Time Mag's 100 People of the Century
Terrymelin
might make an interesting thread.
Richard Nixon, Johnny Carson, Alfred Hitchcock, Fred Astaire, Leonard
Bernstein, Enrico Caruso, Cole Porter, George Gershwin, James Stewart, Dwight
Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur, Babe Ruth, Ella Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemingway,
John Ford, Orson Welles, Milton Friedman, Harry Truman, etc.
The above are among the people NOT on Time's list.
These are among the people who are: Gorbachev, Ayatullah Khomeini, Jim Henson,
Bart Simpson, Steven Spielberg, Oprah Winfrey, Diana, Che Guevara, Bruce Lee,
The Kennedys, Harvey Milk, and Pele.
Does this make any sense to anyone out there?
Terry Ellsworth
Amanda
Not a jot! This is ridiculous! Eisenhower should be on the list for the Interstate
highway system alone. Orson Welles redefined radio horror AND science fiction at
once! Each the folks you listed were more influential than Pele, Bruce Lee and
Bart Simpson combined. Something fishy...
-Amanda
Louis Epstein
: Since most of these people are dead and it's been slow lately I thought this
: might make an interesting thread.
:
: Richard Nixon, Johnny Carson, Alfred Hitchcock, Fred Astaire, Leonard
: Bernstein, Enrico Caruso, Cole Porter, George Gershwin, James Stewart, Dwight
: Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur, Babe Ruth, Ella Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemingway,
: John Ford, Orson Welles, Milton Friedman, Harry Truman, etc.
:
: The above are among the people NOT on Time's list.
:
: These are among the people who are: Gorbachev, Ayatullah Khomeini, Jim Henson,
: Bart Simpson, Steven Spielberg, Oprah Winfrey, Diana, Che Guevara, Bruce Lee,
: The Kennedys, Harvey Milk, and Pele.
:
: Does this make any sense to anyone out there?
:
: Terry Ellsworth
Cases can be made for and against some people on both your lists...
but a world without Bart Simpson,Harvey Milk,and Bruce Lee would be...
well,pretty much unchanged.
Cindy
Cindy
Louis Epstein <l...@put.com> wrote in article
<8XPC3.424$zI3....@iad-read.news.verio.net>...
Marty
character. I would classify the character as great entertainment......but
certainly not a great person. I would also classify Oprah Winfrey and Steven
Spielberg as great entertainers but not one of the 100 people of the
century.
JMHO
Marty
The Perp
>Cases can be made for and against some people on both your lists...
>but a world without Bart Simpson,Harvey Milk,and Bruce Lee would be...
>well,pretty much unchanged.
Who is Harvey Milk?
Did he invent homoginization?
Terrymelin
been Mickey Mouse not Bart Simpson. And I'd sure like to see the arguments for
Spielberg over Hitchcock (or half a dozen others) for greatest director and
Winfrey over Carson for most influential talk show host.
Time Mag seems to have chosen today over true influence. Afterall to be truly
influential in the 20th century your acheivement had to have taken place before
ten years ago. How do we know Spielberg's films or Oprah's work will last 50
years from now?
Terry Ellsworth
Volfie
>I love the Simpsons, but hey.....Bart isn't a person. He's a cartoon
>character.
Hell, I still miss Alf.
Volfie -> whadda ya mean he's not real???
Jacqueline Rund
mack
without all those annoying words but more pictures) who can't remember past
their last latte. Both Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck (and Bugs Bunny for
that matter) are much better known by hundreds of millions of people
worldwide than Bart Simpson. And Jim Henson over Orson Welles or John
Ford? C'mon....
Naturally, they probably also picked Jim Carrey over Laurence Olivier.
Louis Epstein
An openly homosexual member of the San Francisco city legislature who
99.99% of the people in the world had not heard of before he got shot,
and 98% of the people in the world probably still couldn't place.
Steven Celli
After reading Time magazine's choices that were posted I no longer feel
guilty about participating in the various threads we on this group
contribute to about past memories,whether they be baseball,rock music,TV
or whatever.
You're right:the selections(at least the ones that were posted as in
fairness I haven't seen the entire list)are lightweight to say the least
and I would LOVE to find out the "qualifications"(or lack of said
qualifications)that Time used to determine who would make the cut for
their list and who wouldn't.
Even more:I'd enjoy seeing the qualifications of those who did the
actual choosing of some of these so-called influential people of this
century.
Oprah?Bart Simpson?Give it a rest and grow up,Time.I realize not
everyone is going to agree on such a list(the baseball all-century team
being a fine example)but don't insult me with a bunch of names that
simply re-enforce the feeling of many folks that we Americans are "lost"
when it comes to anything historical and life-changing beyond our TV
sets and PC's.
No wonder we have kids who are allowed to graduate high school and can't
even read or have no earthly idea about the history of their country and
how we came about being what we are as Americans,whether it be good or
bad.
It is not only sad but it's a disgrace.
--
Best Wishes,
Steven Celli
sce...@swbell.net
Matthew Kruk
I guess the better question is whether there are still people out there who
bother reading Time with any seriousness. It's People magazine with less
pictures, more politics and a smudge of news of the world.
Brad Ferguson
<sce...@swbell.net> wrote:
Steven has it just right, I think.
Bart Simpson?!? What kind of stupid, overwhelming arrogance puts Bart
Simpson on a list like this?
hot
> Who is Harvey Milk?
> Did he invent homoginization?
good one. sad to say a twinkie killed him.
Matthew Kruk
>
> Louis Epstein wrote:
> >
> >
> > : Who is Harvey Milk?
> > : Did he invent homoginization?
> >
> > An openly homosexual member of the San Francisco city legislature who
> > 99.99% of the people in the world had not heard of before he got shot,
> > and 98% of the people in the world probably still couldn't place.
>
Depends on the magnitude of the last earthquake.
Matthew Hubbard
>
> Since most of these people are dead and it's been slow lately I
> thought this might make an interesting thread.
>
> Richard Nixon, Johnny Carson, Alfred Hitchcock, Fred Astaire, Leonard
> Bernstein, Enrico Caruso, Cole Porter, George Gershwin, James Stewart,
> Dwight Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur, Babe Ruth, Ella Fitzgerald,
> Ernest Hemingway, John Ford, Orson Welles, Milton Friedman, Harry
> Truman, etc.
>
> The above are among the people NOT on Time's list.
The name on your list that doesn't fit with the rest of that list:
Milton Friedman. Keynes had more influence in his time, and Greenspan
has more influence now.
The name that on your list only important only to Americans: Johnny
Carson.
> These are among the people who are: Gorbachev, Ayatullah Khomeini, Jim
> Henson, Bart Simpson, Steven Spielberg, Oprah Winfrey, Diana, Che
> Guevara, Bruce Lee, The Kennedys, Harvey Milk, and Pele.
The name on your list of the undeserving who actually should be
considered (by the knowledgeable) as a deserving candidate for Man of
the Century: Gorbachev. Anyone who has studied Russian history all the
way back to Peter the Great knows the Russians never had another leader
like him and may never again.
He was on top of a corrupt system, able to milk it indefinitely, and
instead, he decided to dismantle it. I wish we had someone with his
guts running our country.
MattH
Lynn
JR13157
Walt.
J.D. Baldwin
wrote:
> Not a jot! This is ridiculous! Eisenhower should be on the list for
> the Interstate highway system alone.
There was also, a few years back, some trouble over in Europe and, I
believe, the Far East as well. Eisenhower had a fairly significant
role in helping to put it down.
So Bart Simpson is on the "100 People of the Century" list and Ike,
among others, isn't? And this causes consternation? Don't worry; I
can explain it:
You see, everyone at Time magazine is an idiot. It has been thus
for nearly a quarter-century. It all falls into place once you
realize this simple fact. Glad to be of service.
--
From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
_,_ Finger bal...@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
_|70|___:::)=}- for PGP public |+| retract it, but also to deny under
\ / key information. |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Barry Shein
>I love the Simpsons, but hey.....Bart isn't a person. He's a cartoon
>certainly not a great person.
Besides, wouldn't Fred Flintstone deserve the accolades? That was the
first cartoon which made evening / prime-time 30-minute cartoons with
content adults could enjoy a standard. Kinda like Desi Arnaz inventing
the sit-com format.
The Simpsons may be amusing, but its place in media is basically just
an updated Flintstones.
