If you haven't voted for Brunel yet, you've got 25 mins 090 11 22 1066.

Why isnt Tony Blair on there he's worked wonders for Britain!?!:p

Damn too late. Churchill may be a top dude but I still feel that his greatness is more about circumstance than true grit, determination and intelligence, but there you go. We all know that Brunel is the real daddy !

I feel that Churchill was in the right place at the right time. If he was there there would have been another Prime Minister and he could have stopped the war in 2 years but if not we could all be speaking German now.

 

However, Brunel, made at the time the world longest bridge, when people thought that they couldnt stretch that long, cutting hours off travel time, and in the long run saving money.

He made the first metal ship when people said it wouldnt float, then they where too big, but now we have tankers over 1/4 a mile long.

 

He made railways, which are mostly now either unused or tourist attractions but they are in better working condition than the ones used now.

 

He built tunnels which again cut time off travel and was never done before.

 

However Diana personally should have been no where near the top 10 yet alone 3rd.

 

Stuart

Originally posted by SRRAE

However Diana personally should have been no where near the top 10 yet alone 3rd.

 

Stuart

 

I second that.

 

Erm, John Lenon - was that put in for comic effect?

 

No offence to any hippies out there but - please. National contribution? I think not!

 

Just thank your lucky stars that Beckham and Robbie Millions didn't make it to the top, shows what a shallow, unthinking society we live is doesn't it.

 

Just my 2penneth. :D

 

Tim

Brave effort by that Alan wotsisname to push for John Lennon. But even as a registered ex-hippy, I don't think he's as Great-Briton-ish as (say) Churchill.

 

BTW his full name was actually John Winston Lennon until he got involved with that youwling Japanese banshee and changed it to John Ono Lennon. Not many people know that.

 

Still, if Brunel had to lose out, at least it was to Churchill and not that upper class twit.

Originally posted by TT Tim

I second that.

 

Erm, John Lenon - was that put in for comic effect?

 

No offence to any hippies out there but - please. National contribution? I think not!

Tim

 

I think the Lenon had the advantage of dieing young. If he was still alive now I dont think he would have been in the top 10. Even Alan himself in a way admitted that Lenon shouldnt have been there.

 

I have a feeling that in 50 years if the do something like that again, Lenon would not be in the top 10 and neither would Diana.

Originally posted by TT Tim

I second that.

 

Erm, John Lenon - was that put in for comic effect?

 

No offence to any hippies out there but - please. National contribution? I think not!

 

shows what a shallow, unthinking society we live is doesn't it.

 

 

 

Talking about one's self are we ? How can u say the music of John Lennon and the Beatles is not a contribution ?!:confused:

Originally posted by Nelson MainFella

Talking about one's self are we ? How can u say the music of John Lennon and the Beatles is not a contribution ?!:confused:

 

Careful Nelson, he didn't say that having J Lennon on the list shows what a shallow etc. He said that having R Williams and V Beckham on the list showed etc etc.

 

Probably right.

 

And yes, the Fab Four did make a National Contribution - but was theirs in the same league as (say) saving the UK and probably Europe and maybe even US from the Nazis? Probably not.

 

They're probably as important in music as Shakespeare is to English but neither did something that ensured the survival of their nation. And both should have come ahead of the blonde bimbo.

Originally posted by Gio

And yes, the Fab Four did make a National Contribution - but was theirs in the same league as (say) saving the UK and probably Europe and maybe even US from the Nazis? Probably not.

 

They're probably as important in music as Shakespeare is to English but neither did something that ensured the survival of their nation. And both should have come ahead of the blonde bimbo.

 

It's difficult to compare influences which are in very different fields. I think it's easier for some influences to be clearly defined and therefore rated higher than others.

 

The influence of the arts affects different people to a greater or lesser extent. I believe the arts encrich many people's lives in very subtle ways. Without music, I think I would have been locked up years ago !

 

;)

Originally posted by Nelson MainFella

Talking about one's self are we ? How can u say the music of John Lennon and the Beatles is not a contribution ?!:confused:

 

Have you heard it! A severe case of 'emperors new clothes', but not as overrated as Oasis :p

 

Mike

Originally posted by Herman Munster

Have you heard it! A severe case of 'emperors new clothes', but not as overrated as Oasis :p

 

Mike

 

what does this mean ??:confused:

I've heard most of the Beatles and Lennon's music. Early Beatles is very different from late Beatles. While many other artists have produced works of comparable quality, the important thing about the Bealtes was that they were innovative, ahead of their time, and they shaped society probably more than they were a product of it. They wrote numerous classic songs, of the quality that many other artists are lucky if they write one in a career.

