and other metals for over 40 yrs diploma issued 1969…I do know how steel reacts to heat…it dissipates…most of the fuel burned at impact…low temp fires, black smoke…c’mon!!
Oh!! forgot to add NORAD…no response…Atta trained at CIA!!!
I really enjoyed this list!
Of course, another way to argue against this war would be to point out that bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11. But even though our own FBI has admitted that it “has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11,” a large part of the American population has been conditioned to reject all revisionism about 9/11 out of hand. As we saw recently with “the Van Jones affair,” people are considered unfit for public service if they once signed a document suggesting that the official account of 9/11 might not be fully true.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15638
I love this list. I, too, remember all of these events. (I am so old, LOL) I just didn’t know about some of the detail. I was a teenager when Kent State happened and remember the 4 people that were killed, but I didn’t recall any of the information about all the discourse that was going on at the same time in the rest of the US. (Not to say I didn’t know about all the protest and such going on around me, I was very much aware of it, I guess I didn’t realize how many college/university campuses had these protests going on at the same time.)
My daughter is 18 years old and she and I were just talking about Kent State a couple days ago. I told her what I know, now I can study up on it more and she and I can have a more intellectual discussion about it.
Thank you for this list. I love the history lists!
Somewhere along his ramblings, Randall asked what typographical errors he made in comment 82. Here goes:
Line 9, capitalization for “Twin Towers”
Line 19, wrote “structure engineers” instead of “structural,” also should have written “knowledge” instead “experience”
See, Randall? You are not above making mistakes. While I did have some trouble with the way the article was written, I’m sure your teachers taught you manners as well as grammar in school, no? What sick pleasure you must get from acting like a great internet ***** on Listverse!
I love the lists about history!
I knew there were buildings next to the Twin Towers that were destroyed on 9/11 because I saw an episode of “Unsolved Mysteries” about a man who’s wife disappeared in NYC on September 10th 2001. He was looking for her after the attacks and he mentioned some of the buildings near the Towers that had been destroyed. Until I saw that episode I didn’t know any of that.
Good for little Tilly Smith in #6, and good for her parents for listening to her instead of dismissing her alert because she was so young.
Why on earth would the woman in #4 think she could just go over and reason with terrorists? Her heart was in the right place, but that was just such a bad idea.
Good List. Can’t believe there are so many 9-11 “Troofers” still around these days. Find a new theory already, like, I don’t know, how about that the US Gov’t caused the Boxing Day Earthquake and Tsunami using secret satellite weapons or something.
With regards to the comments – i.e. who’s smart, who’s right, who’s an ***** etc. – I take the approach that:
1) I don’t actually know any of you so I don’t really care what your opinions are
2) I do love watching “train wrecks” however so the arguments are often most amusing
3) I don’t feel the need to “evangelise” my own opinions so I rarely join in the banter (Does this post negate this point?)
@Choco (146): Here goes:
Line 9, capitalization for “Twin Towers”
Line 19, wrote “structure engineers” instead of “structural,” also should have written “knowledge” instead “experience”
Allow me to speak for the rest of us here by saying that I really think we would all be well served if you would go back deep into the annals of the Listverse archives and review each and every one of his “ramblings” for more examples of the type of grievous errors you have painstakingly mined and submitted here for our review. I am sure this is just the tip of the iceberg of such horrific failings, and as such they should be documented accordingly. Please categorize them in subgroups corresponding with list-name, posting date, line-number (I liked that added touch btw!) and word-count. Alphabetizing isn’t necessary, but employing some type of Dewey-Decimal system of cataloguing these items would be appropriate, in the event someone might want to cross-reference them later in response to another “ramble”.
One small bit of constructive criticism, if I may: instead of quotation marks (which tend to appear somewhat rudimentary when used in the abundance anticipated for scope of this magnitude), I think it would be beneficial to us all if you were to utilize italics and bold text highlighting techniques, so as to further provide visual aid to those of us that live for these type of things, and also to raise your personal level of credibility within the Miscellaneous Error Research (MER) community. You really want your work to stand out among the crowd, don’t you? Please advise us as to when we can expect to see the highly awaited results of such an important and prodigious effort on your part.
