WTF? John Lennon and Princess Diana?

[Ozz]

The articule didn't say how large the list was or
how it was made, Was it printed in the papers?

I was really hoping it was a pandering public
relations grimmick, the alternative is even worse.

[Boris Godunov]

I don't know if one can rightly consider him a Briton, but Handel should have been on the list if so.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Why Di? A no one royal, who will be totally forgotten in 100 years among the top 10 Britons of all time?

I completely agree Imran. It is a f**king disgrace that people like Princess Di, a selfish b*tch can get in the top 10 yet someone like Queen Elizabeth I does not...it is baffling.

And Boris, I found Shakespeare boring and incomprehensible. Another sign of intellectual snobbery on your part

[Paul Hanson]

Well, for me it was a choice between Brunel and Cromwell, and I went for Cromwell.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
And Boris, I found Shakespeare boring and incomprehensible. Another sign of intellectual snobbery on your part

Oh get bent. Shakespeare is loved around the world by people from all walks of life. It is not intellectual snobbery to enjoy Shakespeare, since he is quite popular.

What I find boring are people who trash Shakespeare with the same tired line of finding it "incomprehensible." There's nothing incomprehensible about it, it's not like he was a Dadaist. You just have to do a little work to get the context of what he's talking about and how he's using the language. How is that remotely snobbish?

Oh, and Queen Elizabeth I WAS on the list. Number 1, in fact. I guess with your reading skills, you would find Shakespeare difficult...

[Dauphin]

Diana is now more annoying dead than alive.

If she were alive she would have an awful reputation for her relationships with the likes of Dodi Fayed. Plus that public display of insanity back in Sept '97 would have been avoided.

[Paul Hanson]

The problem with Shakespeare (and this was pointed on a Great Britons TV program about an hour ago) is that a lot of us are forced to learn it from a relatively young age, and this does tend to make us find Shakespeare a tiny bit boring and pompous. I have to admit that I think this way too, but I'm probably wrong about the whole thing.

[Evil Knevil]

To be fair Faboba, some of the Scottish idols you chose werent exactly 'great' although some of their achievements were indeed good.

Logie Baird was a drunk who's mechanical TV was rightly ignored for being crap.

Burns is overated in my opinion, but I admit could be a beautiful wordsmith.

Fleming wasn't really considered to be a serious scientist. In fact it was due to bad cross contamination techniques that he discovered the penicillin mould. The bacterial culture he used was shaped like a cottage, since he found the work so boring.

I think a person that makes a single discovery --such as penicilin-- is not really a great person. A person who towers over their peers would be a better candidate. Nelson was an outstanding Admiral who won many victories. Newton was an intellectual giant, who explored many ideas, although we mostly remember him for gravity... etc

With this criteria, I would have to choose Brunel, Newton and Nelson.

[Shi Huangdi]

"

IMO you have to be fairly great to take a major part in winning a civil war, to preside of the removal of the monarchy and to then run the country for years."

Removing the Monarchs might be nice, but replacing the monarchy with a fundamentalist dictatorship that engages in genocide does not make you great.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Oh get bent. Shakespeare is loved around the world by people from all walks of life. It is not intellectual snobbery to enjoy Shakespeare, since he is quite popular.

What I find boring are people who trash Shakespeare with the same tired line of finding it "incomprehensible." There's nothing incomprehensible about it, it's not like he was a Dadaist. You just have to do a little work to get the context of what he's talking about and how he's using the language. How is that remotely snobbish?

Oh, and Queen Elizabeth I WAS on the list. Number 1, in fact. I guess with your reading skills, you would find Shakespeare difficult...

I thought it said that Queen Elizabeth I was not on the list. I would have found that surprising.

And Shakespeare is incomprehensible. The attitude that only the 'classics' are worthwhile you persist with is tantamount to intellectual snobbery.

I would go with Darwin. Dealing a major death blow to religion, that is what I call impressive

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
And Shakespeare is incomprehensible.

Riiiiight. Everyone who reads and understands it is just pretending? Now who's being elitist?

What parts don't you understand? I would be happy to assist. I promise you, Shakespeare is perfectly comprehensible, once one makes a little effort to learn about the style, poetic use of language and the historical contexts.

