has anyone mentioned QE2? Certainly not for the top position, but she was an extremely prominent woman.

Phil/Kurt -

I would argue (as I already have) that a person who's influence is almost wholly confined to this century deserves consideration. Chekhov or the Lumiere Bros. could hardly be called significant influences on the 19th Century. Does that mean such accomplishments should simply be tossed out on a technicality? I would hope not.

I like your Lumiere suggestion mon, even if it may not be technically allowable. As I keep bleating, the movies really affected this century.

Right on Reefer! And I ask - who's movies had the greatest influence if it wasn't Walt? Also, as I keep on noting, Walt's influence is quite sizable even beyond the movies.

Disney

McDonald's

Coca-Cola

An eternal golden braid.

That's the most horrible thought I've had all day, Reefer.

Maybe he was as bad as Hitler.

(I haven't scrolled back,so...)

John Lennon!( He'd certainly be in my top five)

Think of it.What artist in Lennon's stratosphere of fame and wealth(There weren't and aren't too many at those heights.)bothered to relugate their careers to the background,as they tackled issues such as Civil-Rights or U.S. foreign policy in Vietnam?

In today's era of personal consultants,handlers,managers,attorneys,and accountants,megastars are not allowed to follow their consciences and take stands against issues that will affect their or their entourage's bank statements.Activism is kept to a minimum as careers take precedence.There was a tremendous amount of courage involved when he aligned himself with the Left...a courage rarely seen by one of his stature.Think of any of the BIG artists of today.Can one see any of them leaving their comfy little world to try to better their fellow brother?

His music and contributions to pop culture will undoubtly live forever.

..."There are places I remember..."

Duuude! Hope you left room for Soul Brother #1!

And how about Helen Keller?

Regarding the note in Message #578 about Bertrand Russell, yes, he was already nominated in Message #517.

Regarding Speilberg, yes, he has been mentioned several times, along with Hitchcock, Eisenstaedt, David Lean, and Capra.

As for media superstar, I still say Bob Hope ends up somewhere in the Top 100.

Also, don't forget Ed Wood. hahaha. Just kidding.

Regarding Message #607 about Lennon -- Do we just include "The Beatles". Does that count as one slot or four, in the Top 100?

Should Edward R. Murrow be on the Top 100? He contributed a lot to early television news broadcasting, and was a big factor in taking down Joseph McCarthy. I'd put Murrow ahead of people like Cronkite, Rather, the 60 Minutes crew, etc.

OK, folks, I'd like to propose something.

I checked out the Time 100 (www.time.com) and they have 20 leaders and revolutionaries already decided. I believe we named all of them before CalGal posted the list.

Next, they plans to release the "Entertainers and Artists" list:

"New idioms from cubism to jazz to movies were born in this century. Can one pick between the likes of Elvis, Warhol and Speilberg? (June 1998)".

They also have a category for "Heroes & Inspirations", so that's where I think some of the sports players we have nonimated (Robinson) could go.

So, assuming they pick 20 people for this category, who would they be?

We've mentioned a bunch. Wanna try to predict the list, and then see how close we come?

I'll start.

Walt Disney

Steven Speilberg

Alfred Hitchcock

Elvis Presley

The Beatles

Edward R. Murrow

Louis Armstrong

Sergey Eisenstein

Muhammed Ali

Bob Hope

Pablo Picasso

Marilyn Monroe

Ernest Hemingway

John Steinbeck

Anton Checkov

Igor Stravinsky

Milton Berle

Bob Dylan

Luciano Pavarotti

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe

That's my first attempt.

But I think my list is too English & USA-centric.

Socko,

Message #181 I doubt if women will figure in a number of fields in the next or any century -- certainly not in philosophy, music, mathematics, and science. The reason why women have generally been shut out of these areas has less to do with male domination than biological determinism; the great female mathmatician is as unlikely a concept as the great female serial killer (and for much the same reasons).

I'm a bit surprised nobody has called you on this yet. Though this probably isn't the thread for it, I'd like to see your proof, please.

