[lkozma]

You make some very interesting points - I just want to ask a side-question on a linguistic issue:

- do you use "disrupt" in a positive sense, or in its original dictionary sense:

"interrupt (an event, activity, or process) by causing a disturbance or problem, alter or destroy the structure of .."

My point is also that often when people mean to disrupt in one way, they end up achieving the other.

[cturner]

I always think of disrupt from the perspective of creative destruction, and it always being unambiguously good. So if I was in a stagnant industry, I'd be trying to reform. And if I was getting hit hard by reformers, I'd see that as justice that I was on the wrong side of.

Hence, I'm tempted to say that both meanings mean the same thing to me.

But it's interesting you raise it. I recently reread _A Second Chance at Eden_ by Peter F Hamilton. In one of the stories, a character turns down an opportunity at fabulous wealth from a mindset that it would cause vast social trauma. This seeded a thought - perhaps creative destruction is not as unambiguously good as I presume. But it still hasn't yet sunk in. (And such a correction would require a worldview rebuild - a trauma of its own :) )