@Choco (146):
Hardly even worth an “E” for effort, Choco. Try again. There’s a huge difference between a random typo here and there or a failure to capitalize—pointing those things out IS nitpicking–vs. poor syntax and flat-out poor writing.
And again, I’m sick to death of prissy little *****ers like you trying to “*****yze” me with bull***** accusations like how I must get “sick pleasure” out of being an “internet *****.”
You are under no obligation to read what I write, nor to respond to me. So if you don’t like it, ***** off.
@Maggot (150):
Thanks, Mag.
@Randall (152): Since it quite obviously just made that poster’s day to find those errors, I wanted to reward a job well done.
@lostatsea1 (141):
And what kind of a “diploma” was that?
AND AGAIN—it isn’t ONLY about the GODDAMNED STEEL AND YOU KNOW IT. There were structural issues at play which were only peripherally related to what happened to the *steel* itself.
This is typical of conspiracy nuts. No matter how much they’re shown a gallery of evidence which negates their craziness, they continue to HARP on ONE issue which they can cling to. Because it’s all they’ve got.
Why? Because it’s a kind of goddamn sickness. People like you, “lost,” feel powerless in the world, and subconsciously they feel they can’t do a damn thing about it, not a damn thing to influence the world or their own lives even. They’ve subconsciously given up and given in. But they can’t face it—they can’t face the pain of a life of failure and powerlessness.
SO they create an imaginary, alternate reality where only THEY know the “truth,” where only THEY have the answers, where only they have been able to see the “real” world which the rest of us “blinded” and “duped” types can’t see. But of course we’ll never see it because IT ISN’T REAL. It’s *****ogous to a hypochondriac. Don’t we all wonder WHY hypochondriacs always wallow in thinking they’re sick? Don’t we wonder WHY anyone would want to live a miserable existence like that?
But that’s the answer. Because they are souls who subconsciously believe they are powerless in the face of forces controlling them, running their lives. So they only way they can cope with that is to create imaginary “realities” where THEY have the say, where they can say “I know I am sick” in the face of all proof to the contrary. And so it lends power to these sad, failed individuals who really believe down deep that they have none. But they immerse themselves in FALSE power over the world, over reality, and create their own… as the only means of feeling in control.
So it is with conspiracy theorists, who feel the world is beyond them, run by secret cabals and sinister government insiders who manipulate and control and manage life for the rest of us. But by creating this phony reality, they can console themselves mightily by saying, “I see it—I see the truth—while the rest of you dupes do not.”
AND NO MATTER how many times you counter their absurdities with logic, proof, and evidence, they squirm around it. THAT is the sign of a kind of psychosis–an innate failure to recognize reality even when it stands right in front of them.
You have been asked a VERY SIMPLE QUESTION–where is the logic in flying planes into these buildings if they were just BLOWN UP ANYWAY? Why not just blow them up and accuse Al Qaeda of THAT? Or, to turn it around… why not JUST fly the planes into the buildings? What conspiracy would have required them to fall, to collapse? Surely that was unnecessary for an excuse to start a war—because all that was needed was an ATTACK. AND WHY, anyway, if it was BOMBS that were planted for some reason, WHY plant them in such a way to SUGGEST a “controlled detonation” which brought the buildings down pancake style? Why not blow them up to LOOK the way people like you would EXPECT to look, if they fell due to planes flying into them?
ALL of this is simple logic. Your ideas fall apart because you have no answer for ANY of this–and indeed, despite repeated chances for you to offer some answer, you have not done so.
And the reason is because it too closely challenges your need for this false reality where YOU have the eyes to see and the rest of us do not.
An interesting list. However, I think that you are selling a lot of people short by saying that the information that you cite has been forgotten. Much of it is a major part of the event, and well remembered my many.
@archiealt (136):
You know, *****, you’ve been shown up time and time again for trying to pull this kind of crap, where you disparage the personality of an individual YOU DON’T EVEN KNOW. It doesn’t work, it never will work, and it’s *****ing pathetic. So my sincere advice to you is to knock it off—because no one’s buying it or listening to you.
“Randall will die a lonely man and although he is somewhat intelligent, he’s lost the game of life.”