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | b...@world.std.com | http://www.world.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo*
Barry Shein
>Time Mag seems to have chosen today over true influence. Afterall to be truly
>influential in the 20th century your acheivement had to have taken place before
>ten years ago. How do we know Spielberg's films or Oprah's work will last 50
>years from now?
Spielberg's may well last, Jaws is about 25 years old and he has works
going back 40 years so there's been some opportunity for time to judge
and I think Spielberg has so far done well in that regard.
I couldn't really tell you what Oprah has done that would even put her
on the list...she's a daytime talk show host, right?
Louis Epstein
: Terrymelin wrote:
: >
: > Since most of these people are dead and it's been slow lately I
: > thought this might make an interesting thread.
: >
: > Richard Nixon, Johnny Carson, Alfred Hitchcock, Fred Astaire, Leonard
: > Bernstein, Enrico Caruso, Cole Porter, George Gershwin, James Stewart,
: > Dwight Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur, Babe Ruth, Ella Fitzgerald,
: > Ernest Hemingway, John Ford, Orson Welles, Milton Friedman, Harry
: > Truman, etc.
: >
: > The above are among the people NOT on Time's list.
:
: The name on your list that doesn't fit with the rest of that list:
: Milton Friedman. Keynes had more influence in his time, and Greenspan
: has more influence now.
Forbes exalts Schumpeter above Keynes.
In any case,plenty would quarrel with a number of those names.
And I note the whole list of those excluded from a worldwide list
are Americans.
: The name that on your list only important only to Americans: Johnny
: Carson.
:
: > These are among the people who are: Gorbachev, Ayatullah Khomeini, Jim
: > Henson, Bart Simpson, Steven Spielberg, Oprah Winfrey, Diana, Che
: > Guevara, Bruce Lee, The Kennedys, Harvey Milk, and Pele.
:
: The name on your list of the undeserving who actually should be
: considered (by the knowledgeable) as a deserving candidate for Man of
: the Century: Gorbachev. Anyone who has studied Russian history all the
: way back to Peter the Great knows the Russians never had another leader
: like him and may never again.
:
: He was on top of a corrupt system, able to milk it indefinitely, and
: instead, he decided to dismantle it. I wish we had someone with his
: guts running our country.
Gorbachev was no more than Grosz and Krenz writ large...a hapless
transitional figure who could see the need for change,but not survive
the change.
Matthew Hubbard
>
> >Time Mag seems to have chosen today over true influence. Afterall to
> >be truly influential in the 20th century your acheivement had to have
> >taken place before ten years ago. How do we know Spielberg's films or
> >Oprah's work will last 50 years from now?
>
> Spielberg's may well last, Jaws is about 25 years old and he has works
> going back 40 years so there's been some opportunity for time to judge
> and I think Spielberg has so far done well in that regard.
Nit to pick; Spielberg's oldest work is roughly 30 years old, not 40.
He'll turn 52 later this year; I don't think he did any important work
at the age of 11 or 12.
MattH
Matthew Hubbard
>
> On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 20:17:17 -0700, Matthew Hubbard <leof...@crl.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The name on your list of the undeserving who actually should be
> >considered (by the knowledgeable) as a deserving candidate for Man of
> >the Century: Gorbachev. Anyone who has studied Russian history all
> >the way back to Peter the Great knows the Russians never had another
> >leader like him and may never again.
> >
> > He was on top of a corrupt system, able to milk it
> >indefinitely, and instead, he decided to dismantle it. I wish we had
> >someone with his guts running our country.
I should add; I wish we had a pope this good this century.
> Gorbachev was a full-blooded Soviet Communist and had no intention of
> dismantling either the Soviet Union or the Communist Party. He merely
> wanted to reform the Soviet system to make it more viable and
> competitive with the west. Even this goal, laudable as it was, was
> not so much a reflection of Gorbachev's own ingenuity as it was a wise
> response to severe economic tensions that were stretched to the
> breaking point by Ronald Reagan's military buildup and Strategic
> Defense Initiative policies.
Reaganites. Sigh.
The Soviet Union would still have been capable of crushing
democratization moves in Eastern Europe in the late `80s, just as they
did earlier in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, and Reagan's military buildup
wouldn't have changed this. We weren't going to start World War III
over Lech Walesa. Gorbachev is the one who let Eastern Europe go
democratic while having the power to stop it.
> I do give Gorbachev credit for seeing that the system had to be
> changed and for getting the changes moving along, but no way does he
> get credit for dismantling anything. His most significant
> accomplishment was that his policies of perestroika and glasnost made
> it possible for Boris Yeltsin to ascend to power. Yeltsin was the one
> who did the actual dismantling. Without Gorbachev, Yeltsin would not
> have become President of Russia. Without Reagan, Gorbachev would not
> have become General Secretary of the U.S.S.R.
Yeltsin is a return to standard Russian leadership, a corrupt blowhard
who believes being a leader means acting viciously every once in a while
just to remind folks who's boss, a tradition that goes back to Peter the
Great and beyond; not a communist anymore, but that does not mean he is
a good thing, either for Russia or the west.
But again, to give Gorbachev credit, the peaceful transition of power
in Russia is not an everyday thing. Most Russian leaders let loose of
the reigns of power slightly before rigor mortis sets in, or while under
house arrest, soon to be killed or sent into exile. Neither of these
were the case for Gorbachev.
Another policy, not only native to Russia, is the complete discrediting
of the previous leader (see: DeStalinization); Yeltsin has not come up
with a long laundry list of the corrupt practices of Gorbachev, largely
because has been creating a corrupt system his successor will have to
denounce and dismantle.
Reagan is as important to the history of Russia as the Prince of Norway
is to the story of Hamlet; still alive at the end, given a lot of
credit, didn't really do that much or have many lines.
MattH
Matthew Hubbard
>
> Matthew Hubbard (leof...@crl.com) wrote:
>
> : The name on your list of the undeserving who actually should
> : be considered (by the knowledgeable) as a deserving candidate for
> : Man of the Century: Gorbachev. Anyone who has studied Russian
> : history all the way back to Peter the Great knows the Russians never
> : had another leader like him and may never again.
> :
> : He was on top of a corrupt system, able to milk it
> : indefinitely, and instead, he decided to dismantle it. I wish we
> : had someone with his guts running our country.
>
> transitional figure who could see the need for change,but not survive
> the change.
Gorbachev was hardly hapless, and he has survived the change. Most
Russian ex-leaders are on-topic for this newsgroup, while Gorbachev,
fortunately, is not.
MattH
Terrymelin
>instead, he decided to dismantle it. I wish we had someone with his
>guts running our country.
Actually I believe that history will show that Gorbachev was a rather passive
figure who got caught up in events that spun out of his control. He is a
transitional figure and would be nowhere near Person of the Century in any
reputable survey.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>He'll turn 52 later this year; I don't think he did any important work
>at the age of 11 or 12.
Many would argue he's yet to do any truly important work.
Terry Ellsworth
doo...@tcp-ip.or.jp
The decline in quality of this magazine since 1968 is unbelievable. The
post 1968 Time is nothing more than an uninteresting rag.
For the person(s) of the Century I must sadly nominate the Beatles because
they initiated a style that went against all accepted norms ie. dress,
hair style, music, "do your thing" attitudes, drug culture, 1970's
reversal of any structure in our society.... etc., and these influenced
many young people to question authority and whatever expectations of
behaviour that were prevalent.
Education was affected by sweeping changes in curricula to reflect these
moods The traditional methods of child rearing and traditional family
values were changed forever. The young became the new tyrants and growing
old has become the new sin.
My preferred choice would have been Sir Winston Churchill but then too
many people have never even heard of him.
Barry Shein
>> >Time Mag seems to have chosen today over true influence. Afterall to
>> >be truly influential in the 20th century your acheivement had to have
>> >taken place before ten years ago. How do we know Spielberg's films or
>> >Oprah's work will last 50 years from now?
>>
>> Spielberg's may well last, Jaws is about 25 years old and he has works
>> going back 40 years so there's been some opportunity for time to judge
>> and I think Spielberg has so far done well in that regard.
>
IMDB lists works back to 1959 for Spielberg.
Louis Epstein
: I am very proud of my collection of old Time magazines going back to 1931.
: The decline in quality of this magazine since 1968 is unbelievable. The
: post 1968 Time is nothing more than an uninteresting rag.
So,post-Roy Alexander,editorially?
