• This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. (Western Union internal memo, 1876)
• I cannot imagine any situation that would cause this ship to founder. (Captain E. J. Smith of The Titanic, 1906)
• Aeroplanes are interesting toys but of no military value. (Marshal Foch before WWI)

We are we so bad at predicticng the future? Any further examples?

Ooh! There's an almost never-ending stream of these! Here's one that was proved wrong pretty well immediately:

Henry L. Ellsworth, U. S. Commissioner of Patents, said in 1844:

"...The advancement of the arts from year to year taxes our credulity and seems to presage the arrival of that period when further improvements must end."

Another prediction proved wrong shortly afterwards:

A committee of the British Parliament in 1878 reported Thomas Edison's ideas of developing an incandescent lamp to be:

"...good enough for our transatlantic friends... but unworthy of the attention of practical or scientific men"

A few more about computers:

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." -- Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943.

"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." -- Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977.

"640K ought to be enough for anybody." -- Attributed to Bill Gates, 1981, but believed to be an urban legend.

Computers?

"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons." -- Popular Mechanics, 1949

Quote, "...A committee of the British Parliament in 1878 reported Thomas Edison's ideas of developing an incandescent lamp to be:

"...good enough for our transatlantic friends... but unworthy of the attention of practical or scientific men" ..."

That sounds suspicously like Sir William Preece's comment about the telephone although he added ...in London we have messenger boys..."

Incidentally, Edison, in spite of his efforts, did not invent the incandescent lamp. It was invented by an Englishman, Sir Joseph Swan. (as the telephone was invented by a Scotsman - albeit one who was living in the USA)

The telephone was invented by an Italian living in Cuba, Antonio Meucci. Bell unfairly got the credit for inventing the second one and making it practical.

Meucci: Hullo? Hullo? Is there anyone there?

quote:

---

Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons."

---

Well, that one came true...

Now, now... Settle down, settle down.

Yes, Sir Joseph Swan's incandescent bulb pre-dated Edison's and by a good 20 years as well. I had never heard of Antonio Meucci but googled him up and was rewarded with a collection of histories and pseudo-histories that were interesting enough but did not convince me about the validity of Meucci's claims to have invented the telephone. I'm not saying he didn't BUT...

...but the key is in Aput's ending observation regarding the telephone, "Bell unfairly got the credit for making the second one and making it practical." (italics mine) Similar claims are made regarding the invention of heavier-than-air powered flight. In Meucci's case particularly, the bottom line is - What good is an invention if you can't make it practical? Several claimants to the title of "Father of Flight" freely admitted that their claims rested on the theories they developed even though they themselves were incapable of putting them into practical use.

With Sir Joseph Swan's bulb, my understanding is that his invention proved that it could be done but that the light his bulb produced lasted only a short time. If changing burnt out light bulbs every two minutes or every half hour or whatever was practical, Swan's name would be remembered today as one of the world's leading inventors. As it stands now, it isn't because, simply put, he wasn't. Great, yes, but he was no Edison.


And permit me to add that I'm not posting this with the intention of encouraging any "Our inventors are better than your inventors" debate. I consider arguments of that sort to be tedious wastes of time.

There are two about the Beatles, but I haven't got time to find the actual quotes.

One is the statement made by a record company executive when turning them down - there is no future for guitar bands.

The other is from 1964, something like: long after the noise of the Beatles has died away, people will still be listening to the Singing Nun.

Actually Swan's lamp was as good as Edison's but where Edison did better than Swan was in providing the whole system - including the necessary power stations. Swan did not have that breadth of vision and his lamp(actually more like a modern strip lamp than a bulb) was of little practical use until mains electricity came along.

Swan eventually sued Edison (succesfully) for breach of patent when Edison started to sell his system in the UK. The matter was eventually setlled when Edison and Swan agreed to form a joint venure - the Ediswan company.

Because Edison was a great inventer - and probably the best that America has ever produced - the idea that he invented the electric lamp is a popular myth that generations of American children have accepted.

