Maybe the concept of "winning" should be a little more complex. The usual meaning requires an exclusive question, and all situations in nature seem to provide large numbers of opportunities for framing them. I prefer asking "what happened" rather than "who won", and then sort through how that strikes my values.
As I usually say it, the point is more that everyone is a 'winner' if you just select the right point of view... Nope, it doesn't quite tell me what to say to people who's only interest is in 'who won'. Phil Henshaw ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] explorations: www.synapse9.com > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore > Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 11:53 AM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group; Jeff Cares > Subject: [FRIAM] Open Source » Blog Archive » Who Won in Iraq? > > > During Jeff's wedtech chat, I mentioned this program: > http://www.radioopensource.org/who-won-in-iraq/ > .. on the Foreign Policy article on Who Won in Iraq: > http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/3661 > > Interesting that you can make such a good case for 10 > different winners. > > -- Owen > > Owen Densmore http://backspaces.net > "You can do Anything, but not Everything!" > > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
