Putin? Are they oblivious to the fact he invaded ukraine, semt troops in to try to destabilise ukraine, took over Crimea and is also trying to restart the Cold War? I question their judgement massively. Why does he deserve an 'award'?
Putin? Are they oblivious to the fact he invaded ukraine, semt troops in to try to destabilise ukraine, took over Crimea and is also trying to restart the Cold War? I question their judgement massively. Why does he deserve an 'award'?
A more complete title would be: Apple CEO Tim Cook among eight finalists for Time's 2014 Person of the Year [who will help benefit Time's bottom line the most by being named Person of the Year.]
My guess is Cook, Furguson, Putin and Ebola have been and still are flooding the media right now that it won't help sales. I don't think people care enough about Barzani and Goodell to help sales, so that leaves Swift and Ma. I think people would like to know about about Jack Ma but I think he's only slightly above Barzani and Goodell. Swift definitely has been and still is flooding the media, but I think she has a lot of obesed fans that will buy Time magazine — perhaps for the first time — simply because she's on the cover, so I'm going to go with Swift as my answer.
Seems odd that they would give the samerecognition to selfless humanitarian efforts from ebola workers as they do to violent protesters who break into local businesses, steal their property and then set them on fire.
Similarly, the same recognition to Tim Cook and Putin?
I guess I don't understand the criteria for "Person of the year" at Time. Are they trying to balance good and evil? anyone?
Putin? Are they oblivious to the fact he invaded ukraine, semt troops in to try to destabilise ukraine, took over Crimea and is also trying to restart the Cold War? I question their judgement massively. Why does he deserve an 'award'?
"for better or for worse...has done the most to influence the events of the year"
A more complete title would be: Apple CEO Tim Cook among eight finalists for Time's 2014 Person of the Year [who will help benefit Time's bottom line the most by being named Person of the Year.]
ahh. that would make more sense. So whatever "news", regardless of being positive or not, gave them the most material.
Putin? Are they oblivious to the fact he invaded ukraine, semt troops in to try to destabilise ukraine, took over Crimea and is also trying to restart the Cold War? I question their judgement massively. Why does he deserve an 'award'?
I'm hoping to make the list next year.
I plan on global domination, mass rape, mass murder, not small time murder like murdering a few people, but hundreds of thousands of people! I just plan on being an all round evil person. That ought to do the trick. I'll even use biological warfare if necessary.
And if all of that murder, destruction and rape doesn't secure my spot, I'll resort to plan B. I'll just put on a blond wig, shave my legs and become a female pop star.
I'd say, based on selfless action, the Ebola caregivers hands down. Though such a generic grouping doesn't really have the same meaning as an actual identifiable individual.
He is guiding a wildly successful Apple and when Steve passed that wasn't at all given.
Putin doesn't deserve it: he blinked when he was poised to invade Ukraine, totally whiffed grabbing the whole enchilada. Wimp's doing the proxy, "volunteers" thing shouldn't get the cover.
I'd say, based on selfless action, the Ebola caregivers hands down. Though such a generic grouping doesn't really have the same meaning as an actual identifiable individual.
He is guiding a wildly successful Apple and when Steve passed that wasn't at all given.
Putin doesn't deserve it: he blinked when he was poised to invade Ukraine. Wimp's shouldn't get the cover.
Are you saying you'd deem Putin worthy for invading another country? That's insane.
The ebola caregivers should not win because some of them violated their quarantines when they came back to the US, so screw those selfish people and liars. No awards for them.
If they win, there should be a significant stipulation regarding only those workers in west Africa itself.
And the Ferguson protesters should not win, because a bunch of thugs setting their own town on fire is hardly something that is worthy of an award.
Are you saying you'd deem Putin worthy for invading another country? That's insane.
Aside from certain degree of tongue in cheek the fact of the matter is Time has always used significance as the criteria, not the moral value of the action: that's how those dictatorial monsters made the cover after all.
I'd suggest Putin with his shirtless strutting and posturing is mostly hat and very little to no cattle (which is, overall a VERY good thing).
Time's own words when asked about their Bin Laden pick: "Jim Kelly [editor in 2001]: Well, the classic definition of TIME's Person of the Year is the person who most affected the events of the year, for better or for worse. I think what has happened over the years is that the Man of the Year title, Person of the Year title, has become non-honorific. It was never meant to be solely that...."
Putin? Are they oblivious to the fact he invaded ukraine, semt troops in to try to destabilise ukraine, took over Crimea and is also trying to restart the Cold War? I question their judgement massively. Why does he deserve an 'award'?
Because this isn't an award. It's about who was the most influential (good or bad) person in the world for the year.
Aside from certain degree of tongue in cheek the fact of the matter is Time has always used significance as the criteria, not the moral value of the action: that's how those dictatorial monsters made the cover after all.
I'd suggest Putin with his shirtless strutting and posturing is mostly hat and very little to no cattle (which is, overall a VERY good thing).