And JUST HOW DO YOU *****ING KNOW THIS? You don’t KNOW me, know absolutely NOTHING about me. The *****ing amusing thing is how DEAD wrong you are… but the sick thing is, you actually are brain dead enough to think that you can spout ***** like this and expect ANYONE to listen or believe it—MUCH LESS ME!!!
“SSSSHHHHHH. You’re a middle aged man with kids, it’s time to stop coming on the internet and belittling people for your amusement.”
And you know what *****? As ridiculously over the top as your ego clearly is, I hate to break it to you—but I am in no way obligated to do what YOU tell me to do. Isn’t that a surprise? But I find it wonderfully affirming and another reason to love life—that while some prick like you can try to inform me on my own life, from an absurdly huge distance of knowing absolutely ZERO about me personally—I’m free to tell you to shut the ***** up and mind your own goddamned business. And yay for me, I’ve done so, and can continue as I see fit. You, in turn, are free to not like it. But I put it to you that trying to characterize me as you do makes you look like nothing more than an ass.
“And even more importantly you need to find yourself a life where coming on the internet and belittling people doesn’t actually give you amusement. It’s….it’s just not a good place to be.”
And honest to god, you are damn near sickeningly twisted by thinking you ACTUALLY have the right or the wisdom to describe the life of an individual you do NOT know in the slightest, or to give me advice on how I should live my life.
In short, I’m not in the slightest bit interested in your opinion, and you are wasting your time and energy by typing this kind of nonsense.
So I invite you to ***** off. It’s for the best for both of us, because you’re only wasting my time AND yours.
Jamie just got his first copy of The ListVerse Book in his hands!
The Ultimate Book of Top Ten Lists: A Mind-Boggling Collection of Fun, Fascinating and Bizarre Facts on Movies, Music, Sports, Crime, Celebrities, History, Trivia and More
I wonder if it’s going to include our comments?
@Randall (82): God! I officially love you. Thank you for treating this whole conspiracy business as it deserves to be treated: as a pile of bull*****.
That said, I was a little disappointed when I was reading one of your comments and I came across the phrase “in regards to”—that’s nonstandard, it should be “in regard to.” I typically don’t care about those mistakes but I think it is relevant to mention it. Now, please don’t strike back telling me about every single grammatical mistake I have made in this comment because I don’t plan to be an editor or a writer, I don’t even have a college degree, and in fact I have been speaking English only for about three years. My point is, I don’t expect my writing to be flawless but if someone is to correct it, I don’t want it to be out of spite. I will gladly disregard your comment if that’s the case. I just wanted to point that out because I’m not the only person who is reading your comments and some people, unlike me, do care and will probably find it ludicrous that you make a mistake while trying to correct those that other people make.
Now, you will think that I’m trying to use flattery to counterbalance what I’ve just said, but, for the love of Mike, I loved how you ripped that conspiracy nonsense apart.
As for the list, I like the fact that the title doesn’t start with the word “top.” That would have been a little pretentious. However, I did enjoy reading it, and I think it would be interesting to see a second version of it.
You know, I’ve got something to say here. I’m sick to death of little pussies like archiealt and Choco and the handful of others of their ilk who from time to time crawl out of the woodwork to bad-mouth me because they can’t take my stance on something, or see me only as a negative voice here, “belittling” people. As though I am ONLY about that and nothing else.
But see, I know better—as do the long-timers on this site who know me and have interacted with me—because in point of fact I spend at least as much time engaged in ordinary discussions where I’m disseminating knowledge or speaking on topics I have professional experience with, etc., as I do this so-called “belittling.”
The thing is, I get called to task by these humorless, self-important pricks nine times out of ten because I have deflated some cherished little view they have of the world, or simply because I’ve spoken with a critical voice—and that type of person is opposed to the very IDEA of criticism, as it happens.
This list was a nice idea but was poorly written. I said so, and that’s that. I pointed out why I felt justified in holding this stance, and offered evidence. I COULD have offered much more. Sure, I could have let it go, ignored it… but speaking as a goddamn writer myself, AND as an editor—I know that it’s in fact a SERVICE to the person who has written a substandard work when they hear the truth, as harsh as it may be.