It's ironic in a way since Edison's very real achievements should, on their own, be enough to assure him of the fame that he justly deserves.

Edison was a great stealer of other's inventions, a great patenter, a great self-promoter, and a hugely successful litigator. That's where his genius lay. He didn't invent the movie camera or projector either. Marey and Le Prince's predate his invention.

Of course, if we listened only to Richard, we would think that everything was invented in the UK! A few months ago Richard and I had a spirited PM going about Edison vs. Swan, and I believe the endpoint was to agree to disagree. Now...Richard has changed my mind in the past (e.g. about the U.S. and Cuba), so it's not that I don't listen to reason. It's just that I don't agree with this one instance.

The problem with inventors or theorists (e.g. Newton) is that they are very ambitious or they wouldn't be able to change society the way they have. Very often these ideas develop in tandem and not in a vacuum, and it is how the idea (or invention) is sold to the public that counts. That surely was the case for those who developed the DNA model. Watson and Crick have gotten all of the credit while Rosalind Franklin has been left in the dark.

Now, of course this doesn't mean that I don't give the Brits their due. One only needs to study history to see how so much literature, so many inventions, scientific theories and social-political theories have come from the Brits. We in American are amazed at that.

Here's a contemporaneous grouping.

Heavier than air flying machines are impossible. - Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society, 1895
It doesn't matter what he does, he'll never amount to anything. - Albert Einstein's teacher, 1895
Everything that can be invented has been invented. - Charles H. Duell, US Commissioner of Patents, 1899

In fact, I would give credit where credit is truly due. An American did invent the typewriter, without which the computer would have been a very different beast.

Well, thank you, Richard!

Oh, oh, I have one! As a high school freshman, Michael Jordan was cut from the varsity team. In fact, this seemed to be an impetus in his extreme desire to win.

One thing that I love about coming into the international terminal of O'Hare is the collection of stained glass windows as you walk along. The very last one is a stained glass picture of Michael.

Who is Michael Jordan again?

He's a shoe salesman, I think.

Surely he's married to that model with the enormous accessories that we saw so much of (her and her accessories) a few weeks ago.

Here we have another cross-thread from the "Cultural Differences" section.

As I understand it, British papers are completely full (one source spoke of 10-12 pages of material in one paper alone) about the current goings-on of prominent footballer _____ Beckham (first name unknown and last name spelling uncertain) and his wife, the artist formally known as "Posh Spice" (actual and/or present name also unknown) and their marital difficulties.

Ask 1,000 Americans "Who are Mr. and Mrs. _____ Beckham?" or "Who are ______ Beckham and his wife _____ _____?" and I sincerely doubt, without exaggeration, that more than 5 people would get it right. And yet Michael Jordon, as least when he was still actively playing, was or is three times as famous over here as your two celebrities are over there.

Sometimes cultural icons make the trans-Atlantic jump (Ask even 1,000 American teenagers to finish the phrase "John, Paul, George, and ______" and I bet more than 75% would get it easily) but sometimes they don't. It's my understanding that even considering my extensive work with Double Dactyls and the OED, mine is not yet a household name in the U.K.

Amazing!

Actually, Michael Jordan is in the news recently.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hic et ubique:
Actually, Michael Jordan _is_ in the news recently.

---

Shouldn't that be "Michael Jordan WAS in the news recently"? Or maybe "Michael Jordan is in the news PRESENTLY"??

"As ye Pick, Pick, Pick, so shall ye be Pick, Pick, Picked upon." (Deuteronomy, I think...)

.... in other news ....

A spokesman for a usually unreliable source, speaking on condition of anonymity, reports that 1,000 British teenagers were asked to finish the sentence, "Chris J. Strolin is ________."

Seven hundred fifty six of those polled correctly stated "Chris J. Strolin is second only to Ogden Nash in publicizing creative methods for breaking the ice .... across the pond."