(I'm afraid my collection,discontinuous,starts with Grunwald's)
: For the person(s) of the Century I must sadly nominate the Beatles because
: they initiated a style that went against all accepted norms ie. dress,
: hair style, music, "do your thing" attitudes, drug culture, 1970's
: reversal of any structure in our society.... etc., and these influenced
: many young people to question authority and whatever expectations of
: behaviour that were prevalent.
: Education was affected by sweeping changes in curricula to reflect these
: moods The traditional methods of child rearing and traditional family
: values were changed forever. The young became the new tyrants and growing
: old has become the new sin.
Yet more grow old than ever before.
: My preferred choice would have been Sir Winston Churchill but then too
: many people have never even heard of him.
Well,is that a criterion?
Louis Epstein
: On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 20:17:17 -0700, Matthew Hubbard <leof...@crl.com>
:
: > The name on your list of the undeserving who actually should be
: >considered (by the knowledgeable) as a deserving candidate for Man of
: >the Century: Gorbachev. Anyone who has studied Russian history all the
: >way back to Peter the Great knows the Russians never had another leader
: >like him and may never again.
: >
: >instead, he decided to dismantle it. I wish we had someone with his
: >guts running our country.
: Gorbachev was a full-blooded Soviet Communist and had no intention of
: dismantling either the Soviet Union or the Communist Party. He merely
: wanted to reform the Soviet system to make it more viable and competitive
: with the west. Even this goal, laudable as it was, was not so much a
: reflection of Gorbachev's own ingenuity as it was a wise response to
: severe economic tensions that were stretched to the breaking point by
: Ronald Reagan's military buildup and Strategic Defense Initiative
: changed and for getting the changes moving along, but no way does he get
: credit for dismantling anything. His most significant accomplishment was
: that his policies of perestroika and glasnost made it possible for Boris
: Yeltsin to ascend to power. Yeltsin was the one who did the actual
: dismantling. Without Gorbachev, Yeltsin would not have become President
: of Russia. Without Reagan, Gorbachev would not have become General
: Secretary of the U.S.S.R.
: David Carson
I of course give less credit to Reagan than you do.But Soviet Communism
was coming to the end of its rope,and Gorbachev could see that without
being equipped to survive in what came beyond it.(As I said before,
Grosz and Krenz writ large...a man the Old Guard could entrust with
leadership,not one the post-Communists could).
Yeltsin was not my idea of who ought to come next,and it may be some
time before someone who can pass the are-you-now-or-have-you-ever-been
test is in power.
Louis Epstein
: Louis Epstein wrote:
: >
: >
: > : The name on your list of the undeserving who actually should
: > : be considered (by the knowledgeable) as a deserving candidate for
: > : Man of the Century: Gorbachev. Anyone who has studied Russian
: > : history all the way back to Peter the Great knows the Russians never
: > : had another leader like him and may never again.
: > :
: > : He was on top of a corrupt system, able to milk it
: > : indefinitely, and instead, he decided to dismantle it. I wish we
: > : had someone with his guts running our country.
: >
: > transitional figure who could see the need for change,but not survive
: > the change.
:
: Gorbachev was hardly hapless, and he has survived the change. Most
: Russian ex-leaders are on-topic for this newsgroup, while Gorbachev,
: fortunately, is not.
What has survived the change is the belief by some people that he's
important...he is a zero in influence in his country.
Barry Shein
>Gorbachev was a full-blooded Soviet Communist and had no intention of
>dismantling either the Soviet Union or the Communist Party. He merely
>wanted to reform the Soviet system to make it more viable and competitive
>with the west. Even this goal, laudable as it was, was not so much a
>reflection of Gorbachev's own ingenuity as it was a wise response to
>severe economic tensions that were stretched to the breaking point by
>Ronald Reagan's military buildup and Strategic Defense Initiative
>policies.
Unfortunately even Reaganista defense and foreign policy analysts
don't agree with that last sentence.
There was no significant change in Soviet military spending during the
Reagan era. The numbers are very inconvenient to this theory.
This oft-repeated (by "true believers") factoid appears to be wholly
immune to facts among some; they just like the story way more than
they'd ever like the truth.
A more likely explanation for Soviet economic decline was previous
spending on the war in Afghanistan followed by falling oil prices; the
Soviet Union relied very heavily on oil sales for hard currency.
The Reagan administration certainly had something to do with the
latter, e.g. policy in the Persian Gulf which led to a decline in oil
prices, but given the US interest in lower oil prices the ultimate
effect on the Soviet Union may have been more serendipitous than the
result of any genius plan.
>His most significant accomplishment was
>that his policies of perestroika and glasnost made it possible for Boris
>Yeltsin to ascend to power. Yeltsin was the one who did the actual
>dismantling. Without Gorbachev, Yeltsin would not have become President
>of Russia.
Ok, Gorbachev had the building condemned, Yeltsin ran the wrecking
ball, so you're going to argue that Yeltsin deserves the credit.
I doubt most would agree, but at some point it becomes a dopey case to
make: Gorbachev did what Gorbachev did, and Yeltsin did what Yeltsin
did, and it's a bit difficult and uninteresting to try to draw some
line and decide who crossed first as if this is some sort of sporting
event.
> Without Reagan, Gorbachev would not have become General
>Secretary of the U.S.S.R.
Oh come on. You're making Monica look like a mere presidential
admirer.
mack
of two television shows worthy of watching. It was Tales of The Crypt on
HBO.
I wrote a letter to the editor, incredulous at their recommendation, until
my last line in which I said "Oh, never mind, I just remembered who owns
HBO."
Needless to say, the letter never was printed, and I got a nice BS response
...
"thank you for your interest , yada yada."
Matthew Hubbard
> >>
> >> Spielberg's may well last, Jaws is about 25 years old and he has works
> >> going back 40 years so there's been some opportunity for time to judge
> >> and I think Spielberg has so far done well in that regard.
> > Nit to pick; Spielberg's oldest work is roughly 30 years old, not 40.
>
> IMDB lists works back to 1959 for Spielberg.
An eight minute film I doubt 100 people have ever seen.
It also lists his as an uncredited assistant editor in 1957 on "Wagon
Train", but lists his birthday as December 1947. One of these
statements has to be wrong, and I believe his birthdate is probably
correct.
MattH
Matthew Hubbard
> I wrote (and once again, Terry fails to give attribution):
> >He was on top of a corrupt system, able to milk it indefinitely, and
> >instead, he decided to dismantle it. I wish we had someone with his
> >guts running our country.
>
> passive figure who got caught up in events that spun out of his
> control. He is a transitional figure and would be nowhere near Person
> of the Century in any reputable survey.
You also believe Nancy Reagan is admirable, so your belief system
doesn't always fit with reality.
Reaganites conveniently fail to remember the time Reagan had to be
removed from the bargaining room during a discussion with weak and
passive Gorbachev because he had tricked Ronnie into agreeing to give up
our entire nuclear deterrent; he played that useful dunce like a violin.
Transitional figures, as you like to call them, stand out among the
century's politicians. Churchill deserves a great deal of credit for
his accomplishments, and Atlee is a forgotten man, but it was Atlee in
charge when Mountbatten handed over India, and India was fortunate to
have men of the stature of Gandhi and Nehru.
South Africa was lucky to have a Mandela, but it was equally fortunate
to have DeClerk. They could easily have continued their morally
bankrupt policies for many more years. The Nobel Peace Prize has come
to this view as well, though they did not see it as clearly in the
1940's; Gorbachev has a Peace Prize, as do DeClerk and Mandela, as do
Peres and Arafat.
Reagan has what he deserves: Nancy.
MattH
If you have any questions about this, look at China; the people's will
can be ignored by cruel and corrupt tyrants for generations
Louis Epstein
: Terrymelin wrote:
: > I wrote (and once again, Terry fails to give attribution):
: > >He was on top of a corrupt system, able to milk it indefinitely, and
: > >instead, he decided to dismantle it. I wish we had someone with his
: > >guts running our country.
: >
: > Actually I believe that history will show that Gorbachev was a rather
: > passive figure who got caught up in events that spun out of his
: > control. He is a transitional figure and would be nowhere near Person
: > of the Century in any reputable survey.
:
: You also believe Nancy Reagan is admirable, so your belief system
: doesn't always fit with reality.
:
: Reaganites conveniently fail to remember the time Reagan had to be
: removed from the bargaining room during a discussion with weak and
: passive Gorbachev because he had tricked Ronnie into agreeing to give up
: our entire nuclear deterrent; he played that useful dunce like a violin.
