rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) (02/18/85)
The results of the 1985 Good Housekeeping Most Admired Men Poll are as follows: 1. Ronald Reagan 2. Jerry Falwell 3. Billy Graham 4. Pope John Paul II 5. Bob Hope 6. Lech Walesa 7. Lee Iacocca 8. Alan Alda 9. Tom Selleck 10. Norman Vincent Peale Richard Nixon was thirteenth, George Bush fifteenth and Barry Goldwater twentieth. Any comments? *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
cliff@unmvax.UUCP (02/20/85)
> The results of the 1985 Good Housekeeping Most Admired Men Poll are > > 1. Ronald Reagan ... > 7. Lee Iacocca > 8. Alan Alda > 9. Tom Selleck > 10. Norman Vincent Peale > > Richard Nixon was thirteenth, George Bush fifteenth and Barry Goldwater > twentieth. Any comments? I assume they polled their readers. --Cliff
daf@ccice6.UUCP (David Fader) (02/21/85)
> The results of the 1985 Good Housekeeping Most Admired Men Poll are > as follows: > > 1. Ronald Reagan > 2. Jerry Falwell > 3. Billy Graham > 4. Pope John Paul II > 5. Bob Hope > 6. Lech Walesa > 7. Lee Iacocca > 8. Alan Alda > 9. Tom Selleck > 10. Norman Vincent Peale > > Richard Nixon was thirteenth, George Bush fifteenth and Barry Goldwater > twentieth. Any comments? If we wanted to read Good Housekeeping don't you think we would. Did you have any point you wanted to make? -- The Watcher seismo!rochester!ccice5!ccice6!daf or allegra!rochester!ccice5!ccice6!daf
rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) (02/21/85)
> > If we wanted to read Good Housekeeping don't you think we would. > Did you have any point you wanted to make? > -- > The Watcher > > seismo!rochester!ccice5!ccice6!daf > or > allegra!rochester!ccice5!ccice6!daf In answer to your questions: 1. Maybe 2. Yes *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
abeles@mhuxm.UUCP (abeles) (02/22/85)
> The results of the 1985 Good Housekeeping Most Admired Men Poll are > as follows: > > 1. Ronald Reagan > 2. Jerry Falwell > 3. Billy Graham > 4. Pope John Paul II > 5. Bob Hope > 6. Lech Walesa > 7. Lee Iacocca > 8. Alan Alda > 9. Tom Selleck > 10. Norman Vincent Peale > > Richard Nixon was thirteenth, George Bush fifteenth and Barry Goldwater > twentieth. Any comments? > You bet I have comments! (here are some of them:) These may be the most admired men but they are not the most financially rewarded men. I doubt that accomplished, refined people would even answer a poll like this -- so the results are indicative of a lower class troglydyte (sp.?) subculture anyway. These people (I notice not a single scientist or engineer/technologist with the possible exception of Iacocca) have little to do with advance of society through technology, which is the most significant accomplishment of our times. That's because the average man in the street isn't capable of understanding calculus or anything about science or technology. It's one thing to become a preacher or political leader, and another thing entirely to become a Richard P. Feynman, A. Einstein, etc. --J. Abeles ihnp4!mhuxm!abeles
daf@ccice6.UUCP (David Fader) (02/22/85)
> > If we wanted to read Good Housekeeping don't you think we would. > > Did you have any point you wanted to make? > In answer to your questions: > > 1. Maybe > 2. Yes What was the point? -- The Watcher seismo!rochester!ccice5!ccice6!daf or allegra!rochester!ccice5!ccice6!daf
garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (02/22/85)
> [Good Housekeeping's list of most admired men deleted] > These people (I notice not a single scientist or > engineer/technologist with the possible exception of Iacocca) > have little to do with advance of society through technology, > which is the most significant accomplishment of our times. Technology does not, in and of itself, advance society. It provides us with more efficient ways of doing what we decide to do, whether for good or ill. Technology has produced incredibly effective ways to kill large numbers of people at the same time it has produced ways of allowing people to live longer. It is unfortunate, if true, that technology is the most significant accomplishment of our time. More than technology, we need to learn how to treat one another at individual and aggregate levels; this is not something which can be solved through technology (or through intellectual snobbery). > That's because the average man in the street isn't capable of > understanding calculus or anything about science or technology. It is probably more accurate to say he isn't interested in calculus than to say he isn't capable of calculus. He might ask you how knowing how to solve an indefinite integral will help him get along with his family and his neighbors. > It's one thing to become a preacher or political leader, and > another thing entirely to become a Richard P. Feynman, A. Einstein, > etc. Apparently you think that people related professions, such as preaching and politicking, are easier than object related professions, such as physics. Why do you think this? > --J. Abeles Gary Samuelson ittvax!bunker!garys *** REPLACE THIS MESS WITH YOUR LINEAGE ***
dbrown@watarts.UUCP (Dave Brown) (02/22/85)
> You bet I have comments! (here are some of them:) Ditto, Old bean. > These may be the most admired men but they are not the most > financially rewarded men. I doubt that accomplished, refined > people would even answer a poll like this -- so the results > are indicative of a lower class troglydyte (sp.?) subculture > anyway. These people (I notice not a single scientist or > engineer/technologist with the possible exception of Iacocca) > have little to do with advance of society through technology, > which is the most significant accomplishment of our times. YOU ARE A TECHNOCRATIC SNOB OF THE WORST DEGREE! > That's because the average man in the street isn't capable of > understanding calculus or anything about science or technology. > It's one thing to become a preacher or political leader, and > another thing entirely to become a Richard P. Feynman, A. Einstein, > etc. > > --J. Abeles > ihnp4!mhuxm!abeles In the end, is thje amount of money you make the most important thing in life. Boy, you must be leading an unrewarding life. I don't like to sound too abrasive, as it really isn't my way of doing things, but please, there has to be more to life than making money. Sincerely yours, DAVE BROWN