Clearly a majority.

(Candy is dandy but liquor is quicker.)

Perhaps England never got to know Michael Jordan. But, when he was in his prime, I assure you he was well known throughout the world. This is not one of those cultural differences. In fact, I saw his picture when I was in Italy this September. Other basketball players, maybe, but not Michael.

Would you Brits believe me if I said, "Now, who were those Beatles again?" Same thing.

Quote "...And yet Michael Jordon, as least when he was still actively playing, was or is three times as famous over here as your two celebrities are over there...."

I suggest that this is but an assumption. It would need a careful study of relative exposures to determine this.

Both your and our sports personalities share one characteristic - they are far, far, too over-exposed. They are also grossly overpaid, but that's another matter.

Richard, can you, arnie and Graham honestly say that you've never heard of Michael Jordan? If that is the case, England is much more isolated than I had ever thought. I remember, when he was playing, seeing his picture in countries all around the world.

As for CJ's comment, Shu did the Googling and found CJ's quote accurate, at least regarding Google hits on the Internet. Shu, can you provide that data?

Well I've heard of him but I'd be willing to bet that most people over here haven't. On the other hand I find it hard to believe that anyone in the world hasn't heard of David and Victoria Beckham. Between them they recieve more column inches in most of the papers than Tony Blair, George Bush, the Iraq War, the Olympics, the US Elections and Asylum Seekers combined (pleae note this is a personal estimate NOT a verified statistic). In short they are generally considered by Fleet Street to be the most newsworthy item in the world.

CJ is probably right about the Beckhams. Shu had to tell me who they were. However, many of us here have acknowledged that our news isn't as international as it should be, and I realize that I should read the NY Times more!

Yet, I was surprised when people from England said that they hadn't heard of Michael Jordan, though I agree that he isn't as famous now that he has quit playing basketball. Bob seems to agree with arnie, Graham and Richard that many in England have never heard of Michael. That is surprising to me since it isn't true for the rest of the world. I had always thought England's news was more international than ours is, but that must not be the case.

Shu did a search on Google, and even though Michael is not doing anything publically now and the media is apparently raging about the Beckham's, the Google cites weren't that different between the 2. While it is only one medium, it is a big one. I am waiting for Shu's data; I think he did it with Google news. Shu, where are you?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

CJ sort of implied that people over there didn't generally wouldn't know the Beckhams by his inability to recall ther names. However I do take your point and that might havebeen CJ being silly (perish the thought !).

However if you use www.google.co.uk restricted to UK sites to search for David Beckham you get 186000 hits compared to 3876 for Michael Jordan which is a quite significant difference.

What I think you are failing to take into account is that for the vast majority of sports fans over here the if it isn't Football (Soccer), Cricket or Rugby then it isn't worth mentioning so that while in general we are quite clued up on foreign affairs, foreign sport is another matter entirely.
As for the non sports fans...well I have no idea how I have heard of Michael Jordan...

Actually ignore that last post completely.
I misspelled Jordan. If you spell it properly it produces more hits than Beckham does which is trully bizarre. I stand by the contention that people over here generally won't know him but it doesn't seem supported by the internet stats.

Quote "...Richard, can you, arnie and Graham honestly say that you've never heard of Michael Jordan?..."

I can. Until this morning I had never heard of the man. But then , I never, ever, read the back pages of newspapers nor do I ever, ever watch TV sport. I make no secret of the fact that sport, all sport, generates in me a deep loathing, approached only by the loathing I have for A-B Budweiser!

Incidentally, on the worlwide search I made it 1,020,000 for David Beckham and 1,340,000 for Michael Jordan. However, on the very first page for Jordan, the second entry is for Michael I. Jordan, Professor, University of California at Berkeley. Whereas for Beckham all the entries on the first page are for the footballer. So we need also to take into account the relative popularity of the names and my instinctive feeling is that Jordan is probably more common than Beckham.