:
: Transitional figures, as you like to call them, stand out among the
: century's politicians. Churchill deserves a great deal of credit for
: his accomplishments, and Atlee is a forgotten man, but it was Atlee in
: charge when Mountbatten handed over India, and India was fortunate to
: have men of the stature of Gandhi and Nehru.
Er...lest we forget,independence for India and Pakistan precipitated a
bloodbath.Don't pretend it was handled well...
: South Africa was lucky to have a Mandela, but it was equally fortunate
Louis Epstein
someone like James Webb...or Sergei Korolyev...or William Pickering...
Barry Shein
>>>reflection of Gorbachev's own ingenuity as it was a wise response to
>>>severe economic tensions that were stretched to the breaking point by
>>>Ronald Reagan's military buildup and Strategic Defense Initiative
>>>policies.
>>
>>Unfortunately even Reaganista defense and foreign policy analysts
>>don't agree with that last sentence.
>>
>>There was no significant change in Soviet military spending during the
>>Reagan era. The numbers are very inconvenient to this theory.
>
>U.S. on the U.S.S.R. translates to increased military spending by the
>U.S.S.R. I've never understood why you think the absence of such a
>correlation -- a point you have made before -- is so revealing.
Well, then how were they "stretched to the breaking point by Ronald
Reagan's military and SDI policies"? By what other method, other than
increased military spending on some sort of response to SDI, do you
believe this occurred?
There was certainly a fair amount of diplomatic concern on the part of
Gorbachev et al about SDI particularly as it related (or undermined)
the ongoing START treaty negotiations; Gorbachev described SDI as
being seriously destabilizing (meaning: it tempts the other side to
attack before the defense is deployed.)
But I can't find anything interesting which says that there was any
sort of spending or program response to SDI. I've no doubt they spent
some money investigating the issue, but it's not clear why anyone
would believe it was a significant sum.
In fact, I've found some claims in think tank reports of quite the
opposite. Namely that Gorbachev, post-1985, was drastically reducing
military spending and had probably cut spending by around 15% or so by
1988, and that one of the Soviet scientists who was involved with the
START treaty negotiations went on record later on as saying that the
view of the Soviet Union's military-industrial complex was that the
technological goals outlined in SDI were unachievable in any practical
sense. That is, some shielding might be possible but not enough to
ever actually nullify the threat of nuclear war which seems reasonable
to me: That is, how many soviet 20 megaton nukes would have to be able
to get through our defenses before we didn't feel too safe? I think
about "one" is a reasonable estimate.
Brad Ferguson
<l...@put.com> wrote:
> I think the long term view of a Person of the 20th Century might be
> someone like James Webb...or Sergei Korolyev...or William Pickering...
Oh, Louis. The 20th century's flirtation with space exploration by
humans will be judged as a forerunner of a real effort sometime in the
future, if there ever is such an effort. We've been strapping very
expensive Chinese fireworks onto the butts of a few very courageous
people and calling it space flight.
Without breaking a sweat, I can think of at least four other things for
which the 20th century will be remembered: mass communications,
computers, nucleonics, and (perhaps the most significant of them all)
genetic manipulation.
Bill Gregg
And he appears to have been gloriously happy with her. Then, again, some people
may be incapable of understanding such an enduring relationship.
slipslope
--
"There are two ways to try to get enough. One is to accumulate more and more.
The other is to need less." G.K. Chesterson
LeBastille
with 100 names that make perfect sense. It makes sense but they are restless
because they want to say something that hasn't been said yet. They make a
stretch and come up with some names that reflect late 20th century pop-culture
(legitimizing the trivial). I saw a book back when I had my library job that
attempted to pick the 100 most influential people of all time. The writer
chose Mohammed ahead of Jesus and the apostle, Paul. I believe his goal before
he typed a word was to say something different; that his only preconceived idea
was ' I'm not going to pick Jesus number 1'. (I understood his reasoning though
I disagreed.) 'Who's going to buy my book if I just say what they expect?
Let's stir some controversy.' (And sure enough here I am years later still
talking about --- what's him name.)
Even if this is true I think Time mag should be above it. There is no show
on TV I enjoy more than The Simpson's and I do consider Matt Groening a genius,
but I would have to save him for my top 200 or 300 list. But among the picks I
might defend is one I'm not even a fan of: Oprah. Vapid, trivial, etc., yes.
But also a sign of how much things have changed -- a black woman with
incredible wealth, power, influence. And perhaps a true sign of the times that
she accomplished it in such a non-essential commodity as talk TV.
Winton Lemoine
Louis Epstein
: Matthew Hubbard wrote: Reagan has what he deserves: Nancy.
:
: And he appears to have been gloriously happy with her. Then, again,
: some people may be incapable of understanding such an enduring relationship.
:
: slipslope
That she meets his tastes says little for him.
Louis Epstein
: On Mon, 13 Sep 1999 04:28:49 -0700, Matthew Hubbard <leof...@crl.com>
: wrote:
:
: > Reaganites. Sigh.
: >
: > The Soviet Union would still have been capable of crushing
: >democratization moves in Eastern Europe in the late `80s, just as they
: >did earlier in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, and Reagan's military buildup
: >wouldn't have changed this. We weren't going to start World War III
: >over Lech Walesa. Gorbachev is the one who let Eastern Europe go
: >democratic while having the power to stop it.
:
: Soviet Union proper. The satellite countries had their own democratic
: movements going -- their own Yeltsins, so to speak -- and yes,
: Gorbachev did have the power to squelch them and didn't.
It was the fortunate luck of the satellites largely to escape "Yeltsins";
they went straight from their "Gorbachevs" (Grosz,Krenz,Mladenov,etc) to
leaders who had OPPOSED communism(Havel,Goencz,Zhelev,Walesa) rather than
been the Communist Party's bad boys...the only exception being Romania,
whose "Yeltsin",now mercifully ousted,was Ion Iliescu.
: > Yeltsin is a return to standard Russian leadership, a corrupt blowhard
: >who believes being a leader means acting viciously every once in a while
: >just to remind folks who's boss, a tradition that goes back to Peter the
: >Great and beyond; not a communist anymore, but that does not mean he is
: >a good thing, either for Russia or the west.
:
: Democracy in Russia is a good thing for them and us, and like him or
: not, Yeltsin's commitment to democracy has never wavered. I probably
: wouldn't vote for him if he was running for Congress in my district,
: unless his only opponents were Communists and Socialists, and then I
: probably would.
Remember,like the current leaders of Georgia,Azerbaijan,Kazakstan,Uzbekistan,
Moldova,and Turkmenistan,and maybe Armenia now too,he's a Soviet-era
Politburo veteran.
: > But again, to give Gorbachev credit, the peaceful transition of power
: >in Russia is not an everyday thing. Most Russian leaders let loose of
: >the reigns of power slightly before rigor mortis sets in, or while under
: >house arrest, soon to be killed or sent into exile. Neither of these
: >were the case for Gorbachev.
:
: Gorbachev did not "let loose" of the reigns of power. Power attached
: itself to different reins while they were still in his grasp! The
: power in Russia shifted from the leader of the Soviet Communist party
: (Gorbachev) to the democratically elected President (Yeltsin).
: Gorbachev suddenly found himself as the leader of a system that no one
: wanted to belong to anymore. He was the captain of a sinking ship,
: and he was essentially powerless in the end. He couldn't have had
: Yeltsin arrested even if he wanted to. Quite the opposite, in the
: 1989 coup attempt by the old guard Communists, it was Yeltsin who
: saved what little was left of Gorbachev's political career, and most
: probably his life as well.
:
: > Another policy, not only native to Russia, is the complete discrediting
: >of the previous leader (see: DeStalinization); Yeltsin has not come up
: >with a long laundry list of the corrupt practices of Gorbachev, largely
: >because has been creating a corrupt system his successor will have to
: >denounce and dismantle.
: >
: > Reagan is as important to the history of Russia as the Prince of Norway
: >is to the story of Hamlet; still alive at the end, given a lot of
: >credit, didn't really do that much or have many lines.
:
: Anti-Reaganites. Sigh.
In your heart,you know we're right,to paraphrase another conservative
Republican with a bit more in the way of brains.
Islandersa
>That she meets his tastes says little for him.
Then what does that woman, Miss Lewinsky, say about his degeneracy?
ERIK L.