Message #561 Do you really think that those of us who dislike Arendt are simply motivated by sexism? I mean, really, have you read her?

No, Socko, not sexism entirely. I mean, really, here is this important female German Jewish social philosopher, some accomplishments already cited by Irv, and what does she do? Starts fucking that nazi Heidegger. The traitorous bitch. You're right, it isn't just sexism.

Simone de Beauvoir has been mentioned already - I guess she doesn't count as a philosopher in your book.

Isn't discussion and argument part of the point in philosophy? Someone comes up with an idea, works it out, and leaves it to the next person to shred it, who will be shredded in their turn, and so on. Because someone is not considered the number one thinker or does not have a shelf does not mean they made no important contributions.

Also, for the "Entertainers & Artists" list, I figure that means people from: art, literature, dance, architecture, movies, music, television and sports. Any other sub-categories?

Regarding literature, we have to sort out:

Rudyard Kipling, William B Yeats, George Bernard Shaw, Thomas Mann, Eugene O'Neill, Tennessee Williams, Pearl S. Buck, J R R Tolkien,

T S Eliot, William Faulkner, Ernest Hemingway, Samuel Beckett, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Saul Bellow, Anton Checkov and others.

Regarding music: Ray Charles, Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix, Michael Jackson, Madonna, Frank Sinatra, Luciano Pavarotti, Garth Brooks,

John Williams, Igor Stravinsky and others.

Regarding movies: ???

Regarding sports: ???

Regarding television: ???

Regarding art: ???

Regarding dance: ???

Regarding architecture: ???

(I'm running late so I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to fill in the remaining ??? above )

wabbit:

"I'm a bit surprised nobody has called you on this yet. Though this probably isn't the thread for it, I'd like to see your proof, please."

Wait a minute! *I* called him on it! You can look it up.

Very good point about women philosophers.

Wabbit

So did I. In fact, I was second in line. Go lookie!

Ok, ok already, mea culpa! Guess I should start going to sleep before 4am, eh?

Message #611, peartree:

Instead of rattling off names, could you please give us some kind of opinion as to why you chose them.

Also, it's "C-H-E-K-H-O-V."

Message #612, wabbit!:

Any disinterested survey of the century's philosophical greats will unearth no women. None. You or I may find this terribly unfair, sad, or whatever, but facts are facts.

Wrt Arendt: Where are these "accomplishments" Snodgrass allegedly offered? All he noted (in his Message #539) was that she is "a prominent 20th century philosopher, and was the first woman professor at Princeton, Columbia and Berkeley." While I wouldn't gainsay the importance of her time at these institutions, I don't see that it establishes her as (a) a major 20th century figure, or (b) an important philosopher.

Of course, I agree with you that "discussion and argument [are] part of the point in philosophy," but *my* point is that Arendt was less a philosopher than even ... Ayn Rand. Perhaps if we simply were to describe her as a "thinker" (like, say, Simone Weil), then we could be on the road to agreeing.

And no, I wouldn't consider Simone de Beauvoir a philosopher. She was a pin-up intellectual with bad taste in men and a pretty good writer.

I'm afraid my vote for 20th century woman still goes to Amy Earhart.

Socko,

"Any disinterested survey of the century's philosophical greats will unearth no women. None. You or I may find this terribly unfair, sad, or whatever, but facts are facts."

Where did *this* fact come from?

This is fascinating reading, fraysters. How can one name a single greatest person without exposing your value structure? Perhaps we should consider who were the greatest persons from each century starting, say 300BC? Maybe that would give one a little better perspective as to whose greatness will endure.

I, for one, am swayed to several 20th centurians (not to be confused with centurions) depending on what we think is important about this century. Mass destruction and genocide have been around quite awhile, thus I'm not very impressed with Hitler - he just had the latest technology. Einstein, of course, stood on Newton's giant shoulders. So what is truly new about the 20th century?

Claude Shannon, anyone? Information theory? What else has made this century so unique and what else will shape the rest of our existence to this degree? There's my vote.

(On the other hand, without me this universe wouldn't exist... so maybe I'll vote for myself.)