Bob,

Maybe all those extra extra cites for Jordan refer to the "model" Jordan, Katy Price. I think she's the one with the enormous accessories that Richard referred to in his post above. There's no doubt that she's over-exposed, either.

Richard, you seem to be thinking of Jordan as some run-of-the-mill American basketball player, as I might think of the Beatles as some run-of-the-mill entertainers. That is not the case for either. Just as many article about the Beatles appeared on the front pages of newspapers, so has Michael Jordan appeared on the front pages of newpapers worldwide.

I am truly astonished that, in truth, you have never heard of Michael Jordan. While I hadn't heard of David Beckham, I am annoyed at myself for not reading more internationally. I just searched the Chicago Tribune and found that they had published 2 articles about him on April 8th and one on April 13th. I just hadn't read those articles.

Kalleh,

As Bob said, the only sports followed by the vast majority of sports fans over here are football (what you call soccer), cricket and rugby. Basketball is very much a minority interest.

If you asked a group of Brits to name a top basketball player I'm pretty sure that the vast majority would be unable to come up with a single name. A few would probably come up with Michael Jordan, but I doubt that any would be able to think of a current player. The same would apply to American Football, baseball and ice hockey.

OJ Simpson is another example. I doubt that many had ever heard of him before pictures of that weird car chase appeared on our televisions. Even now, we know of him as an American ex-sportsman, but I doubt that many could confidently name his sport. I had to Google to find he played American football.

The majority sports played in America and Canada are very much minority sports in the rest of the world, with a few exceptions such as baseball in Japan. The game you call soccer the rest of the world calls football, and is the one truly international game.

quote:

---

Originally posted by BobHale:
CJ sort of implied that people over there didn't generally wouldn't know the Beckhams by his inability to recall ther names. However I do take your point and that might havebeen CJ being silly (perish the thought !).

---

Oh no, not at all! That wasn't silliness on my part - just laziness in not researching the last name to find the first. In turn, I assume the tortured syntax of the first part of the above was humor on B.H.'s part, possibly the result of a recent exposure to some Icelandic Alice.


I'm mildly astounded by the response this debate has generated but I may have a way of putting it to rest. During my last trip to my library I took an informal poll (meaning no money changed hands - my never-ending thirst for knowledge, contrarily enough, has its limits) and asked at total of 13 people "Are you familiar with the names David and Victoria Beckham? They've been in the news recently."

The results:

4 librarians - "I don't know"

1 other librarian - "They were a missionary couple kidnapped in the Phillipines." (and said in a tone of absolute certainty)

1 librarian assistant - "He's a soccer player and she used to be Posh Spice." (I nearly fainted! She explained that she volunteers at her kids' soccer camp and had been a big Spice Girls fan back in the day, but still...)

1 aquaintance - "I don't know."

3 strangers - "I don't know."

1 stranger's friend - "I know them but I can't remember from where." (Yeah, right!)

1 bored-looking teen-ager - "He plays soccer." (!!)

1 other stranger who looked (and please believe me when I say I'm not describing him this way to be cruel) like a possibly mentally challenged homeless person, so much so that I almost didn't ask him since I thought his "I don't know" would skew the results in my favor - "He plays soccer."

Both of the final two people cited the movie "Bend it Like Beckham" as the source of their correct answer.

SO! 3 people out of 13 got it right and I officially retract my apparently brash statement regarding polling 1,000 Americans etc. As much as these scientific results astound me, I'm willing to concede the strong liklihood that I'll get another 3 correct answers if I ask 987 more Americans.

Having said that, however, there's no doubt in my mind that Michael Jordan (and, even more so, Muhammad Ali) are far more well known throughout the entire world than Mr. & Mrs. B.

Another celebrity you could throw into the debate would be Michael Jackson. True story: While stationed in Panama, I was sent well into the interior on a temporary duty assignment. While working in a village with no electricity or running water, I happened to notice a young boy, about 7 or 8 years old, making his way out of a jungle thicket wearing no shoes, no pants, BUT a faded Michael Jackson T-shirt. A bizarre sight to say the least.