 

Note that their best music has not dated, and I believe the reason more young people rate them than the older ones is due to the fact that their later music was ahead of it's time.

 

I don't think Lennon was a totally wonderful person; he did get carried away with himself, but he wanted to do good, and was not afraid of being ridiculed. His creative output is what was amazing imho.

 

 

ALSO - what about Isaac Newton ?! I reckon he achieved more than Brunel.

Originally posted by Nelson MainFella

It's difficult to compare influences which are in very different fields. I think it's easier for some influences to be clearly defined and therefore rated higher than others.

 

The influence of the arts affects different people to a greater or lesser extent. I believe the arts encrich many people's lives in very subtle ways. Without music, I think I would have been locked up years ago !

 

;)

 

Yes Lenon did make some good songs, but besides Imagine and Give Peace a Chance, what else has he done to move the masses?

Yes Diana did do charity work but she is not the only person in the world who worked for a charity. There are people who have done more work for charity than her and didnt need 1000 photographers following her. With the land mines you dont see the 200 army men behind the cameras checking the road she was on didnt have any mines.

 

The thing about science v leadership v arts, is art is very subjective. One person may like it, while one person may hate it. We have all seen the entries to the Turner prize, which past winners have included, an empty room with lights flashing, an un-made bed, a pickeled sheep and one German artist tried to submit a homeless steel worker as a peice of art!. As for music its the same. I think Oasis are not good enough to play in the local pub some say they are good.

 

However with science and leadership, we can see the results. Brunel built at the time the world longest bridge, the worlds biggest ship, which is a huge moment for steel constructions because people said that steel is too heavy to make anything big out of. Look now we have steel ships 1/4 a mile long, buildings 1/2 a mile high.

 

With leadership, we can see the results all around us. The fact that I am typing in English right now is thanks to Winston Churchill and to the millions of people who fought in the WWII and other wars.

Elizabeth I showed great currage and leadership though her years as Queen, and in a very male dominated time, where she would have been killed if she wasnt careful. Many wars where won under her and she knew how to make this country feel good about themselves.

 

I must admit that it will be harder for people now to make a mark on the world. We now expect to be amazed with every new contruction or new product. People 100 years ago said tunnels under rivers where impossible, ships so large and weighing hudreds of tonnes would sink, bridges made of steel and spanning so long will fall down. But these things were built and used and lasted, and people where truley amazed!

But now we have tunnels 30 miles long, bridges 5 miles long, ships 20 stories high and we are not amazed because we know it can be done. Why do we know it can be done? Because 100 years a go 1 person showed the world what could be made with metal and a mind.

 

I thank you for listening. ;)

 

Stuart

What about Fred Dibnah ?

Originally posted by Nelson MainFella

What about Fred Dibnah ?

 

hehehe steam powered Zed, now there's a thought :)

 

It's been an interesting thread - what's more important: ideas? music? words? actual real things? Whatever you think, it's probably true to say that all of these things are affected by the physical context in which they occur. It would be difficult to imagine the Beatles in a "Nazified" Britain (the Nazis banned jazz as "decadent" - what on earth would they have thought of the Sex Pistols?).

 

So Churchill's actions as well as words gave us the ability to enjoy the Beatles and Shakespeare and so on.

 

BTW did you know that Brunel also invented the shape of the traditional English saloon bar, made GMT necessary and built a railway that sucked?!

Im voting for Bill Hicks.

 

Dead at 32 from Pancreatic Cancer.

 

Listen to him, and appreciate that the world is round with no geographical constraint or physical border or national flag.

People today tend to be unable to see beyond their little box and what goes on in and around their lifetime.

 

How many can remember who invented the Spinning Jenny or who saved the UK in battles?

 

Most "youngsters" today are more concerned with pressing the right picture on their McDonald's tills and how many goals Beckham has scored...

 

Personally I think that Diana offered hope to a lot of people, for some reason...the world was certainly rocked when she died, but she was nowhere near as important as say, Darwin or Churchill. Although I too believe that Churchill was in the right place at the right time...