Posted 24 December 2003 - 01:28 PM
I think the success of the tipping on this site should be based on this factor!!
Posted 29 December 2003 - 02:39 AM
The overiding objective of DeathList has always been to get the greatest number of deaths even though it is always more pleasing to pick a younger death. All things being equal we'll pick the younger candidate but experience shows that the younger celebs are prety tough to pick off. No doubt the debate will continue.
Posted 29 December 2003 - 06:01 PM
Success is measured against how we did it in previous years and for ease of comparison we try to do it the same way each year. i.e. we meet in the pub, argue a lot and then the Grim Reaper goes home and mis-types up the results
I'm happy with that format anyway. Viva the Death List - long may it prosper.
Posted 29 December 2003 - 06:16 PM
And anyway - who said this wasnt the best DeathList?? A 28% success rate this year from a field of 50 is a world class performance - particulalry with the restrictions we have on fame and repeats from previous year.
When you fancy churning out some stats how about average age of those on the list each year. I suspect the age has increased over the years - although youngsters like Barry Sheene and Warren Zevon may have bucked that trend this year.
Posted 30 December 2003 - 11:21 AM
This year they are Charlotte Benker and Joan Riudavets
I would just like it noted that I have nominated these people but due to Death List criteria (Being famous for probably dieing they did not make the list.
Posted 05 January 2004 - 05:43 PM
Perhaps it's more of an achievement to either pick them at over 100 or below 65 or pension age.
Posted 06 January 2004 - 08:24 AM
Obviously Paul Burrell would have been able to help us with the Princess Di call but apart from that our team of psychics have not come up with the goods - I don't believe we're going to renew their contracts next year, wasters.
It's hard enough as it is without any age restrictions - we were a bit jammy in 2003 and I can't see that level of success being repeated.
Posted 15 March 2004 - 09:02 PM
Posted 15 March 2004 - 09:21 PM
"A retired Spanish shoemaker who was officially the world's oldest man has died at his home at the age of 114, his family said on Saturday."
Corr blimey at 114, I bet his skin was like one ultra nice, super comfort, leather hush puppie.
A fair point though, perhaps we should include one next year.
Posted 16 March 2004 - 05:23 PM
Posted 16 March 2004 - 05:46 PM
I think I will leave it at that.
Posted 16 March 2004 - 11:28 PM
Posted 17 March 2004 - 02:40 PM
Other, unsubstantiated reports of people living to huge ages still persist, but the rule of thumb seems to be that the Guinness Book of Records needs to ratify their age before they can claim the crown (and then drop dead).
So, I will stand by my suggestion to the ruling board, that the world's oldest person or man/woman should be included in the yearly list. You know it makes sense!
Posted 18 March 2004 - 10:13 PM
We have already discussed this topic to death over the last few months.
Fame has to be real fame and not a statistical event. The world's oldest people do not count as being famous simply becuase they are old.
We get enough flack for the quality of our celebs as it is. Now give it a rest
Posted 13 April 2004 - 10:35 AM
Johannes Heesters is the world's oldest actor (still working), who turned 100 in December 2003 - he appears in the DeathList approved Wikipedia and I am sure in Europe he is the equivalent of John Mills or something - just because you or I haven't heard of him, doesn't mean he isn't famous does it?
So what do you think?
Posted 13 April 2004 - 10:39 PM
Reply to this topic
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users