Time's own words when asked about their Bin Laden pick: "Jim Kelly [editor in 2001]: Well, the classic definition of TIME's Person of the Year is the person who most affected the events of the year, for better or for worse. I think what has happened over the years is that the Man of the Year title, Person of the Year title, has become non-honorific. It was never meant to be solely that...."
I see, you were being sarcastic. It was not immediately obvious.
Comments
Putin? Are they oblivious to the fact he invaded ukraine, semt troops in to try to destabilise ukraine, took over Crimea and is also trying to restart the Cold War? I question their judgement massively. Why does he deserve an 'award'?
Because he's naughty, not nice.
My guess is Cook, Furguson, Putin and Ebola have been and still are flooding the media right now that it won't help sales. I don't think people care enough about Barzani and Goodell to help sales, so that leaves Swift and Ma. I think people would like to know about about Jack Ma but I think he's only slightly above Barzani and Goodell. Swift definitely has been and still is flooding the media, but I think she has a lot of obesed fans that will buy Time magazine — perhaps for the first time — simply because she's on the cover, so I'm going to go with Swift as my answer.
Seems odd that they would give the same recognition to selfless humanitarian efforts from ebola workers as they do to violent protesters who break into local businesses, steal their property and then set them on fire.
Similarly, the same recognition to Tim Cook and Putin?
I guess I don't understand the criteria for "Person of the year" at Time. Are they trying to balance good and evil? anyone?
"for better or for worse...has done the most to influence the events of the year"
A more complete title would be: Apple CEO Tim Cook among eight finalists for Time's 2014 Person of the Year [who will help benefit Time's bottom line the most by being named Person of the Year.]
ahh. that would make more sense. So whatever "news", regardless of being positive or not, gave them the most material.
Putin? Are they oblivious to the fact he invaded ukraine, semt troops in to try to destabilise ukraine, took over Crimea and is also trying to restart the Cold War? I question their judgement massively. Why does he deserve an 'award'?
I'm hoping to make the list next year.
I plan on global domination, mass rape, mass murder, not small time murder like murdering a few people, but hundreds of thousands of people! I just plan on being an all round evil person. That ought to do the trick. I'll even use biological warfare if necessary.
And if all of that murder, destruction and rape doesn't secure my spot, I'll resort to plan B. I'll just put on a blond wig, shave my legs and become a female pop star.
He is guiding a wildly successful Apple and when Steve passed that wasn't at all given.
Putin doesn't deserve it: he blinked when he was poised to invade Ukraine, totally whiffed grabbing the whole enchilada. Wimp's doing the proxy, "volunteers" thing shouldn't get the cover.
I'd say, based on selfless action, the Ebola caregivers hands down. Though such a generic grouping doesn't really have the same meaning as an actual identifiable individual.
He is guiding a wildly successful Apple and when Steve passed that wasn't at all given.
Putin doesn't deserve it: he blinked when he was poised to invade Ukraine. Wimp's shouldn't get the cover.
Are you saying you'd deem Putin worthy for invading another country? That's insane.
Boring and stupid.
Plus Time isn't a magazine worth wiping my butt with...
The ebola caregivers should not win because some of them violated their quarantines when they came back to the US, so screw those selfish people and liars. No awards for them.
If they win, there should be a significant stipulation regarding only those workers in west Africa itself.
Yep.
No. He’s just getting the band back together.
Please look up what the Time award is.
Are you saying you'd deem Putin worthy for invading another country? That's insane.
Aside from certain degree of tongue in cheek the fact of the matter is Time has always used significance as the criteria, not the moral value of the action: that's how those dictatorial monsters made the cover after all.
I'd suggest Putin with his shirtless strutting and posturing is mostly hat and very little to no cattle (which is, overall a VERY good thing).
Time's own words when asked about their Bin Laden pick: "Jim Kelly [editor in 2001]: Well, the classic definition of TIME's Person of the Year is the person who most affected the events of the year, for better or for worse. I think what has happened over the years is that the Man of the Year title, Person of the Year title, has become non-honorific. It was never meant to be solely that...."
Because this isn't an award. It's about who was the most influential (good or bad) person in the world for the year.
Aside from certain degree of tongue in cheek the fact of the matter is Time has always used significance as the criteria, not the moral value of the action: that's how those dictatorial monsters made the cover after all.
I'd suggest Putin with his shirtless strutting and posturing is mostly hat and very little to no cattle (which is, overall a VERY good thing).
Time's own words when asked about their Bin Laden pick: "Jim Kelly [editor in 2001]: Well, the classic definition of TIME's Person of the Year is the person who most affected the events of the year, for better or for worse. I think what has happened over the years is that the Man of the Year title, Person of the Year title, has become non-honorific. It was never meant to be solely that...."
I see, you were being sarcastic. It was not immediately obvious.
What's Time?
Something the magazine industry has very little left of when they continue to publish rubbish like this...
Just putting in something Apple related will get plenty of hype from the internet.
If they gave it to that big mouth Zuckerberg, then they can give it to Tim.
Do they still exist?
How Can Time Be Real If Our Minds Aren’t Real?
Swift would be great, but it probably should be ISIS