The GHZ Forum

And it is <a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... ml">you</a>.

Yes, <i>you</i>.

Seems like a cop-out to me. I mean, seriously, what better way to be lazy about the whole thing than by not naming a specific person?

"Who's Mom's Favorite Robot? Mom Loves Every Robot Most of ALL!"


Asshats.

EDIT: Looking at the article, it seems that the person of the year is actually "The Internets", but they wanted to phrase it in a way that made people warm and fuzzy.

So, Da Net get to be treated as a "person", Bill Gates is going to retire, Microsoft is learning about Linux, and 4kids died, I don’t think 2007 would be able to beat that...

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_(actress)">I think people are confused about who the actual person of the year is.</a>

Time's been copping out since they named Giuliani over bin Laden in 2001, if not before.

Cute.

Um excuse me; we all know who the real man of the year is:

I don't know. I agreed with it.

Cocky bastard!

Delphine wrote:Cute.

I dunno if you're referring to my post or the OP, so I'll assume you're referring to my post and if not, disregard this one.

The Person of the Year is supposed to be he who "for better or worse, has most influenced events in the preceding year." If anyone has a plausible argument for why Giuliani had a greater influence than bin Laden, I've yet to see it.

As for Time's wishy-washy reasoning...

snopes wrote:"Though we spent hours debating the pros and cons of naming Osama bin Laden, it ultimately became easy to dismiss him," said managing editor Jim Kelly. "He is not a larger-than-life figure with broad historical sweep . . . he is smaller than life, a garden-variety terrorist whose evil plan succeeded beyond his highest hopes."

"Though we spent hours debating the pros and cons of naming Osama bin Laden, it ultimately became easy to dismiss him," said managing editor Jim Kelly. "He is not a larger-than-life figure with broad historical sweep . . . he is smaller than life, a garden-variety terrorist whose evil plan succeeded beyond his highest hopes."

IF WE DrAWS CARTOOns of Tom n JERRy beating HITLER, that means PEOPELEs won'tbeafraid of him no mores! lolz! Even kittiez can beat him.

Honestly, I suspect he didn't get man of the year because his existance was swept under the rug by the Bush administration a month after 911 so they could convince everyone Saddam did it.

That would do the trick.

Rolken wrote:Time's been copping out since they named Giuliani over bin Laden in 2001, if not before.

Well... Considering that Adolph Hitler made man of the year once, you'd think they had a pretty damn good reason for not picking Osama.

Eh?

I knew I was special.

Locit wrote:Eh?

I suppose what I'm saying is that they may not have picked Osama, but for whatever reason it may be, it wasn't because they thought he was villainous or against America. Perhaps that goes without saying?

Of course, picking Osama might kind of America-centered. Isn't Man of the Year meant to be from anywhere in the world?

You realise Adolf Hitler was chosen almost 70 years ago. I don't find it impossible that there has been a change in editorial direction since then. And I don't even know what you're trying to say with the "America-centered" thing, as suggesting that Rudy Giuliani would be less America-centric than Osama is just ludicrous.

It's obvious, if they chose Osama over Guliani, they'd be terr'ists.