Message #618, wabbit!:

Well, judging from Irving's link, this fact comes from reality. None of the women featured on the link are first-grade philosophers.

Please don't misunderstand me. I idolize Simone Weil -- she's one of my favorite two or three people from history -- but she was not a philosopher. No *way*.

I think some people are confusing "successful" and "popular" with "influential".

(I offered Simone Weil as the best example of the women featured on Irving's link. Most of the others are of no account.)

Socko,

"Well, judging from Irving's link, this fact comes from reality. None of the women featured on the link are first-grade philosophers."

sigh. None of them are in current vogue, true enough. So what. I was under the impression, perhaps mistaken, that Irv was to name one highly regarded woman philosopher. I believe he has done that. You don't want to acknowledge Arendt or de Beauvoir as philosophers, and I don't care to discuss tomatoes and tomatoes (pronounciation counts).

You have yet to support your statement from Message #181.

wabbit!:

Arendt and de Beauvoir were not philosophers. Period. To claim they were is like saying that Paglia is a philosopher; it's an elementary confusion of terms.

If you think otherwise (as I guess you do), perhaps you would be so kind as to point me in the direction of de Beauvoir's writings on aesthetics or metaphysics.

I have here in front of me a copy of _Prime of Life_, the central volume of de Beauvoir's long-winded autobiography. I ask *anyone* to show me where in it I can find any serious discussion of philosophy.

Socko,

Shall I accept your avoidance of posting support for Message #181 as concession?

Beware of deep water folks!

Socko,

Perhaps we do have "an elementary confusion of terms." Please offer your definition of philosophy and how you determine whether or not someone is qualified to be considered a philosopher.

wabbit!:

I don't see the point in repeating myself. I happen to believe -- call it prejudice if you will -- that there are a few specific fields in which women will probably not figure now or ever. I also happen to believe that there are fields where men will forever run second to women.

Now philosophy, music, mathematics and science belong in my opinion to the first category. For whatever reason, these are areas where women have not and probably will not assert themselves as bona fide geniuses.

One could add chess to this list: despite being played across numerous cultures, and over hundreds of years, the game has only produced to date a couple of female grandmasters (both belonging to the same family). The reason is not sexism. It is because there is a peculiar abstraction to the game that appears to suit men better than women.

Hence my view on biological determinism. (Incidentally, Camille Paglia, a "philosopher," has written along exactly these lines.)

My major point -- and one I made in the post -- is that there are many, many fields where men and women are indistinguishable -- politics is just one example. I would certainly hope that the coming decades see more females participating in these activities.

Belated vote after having read only the first ten messages:

In order of importance:

Hitler, for most of the reasons Cigarlaw said.

Einstein, although his thoughts were inevitable, the timing was important.

FDR for not losing the war or the depression despite some high risks. Also for not being able to get into the war sooner despite his obvious leadership ability.

The missing person who should have been most important:

The one who taught us that religion and nationalism are the root of all evil.

wabbit,

A philosopher is somebody versed in the moral and metaphysical sciences, and one who lives his life by the light of philosophy.

An example of one of the century's great philosophers might be somebody such as Betrand Russell or Karl Popper. It's absurd to suggest that a writer as lightweight as Simone de Beauvoir belongs in the same category; completely absurd.

Socko,

"call it prejudice if you will"

Ok. I'll also call it your opinion, as opposed to fact, since you haven't offered any more support than your own bias.

"A philosopher is somebody versed in the moral and metaphysical sciences, and one who lives his life by the light of philosophy."

Ah, I see where the problem is, no penis. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Hey it's a beautiful day out there. Let's take Leibniz Law (The Identity of Indiscernables) and say that the human mind that loves wisdom is capable of anything. Now go outside and play boys and girls.

wabbit,

But I have offered proof. No females feature in any of the categories that I've mentioned in terms of the century's great figures. No reputable source can or has suggested otherwise.

