You forgot Yasser Arafat.

It was definitely already a joke when gore got it. He just solidified the absurdity of it to the point that it wasn't even a surprise when Obama got for things they hoped he would do.

Alfred probably wishes none of his dynamite money ever went to fund that piece of shit ... Wait a minute, I think I realized when it became a joke ... At its inception! The guy who invented dynamite, funds a piece prize. He also didn't want it associated with Sweden, like all the real Nobels, so he let Norway handle that one ...

Yep, I'm going with its inception. And now I think it was actually deliberate on Nobel's part.

Implying it meant something to begin with

I'm going to say this one more time:

THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE *NEVER HAD* ANY CREDIBILITY!!

This question is not allowing the truth as an answer. Typical blankflag-question, which is slightly worrying...

I couldn't even name a single person who won the prize if it weren't for the fact that I remembered Obama from the list above. Then I remember Gore from the list above, so I presume Al Gore...

Not a clue about the 3rd one, or any other one, because who the fuck cares about a stupid prize?

1. When Kissinger got it
2. When Al Gore got it
3. When Obama got it

4. When SYnapse re-posted a blankflag thread about it.

Gandhi never won. That's about all that needs to be said about the Nobel.

"Over the past few weeks I campaigned for a change in the way this website was moderated.

I did so in the belief that Draugnar shares that moderator involvement is necessary but should remain minimal, particularly in the forums. And the mods listened.

I thought that following the 1st November mod changes, things would quieten down a bit. But a couple of you saw the opportunity to test the new rules and to continue a tirade of cheek at the mods.

In doing so you have let down the key principle of mutual respect and sensibility that I wanted to pursue. That is why I write this forum post in an appeal for calm…

As nobody is currently silenced and as the mods have agreed to change their policy let’s try to work together. Despite all of the things I’ve said about the mods I think they are decent people when given the opportunity and when they do not constantly have to be on the defensive.

Draugnar – please let’s move over the issue. Moderators – please do not jump to your defences as there is no real issue going on here.

The “explicit content” debate has its place but it should be a friendly debate and there is no reason to make it aggressive by either party."

Looks like that's over and we're back to the old SYnapse who can't stop complaining about blankflag.

No offence jmo but SYnapse isn't complaining. Sure, he won't let blankflag go into the blues easily, but he's not complaining in this thread.

I just don't want to post the pm's, but he is.

I was discussing nobel peace prize jmo....

At which point did SYnapse lose all credibility?

When blankflag got him.

"Gandhi never won. That's about all that needs to be said about the Nobel."

That might be because Gandhi promoted conflict, not peace.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

Lots. Lots is wrong with him.

And the prize has always been something of a joke. Not as bad as the one for Literature, but close.

What's wrong with the Literature one?

Prior to Gandhi's entry onto the Indian political scene, Tilak and Jinnah were cooperating, and the independence movement as a whole was on good terms with the British for advancing peacefully towards self-government. Gandhi escalated everything. Cooperation on all fronts deteriorated. The result was a bloody partition.

Kissinger - like it or not, negotiated an end to a war. Arafat, like or not, signed a historic peace agreement.

The complainers, typically, have done nothing worthwhile but complain about every single public servant who has ever existed.

The Oslo Committee cannot compete with Invictus's immense wikipedia knowledge of literature. Especially since he admitted he doesn't read much fiction.

How can a bunch of Norwegians be expected to effectively judge world literature? Authors have to fit into a very particular slice of the European literary culture to have a shot at all. That's why Sweden has more winners than Asia.

"The complainers, typically, have done nothing worthwhile but complain about every single public servant who has ever existed."

Arafat can be called a lot of things, but I don't think "public servant" can be one of them.

Thanks for that wikipedia quote. Also, it's evidently given out by the Swedish Academy, so Norwegians not involved.

"but I don't think "public servant" can be one of them."

He was President of the PA. He was a public official.

<...cough cough....TERRORIST....cough...cough...>

"How can a bunch of Norwegians be expected to effectively judge world literature?"

How can someone who admits to not reading literature judge the judgments as a joke?

Yeah it's from Wikipedia. Does that make it not so? And I was wrong about Swedes giving it out rather than Norwegians. That even makes my point stronger, though. Are the Swedes really this literary powerhouse or do the people picking the prizes just have a better appreciation of their native language's literature than they do other cultures'?

There's a huge Eurocentric bias in the Literature prize. That's obvious if you just look at the winners. Do you honestly think such a huge percentage of the world's best authors really are white people?

"How can someone who admits to not reading literature judge the judgments as a joke?"

How can someone who's admitted to hating all fiction writing be such a staunch defender of the prize?

Do you have any basis to say that great literature is coming out of China or Indonesia or Nigeria?

I'll give you time to google it so you can act duly indignant on their behalf.