speaker@gymble.UUCP (Speaker to Animals) (02/23/85)
> [Good Housekeeping's list of most admired men deleted] > These people (I notice not a single scientist or > engineer/technologist with the possible exception of Iacocca) > have little to do with advance of society through technology, > which is the most significant accomplishment of our times. > > That's because the average man in the street isn't capable of > > understanding calculus or anything about science or technology. > > It is probably more accurate to say he isn't interested in > calculus than to say he isn't capable of calculus. He might > ask you how knowing how to solve an indefinite integral will > help him get along with his family and his neighbors. I suspect that these "most admired men" were chosen on the basis of their personality and prominence in the news media. Their professions also require them to be overt and influential which certainly doesn't fulfill MY criteria for a truly admirable man. The average prole in today's world really has no idea of who the great thinkers are and what it is they think about. It is probably more accurate to say that the average man on the street is incapable of handling calculus; getting along with his family; getting along with his neighbors; understanding the social impact of the computer or reading, understanding or critiquing any of the most fundemental texts in philosophy. Instead, he reads the National Inquirer, "Astrology" magazine and learns science and religion from the "you-can-experience-a-miracle-a- day-chariots-of-the-gods-self-help" book rack. In short: The average man on the street is a pig-ignorant weakling and he prefers to remain that way. > > It's one thing to become a preacher or political leader, and > > another thing entirely to become a Richard P. Feynman, A. Einstein, > > etc. > > Apparently you think that people related professions, such as > preaching and politicking, are easier than object related > professions, such as physics. Why do you think this? Who's talking about ease? We're talking about which is more useful and requires more raw brain power. A glib line and charismatic personality do not a great thinker or modern-day renaissance-man make. The ideas of todays self-styled preachers and politicians do not have to withstand the test of reality as do the ideas of engineers and technologists. Object related professionals have their beliefs and ideas placed on the line because the fruits of their profession must be substaniated with fact, not vague promises and pretty prose. Every wonder why people BELIEVED Ronny Ray-gun when he said he'd balance the budget and wipe out the deficits with a sustained annual GNP of %4-5 a year? Why is that man still in office? Not for competant business management that's fer sure. Object related professions require precision formulation and a disciplined mind. Since many more object related professionals have proven themselves to be better all-around thinkers then have the people profesionals, I conclude that the object-professionals are more admirable and make better role models. seismo!trwatf!speaker - Speaker
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (02/26/85)
> > In the end, is thje amount of money you make the most important > thing in life. Boy, you must be leading an unrewarding life. > > DAVE BROWN In a free market, the amount of money you make corresponds directly to the excess in value of the services you have performed that others wanted, over those they have done that you wanted. In other words, how much unrequited good you have done. Some people would consider that rewarding. --JoSH
rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) (02/27/85)
> > In a free market, the amount of money you make corresponds directly > to the excess in value of the services you have performed that others > wanted, over those they have done that you wanted. In other words, > how much unrequited good you have done. Some people would consider > that rewarding. > > --JoSH That must explain why dope dealers are held in such high reguard by most of our society. (Do I really have to put that symbol in here?) *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (03/05/85)
> > In a free market, the amount of money you make corresponds directly > > to the excess in value of the services you have performed that others > > wanted, over those they have done that you wanted. In other words, > > how much unrequited good you have done. Some people would consider > > that rewarding. > > --JoSH > That must explain why dope dealers are held in such high reguard by most > of our society. (Do I really have to put that symbol in here?) Notice that he said "In a free market". The sale and distribution of drugs can hardly be thought of as "free market" conditions. Notice that if there *were* a free market for drugs, the price would fall so far that dope dealers wouldn't be making big bucks. Even drugs like nicotene and alcohol are heavily taxed and controlled by the big G. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "What you mean *WE*, paleface?" - Tonto, at Little Big Horn.
rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) (03/08/85)
> > Notice that he said "In a free market". The sale and distribution of > drugs can hardly be thought of as "free market" conditions. Notice that > if there *were* a free market for drugs, the price would fall so far that > dope dealers wouldn't be making big bucks. Even drugs like nicotene and > alcohol are heavily taxed and controlled by the big G. > -- > Jeff Sonntag I don't want this to sound insulting Jeff, but if you don't believe that drug dealing isn't a "free market", you don't seem to know much about it. ANYONE can become a drug dealer/manufacturer/importer/etc. The reason prices don't fall is because the demand is far above the supply. And there is usually little personal risk involved. BTW, this is not some "insider" information on my part (God forbid!). These facts are commonly available through the various media in this land. *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***