By the way, I'm completely imperturbed by your penis jibe. If it happened that all the great philosophers were women, I would gladly admit to it. I have *no* agenda on these issues.

wabbit,

I'm still anxiously awaiting your explanation on why Simine de Beauvoir ought to be considered a philosopher a la Popper, Russell, Warnock, Ayer, or Hampshire.

Socko: In Message #181 you said: "I doubt if women will figure in a number of fields in the next or any century -- certainly not in philosophy, music, mathematics, and science. The reason why women have generally been shut out of these areas has less to do with male domination than biological determinism; the great female mathmatician is as unlikely a concept as the great female serial killer (and for much the same reasons)."

I am curious. What evidence do you have for this claim of BIOLOGICAL causes of there being so few women philosophers, mathematicians, etc?

I agree with Socko to the extent that Irving's link strains to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find a few female philosophers. However, as Socko said, Hannah Arendt was no philosopher; a more apt description is "intellectual historian", along the lines of Isaiah Berlin (who is infinitely greater). Ayn Rand was a philsopher of sorts, but she was also a joke. Maybe a few correspondance courses include her in a reading list. Otherwise, it's juvenile word-of-mouth. I think of her books as akin to "Dianetics".

As for Beauvoir [please, there is no need for the "de", just as it is "Tocqueville", not "de Tocqueveille"], she is admittedly a philosopher, and a famous one. But her only contribution is to feminist philosophy.

Socko:

I apologize for having missed this discussion today due to ISP problems. I note that you have evaded my point, made twice, about why there have been few outstanding women in these fields in the past, and why we will see the numbers increasing in the future. I am certain that there are women on the faculty in these fields at all major universities, and that they are publishing.

I also note that wabbit has made my points very well in my absence, though I may not have gone so far as to make the penis comment. Or maybe I would have.

The fact remains that many people regard Arendt and de Beauvoir as philosophers, and influential ones at that. I suppose these people are all wrong, since they don't meet the famous Socko standards.

I remember losing respect for Arendt when I read the "Imperialism" volume of the Origins of Totaliatarianism and discovered that, in her bizarre opinion, T.E. Lawrence's behaviour in Arabia exemplified some important facet of totalitarianism.

By the way, Elliot and I once bickered over this question of whether sexual differences in things like mathematics had evolutionary or social causes.

I agree with PE's Message #638, to which I would add that there's absolutely nothing wrong with someone being remembered as an intellectual historian (although, as we've already seen, few scholars consider Arendt a credible historian). Simone Weil was such an individual, a woman I admire greatly.

I still don't buy the idea that the windbag Simone de Beauvoir was any kind of great philosopher.

I just checked the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, A.R. Lacey's Dictionary of Philosophy, and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. None lists Arendt, although each has an entry for a minor analytic philosopher like Antony Flew.

Snodgrass,

I have already cited the most recent opinions of German and Israeli scholars on the credibility of Hannah Arendt as an historian and "philosopher." You have refuted none of their positions.

My vote for most influential person of the century is Billy Graham.

I think that he has not only set a consistent Christian example, but he has influenced the lives of thousands!

I went to his last Texas rally, and THOUSANDS of people accepted Christ as their Lord and Saviour.

I think that saving people from Hell is proably thee most important influence *any* one could have.

But I'm sure that since I am a "thumper" as PE puts it, you all probably don't share in the respect that most Christians have for Mr. Graham.

I must admit to some disappointment that Buber hasn't shown up on anyone's philosophy list. Not only was he, IMHO, the most cogent of the 20th-century philosophers, he was personally instrumental in a significant event -- the founding of the state of Israel. He also played a central role in the development of the kibbutz concept. Finally, his philosophical influence extended to later philosophers of actual weight, including Levinas.

Message #639:

"I also note that wabbit has made my points very well in my absence."

Well no, actually, she merely insisted that you were correct. Hardly a cognitive argument.

I rest my case (cf, Message #644, Jenerator).

Jenerator -- I respect Billy Graham, but I don't think he's very influential. I would bet there has been a net decrease in the number of people who believe what he preaches (although the current trend is probably favorable).

