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: Neocon who wrote (840)	10/28/1999 11:35:00 AM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3246

Booo!

To: Neocon who wrote (840)	10/28/1999 11:37:00 AM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3246

I'll put my TOP 20 against yours any day! 1. Ronald Reagan 2. Winston Churchill 3. Franklin Roosevelt 4. Margaret Thatcher 5. Alexander Fleming 6. Salk/Sabin 7. Gandhi 8. Wright Brothers 9. Charles DeGaulle 10. Thomas Watson 11. Zworkin/Farnsworth 12. George Stibitz 13. Albert Einstein 14. Milton Friedman 15. Mikhail Gorbachev 16. Mother Theresa 17. Martin Luther King 18. Dalai Lama 19. Woodrow Wilson 20. John XXIII

To: Neocon who wrote (840)	10/28/1999 11:40:00 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3246

How do you justify Yeltsin? JLA

To: Neocon who wrote (840)	10/28/1999 4:30:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3246

Neocon -- Now you have TWELVE movie directors (counting Chaplin)!!! 12 out of the first 100 spots??!! Surely you jest, even for a movie buff. And let me repeat a point I have made before: if you are going to have both Hayek and Friedman, you HAVE to have Keynes. (And if you are going to stick two "religious" authors at the end -- Chesterton & C. S. Lewis -- how about a Jew, or a Muslim, or a Buddhist? There are worthy candidates.) Can't have a lopsided century, after all. :-) And who the blazes is Barry Gordey? And Smokey Robinson -- who's he? Pop stars again?? Pop stars are POPULAR (with some people), which is not the same thing as being INFLUENTIAL. Another cavil. Being GREAT is not the same as being INFLUENTIAL, either. For example, in my opinion, the GREATEST 20th century novelist (MY favorite, anyway) was Thomas Mann. But he was nowhere near as influential as Joyce. Other writers borrowed from Joyce, adapted & incorporated literary devices and themes that he pioneered. For that matter, it's impossible to imagine 20th century English/American literature without Joyce. But nobody imitated Mann -- he was inimitable. He loomed -- alone. At the same time, let me again recognize that it is easier (and more fun, too) to criticize other people's lists than to construct one's own. <g> Joan

To: Neocon who wrote (840)	10/28/1999 10:15:00 PM
From: Tom Clarke	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3246

I would swap Boris the Godfather for Teddy Roosevelt. I know you said before that TR was a 19th century guy, but the war with Spain set the table for our 20th century Empire.

To: Neocon who wrote (840)	10/28/1999 10:49:00 PM
From: Michael M	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3246

Have any thought to mention Carl Djerassi for the list?

To: Neocon who wrote (840)	10/29/1999 8:58:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3246

You can also remove Kaiser (I'll take Manhattan and Henry J), Bush ("read my lips" and then when his failure was manifest, "read my hips" - Nixon always thought Bush was second rate, someone you had to give a job to) Gordy, Robinson, Mitchell, and Young. The last group were far less important to popular culture than many others, including John Wayne, who would be recognized universally outside the US. To much of the world, he was/is America. Wayne will endure more than they and Chaplin, another actor/director. Add Ludwig Erhard.

To: Neocon who wrote (840)	10/29/1999 1:16:00 PM
From: MNI	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3246

Hi Neo - thanks and congratulations for the thread. To me it seems your project has reached a very advanced status. The entries of the list seem to be all well considered, and they are grouped in a transparent and coherent way. Of course it is not yet in a state of perfection - not only would it spoil fun to say so, but it is visible that there are enough contributors willing to keep on discussing on ever refined levels, while also yielding new ideas, finding new aspects. It is not so much the result that I try to put a down laudatio for but the beautiful high-level and fair discussions provoked and carried through. The result is but another visible proof of the unforeseeable, wondrous gains human minds are capable of reaching by communicating and cooperating undisturbedly. What I see here is people dedicating their time to build sheer beauty - it takes my breath, really, to watch how well the project is going. May the dedication of time for sheer beauty be advanced ad perpetuum ! Regards, but there is a PS: Stibitz should, in my view, be replaced by Konrad Zuse, who himself has to give way for Claude Shannon (a comparative appreciation of the three is at kerryr.net .../zuse.htm .../shannon.htm). The organisational/economical implementation of information science seems more important than the technological side - maybe it is therefore a corporational success more than a personal one (as I said earlier, 'the guys who built IBM'). This may mean that Zuse is out in spite of his temporal seniority, as all his creations did not constitute the root for further implementations, but the consequential development was going on from a quasi-parallel place. Note also that cryptography is an important promotor of information science in statu nascendi, which is why I mentioned Alan Turing earlier ... In the awareness that my own contributions in the fashion like the one above are mere book-keepers' musings and terribly minor in beauty qualities, sincerely MNI