The attitude that only the 'classics' are worthwhile you persist with is tantamount to intellectual snobbery.

When have I ever said only the classics are worthwhile? Can't one enjoy the classics as well as popular culture and fiction? You again seem to be the elitist here, asserting anyone who enjoys something you don't and sees it differently from you is somehow wrong. Please.

I have never seriously derided anyone for enjoying a particular style of music, art, film, etc. I have only defended the things I do enjoy against accusations, like yours, that one must be a snob to enjoy it. I'm sure there are plenty of other Shakespeare fans here who would also disagree with your assertion vehemently.

I would go with Darwin. Dealing a major death blow to religion, that is what I call impressive

Except that religion is still quite alive and, in much of the world, exherting more influence than ever. I think Darwin himself would also not like being categorized like this, as his theory was not contradictory to all religious beliefs.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Riiiiight. Everyone who reads and understands it is just pretending? Now who's being elitist?

What parts don't you understand? I would be happy to assist. I promise you, Shakespeare is perfectly comprehensible, once one makes a little effort to learn about the style, poetic use of language and the historical contexts.



When have I ever said only the classics are worthwhile? Can't one enjoy the classics as well as popular culture and fiction? You again seem to be the elitist here, asserting anyone who enjoys something you don't and sees it differently from you is somehow wrong. Please.

I have never seriously derided anyone for enjoying a particular style of music, art, film, etc. I have only defended the things I do enjoy against accusations, like yours, that one must be a snob to enjoy it. I'm sure there are plenty of other Shakespeare fans here who would also disagree with your assertion vehemently.

The only thing Shakespeare seems to be used for is torturing schoolkids. It's written in some old dialect which detracts from any story because it is incomprehensible to me.

Except that religion is still quite alive and, in much of the world, exherting more influence than ever. I think Darwin himself would also not like being categorized like this, as his theory was not contradictory to all religious beliefs.

...only because religion changed it's story...would the catholic church have supported evolution 200 years ago? I don't think so.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison

The only thing Shakespeare seems to be used for is torturing schoolkids.

The tens of thousands of Shakespeare festivals, films, critical studies, college courses, etc. around the world seem to contradict this notion, as they cater to willing, paying adults.

It's written in some old dialect which detracts from any story because it is incomprehensible to me.

Now we see the reality. It's incomprehensible to you, so therefore it must be a worthless thing that only the intellectual snoods would enjoy. If that isn't the epitome of elitism and sheer laziness, I don't know what is.

...only because religion changed it's story...would the catholic church have supported evolution 200 years ago? I don't think so.

That's as may be, but doesn't support any notion that religion is dead or even remotely dying. And Islam isn't nearly as accomodating of evolution as the Catholic Church is, and is the fastest-growing religion in the world.

[Provost Harrison]

How can you derive enjoyment for something that is a chore? I have never been one for literature, granted, but Shakespeare seems to be harder work than most.

And religion is declining, slowly but surely, at least in the civilised world

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
How can you derive enjoyment for something that is a chore? I have never been one for literature, granted, but Shakespeare seems to be harder work than most.

Being a singer is very hard work, involving immense amounts of rehearsal, training, etc. But people love doing it. Why should we hate everything that is hard work? Surely you had to work hard for your current understanding of science?

And it isn't a chore for me. It's pretty easy to read a synopsis of a play, do some really basic homework on a work and then enjoy a performance where the actors, if they're decent, convey so much of the meaning.

It's hard work for a 14 year old, but that's the whole point of introducing it while young. Earlier familiarity can lead to greater future understanding. We read Julius Caesar when I was in 9th grade, and the edition we read was extremely well-annotated and gave explanations side-by-side with the text. Once we watched the film, it was pretty easy to understand what was going on, and then I found myself enjoying the performance immensely. We also read King Lear and Hamlet in a similar manner, and the classroom context was extremely helpful in understanding what was going on.

Now I can see works I haven't studied in-depth and still understand them upon first viewing. And I would be missing out on some truly enjoyable moments if my life if I hadn't seen them.

And religion is declining, slowly but surely, at least in the civilised world

Why do I feel you'd would only define the "civilised" world as the part wherein religion is declining?