" We all go a little mad sometimes." - Norman Bates
Brad Ferguson
<6F9F82EB00F61454.40D71FB2...@lp.airnews.net>,
David Carson <da...@neosoft.com> wrote:
> That little mass-energy-time-space theory of Einstein's seems pretty
> memorable.
Very good. Five, then -- even though I could start a really stupid
debate about how you'd find Einstein in the nucleonics aisle of the
supermarket.
I also thought about adding Beanie Babies, but restrained myself.
Matthew Hubbard
>
> Matthew Hubbard wrote: Reagan has what he deserves: Nancy.
>
> And he appears to have been gloriously happy with her. Then, again,
> some people may be incapable of understanding such an enduring
> relationship.
And all her children and step-children recognize her as a gold-plated
bitch; to be happy with a wife like that is not a credit to a man, who
should have more compassion for his offspring.
MattH
Louis Epstein
: On Mon, 13 Sep 1999 23:34:03 GMT, l...@put.com (Louis Epstein) wrote:
:
: >In your heart,you know we're right,to paraphrase another conservative
: >Republican with a bit more in the way of brains.
: You should have meant "another conservative". If, in all of my many
: posts, you can find one word where I have claimed to have any allegiance
: or affiliation with the Republican party, I'll eat my modem.
My "another..." was with reference to Reagan,with whom Goldwater DID
share a party affiliation.
Barry Shein
>> >> Spielberg's may well last, Jaws is about 25 years old and he has works
>> >> going back 40 years so there's been some opportunity for time to judge
>> >> and I think Spielberg has so far done well in that regard.
>> > I wrote:
>> > Nit to pick; Spielberg's oldest work is roughly 30 years old, not 40.
>>
>> IMDB lists works back to 1959 for Spielberg.
>
> An eight minute film I doubt 100 people have ever seen.
Translation: I was factually correct and had done my homework before
making the statement. But let's try to throw tomatoes at those
annoying facts rather than just graciously admit an error and not
doing one's homework (in which case you could have said this in the
first note rather than speculating that a simple fact "seems unlikely"
to you.)
Mozart produced some of his first notable work at around the same age,
and so did Michael Jackson. Spielberg is no Mozart, and that early
work of Mozart wasn't his best either, but the point is we consider
that sort of thing when we evaluate a person's talents and their
standing in history.
At any rate, in response to the original claim I was responding to
that Spielberg is too new to be considered for a list of great persons
of the 20th century I'll reiterate that one of Spielberg's most
celebrated films (Jaws) is now 25 years old, and we even have examples
of his talent going back 40 years.
So, unless the criteria is that one must have produced significant
works in the first half of the 20th century I claim Spielberg isn't
reasonably too "new" for consideration.
As to whether or not Spielberg belongs on a general list of top 100
persons of the 20th century, I personally doubt it. But only because
there are 100 people with more significant accomplishments.
But I certainly would consider Spielberg a perfectly qualified
candidate for consideration with enough depth and breadth of work.
Matthew Hubbard
>
> On Mon, 13 Sep 1999 04:28:49 -0700, Matthew Hubbard <leof...@crl.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The Soviet Union would still have been capable of crushing
> >democratization moves in Eastern Europe in the late `80s, just as
> >War III over Lech Walesa. Gorbachev is the one who let Eastern
> >Europe go democratic while having the power to stop it.
>
> I wasn't thinking so much of the Eastern European satellites as the
> Soviet Union proper. The satellite countries had their own democratic
> movements going -- their own Yeltsins, so to speak -- and yes,
Vaclal Havel - the Yeltsin of Czechoslovakia.
Sometimes I forget how far Texas is from the world; thanks for
reminding me, David.
MattH
K. Parsons
There's enough political fodder in the Reagan presidency to last us
forever, so I really don't think discussions of wife and family are
necessary. Now you've got Erik trying to pretend we are talking about
Clinton again.
Parsnips
In article <37DDC897...@crl.com>, Matthew Hubbard <leof...@crl.com>
wrote:
Matthew Hubbard
>
> >> >> Spielberg's may well last, Jaws is about 25 years old and he has
> >> >> works going back 40 years so there's been some opportunity for
> >> >> time to judge and I think Spielberg has so far done well in that
> >> >> regard.
> >> > I wrote:
> >> > Nit to pick; Spielberg's oldest work is roughly 30 years
> >> > old, not 40.
> >>
> >> IMDB lists works back to 1959 for Spielberg.
> >
> > An eight minute film I doubt 100 people have ever seen.
>
> Translation: I was factually correct and had done my homework before
> making the statement. But let's try to throw tomatoes at those
> annoying facts rather than just graciously admit an error and not
> doing one's homework (in which case you could have said this in the
> first note rather than speculating that a simple fact "seems unlikely"
> to you.)
Barry, you didn't _do_ your homework; you _copied_ your homework.
There is a difference. The Imdb is not perfect; witness his uncredited
assistant editor's work at the age of 9.
Ron Howard won an award from Kodak of $100 for a film he made when he
was a kid; parts of it got shown on A&E's "Biography". Still, most
people would say his professional directing career starts with 1977's
"Grand Theft Auto", a film he made for Roger Corman, and wouldn't bother
including his little western starring his brother and dad as part of his
serious body of work.
> Mozart produced some of his first notable work at around the same age,
> and so did Michael Jackson...
Nice tap-dancing, but about as convincing as David Carson's assertion
that pi x 10 = 30 is literally true.
MattH
Barry Shein
>> >> IMDB lists works back to 1959 for Spielberg.
>> >
>> > An eight minute film I doubt 100 people have ever seen.
>>
>> Translation: I was factually correct and had done my homework before
>> making the statement. But let's try to throw tomatoes at those
>> annoying facts rather than just graciously admit an error and not
>> doing one's homework (in which case you could have said this in the
>> first note rather than speculating that a simple fact "seems unlikely"
>> to you.)
>
> Barry, you didn't _do_ your homework; you _copied_ your homework.
>There is a difference. The Imdb is not perfect; witness his uncredited
>assistant editor's work at the age of 9.
I gave my references when asked, what more could one ask?
Are you saying now that the 1959 credit in IMDB which you said you
"doubt 100 people have ever seen" is factually incorrect and doesn't
exist?
> Ron Howard won an award from Kodak of $100 for a film he made when he
>was a kid; parts of it got shown on A&E's "Biography". Still, most
>people would say his professional directing career starts with 1977's
>"Grand Theft Auto", a film he made for Roger Corman, and wouldn't bother
>including his little western starring his brother and dad as part of his
>serious body of work.
You seem to be confusing ``we have 40 years of work to judge'' and ``I
have judged 40 years of his work and don't find the older work
compelling''.
I didn't say the 40 year old work merited his listing among the 100,
in fact I said given his whole body of work I don't think he makes the
list, tho I guess he's close.
What I said was we have 40 years of work, BAD OR GOOD, and a lot of
work over the past 25 years beginning with Jaws, so the assertion that
Spielberg's work is all too recent to be judged seems unsupportable as
a claim. I think the same poster's complaint about Bart Simpson was
more on the mark in this regard; even if it turns out to be considered
great and lasting art it's a bit early to tell right now.
I think all you're saying is that you don't think his early work would
help qualify him on the list. Congratulations, I say the same thing,
along with the rest of his work.
Had he been a Mozart and had actually composed a creditable sonata (or
whatever it was) at the age of 9 then I think we'd be singing a
different tune about his genius, or at least that proof of its early
manifestation.
It's a fact which exists which can be judged in the perspective of 40
years, for better or for worse. Just as Jaws can be judged from the
distance of 25 years.
Compare and contrast to something like the youngest member of the
Hansons. Young? Yes. Accomplished? I suppose I'd have to go along with
that. Can we judge it from a perspective of time, FOR BETTER OR FOR
WORSE, no we cannot.
I think you just read something else into what I was saying.
Terrymelin
>
>
Yes, but that must be akin to the finger paintings that all of us had on the
kitchen refrigerator door.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
to put Elvis on the list and not Frank Sinatra and called the editor and told
him if he didn't he'd look like a fool. So they changed their mind (never mind
what that says about their process!) and put Sinatra on the list. He died two
weeks after the list came out.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>know how to define "important" as it relates to films
I'll make an analogy that I hope explains my position: Hitchcock, Welles, Ford,
Renoir, and many others made "important" films. Spielberg is essentially a mass
market hack who makes popular entertainment with an occasional exception. He is
often compared to C.B. DeMille. But in DeMilles's case he was a pioneer and is
therefore, important. Spielberg has been a pioneer of nothing. Everything he
has done copies something from the past. He just has the benefit of better
technology. That's fine but everyone should recognize it for what it is.