If you asked a group of Brits to name a top basketball player I'm pretty sure that the vast majority would be unable to come up with a single name. A few would probably come up with Michael Jordan, but I doubt that any would be able to think of a current player.

But, arnie, my point was that the world knew Michael Jordan--not basketball players in general. Obviously, I am not getting my point across because the Brits keep saying, "We like soccer, not any of your sports." But, that's not the point! I know that already.

My point is that, worldwide, Michael Jordan has transcended the basketball image. I have seen so many pictures of him across the world.

I am sure if I sent an e-mail to our staff here, very few would have heard of Beckham, as well. I thought about sending an e-mail to all the international attendees at that Oxford conference I just attended, asking them if they had heard of Michael. But, then I thought better of it. I don't want to appear to be a typical American! Yet, I am sure they would have all heard of him. I think Richard may be the only person I have ever known not to have heard of Michael, though I am very skeptical as to the veracity of his comment. He does like to get my goat, from time to time.

Okay, I'll drop it now. This is getting to be like my "epicaricacy" obsession.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

Quote "...Richard, you seem to be thinking of Jordan as some run-of-the-mill American basketball player, as I might think of the Beatles as some run-of-the-mill entertainers...."

Kalleh, I have never lied to you and hope I never will. I am not "...thinking of Jordan..." in any way at all. I had never, never heard of him until yesterday. Now I have I still really couldn't care less whether he plays or played basketball, football or tiddywinks. I have no, repeat no, interest in sport or sports personalities - be they British, Amnerican or Nepalese.

What little I am obliged to know, because the media's unhealthy interest, leads me to believe that Arnie's suggestion that "...The majority sports played in America and Canada are very much minority sports in the rest of the world, with a few exceptions such as baseball in Japan..." is correct.

One of the undeniable facts of life is that we tend to assume that what we know well must be well-known - and that's just not true. You might think that Michael Jordan "...has transcended the basketball image..." and that there are pictures of him all over the world. I cannot recall having seen a single one. Before yesterday I knew not (and cared not) who he was, what he did and what he looked like.

You are not alone in your indifference toward Michael Jordan, Richard.

Until very recently I had no idea who he is. Although I had heard his name, I knew not whether he was a movie actor, a musician, a politician, or an athlete. Nor did I care.

Michael Jordan is used to advertise shoes, hence my "shoe salesman" remark earlier. The company that employs him is international, and that is why Kalleh saw his picture in Italy and elsewhere. I imagine that the vast majority of people in Italy neither know nor care who he is.

Many "multi-national" companies use American advertising agencies, who make the same mistake as Kalleh; they assume that because a person is famous in America, he must be famous throughout the world. America is quite probably their largest customer base, so their ad may sell quite well, but to the rest of the world they might as well have picked an anonymous actor to sell the product.

Beckham is famous throughout the world (apart from America) because of his football ability (and good looks) and is therefore a hot advertising "property". Michael Jordan is famous throughout America, presumably because of his basketball ability, and is also "hot", but for the reasons I've given above, is not famous throughout the world.

Wow. A single facetious comment has generated all this correspondence. Of course I know who Michael Jordan is - I have been in sports shops where they advertised his Nike products.

Is every basketball game still 86-84?

In his book "Stupid White Man" Michael Moore makes the point (and I paraphrase) that if the average American knew as much about world affairs as he or she does about sport, the world (and America) would be a happier place.

Of course, Michael Moore is very anti-establishment but I feel he has a point.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard English:
In his book "Stupid White Man" Michael Moore makes the point (and I paraphrase) that if the average American knew as much about world affairs as he or she does about sport, the world (and America) would be a happier place.

Of course, Michael Moore is very anti-establishment but I feel he has a point.

