Good question. I suppose I'd want a dinner conversation with someone who is witty and knowledgable but still willing to listen to others. I suspect many "famous" people would totally dominate procedings with their well polished anecdotes. Interview shows like "Parkinson" are an example of this, you rarely see anything personal or truely spontaneous. So I'll settle for someone expert in their chosen field (whatever it is), with a passion for life, who loves good food and wine, doesn't take themselves to seriously and likes other people. Big breasts would also help. Jeff

LOL well said...

The list is long.

Robert and George Stephenson.

Isambard Kingdom Brunel

Joseph Bazalgette

Amelia Earhart

Mikhail Gorbachev

Stanley Unwin

Harry Secombe, Peter Sellers, Spike Milligan and Michael Bentine, all together.

Dame Judi Dench

Jodie Foster

Kevin Spacey

John Cleese

etc., etc.

No Mark Chapman?

GOD!

Wouldn't the believers say he's there allready all the time?

His conversation is non existant... and he's such a know all!

Not loaves and fishes again?

How about Archimedes?

Fishes? Oh, no.....

It may sound a bit cliche, but the Dalai Lama. I saw an interview with him, and, all media editing aside, he was an inspiring, truly happy individual.

I met the Dalai Lama about 15 years ago, and he just lit up when he saw my (then infant) son's golden curly hair. He is remarkably humble, extremely bright and insightful, and, as you say, inspiring and truly happy. Not only does he put "love thy neighbor" into practice, but he has written extensively (and taught) with pragmatic advice regarding how you can actually accomplish that (as opposed to simply mouthing the words).

Coincidently, given the nature of this forum, he is also completely intrigued by technology -- he really gets a kick out of interesting new stuff.

He's high on my list too, as is Martin Luther King.

I met the Dalai Lama .. WOW ! That must have been really something. He does seem to put all other contenders for a 'like-to-talk-with' list way down the ranking. Serenity appears to radiate from him in that calm manner , and it's still there when he appears jocular and inquiring. Do you think that any of the films that portray him encapsulate his persona better than others ? I'd be interested to hear any recommended viewing you have Ken.

Once again, I fail you... nothing to offer on millimeter wave technology, and nothing to offer here, at least in the way of films. I think he comes across well in interviews, and the portrayals of him in popular movies have been OK, but what is particularly striking is that he is genuinely interested in talking to everyone, and anyone... and that is not captured well on film. It's been said that Bill Clinton could make you feel like your were the only interesting person in the room -- and I'm sure a certain amount of that is studied, and practiced. (But giving Bill his due, I think a certain amount is genuine, too -- he really does like people and likes to hear what they have to say.) But with the Dalai Lama, it seems strikingly and completely genuine: you don't get even a hint that there is anything at all "political" about him.

15 years ago, it was not too difficult to see the Dalai Lama in relatively small groups of people. When I saw him in Ithaca NY, where there is a Tibetan re-settlement and monastery, about 75-100 of us went to a a talk he gave under a tent in a very pretty and rural setting. We met him in a receiving line, where people tend to be rather reverent and quiet (I remember wondering about the "right" way to bow, etc.). I was holding my son, who, at the time, had long curly blond hair that glowed in the sun. The Dalai Lama saw him and smiled and chuckled and rubbed his head, and said "What a beautiful child!" -- it was the reaction you might expect from a doting grandmother.

That afternoon, there were many questions from the audience, some quite thought- provoking. Several times he would say "That's a very good question. I am just a simple monk, but I think..." There is no false modesty there, he really thinks he is a simple monk, spreading peace and love as best he can.

Better than movies, probably, are books. A lot of what he says requires some reflection to understand, and books lend themselves to reading and rereading.

No fail there at all Ken. Catching some brief glimpse of another persons experience is always interesting. I periodically go browsing in book stores for subject matter that I'm vague on, and will be looking for an addition about this fascinating man. Wouldn't it be a great thing if the 'Third Commitment' became a thing of history. Thanks.

Martin Luther

His "tabletalk" with guests at dinner must have been wonderfully full of thought provoking discussion and beer.

Especially while kicking Jesse under the table trying to get him to shut up.

From http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/REFORM/LUTHER.HTM:

Luther was not a person you would want to have dinner with; he was temperamental, peevish, egomaniacal, and argumentative.