Important it ain't. Even when he tries to do something important i.e.,
"Schindler's List" or "Saving Private Ryan" he screws it up and makes it too
maudlin and contrived. As for the comparison of Spielberg to Hitchcock I find
that specious. Psycho and The Birds were innovative and new; Spielberg's stuff
isn't. The only thing they share in common is a great talent for
self-promotion; but Hitch also had great talent.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
of days here with anything like a comprehensive reply. But suffice it to say
that as usual when they have no real facts or arguments to make they rely on
personal attacks. How typical and how pathetic.
Terry Ellsworth
Matthew Hubbard
>
> On Tue, 14 Sep 1999 14:09:45 -0700, Matthew Hubbard <leof...@crl.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Nice tap-dancing, but about as convincing as David Carson's
> >assertion that pi x 10 = 30 is literally true.
>
> object whose diameter and circumference, rounded to the nearest whole
> unit, are 10 and 30, respectively. Your stubborn refusal to
> acknowledge that this was my actual claim, and not that "pi x 10 =
> 30", does not elevate anyone's opinion of you.
Don't claim to speak for anyone but yourself, David.
You are right about rounding to nearest whole units, but now the
statement moves from traditional logic (1 = true, 0 = false) to fuzzy
logic (a continuum of true-false values from 0 to 1, inclusive).
The odds for your interpretation of 1st Kings 7:23 to be true would be
.208, rounded to the nearest thousandth. This means you would be wrong
79.2% of the time; not good odds.
Then we take into account that the object being described was built by
Hebrews to Hebrew specifications; this reduces the odds of error
significantly, since it is not an object from nature or from a society
using a different cubit. If Hebrew craftsmen of 3,000 years ago used
the simplest error correcting system - measure twice, cut at the average
- the odds of making a mistake this far away from ten cubits decreases
dramatically to .087, again rounding to the nearest one thousandth. [If
you're having trouble picturing it, think of a triangle with vertices at
(0,0), (.5,2) and (1,0); its area equals 1 and the area in which you are
right is 2(.20845...)^2].
Since you are so sure you are right, I'd gladly give you even money
odds.
MattH
Barry Shein
>>IMDB lists works back to 1959 for Spielberg.
>>
>>
>
>Yes, but that must be akin to the finger paintings that all of us had on the
>kitchen refrigerator door.
Which, I assume, is why most here aren't on the 100 most important
people of the century list.
Barry Shein
>Person of the Century: Winston Churchill. I can't think of anyone even close.
I guess it depends on whether or not one considers negative influences.
Remember that Time named Ayatollah Khomeini "Man of the Year" one
year, they just go for the most influential not necessarily the most
positive.
Given that I'd have to rate Lenin over Churchill as most
influential. Like it or not the revolution of 1917 largely drove
world-wide politics for the following 75 years, including providing
the framework for Mao's China and even the rivalry between Stalin and
Hitler which was a major factor leading to WWII.
On the positive-only side I'd have to consider Albert
Einstein. Besides his changing the way we look at the physical
universe in profound ways, turning Newton on his head, Einstein is
generally credited with making the nuclear bomb possible leading to
the ``Atomic Age'' which nearly half this century was described as in
terms of both geopolitics and technology. That's a lot of influence
for one man.
Steven Celli
>
> >Person of the Century: Winston Churchill. I can't think of anyone even close.
>
> I guess it depends on whether or not one considers negative influences.
>
> Remember that Time named Ayatollah Khomeini "Man of the Year" one
> year, they just go for the most influential not necessarily the most
> positive.
>
> Given that I'd have to rate Lenin over Churchill as most
> influential. Like it or not the revolution of 1917 largely drove
> world-wide politics for the following 75 years, including providing
> the framework for Mao's China and even the rivalry between Stalin and
> Hitler which was a major factor leading to WWII.
>
> On the positive-only side I'd have to consider Albert
> Einstein. Besides his changing the way we look at the physical
> universe in profound ways, turning Newton on his head, Einstein is
> generally credited with making the nuclear bomb possible leading to
> the ``Atomic Age'' which nearly half this century was described as in
> terms of both geopolitics and technology. That's a lot of influence
> for one man.
And if I remember correctly:it was Time that caused a furor(no pun
intended here)when it named Adolph Hitler "Man Of The Year" in the late
30's or early 40's(not sure which year though)due to Hitler's influence
over the changes that were occuring during that stormy period of history
that eventually lead to WWII.
I don't object to Time's choices not necessarily being Dudley DoRight
clones who always have to have made a positive influence on affairs.
But I don't think it's a lot to ask for whomever they choose to be at
least credible.Then again:it's their magazine and they are entitled to
their opinion as much as I am entitled to disagree with it.
SGC
Matthew Hubbard
> On Wed, 15 Sep 1999 14:55:34 -0700, Matthew Hubbard <leof...@crl.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Don't claim to speak for anyone but yourself, David.
>
> where you didn't speak as though you had some invisible band on your
> side.
Starting to show a little paranoia here, David; if my arguments get to
you more than yours do to me, it's because I'm a better writer, and not
because I claim to lead some army against you.
> > You are right about rounding to nearest whole units, but now
> >the statement moves from traditional logic (1 = true, 0 = false) to
> >fuzzy logic (a continuum of true-false values from 0 to 1.)
> >
> > The odds for your interpretation of 1st Kings 7:23 to be true
> >would be .208, rounded to the nearest thousandth... Then we take into > >account that the object being described was built by Hebrews to
> >Hebrew specifications... If Hebrew craftsmen of 3,000 years ago used
> >the simplest error correcting system, the odds of making a mistake
> >this far away from ten cubits decreases dramatically to .087...
>
> Don't look at the dimensions given in 2 Kings as specifications,
> calculations, or anything other than simple as-built measurements...
> All it says is, "we built this thing, and this is how big it was." I
> have no idea *why* it was a little under 10 cubits across rather than
> a perfect 10. And you know what? I don't care. It doesn't matter...
I've found that most Biblical literalists, when defending lies and
nonsense, finally get to the "I don't care. It doesn't matter" stage;
your next line is "God said it, I believe it, that settles it."
> ... In your determination to avoid admitting that you made a mistake
> a long time ago by failing to account for the answer "they rounded
> off", you've introduced probability -- a concept that works rather
> well for large numbers of similar events, but miserably for one-time
> occurrences.
I am stating the odds of your explanation of an event you did not
witness makes sense; these odds are not good. Like most Biblical
literalists, you must cling to the text until the end.
My statement is that 3,000 years ago, folks didn't understand pi as
well as it is understood now, and the Hebrews were nowhere near the
forefront of technology of the time, lagging well behind the Egyptians
and Babylonians as builders and mathematicians. This statement in the
Holy Bible should be seen for what it is; good enough for its time and
its audience, but not passing the test of time. Much of the rest of the
history or moral guidance in the book is just as flawed, let alone any
literal interpretation of the miracles or creation stories.
MattH
p.s. Solomon's temple was built circa 950 BCE, so I'm rounding when I
use 3,000 years. In modern usage, rounding to the nearest thousand
doesn't require the use of qualifiers, though rounding to the nearest
ten on a number less than hundred usually does.
Matthew Hubbard
>
> The topic isn't Biblical literalism, it is: 1) whether it is possible
> to build a circular object with a diameter of 10 and circumference of
> 30, rounded to the nearest whole unit, and 2) whether 1 Kings 7:23 can
> plausibly be interpreted this way. Although it was like pulling
> teeth, you've finally admitted that I was right all along about the
> first proposition.
The first point was this: a circumference of 30 and a diameter of 10
gives a value of pi = 3. This is the *literal* interpretation of the
verse. You acted as though using this simple definition of pi and the
actual numbers given was some bizarre convoluted plot on my part.
When you gave up on that argument, you said that it could just be
rounding error, though you don't have evidence to back it up. Without
that evidence, it makes sense to look at the probability of such
rounding error. Your theory gets a low truth value, roughly equivalent
to the percentage of people who believe Elvis is still alive.
My point was that this is an incorrect statement; my theory is that
they didn't have a good value for pi, not even as good as the one was
used by the Egyptians during the same period.
It's just Occam's Razor, David; my explanation fits the facts given
better and with less convolutions. This verse does not meet 20th
Century standards for mathematical truth.
