Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : A CENTURY OF LIONS/THE 20TH CENTURY TOP 100 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (805)	10/27/1999 4:35:00 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 3246

Take it easy, Charles.....

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (805)	10/28/1999 11:14:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (8) \| Respond to of 3246

A NEW IMPROVED REVISED TENTATIVE TOP 100--- AND THEN SOME: 1. Winston Churchill 2. Franklin Roosevelt 3. Dwight Eisenhower 4. Chester Nimitz 5. Douglas MacArthur 6. William Halsey 7. George Marshall 8. Harry Truman 9. Henry Kaiser 10. Ronald Reagan 11. Margaret Thatcher 12. Lech Walesa 13. John Paul II 14. Mikhail Gorbachev 15. Boris Yeltsin 16. Alexander Solzhenitsyn 17. Andrei Sakharov 18. Vaclav Havel 19. Konrad Adenauer 20. Charles DeGaulle 21. Helmut Kohl 22. George Bush 23. John XXIII 24. Mohandas Gandhi 25. Martin Luther King 26. Kemal Ataturk 27. George Orwell 28. Fred Hayek 29. Milton Friedman 30. Henry Ford 31. The Wright Brothers (in tandem) 32. Marconi/Tesla (acknowledging the dispute) 33. Vladimir Zworkin/Philo Farnsworth (both contributed crucially to television) 34. George Stibitz (more or less the father of the computer) 35. Goddard/Von Braun 36. Marie and Pierre Curie (in tandem) 37. Albert Einstein 38. Niels Bohr 39. Werner Heisenberg 40. Enrico Fermi 42. Watson & Crick (in tandem) 43. Bardeen/Shockley/Brattain (the transistor) 44. Hoff/Mazor/Faggin (the microprocessor) 45. Paul Erlich (chemotherapy) 46. Alexander Fleming (penicillin) 47. Gerhard Domagk (sulfa drugs) 48. Salk/Sabin (polio vaccine) 49. Watson & Crick (DNA model) 50. William Halsted (surgery) 51. Fred Albee (bone grafting) 52. The Mayo Brothers (surgery) 53. Christian Bernard (transplantation) 54. D.W. Griffith 55. Charles Chaplin 56. Frank Capra 57. John Ford 58. John Huston 59. Orson Welles 60. Alfred Hitchock 61. Jean Renoir 62. Federico Fellini 63. Ingmar Bergman 64. Akira Kurosawa 65. Francois Truffaut 66. Louis Armstrong 67. Duke Ellington 68. George & Ira Gershwin 69. Rogers and Hammerstein 70. Robert Johnson 71. Elvis Presley 72. The Beatles 73. Barry Gordy 74. Smokey Robinson 75. Bob Dylan 76. Joni Mitchell 77. Neil Young 78. The Rolling Stones 79. David Bowie 80. Pablo Picasso 81. Henri Matisse 82. Piet Mondrian 83. Wassily Kandinsky 84. Constantin Brancusi 85. Marcel Duchamp 86. Jackson Pollack 87. Willem De Kooning 88. Andy Warhol 89. Frank Lloyd Wright 90. Louis Kahn 91. Walter Gropius 92. Ludwig Mies van der Rohe 93. Igor Stravinsky 94. Arnold Schoenberg 95. James Joyce 96. T.S. Eliot 97. D.H. Lawrence 98. G.B. Shaw 99. Eugene O'Neill 100. Albert Camus 101. Franz Kafka 102. Herman Hesse 103. Thomas Mann 104. Sigmund Freud 105. Carl Jung 106. Wallace Stevens 107. Tennessee Williams 109. Sinclair Lewis 110. Saul Bellow 111. Martin Heidegger 112. Karl Jaspers 113. Martin Buber 114. C.S. Lewis 115. G.K. Chesterton

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (805)	10/28/1999 11:54:00 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 3246

Chesterton, from "Heretics": When everything about a people is for the time growing weak and ineffective, it begins to talk about efficiency. So it is that when a man's body is a wreck he begins, for the first time, to talk about health. Vigorous organisms talk not about their processes, but about their aims. There cannot be any better proof of the physical efficiency of a man than that he talks cheerfully of a journey to the end of the world. And there cannot be any better proof of the practical efficiency of a nation than that it talks constantly of a journey to the end of the world, a journey to the Judgment Day and the New Jerusalem. There can be no stronger sign of a coarse material health than the tendency to run after high and wild ideals; it is in the first exuberance of infancy that we cry for the moon. None of the strong men in the strong ages would have understood what you meant by working for efficiency. Hildebrand would have said that he was working not for efficiency, but for the Catholic Church. Danton would have said that he was working not for efficiency, but for liberty, equality, and fraternity. Even if the ideal of such men were simply the ideal of kicking a man downstairs, they thought of the end like men, not of the process like paralytics. They did not say, "Efficiently elevating my right leg, using, you will notice, the muscles of the thigh and calf, which are in excellent order, I--" Their feeling was quite different. They were so filled with the beautiful vision of the man lying flat at the foot of the staircase that in that ecstasy the rest followed in a flash. In practice, the habit of generalizing and idealizing did not by any means mean worldly weakness. The time of big theories was the time of big results. In the era of sentiment and fine words, at the end of the eighteenth century, men were really robust and effective. The sentimentalists conquered Napoleon. The cynics could not catch De Wet. A hundred years ago our affairs for good or evil were wielded triumphantly by rhetoricians. Now our affairs are hopelessly muddled by strong, silent men. And just as this repudiation of big words and big visions has brought forth a race of small men in politics, so it has brought forth a race of small men in the arts. Our modern politicians claim the colossal license of Caesar and the Superman, claim that they are too practical to be pure and too patriotic to be moral; but the upshot of it all is that a mediocrity is Chancellor of the Exchequer. Our new artistic philosophers call for the same moral license, for a freedom to wreck heaven and earth with their energy; but the upshot of it all is that a mediocrity is Poet Laureate. I do not say that there are no stronger men than these; but will any one say that there are any men stronger than those men of old who were dominated by their philosophy and steeped in their religion? Whether bondage be better than freedom may be discussed. But that their bondage came to more than our freedom it will be difficult for any one to deny.