Sounds like your dinner might be full of verbal sparring. I suppose the success of protestantism might only fuel his ego. On the other had, upon hearing your description of how things have gone in the last five centuries, he might relax: with the threat of being burned at the stake gone, he has less to be temperamental and argumentative about.

Yes, but Luther never wanted to break with the Catholic Church. He wanted to reform it from within. It was only when the Pope had him ex-communicated that he was force to leave the Church and start his own.

He would probably also object to the extremes of Calvinism. Bear in mind that there are major rifts in Protestantism as well. Or can it be called a rift if they never were together? Besides Lutheran churches, non-Calvinists include Anglican (Episcopal in the US), Methodists, and Baptists. Even today's Calvinist churches, including Presbyterians, some Evangelicals, UCC (comprised of former Evangelicals, Reformed, and Congregationalists), and many other large Protestant bodies, have abandoned some of the Calvin's extreme teachings (no music, no art in church, etc.) and embraced ecumenicism, which the Catholic Church has still not entirely, excluding most Protestants, except certain Lutheran denominations, from its Communion, from which Protestants, in turn, do not exclude anyone. But then, that is a whole other discussion, which, of course, it would be interesting to get Luther's take on!

Perhaps it would be better to get old Martin down to the pub and hoist a few. Then you would really find out what he thought!

Norman Augustine. And before he took leave I would want to ask him one final thing: Why around 98% of engineers, 95% of Lockheed Martin engineers who reach senior management level, and 90% of people in general, persistently misuse that most misused of all words--the word comprise--over 90% of the time; and I might even show him annual reports were most of his division managers--including the CEO who replaced him at Lockheed Martin--were more likely than not use the word incorrectly....in written prose that is, since, funny thing, the word is almost never used in oral speech.

Then we could have one final chuckle after noting how, at his former employer, correct use of the word, unconsciously or otherwise, would probably have been at an employee's own peril, if that employee wanted to be seen as a team player, or hoped ever to get an office on mahogany row. Perhaps Mr. Augustine would be inspired to add another law to the next release of his book: In large corporations it is better for a hundred engineers to be wrong at the same time, than for one to be not wrong a dozen different times.

Funny, I used to rant about the misuse of "comprise," and once in a while, I still do. But I fear we are on the wrong side of the issue now. As you say, 90% of people in general use it "incorrectly." Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive, so dictionaries should now be showing the incorrect usage as OK.

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

Even though careful writers often maintain this distinction, comprise is increasingly used in place of compose, especially in the passive: The Union is comprised of 50 states. Our surveys show that opposition to this usage is abating. In the 1960s, 53 percent of the Usage Panel found this usage unacceptable; in 1996, only 35 percent objected. See Usage Note at include.

Only 35% of the American Heritage Dictionary usage panel (a pretty astute group) objected! We've lost! We can't get no satisfaction!

http://www.bartleby.com/61/72/C0537200.html

"Dictionary usage panel (a pretty astute group) objected!

Sad but true. I guess it hinges on which part of pretty astute is the operative descriptor. I suppose that many more of those in the earlier, just plain astute dictionary panel, must have been around when correct understanding of the word, in a logical rather than babble-for-effect sense, was imparted--during vocabulary instruction it was--in the fifth or sixth grade of primary school.

Still, in the same way that any word or phrase can be introduced into the common language, it seems there might be some way to re-introduce correct usage of comprise... say, by encouraging its unfettered use in popular speech. If the masses began to use the word correctly--for fear of being seen as uncool--the professional and academic classes would probably be quick to follow. Maybe.

I have also considered introducing a stockholders resolution at the next annual meeting of Lockheed Martin Corp. (something like):

"Whereas it is a vexation, and disheartening, for owners to see their senior company officials write (in annual reports and otherwise) at an educational level less than befitting, both, of their executive positions and of the Corporation's image of unsurpassed expertise, and

"Whereas the annual reports of the Corporation consistently and overwhelmingly reveal persistent basic misunderstanding and misuse of the word comprise by contributing executives (as delineated in the exhibits), be it therefore

"Resolved: That all corporate-communications senior officials and all key corporate management officials presently holding, or under consideration for, promotion or appointment to the rank of Vice President or equivalent, shall be encouraged to demonstrate proficiency in grammatically correctly usage of the word, comprise, in all spoken or published corporate communications and

"That the corporation shall fund and provide remedial instruction, free of charge, to any qualifying employee or employment candidate failing to demonstrate such proficiency, and

"That no person receiving such instruction shall be compensated during the time made available for such instruction."