Now, why do I feel that I should provide said service? Good question. To which the answer is, however, “why the hell not?” By placing themselves out there publicly with something they have produced, people are opening themselves up to the reactions of the world. The world is not in any way obligated to be “nice” in its reactions or even encouraging. In fact the world is often nasty and unforgiving in its brutal reactions. That is a fact of life.
I have to face that simple fact of life every day, as do friends of mine who do as I do–who write or produce something that they voluntarily put out there, naked for the world to judge and react to. We have had to learn to take it.
I have, therefore, not a goddamned speck of sympathy for people who, when they see criticism or have it directed at them, react like spoiled children who’ve been told “no” for the first time. I DO have sympathy AND empathy for those who DO put work out there, whatever it is, because they have tried, and particularly if they have done their best. But my sympathy ceases when something is offered up and it is expected that the rest of us are only supposed to admire it or look away from it if we have nothing “nice to say.” *I* do not get that luxury of kid-glove treatment in MY chosen profession as a writer–now tell me why in god’s name I should give it to someone who is attempting some *****ogous function to that, by offering to all of us their piece of work, whatever it may be.
I was not needlessly cruel to the writer of this list. I simply stated that it was poorly written and said why. I even felt a shade bad later that I may have discouraged him/her. But that’s because at heart I sympathize more with the creator than the editor and always have. But down deep I know the editor is almost always right.
But at any rate, as I say, I hardly feel I was outrageously cruel or needlessly critical. I spoke the truth, and that’s all. I am not responsible for the fear people have of that truth–and in fact, I’m contemptuous of those who can’t face up to it. And I think with damn good reason.
@Andres (158):
Thanks, but let me point something out here regarding mistakes in my comments. Because others (not you) have tried to use these things against me like spiteful little children, and there’s a logical point here that needs to be made, in counter to them.
When I am writing these comments, I am doing so HURRIEDLY in order to get my thoughts out in a timely fashion. Were I to take the time to put every single one of my grammatical or syntactic ducks in a row (to employ a cliche) I’d get fewer thoughts out and they would be far less timely. So I sacrifice a little of that for expediency. I do not do so deliberately—I would consider that kind of lazy writing to be unforgivable (for myself). I ALLOW it of myself, however, because speed is of the essence at times. I can write fast, but like the typist who can manage 70 words per minute but who begins to produce typos at 90, I have limits to my “automatic” quality, and there comes a point where I have to slow down and correct errors that crop up here and there. When I am writing to produce something professional, I do just that. Which is why it takes me upwards of a week to finish a short story, and it has taken me years, now, to reach a point where my longer works are at near-completion. Naturally there’s more to it than that—but you see my point.
At any rate, I face the choice on this site–write fast and get it out there, or slow down at some point and make sure it’s perfect. Slowing down, however, means I fall behind in the “timeliness” of what I’m trying to say… particularly if I’m answering someone’s question or challenge or what have you.
But there is a WORLD of difference between writing COMMENTARY on a list and actually WRITING the list itself. I have done both. In writing lists, I try my best to make sure my writing is the highest quality I can produce–within reason of course, since I’m not getting paid to do this, and no one of professional consequence (to me) is going to take note of what I’ve coughed up. Again, it’s the time issue. Even so, out of pride and a sense of what’s right, I made a strong effort to write well and coherently. I feel this is also a matter of respect for the audience. (and good entertainment).
In commentary, however, my primary focus is speed. And the best of writers can slip up when writing fast.
This does not excuse the writer of a list who has the time and freedom to ensure that he or she has done his or her best work.
You all have internet sticks up your asses. I provide IS extractions for a nominal fee. Mac or PC. There are better places to get drunk, let loose and take offense than behind a keyboard. Spit game to someone’s face and see what transpires. You might get a rush out of it…
@BryanJ (76): this is the back story to the ‘pirating’ in those waters
Keep stroking each other’s egos, Maggot (fitting name) and Randall. For someone who doesn’t care so much about what people online think of him, you sure do spend a lot of time writing rebuttals (which this time around, I did skip right over). I stopped reading Listverse months ago because your crap was crowding up the comments section and taking all the fun out of it, but happened to be linked to this list today by another site…too bad you’re still polluting up the area.