PE, interestingly, my "Oxford Companion to Philosophy" does list Arendt. It describes her thus: "Originator of a broad political theory and analyst of the major historical events of her times, Arendt was a student of Jaspers and Heidegger and one of the first to apply the phenomenological method to politics." It goes on to list several accomplishments. Hm. Actually, I'd had the same opinion of her as you. But I see that she appears to have originated the phrase, "the banality of evil," which is often an operative term in my line of work.

Socko:

I have no need to refute your arguments, since I've made it clear that many philosophers have had their work disputed. It's what philosophy is all about. I understand there are even those who fail to value the works of major philosophers such as Sartre.

So your points do not detract from mine in the least. They merely underline the fact that Arendt's ideas have been widely discussed.

Btw, I received an e-mail from wabbit, and she asked me to inform you that she's been cut off from Slate, and has not run away from the discussion. Her disappearance coincided with my reappearance, so you may consider this tag-team discussion.

My vote for Person of the Century goes to Andy Warhol.

The Rodent of the Century has to be Mickey Mouse.

Newt for lizard of the century.

Tommy - Actually, my vote for Rodent of the Century goes to Web Hubble. Weasels are rodents, aren't they?

Toenail fungus of the century -- Jesse Helms

MrSocko-

Wrt Message #644 & "By the way, I'm completely imperturbed by your penis jibe.

That may well be, and you don't seem to have any hesitancy in being a a first class pr**k either!

spudboy: She didn't "originate" the phrase "the banality of evil." She cribbed it from one of her publishers.

Do you have a point to make, Dente, you old pornographer?

Now, now, Dente, Socko wasn't being a pr**k. I've seen Socko be a pr**k and this was not pr**kish behaviour.

Amazing. Dente will gladly post pornographic images of women in The Fray and yet will use vulgarisms to chide those who have a less than liberal view on the sexes.

Socko-

Once upon a time a Wolf was lapping at a spring on a hillside, when, looking up, what should he see but a Lamb just beginning to drink a little lower down. "There's my supper," thought he, "if only

I can find some excuse to seize it." Then he called out to the Lamb, "How dare you muddle the water from which I am drinking?" "Nay, master, nay," said Lambikin; "if the water be muddy up there, I cannot be the cause of it, for it runs down from you to me." "Well, then," said the Wolf, "why did you call me bad names this time last year?"

"That cannot be," said the Lamb; "I am only six months old." "I don't care," snarled the Wolf; "if it was not you it was your father;" and with that he rushed upon the poor little Lamb and

WARRA WARRA WARRA WARRA WARRA ate her all up. But before she died she gasped out: "Any excuse will serve a petty tyrant!"

Spudboy (Message #649)

Which one do you have? The one by Honderich or Blackburn? The companion or the dictionary? I have the Blackburn, and, in rechecking, I don't see Arendt's name at all.

RD -- I always liked that WARRA WARRA part. When I read it, I make noises like the WB Tasmanian Devil when he eats.

Dente, Message #661:

Whatever.

I should have given credit to Aesop! Pardon me please.

Good of you to throw a sop to Aesop. One of my favorite stories.

Man of the century? Albert Einstein.

www.io.com/~norwoodr

Yeah, Einstein was and is very influential, true.

How about if there's more than one category for influential people.

I.e. Most influential religious leader= Billy Graham

Most influential wartime leader= Hitler

Most influential scientist= Einstein

Most influential architect=(homes) Wright

(commercial)I.M. Pei

etc. etc.

Somehow breaking Man of the Century down into categories makes it less interesting. You suggest war, religion, politics, art, science as cagegories. Which of those has made the most difference in your life? The answer is easy for me--without medical science, I'd be dead now.

www.io.com/~norwoodr

Norwood,

So many people/categories have influenced my life. I can't limit it to one. I too have experienced the benfits of science, but that alone doesn't comprise me.

FYI: The current issue of "Time" gives a run down of a lot of Fray candidates.

By the vote of his peers, when he was still with us, Herbert Hoover was the most decorated American of all time. (There is a way, with a quirk, to give this accolade to Bob Hope, but unlike Hoover, there are probably few or no schools or towns named for him, and the honorary doctorates are tainted by the probable undergraduate whims involved.)