No doubt such a proposal would be seen as coming from a kook stockholder, but no kookier than most stockholder proposals appearing on every LM proxy statement. And, equally without doubt, the board would (once more) somehow find the words--albeit perhaps without the logic--to recommend against stockholder approval. But the vote wouldn't matter since it could be expected that pains will be taken by executives to prevent any future "composed of's" from being associated with their names on future reports. And who knows? Some might even come to understand how it is that saying "the components of a system are composed of the system" leads to the realization that the phrase, comprised of, is logically devoid of meaning.

Oh yes. I believe Mr. Augustine, as a major stockholder, would be amused. He might even become stimulated enough to inquire of his editor, as to how that one "comprised of" managed to slip by and be printed in his otherwise well written book.

What I find amusing is all of your comments (#12, 16, 22, and 23) and objections to this particular usage of the word "comprise". Seems like a silly criticism to me.

You may cite American Heritage, but it is Merriam-Webster that is cited and used in courts of law, which are of course the ultimate arbiters of any dispute. Please read with particular care the paragraph on usage at the end of the M-W entry below and think about revising your position, or at least what comprises your position on use of this word!

~~~~~~~~~~~~

comprise

One entry found.

comprise

Main Entry: com·prise

Pronunciation: \kəm-ˈprīz\

Function: transitive verb

Inflected Form(s): com·prised; com·pris·ing

Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French compris, past participle of comprendre, from Latin comprehendere

Date: 15th century

1 : to include especially within a particular scope <civilization as Lenin used the term would then certainly have comprised the changes that are now associated in our minds with "developed" rather than "developing" states — Times Literary Supplement>

2 : to be made up of <a vast installation, comprising fifty buildings — Jane Jacobs>

3 : compose, constitute <a misconception as to what comprises a literary generation — William Styron> <about 8 percent of our military forces are comprised of women — Jimmy Carter>

usage Although it has been in use since the late 18th century, sense 3 is still attacked as wrong. Why it has been singled out is not clear, but until comparatively recent times it was found chiefly in scientific or technical writing rather than belles lettres. Our current evidence shows a slight shift in usage: sense 3 is somewhat more frequent in recent literary use than the earlier senses. You should be aware, however, that if you use sense 3 you may be subject to criticism for doing so, and you may want to choose a safer synonym such as compose or make up.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Geez! I wouldn't want to be attacked or criticized for improper word usage her on CR-4! <grin> Oh, and get that, "until comparatively recent times it was found chiefly in scientific or technical writing", so of course engineers are going to use what they read!

Geez! I wouldn't want to be attacked or criticized for improper word usage her on CR-4!

I believe you are using the word "her" incorrectly in the above statement.

But irregardless of that, I'm certainly not trying to infer that you, the person to who me is writing, would be so crass as to end a sentence in a proposition.

BTW post #16 cannot be blamed on our guest. It was mine, making the point you've made here, that it's now considered OK to use comprise and compose synonymously. (I try keep my whinings about such usage to myself, nowadays.)

OK, Small Fry! Jump on another typo! Her/here, whatever! And where did I end a sentence in a proposition in the post (#26) to which you are referring? I try not to to that, although I almost wrote, "the post you are referring to"!!!!!! Please remember that I did not write the dictionary entry, but copied it from the webpage. Besides, the dictionary entry is written in fragment form anyway for brevity.

And irregardless of what you might think, that you were misusing a word, or non-word, on purpose to make a point, here is what Merriam-Webster has to say about that:

irregardless

One entry found.

Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less

Pronunciation: \ˌir-i-ˈgärd-ləs\

Function: adverb

Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless

Date: circa 1912

nonstandard : regardless

usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

ROFL!