@Choco (163): I stopped reading Listverse months ago
Then why are you still here whining like a little *****?
Nice to see you can read, old Maggaroo. I was linked to this article through another site.
Got anything else to say?
@Randall (160): Hahaha I like Randall
@Choco (165): I was linked to this article through another site.
LOL so you got “linked” over to a site that you profess to dislike not once, but twice? In one day?
Got anything else to say?
Yeah. Not only are you a whiny *****, you are a dumbass.
Have you all had your fill of juvenile brattiness? Oh well, I can’t in good conscience describe this as juvenile because I know children with more poise and maturity than I’ve seen here. Normally by this point, I’d be trying to keep the peace and demand respect for the author of the list and the work he/she put into this, but I see the author of this list also joined in the melee that drew the conversation away from a topic that was actually pertinent to the today’s list. Really? I’ve respect for you as a fellow list submitter but you had the best chance to keep this thread civil and instead you threw another log into this flame war…especially with this attempt to garner guilt or sympathy by calling yourself a “lowly bartender”. A former roommate of mine was a bartender and I guarantee that should either of us have seen you in person, she would knee you in the groin if I didn’t get to you first. 1) *NEVER* be ashamed of what you are or what you do for a living. and 2) That wasn’t even part of any argument here. You brought that out of the woodwork solely to use it against other people. Cheap shot.
So what about the rest of you? More name calling? More “psycho*****ysis”? It was a good list idea that needed a little tweaking and instead of focusing on that or focusing on specific items, you completely disregard the list for sake of yet another day of “gang up on Randall”. You all proud of yourselves?
Choco:
You were here, you left, you were linked here by another site that would either have a hyperlink saying listverse or mention something about listverse before posting the link and if not, then upon entering the site, you’d see the name listverse and decide not to come here based on previous interactions regarding the site but instead decided to stay long enough to read the list and read the comments and then submit a comment to complain about Randall still being on listverse and say you left listverse because Randall was on listverse and then continue to write two or three subsequent comment responses on this thread even though you said you are sick of listverse.
Have I understood everything you were trying to convey?
So I can’t come back and defend myself? Seriously? Because it’s apparent that a few of you here like to talk crap and think that if you have the last word, you have somehow proven your greatness on here. Is this site not for discussion and comments on the list? I was linked here once (no I don’t go scrutinizing every hyperlink before I click on it, what kind of weirdo does that) and continued to come back to make sure my comments were misunderstood. Give me a break if I’m going to be put down because I don’t like Randall’s nutsack and take everything he says for gospel.
This site says “Listverse” not “Randallverse” and it’s mind-boggling that this dude loves to bag on everyone and that there are even some people who support him! What do you get out of cutting people down on a light-hearted site ? Maggot and gabi, was I even addressing you? Is this some posse that I’ve now upset that will defend their dear leader? Oh, please! Keep talking down to people on here if that’s how you get your kicks. Nothing constructive about that at all.
*to make sure my comments were NOT
In the middle ages, people like Olga were canonized.
@Choco (169):
For someone who doesn’t care so much about visiting Listverse, you sure do spend a lot of time writing rebuttals on the site.
no I don’t go scrutinizing every hyperlink before I click on it, what kind of weirdo does that
Ahh, so we have someone who’s gotten a computer virus from a spam email? or someone who’s “inadvertently stumbled upon” ***** at work?
Sorry I answered a comment on a public forum that can be seen by anyone considered part of “the public”. Perhaps next time you can gift wrap your comment so inapplicable people won’t see it.
JFrater is the only one I’d consider my leader on this site. Yes, I’ve had dealings with Randall in the past and he’s certainly gotten the best of me in a number of interactions, but don’t think for one second I’m some kind of pansy who wouldn’t call him out if he were just picking on someone needlessly. Was he here? Not that I see. Someone essentially challenged him with a question, he responded, the other guy responded… and they had a conversation in line with the list. It was the others here who weren’t addressed – YOURSELF INCLUDED, Mr./Ms. Pot/Kettle/Black – that decided to jump in and dissolve the conversation to nothing but name calling.
Where exactly have I talked down to people? What is not constructive about my “Never be ashamed of who you are…”?
unbelievable…
nice list. informational.
esamuherr – IMHO: the BEST “history” list to date.