---

Hey, let's not single out the Americans here. If the average Brit cared as much about politics as he does about 9o minutes football on a Saturday afternoon we'd probably get a representitive size turn out for elections and maybe (though it's doubtful given the available options) some better Government.

The quote was Michael Moore's not mine.

And whereas I agree with your observation about the average Briton, I suspect that the situation in the USA might be even worse.

Kalleh is ranting again....

who make the same mistake as Kalleh
Truly, I wasn't planning to write about this anymore...until arnie said that I made a "mistake." I don't think I have made a mistake. I have seen television clips, heard radio reports, and have read dozens of foreign newspapers writing about Michael, and not only on the sports pages (which I see that in England they call them the Sport Pages). In fact, as I said, while I was in Italy I saw pictures of Michael Jordan. We have met many people from all over the world here in Chicago at various museums and exhibits, and one of the first questions to us is about Michael Jordan. Just because Jerry and Richard hadn't heard of him doesn't go to show that I am "mistaken" about this. I don't think I am, but I don't quite know how to prove it. There must be a way using Google (though I am sure Arnie won't show me! )

And, Richard, as to your last statement, I really don't think it is fair. Surely our numbers exceed yours, so for sheer numbers you are right. There are some self-centered, beer-drinking, ignorant people who only read the sports pages and know about sports. However, there are the Jerrys of the U.S. too who don't...just like in England.

BTW, I have known some very erudite and humanitarian people who also happened to be sports fans. Similarly, I have seen some some ignorant, selfish people who knew a lot about world affairs. In other ways there are good people who happen to like sports and bad people who happen to know world affairs. Making judgments about others is dangerous. After all, there are a lot of people here in the states who make the false judgment that all beer drinkers are sports fans!

Okay, now I vow not to say any more!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

As I said, the quote was Michael Moore's not mine.

And my suspicion (and it is only that) was based on Michael Moore's statement and my own observation about the many sports-related comments I have seen on US boards.

I did not, and would not, suggest that my suspicion is a fact without having done rather more research.

OK, Kalleh says she's spoken her piece in full (time will tell) so let me jump back into the fray.

Since yesterday I've asked 8 more people about David & Victoria Beckham and the total score now stands at 3 and 18. Of the 8 most recent "I don't know"s however, 7 HAD heard of the movie "Bend it Like Beckham" although no one correctly identified his wife as the former Posh Spice even when prompted in that direction.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, we know that soccer/football is played throughout the world, popular everywhere except for the U.S. That point need not be made again (and again and again) thank you, though I will add that this situation may be changing. Soccer is a far more popular sport in U.S. elementary and secondary schools today than it was 15 or 20 years ago so who knows what the future will bring.


This reminds me of a recent argument in favor of having, of all things, ballroom dancing made an Olympic sport! Ballroom dancing backers base this ridiculous idea on their claim that this form of "sport" is found in over three quarters of the countries of the world. Hell! Masturbation is damn near universal but that doesn't mean I want to see it become an Olympic sport! (The mind boggles.)


George Carlin had a hilarious routine describing the difference between sports and games ("Bowling isn't a sport because you have to rent the shoes!") in which he claimed Soccer wasn't a sport because the ball had dots on it and, more importantly, except for the goalie nobody can use their hands. Maybe if the powers-that-be would make this entirely sensible adjustment to the rules of the game, we Americans might get on board and truly make soccer an international game.

Richard: One of the undeniable facts of life is that we tend to assume that what we know well must be well-known - and that's just not true.

Search amazon.com for the number of books found by inputting 'Michael Jordan' and with 'David Beckham', respectively.
Michael Jordan: 23,767
David Beckham: 658

Even when you take a site that's clearly biased to the UK, namely amazon.co.uk
Michael Jordan: 282
David Beckham: 59

Kalleh..
I'm with you... Go Girl! I like sports and tend to stay moderately interested.. but that doesn't mean I'm a troglodyte beer-swilling moron.