MattH
Zachariah Love
Hey, you guys. Is it true that Eve had sex with a snake?
Zachariah Love, Commissioner
The Lee Atwater Invitational Dead Pool
http://stiffs.com
"If you build it, they will die."
Matthew Hubbard
>
> Hey, you guys. Is it true that Eve had sex with a snake?
No, that's a vicious rumor. They just talked; Adam wasn't good at the
give and take in relationships that women value so.
But it was a talking snake with legs; there's something you don't see
every day, Chauncey.
What's that, Edgar?
MattH
p.s. When David and I go off on these pleasant little tangents, I just
assumed everyone else tuned out. I should be ashamed of literalist
baiting, but we all are entitled to our hobbies; after all, it's not
*technically* a bloodsport, and we no longer tie literalists down; I
freely admit that practice was cruel.
Matthew Hubbard
>
> Of course your explanation fits your assumptions better. But the
> facts given do not support your assumptions. My explanation is "the
> measurements are correct, rounded off to the nearest whole unit."
Your explanation is actually "The measurements _could_ be correct,
rounded off to the nearest whole unit, though I don't have the actual
object in front of me, nor do I have any corroborating evidence of how
well the Hebrews understood the value of pi, nor do I even know the
approximations of pi used by other civilizations of the time."
My explanation is "If taken literally, the Hebrew approximation of pi
is much worse than either the Egyptian or Babylonian values of earlier
eras; if it was built to specifications of cubits and hands - the
standard refinement in cubit based systems - the reporting in Kings is
faulty by today's standards, as is much of what passes for literal truth
in the Bible. The probability of the object meeting David Carson's
explanation out of the universe of possible constructions using his
assumption of rounding error is less than 10%, which is not convincing."
MattH
Matthew Hubbard
>
> So, in the end, you agree that the verse *could* be right. Thanks.
> That's all I was aiming for.
Sure, that's all Biblical literalists want; any tiny fraction of a
possibility is good enough, and since the Bible is 100% true, any 8%
true statement can be stretched to 100% true, given their unsupportable
and unspoken crap assumption.
Glad you're happy.
MattH
Matthew Hubbard
>
> By the way, for future reference, I am not a Biblical literalist. I
> believe all of the Bible to be true, but I don't believe all of it to
> be literal. I do believe 1 Kings 7:23 to be literal, thus this
> discussion. Any further assumptions on your part about what I believe
> about Biblical literalness are just that -- more unsupportable and
> unspoken crap assumptions.
You were better off when you retreated and declared victory one message
ago.
And just a clarification as to why I think I'm a better writer; you
steal my stuff incessantly, and I don't think much, if any, of your
prose style is worth stealing. It's kind of like Schumann and Chopin;
Schumann thought Chopin was a genius, and Chopin had absolutely no use
for Schumann.
Turns out they were both right, which is more than I can say for us.
MattH
Terrymelin
>Schumann thought Chopin was a genius, and Chopin had absolutely no use
>for Schumann.
I'll take Schumann any day over Chopin.
Terry Ellsworth
Arthur van Kruining
> I believe all of the Bible to be true
Then you must believe that Jesus was born twice: in 4 BC (says Matthew)
and in 6 AD (says Luke).
U groet,
Arthur.
Arthur van Kruining
> Luke then gets more specific in chapter 2,
> noting that Jesus was born sometime after Quirinius' census decree, which
> was in 6 B.C.
It was 6 *AD*. Quirinius took over Judea after Herod's successor, king
Archelaus, died. The census was needed because the Judeans now had to
pay taxes to the Romans.
Note that 1 AD lies neatly in the middle of the 10-year gap between both
dates of birth.
U groet,
Arthur.
Arthur van Kruining
> On Sun, 19 Sep 1999 15:37:13 +0000, arth...@xs4all.nl (Arthur van
> Kruining) wrote:
>
> >David Carson <da...@neosoft.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Luke then gets more specific in chapter 2,
> >> noting that Jesus was born sometime after Quirinius' census decree, which
> >> was in 6 B.C.
> >
> >It was 6 *AD*. Quirinius took over Judea after Herod's successor, king
> >Archelaus, died. The census was needed because the Judeans now had to
> >pay taxes to the Romans.
>
> The above paragraph has at least three factual errors in the second
> sentence alone. Excuse me if I don't bother to spend any more time on a
> serious rebuttal.
That's pretty lame. To suggest something about factual errors and then
run away. This is what you do if you want to give the impression of
being right, but lack the facts to prove it. You don't give a 'serious
rebuttal' because you can't produce one.
But, supposing you can: you'd be the first to refute the painstaking
research done on this subject by Emile Schürer, the bible scholar whose
classic work _Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi_
is still widely read, even though it's over 100 years old.
In other words, that rebuttal of yours would be something of an event in
scholarly circles. If it holds up, that is...
U groet,
Arthur.
Arthur van Kruining
> Arthur, your sentence, "Quirinius took over Judea after Herod's
> successor, king Archelaus died" is comparable to "George Washington,
> the first prime minister of the United States, was appointed in 1776
> and died eight years later." It is laughably incorrect. A
> sixth-grader writing a report for school on Judean history, using only
> the World Book Encyclopedia as his reference, would have gotten it
> more right than you did.
Extended lameness. You can't be bothered to point out what errors you
think I make, nor what *you* think are the facts. But you don't mind
going out of your way to produce a smokescreen of suggestion and
denigrating remarks. You don't fool anyone with this arrogant school
teacher act; you only reinforce the idea that you don't have the facts
to prove me, and every sensible bible scholar, wrong about 6 AD as the
year of Quirinius' census.
> You've demonstrated that you have no real familiarity with your
> subject matter; you're merely parroting what you read in a book, and
> messing it up in the process.
Wishful thinking. My sources are numerous and authoritative. The
essential point, the 6 AD date of birth (according to Luke), is
confirmed by all, including the aforementioned *unrefuted* work by
Schürer, the Penguin edition of Eusebius' _History of the Church_, _The
Great Code_ by Northrop Frye, _Valsheid in Geschrifte_ by Jakob
Slavenburg, and my encyclopaedia.
> Just because I chose to refute your original argument doesn't mean I'm
> going to help you present your case by fixing your mistakes as fast as
> you make them.
Why take the trouble of saying this over and over again, when all you
have to do is show that Quirinius' census was held in 6 BC instead of
AD?
I'll tell you why. Because you can't, and you're ashamed to admit it.
U groet,
Arthur.
PirateJohn
If David Carson writes that the sky is blue, you'd better go outside, take a
look yourself, and get a second opinion. Carson's wrong more often than he's
right, and if you give him enough time he'll manage to interject right wing
politics and his desire for a return to the 'good ol times' of segregation into
this conversation.
One weird individual, he certainly is...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pirat...@aol.com
Keeper of the Humour List at http://members.aol.com/PirateJohn/pirate1.html
"Mother, mother ocean... I have heard your call" - Jimmy Buffett, A Pirate
Looks At Forty.
Islandersa
Carson's wrong more often than he's
>right, and if you give him enough time he'll manage to interject right wing
>politics and his desire for a return to the 'good ol times' of segregation
>into
>this conversation.
Sorry i have to explain this to you again John, but segregation was a child of
the Democrat party. George Wallace, Ross Barnett, Orval Faubus and Lester
Maddox were all democrats. Im willing to bet that you cannot identify who they
were.
David Carson is a fine man, He does not sink to the level of vile personal
attacks like you do John.
ERIK L.
" We all go a little mad sometimes." - Norman Bates
Islandersa
This page is a gas,,John looks o\like hes standing in front of a leather bar
looking for dates.
PirateJohn
>
>This page is a gas,,John looks o\like hes standing in front of a leather bar
>looking for dates.
>
>
>ERIK L.
That's Jimmy Buffett's place in New Orleans, Erik... I guess that perverts like
you don't get out much! ROFL!! Just as well... as long as we can keep sick
in-'duh'-viduals like you away from the rest of the world and stranded in
alt.obits the better off everyone else will be!
Matthew Hubbard
>
> *Nothing* in the field of Biblical criticism is unrefuted. To state
> that you have found an unrefuted work or author merely shows how small
> or poorly chosen your library is.
And this is ample evidence that the Bible is not true - literally or
otherwise - and not the work of God; it's all up to interpretation, and
as we have already seen, Deacon Carson is quite the contortionist when
the mood strikes.
Euclid's Elements: older than the New Testament, newer than most of
the Old Testament, and if you accept five postulates, the whole thing is
100% true.