The reason Hoover is the most decorated is the nature of his distinguished career. Humanitarian par excellence, in which field the number of people he saved as food czar of World War I and the nation's premier relief administrator after World War II, can be and has been disputed, but it is in the very high millions; number one engineer of the first half of the century with "the" medal named for him. Greatest of the secretaries of commerce, easily, who coordinated radio and hardware calibrations, reorganized the fisheries, and arranged pioneering systems analyses of governmental aspects. A misunderstood and unlucky president whose generally progressive (and certainly not reactionary, laissez faire) policies opened presidental doors for successors. A philanthropist and volunteer for the Boys Clubs of America and other organizations. One whose very name is linked for ever with "Hoover Commissions"--bodies who study government seriously and deeply to reorganize and rearrange for effectiveness and efficiency. A party leader with a principled point of view not now entirely in vogue, but whose attitudes toward "opportunity" in education and other areas of well-being are closer to acceptance now than in the years since his voice fell silent. An author of some thirty-four books, including sets of his speeches, who was listened to by persons of "affairs" and by every president during his lifetime. (Indeed, their praise was ringing and sincere.) A family man and parent of two fine boys who made their marks in life. All in all, a serious candidate for Person of the Century, indeed. Vaughn Da

PE: (Message #662) -- I have the Honderich "Companion," which I expect is rather different from Blackburn's "Dictionary." Probably akin to a comparison of Will Durant and Wallace Matson. That is to say, Blackburn is probably more rigorous.

How strange that all of the serious proposals here have made their mark in the first half of the 20th. What's happened since?

meta.

i'd like to poll you guys. so first, let me get the categories, then the candidates. i'll put up everything on my website. this will be great fun...

i want to test my ability to track every way you want to vote. so some folks might want to vote for *einstein* as a *fraud*, then i'll weight it and all that.

preliminarily let's guess that ther are 50 participants here, about 100 candidates and 10 categories. so how about if i give everyone 5 voting tokens. you can distribute your tokens any way you like. (for example 3 votes for einstein as fraud, 1 for freud as science and 1 for mother theresa as leader.

ok?

send comments, votes, etc to me via email - boohab@mindspring.com

Well, okay. Einstein, Hitler, Herbert Hoover. Swell candidates all, but you gotta admit that on a day-to-day basis it's either Little Richard, Chuck Berry, or James Brown. Or the guy in the recording booth for all three.

Has anyone mentioned Dr. Spock Dr., not Mr.)?

Cecil B DeMIlle? Orson Welles? The guy who invented (yuk) Coca-Cola?

Steve Jobs (ha ha!)?

William M. Gaines?

AdamSelene -

Part of the problem is that historical significance is difficult to assess when a person's achievements are relatively recent. I'm sure there are other reasons, but this reality is bound to have an effect on the number of candidates after, say, 1970.

Also, what later ages consider to be important may differ from what we consider to be important now. This can have an effect on which historical figures stand out. People who seem very important to us, and are living now, may ultimately be seen as trivial and vice versa.

BG -

What, me worry?

Another thought,

It seems clear that in many ways WWII was the defining event of this century. The major players before and during that war would seem to stand out more because of this. And, obviously, the war was over before the century reached the halfway point.

jenerator

if your still around I agree with your feelings on billy grahm.....but still would have to stick with my nomination of Pope Pius XII...which has been totally ignored by this secular bunch......for those open minded enough i recomend two sites .....this is my first attemp at indroducing a hyper link so if i fail be kind <A HREF="http://home.earthlink.net/~liamhughes/pius.html</A>" and </A>EF="http://catholicleague.org/truth.htm</A>"

sob anyone kind hearted enough to tell me what I did wrong?

Tobey,

You put the end quotes in the wrong place, and you forgot a text hook.