Just because one is not interested in sports, does not mean that the people who ARE interested are wrong. I asked almost every child who entered my library today if they knew who Michael Jordan was... 100% of them did.. that's about 200 students... They also knew the U.S. President! ...

I had about 15 who knew Beckham... they were the soccer players..

Enough of this for me!
Hang time!

Two points:

Quote "...Search amazon.com for the number of books found by inputting 'Michael Jordan' and with 'David Beckham', respectively..."

Could that maybe have something to do with the difference in the relative career lengths?

2. I don't quite know how this thread seems to have degenerated into a pro and anti-sport rant. I don't like sports, any sports. But I have never suggested that those that do are wrong. They have their preferences; I have mine.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Richard English,

I've never really liked sports, but I have heard of both Michael Jordan and David Beckham. Jordan was in a movie with Warner Brothers cartoon characters. Never saw the movie. But it got press when it came out. Beckham I first heard of when I watched the movie Bend It Like Beckham. Then there was the news coverage (on radio) of Beckham and his wife's marital woes. I recognize Jordan's face because he's had a lot of exposure on TV here in the States, mainly in advertisements. I really don't know what Beckham looks like. Posh Spice was, of course, one of the Spice Girls. I doubt that I could recognize her face, but I've heard of them, too. Sort of a British Village People. Pop band by committee. For about 5 years when we first got married, my wife and I did not own a or watch TV. Yet, I was able to absorb a lot of information about some popular TV shows because folks would talk about them. In 1985, I was buying a train ticket in London to go to Germany, when the clerk noticed my passport had been issued in San Francisco, and, out of the blue, he asked me how I felt about "your San Francisco Forty-Niners". I didn't quite understand him at first, but then realized he was talking about that team's chances of winning in the Super Bowl. I expressed amazement that he'd even heard American football let alone the 49ers. He explained he bet some money on the outcome. I wished him luck and left for the continent that evening.

Oh, I might as well give up trying not to post here! My doilies are dusted!

There you have it, Richard. Two of the Americans here don't like sports, jheem and Jerry. And, I happen to know Asa feels the same way. So, not all Americans are sports fans. Wouldn't life be boring if we all liked the same thing? I think the diversity is wonderful.

Richard: I don't like sports, any sports. But I have never suggested that those that do are wrong. They have their preferences; I have mine.

Ah, but that was my point. I did think you suggested that those who like sports are, well, maybe shallow? Or inferior? If my perception was wrong, I apologize. I surmised that from these comments of yours:

I make no secret of the fact that sport, all sport, generates in me a deep loathing, approached only by the loathing I have for A-B Budweiser!

In his book "Stupid White Man" Michael Moore makes the point (and I paraphrase) that if the average American knew as much about world affairs as he or she does about sport, the world (and America) would be a happier place.

Often, I think, prejudice or bias against groups (Americans, Jews, Muslims, Germans, whatever) develops because we tend to dismiss what we don't know about. For example, our children attended a very goyish elementary school. Our kids' friends were skeptical of Jewishness....until I came in and gave them a Hannukah party. They ate latkes, lit the Menorah, and played dreidle. They learned to respect, and like, Judaism. I particularly remember a delightful 5-year old saying, "Oh, latkes are hashbrowns!"

Likewise, honestly, I do think when Richard comes to Chicago in a few weeks, were I to take him to a Cubs game, he would go away not "loathing" sports. Just the experience of going to a game in the "friendly confines" of Wrigley Field, drinking beer (aha!) and eating, being with enthusiastic people of all ages on a warm, beautiful day...well, I think he would change his mind. Perhaps he wouldn't learn the nuances of baseball....I don't know them....but he would like the experience. I know he would. However, don't worry, Richard, that isn't in our plans!

Having said all that, I recognize that I surely am ignorant about certain cultural phenomena, and therefore probably biased. Richard helped me, for example, to understand Cuba's culture better. I don't mean to be saying that everyone else is biased, but I am perfect. I think we all need to work on understanding each other better, and that's why I love this board.