That is man discovering the Word of God. The Bible is old prejudices
turned falsely into holy writ.
MattH
Matthew Hubbard
>
> On Tue, 21 Sep 1999 21:33:22 -0700, Matthew Hubbard <leof...@crl.com>
> wrote:
>
> >David Carson wrote:
> >>
> >> *Nothing* in the field of Biblical criticism is unrefuted. To
> >> state that you have found an unrefuted work or author merely shows
> >> how small or poorly chosen your library is.
> >
> > And this is ample evidence that the Bible is not true -
> >literally or otherwise - and not the work of God; it's all up to
> >interpretation, and >as we have already seen, Deacon Carson is quite
> >the contortionist when the mood strikes.
>
> as contortion is my statement, "the measurements are accurate to the
> nearest whole unit."
The measurements _might_ be accurate to nearest whole units, but the
odds are less than 10%, which is good enough for Biblical scholarship in
Texas.
Oh, why stop there, David? Remember your contortion about your
flippant little joke about the torture murder of prisoners by the state?
You argued - pointelssly, it turns out - that your snide little joke was
not condoning the incompetent torture deaths of electric chair victims.
I'd be glad to quote you exactly, but I know how angry that makes you.
MattH
Arthur van Kruining
> On Mon, 20 Sep 1999 19:51:20 +0000, arth...@xs4all.nl (Arthur van
> Kruining) wrote:
>
> >It was 6 *AD*. Quirinius took over Judea after Herod's successor, king
> >Archelaus, died. The census was needed because the Judeans now had to
> >pay taxes to the Romans.
>
> Note how many errors there are in this little paragraph.
> 1) Herod did not have a "successor". Herod's kingdom ended with his
> death. His territory was divided into three parts and allocated to three
> of his sons. The part Archelaus received was the largest part blah blah
And therefore he can be considered his successor, or at least *a*
successor. You're picking nits.
> 2) Archelaus wasn't a king. He sought for, and was denied, that title
> by Caesar Augustus.
So he was a 'tetrarch', what difference does it make? Nits again.
> 3) Archelaus died in 18 A.D., not 6 A.D.
Interesting. What sources tell you this? AFAIK the guy was exiled to
France in 5 and died in 6.
Personally, I wouldn't mind the idea that the son of a major biblical
figure spent 13 years of his life in la douce France. It's a pity that
Goscinny never got around to using Archelaus as a character in
_Asterix_.
> 4) Quirinius did not take over Judea after Archelaus was deposed.
> Archelaus was replaced by a succession of Roman procurators, the first who
> was named Coponius.
Coponius was the prefect of Judaea from 6-9 AD and he had to report to
his boss Quirinius.
> Quirinius was governor of Syria, the Roman province
> that always had a supervisory role over Palestine even under Herod. That
> supervisory role was greater than before now that Judea had been annexed.
Exactly. Since there was no more local king or tetrarch or whatever you
want to call him, Quirinius in effect took control of Judaea and made
Coponius into something comparable to a viceroy. Again you're only
picking nits.
> 5) The Judeans had been paying Roman taxes for nearly 100 years, it
> didn't begin in 6 A.D.!
Really? So you're saying the Romans managed to raise taxes from the
Judaeans more than 30 years before they conquered Jerusalem? Quite a
feat!
Suppose you're right. How would you explain the revolt against the
census instigated by Judas of Gamala, which is referred to by Luke and
Josephus, who, in Book II of his _History of the Jewish War_, writes:
"In his [i.e. Coponius] time a Galilean named Judas tried to stir the
natives to revolt, saying that they would be cowards if they submitted
to paying taxes to the Romans, and after serving God accepted human
masters."
This doesn't sound like the reaction of someone whose people have been
paying taxes to the Romans for a century. On the contrary, it sounds
more like the reaction of someone whose people are forced to pay taxes
to the Romans for the first time, doesn't it?
The 6 AD census revolt came about because this was indeed the first time
the Judaeans were expected to pay taxes *directly* to the Romans. They
used to go to the middle men, to Herod and Archelaus, who in turn
donated an undoubtedly good part of this sum to the Romans. These middle
men were useful to the Romans as transitional figures, because this was
easiest way to exploit the new Roman province without ruffling too much
feathers. If there was that much protest against the 6 AD census,
imagine what would have happened if they had held the census immediately
after the occupation of Judaea?
Makes perfect sense, eh?
> [blah blah blah denigrate denigrate boast boast]
> You need to begin by explaining why you think that the *local* taxation in
> Judea following Archelaus' removal in 6 A.D. has to be the same event
> referred to in Luke 2:1. The plain reading of the Scripture does not
> support that assumption in the slightest. Luke is referring to a
> worldwide (i.e. empire-wide) taxation, which does not apply to the 6 A.D.
> one.
No, because there was no such thing as a 'worldwide taxation'. Luke is
either mistaken or adding the emperor's name to impress his readers. An
empire-wide registration wouldn't make any sense, because the empire was
in constant flux. You can't treat unstable, newly occupied territories
the same as the Italian regions. You have to tax each region separately,
when the time is right. In 6 AD, after deposing Archelaus, the Romans
thought the time was right to tax the Judaeans directly.
> Furthermore, as I already wrote, Luke has already set the story "in
> the days of Herod, king of Judea" (Luke 1:5), not ten years later.
Good point.
> Finally, Luke specifically mentions that the taxation he refers to is the
> "first" of Quirinius. In other words, Luke is aware that there were other
> taxations that came later, but he's not referring to them.
Not quite. Luke says: "And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was
governor of Syria." This doesn't mean that it's the first of Quirinius,
but that it's the first, period.
> There. I've told you what you need to do next to make a substantial case.
> You have assumed that there was only one taxation in Judea. You have
> assumed that Quirinius was never a prominent Syrian official before 6 A.D.
And rightly so, because his career is fairly well-documented. Between 10
and 3 BC he was chasing Homanadensians in Asia.
> You have assumed that Luke 2:1 cannot refer to any event except the one
> that occurred in 6 A.D.
Yes, but from what I know now I've come to another conclusion. I think
you're right about the gap between Luke 1:5 and 2:2 not being 10 years.
But I do think that Luke (or whoever wrote the gospel ascribed to him)
mixed up two censuses and two governors.
The revolt-inducing taxation Luke is referring to in the Acts must be
the one of 6 AD, when Quirinius ruled.
If this one wasn't the first, then there must have been one 13/14 years
earlier, because Augustus decreed that censuses should be held every 14
years. (Note that this decree implies that there was no reason for the
emperor to command a 'worldwide taxation'.) This means that there was a
census in 8/9 BC.
Secular sources say that in 8 BC Saturnius was governor of Syria.
Now, my theory (and it probably isn't new) is that:
a) This 8 BC census did not apply to Herod's Palestine. Because of the
aforementioned middle man function and because that wouldn't explain the
6 AD revolt.
b) Luke mistook the Syrian governor associated with the 8 BC census, for
the one associated with the 6 AD census. (Perhaps because that one did
include Judaea and a revolt to make it more memorable.)
This theory is more or less backed up by Tertullian's version of Luke's
Gospel:
"Tertullian, (c. AD 200) a North African Christian, appears to have the
name 'Saturnius' as governor, in his version of Luke's gospel instead of
Quirinius. This means that either he has an altered version or that our
version is in error. An error could have crept into our version if an
over zealous copier, altered 'Saturnius', and put in its place,
'Quirinius' who he recalled was governor during the famous taxation
census of AD 6. This would mean that all the copies made from his copy
would, from then on, read 'Quirinius' while the original would have been
'Saturnius.'
The second possibility is that the original was 'Quirinius' but knowing
that Herod was dead when Quirinius was governor, another scribe altered
Tertullian's copy to 'Saturnius.' Tertullian may have altered it himself
if he had realised the problem."
The first possibility is less likely, because I doubt that a humble
copier would have the nerve to 'correct' the self-confessed 'historian'
Luke, let alone that his one copy (or copies) would affect all later
copies. (Even if he thought that he had to correct a wrong made by
another copier.)
It's more likely that an intellectual big-shot like Tertullian corrected
Luke's mistake himself. (Despite his 'credibile est quia ineptum'.) Of
course he didn't publicise the mistake; that would only help his enemies
the gnostics.
Conclusion: according to the evangelists Jesus was born somewhere
between 8 and 4 BC.
U groet,
Arthur.