Your citation of MW makes the point, but not the one you imagine. The fact that the word is increasingly used underlies the unhappy fact that it has come almost universally to be used incorrectly. Two and more generations ago it was not a word in common, or technical, currency...so it was not nearly so often misunderstood, or used incorrectly,...among educated people...and even less otherwise due to even less frequent use. (And educated people would often include persons for whom the distinction of meaning between comprised and composed was learned, if not by secondary school, then at least before college graduation.) Where people instinctively say "comprised of" now, they instinctively said composed of then. The mention of scientific and technical writing (it could have said engineering as well) as primary influences leading to the non-discriminant "adoption" of the nonsensical usage bespeaks the inordinate propensity for mimicry (the guardedness against non-conformity, even when right) to be observed in those fields. Norman Augustine (an engineering insider if ever there was one) himself alludes with aplomb and humor to this lockstep mentality in engineering enterprises in his book, Augustine's Laws. A great read and great stimulus for dinner conversation.

I would actually like to have two men, who are tentatively in the same industry, but very different in their approach to problem solving, business, and life in general, at least from what I have heard of them. The reason I want both is I would love to listen to their dialogue, whether in agreement or disagreement on a vast array of subjects, even those outside their technical and business expertise, such as politics and government, since they have both dabbled in those areas.

These two men would be Bill Gates and H. Ross Perot.

If I could have only one guy, it would be neither of them.

I would invite Mike Rowe, the host of "Dirty Jobs" and "After the Catch", as well as the narrator of "The Deadliest Catch" and star of several Ford Truck commercials in the latest part of his career.

Why? Because he strikes me as genuinely nice guy, friendly as the day is long, and with a lot of rich experiences and lots of stories to tell, a lot more than the camera sees, I'll bet.

And we wouldn't be sitting down to a home-cooked meal either, but down at the local Bar and Grill, sucking down some cold Michelob draft (if Mike's buying! Otherwise Budweiser draft is good enough for me!) and feasting on platters full of Hot Wings and Toasted Ravioli, followed up by a nice juicy sirloin steak and baked potato.

To quote Mike..."Mm-mm, I can smell it NOW!"

And Mike, if you are reading this, this IS an invitation!

Mike, I, too, am a Dirty Guy!

OK, I'll go for it;

Wiki :" Michael Gregory Rowe (pronounced: row) "

Am I missing something or can we row about that entry ? I just know I'm missing something that's laughingly obvious.

Since the Dalai Lama is unlikely to pop in for a cuppa, I would like to have somebody very old visit. Talking with anyone born (say) 100 + years ago would be hugely interesting. I've met plenty of elderly folk, but never had a good long chat about their whole experience of life.

Yeah Wiki might have pulled a boner on that one. I believe they meant it is pronounced like the word "row" (Pronunciation: \ˈrō\ ) as in 'Row, row, row your boat...."

So let's not have a row (Pronunciation: \ˈraú\ and rhymes with "OW!") about that! <grin>

We're agreeing about rowing (!), so I'm just going to amuse myself with reading the hugely funny posts about 'comprise' etc.

One man sitting in silence listening to the other rant on about himself? I'm afraid you'd end up with just what you didn't want. One visitor with lost appetite; one visitor with no ear for mutual conversation. Hard to imagine those two breaking bread together; but maybe that was your actual point? Throw the tigers together, add a little red meat, and see what happens?

One man sitting in silence listening to the other rant on about himself? I'm afraid you'd end up with just what you didn't want. One visitor with lost appetite; one visitor with no ear for mutual conversation. Hard to imagine those two breaking bread together; but maybe that was your actual point? Throw the tigers together, add a little red meat, and see what happens?

Yes, actually. That was the idea, tigers that is. But by your earlier assertion, that one man would sit in silence listening to the other rant on, you seem to imply that one would be the tiger and the other would be the lamb. Do you not think that Bill Gates would hold his own in a discussion with Perot, or would it be the other way around?

Personally, I would like to see which subjects (if any) these two agreed upon, and which would make them see red and hear what their arguments would be, especially when it came to two of my favorites: business strategies and government policy.

In both areas, Perot strikes me as the "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" kind of guy while Gates is more analytical, with more of a "wait and see" attitude. After all, how often has Microsoft been a great innovator? Typical battles with Apple and other has found MS waiting until the smoke has cleared, then launching a massive counterstrike in terms of product and advertising. Sometimes they might even start the ruckus by announcing a product that turns out to be nothing but "vaporware", then wait for the shakeout before putting out their own real product. Funny, Apple seems to have adopted that