Undaunted Warrior (117) I think you touched a nerve: I watched a scientific breakdown of the mechanics of WHY the towers collapsed – they were built to withstand the kind of impact caused by the airliners: they were NOT designed for the central cores to stand up to tens of thousands of gallons of burning avgas.
BTW – if Randall and Woyzcek are so anti-humanity and hold us in such contempt: maybe the Kevorkian Solution would be their best avenue – and BTW “Randall” if you ARE so busily employed at a university (anyone could make such a claim without having to substantiate it) – you can’t be earning your pay at present; considering how much time you are devoting to tearing strips of any and every-one on this forum. If you don’t like what people say: go away.
Oh and don’t bother trying to shoot me down in response – I won’t be back to give creedence or credibility to your rants by reading them!
I have shot people down in the past and have not (from memory) had to resort to swearing at them) Boittom line you cracking little ray of sunshine – You are nothing but a bully (both you and Woyzcek): what’s the problem; don’t you get enough attention at home (or at uni) that you have to invade a simple list forum and attempt to dominate contgributors with aggression? Poor Child.
I’m out – not going to bicker online with people I’ll never deal with again in life. As you said gabi, I don’t want to be a hypocrite and add nothing to this comments section by going back and forth over nothing. Keep rambling on about whatever you were saying about ***** at work and gift-wrapping comments because really, why not? What the hell does that have to do with anything? Knock yourself out. You scan each and every one of your links and I don’t. Congrats.
All I was trying to get at was Randall and his little peanut gallery are really played out and detract from the point of the site more than adding to it. If Randall so desperately wants to share his knowledge he should get his own blog and write his essays there where Maggot and whomever else can ooh and aah to their hearts content. No need to ruin an otherwise nice site with all the vitriol.
@Choco (169): So I can’t come back and defend myself?
Sure you can. Just don’t try to come off like you are above the fray. Because you’re not.
a few of you here like to talk crap and think that if you have the last word…
Says the person who can’t seem to shut the ***** up and keeps coming back for more. Let it go. I dare you.
was I even addressing you?
When you make a post to a public forum, you are addressing everyone. Any post is open season for reply, by anyone else. HTH.
Is this some posse that I’ve now upset that will defend their dear leader?
Not really. I barely know the guy (if that). I just get tired of reading all the incessant whining about him. No value-add. But your post number 146 was particularly laughable, and begged a response in kind. Then you got all butthurt, and here we are.
This site says “Listverse” not “Randallverse”…Keep talking down to people on here if that’s how you get your kicks. Nothing constructive about that at all.
Well, I’m still waiting for you to comment on the actual list, rather than whatever the hell it is that you’re babbling about. Hypocrite.
So Maggot, when will you be satisfied? Until you insult me enough that I don’t respond? Until everyone sings Randall’s praises or what?
I originally wanted to comment about how I enjoyed the list and always I like to scan other people’s comments first before I do so as not to repeat anything. It was too bad to see how things quickly deteriorated *yet again* because Randall and his croanies decided to just go off on someone.
The list was a nice read; the comments were not. Sometimes I wish the comments section was disabled so one could just enjoy the information. Save the drama for the forum.
Now those were interesting….
@Choco (175): All I was trying to get at was Randall and his little peanut gallery are really played out and detract from the point of the site more than adding to it.
And you did this by detracting from the point of the site with your first comment on this thread. In fact you didn’t comment on the actual list until comment 177 with “This list was a nice read”. Way to add to the detraction.
Also on comment 175: I’m out – not going to bicker online… I don’t want to be a hypocrite and add nothing to this comments section by going back and forth over nothing.
@Choco (177): comment, comment, comment, bicker, bicker, bicker.
Lol, were you trying to make me look or feel like a hypocrite? I wasn’t the one saying “I’m out” but coming back to reply yet again nor was I the one leaving a comment wishing that the comment section was disabled. Good job. I’ve been duly chastised.
I’ll come back and reply as long as you’re addressing me, if I feel the need. Or do you want to keep trying to have the last word? Do continue spreading your good cheer! You’re really making this a welcoming place.