Hi David. Nicely written.


>Using WINNING as a metaphor for the results of the processes involved in politics, religion, war, or economy demands the suspension or alteration of what most people know WINNING to mean.

Perhaps I should have written winning as "Winning" - capital "W" to distinguish it from the petty winning that we are normally involved in :)


>Of the 16 definitions in my dictionary, all have to do with acquiring something, and most have to do with acquiring something at the expense of someone or something else.

But one can Win and one can win. When we win someone else loses. When we Win we can all Win. But the politicians and their greedy biznez people dont get it. Only politicians and the media think wars are won. The rest know that one side just loses less.


>Winning is, by MOST definitions, the EXCLUSION of the larger portion of a given population. The notion of "Win - Win" is a phallacy [ :-) ] of logic invented by a business-oriented world to pacify a consuming public. It is as oxymoronic as the term "Honest Politician".

Yes and no. We can choose to make win-win an empty cliche or not. Its a choice.


>Any situation established as a GAME, (economies, stock markets, politics, war) will have, BY CONVENTIONAL DEFINITION, a WINNER and a LOOSER.

Only if one plays finite games. There are also infinite games where all parties can win. But thats another thread :)