Substitute the bracket for ( and it's

(a href="http://home.earthlink.net/~liamhughes/pius.html")link1(/A)

and (a href="http://catholicleague.org/truth.htm")link2(/A)

or

link1

and link2

If you preview, you should be able to see if the link works and you can also put your cursor under it to see if it's the desired one.

Re. 676 -

I don't know if the inventor of Coca Cola would qualify, since he did it in 1886.

much thanks calgal

Robert Baden-Powell!

The Fast Food Entrepreneur of the Century has to be Ray Kroc. His chain must have sold enough Greaseburgers and Lugnuts to feed the entire population of the earth for a month. I love hitting these home run balls.

Yeah, so who knew when Coke was invented?

How about Owsley? (What WAS the first name? Can't imagine how it could have slipped my memory.)

BTW, for "Fraud of the Century" I have to stick with Barry Manilow, or maybe Bill Cosby.

BG

Speaking of Barry Manilow, I just knew I couldn't give my alegiance to a man who was willing to go on national TV wearing carnival clothes and sings Copacabana (and trying to dance at the same time).

I just couldn't trust him to be, well, artistic.

that's to sing

Stalin had to have had the greatest impact on the world. His ruthless killing of his own people and his repression of all freedoms were unequalled. His policy, which survived him, of hostility to the rest of the nations kept both East and West on edge for 40 years. His long lasting threats of nuclear war hiked up some enormous defense budgets in U. S. and other countries, robbing many citizens of what would have otherwise been improved health and living standards. Think if Stalin would have been pro-West or pro-U. S. all of those years. If he would have been promoting peace. All nations would have prospered to such a greater degree that we probably wouldn't recognize the world of today.

thomasd

"I don't know if the inventor of Coca Cola would qualify,

since he did it in 1886."

True, but between the invention and the turn of this century, less than one billion servings had been sold. Today, one billion servings is represent the sales for one *day*. So it is largely a 20th century phenomenon.

if you guys knew how computer illiterate I am you would know how happy these small sucesses make me link1 and link2

gotta run I've been made an offer I can't refuse particularly in light of that woman who shot her husbands' PC

Re. 690 -

I wanted to give it to FDR, with Stalin as a runner-up, but Stalin well may have been the more influential, even though in as close to an 'evil' way as I would care to classify any person.

BGPelaire,

Re: Message #676

Yep, I mentioned Dr. Spock as a Runner-Up, in some previous post before the woman philosopher debate, eg. about a hundred messages ago. :-)

As for DeMille and Welles, I think other filmmakers were more influential. Welles, especially, had a difficult time getting his films made beyond the 50s & 60s. (Although I think "Citizen Kane" is the greatest film ever made, but that's another debate). Welles was great, but had difficulty sustaining the greatness (IMHO).

I think DeMille gets trumped by Spielberg on the epic side. I think Spielberg could match DeMille epic blockbuster by epic blockbuster, and still have several left over. And I think he gets trumped by Eisenstein on the "early film pioneer" side, at least in terms of film technique.

You might be able to make a case for D W Griffith, though, although I think Eisenstein had more impact.

Steve Jobs: As much as I like what he tried to do, he's not Bill Gates, and while his salesmanship, drive, and "reality distortion" to get PCs into the world was very important, he's a PC hardware monopolist at heart, and doesn't (and really never did) control the industry the way Gates does.

Suffice to say that when Time releases its "Builders & Titans" list, I will be extremely surprised if Bill Gates is not on that list.

Abel Gance would be more deserving than Griffith.

Tobey,

Interesting posts!

:)

The Fray Person of the Century page is now available for viewing.

We have merely begun this project, and FTC will be doing more compiling of the posts to date. I also encourage anyone else to get involved, especially boohab, who offered his assistance above.

I will continue to provide the location for the page and input the data.

Suggestions on organization, format, and a viable voting system are most welcome.

My first suggestion is to alphabetize by *last* name.

Good point, Stumbo. FTC - what were you thinking?

I nominate Bill Wilson, co-founder of the Alcoholics Anonymous movement, along with Dr. Bill Smith. At least they did something notable that helps people, unlike other notables known for their egomania and insanity.

back
next

home