> Over the last 2 days, Biography aired its 100 most influential people of the millenium special. The whole thing reminded me of Sam's series of Site Journal posts about the subjectivity of choosing the century's best movies.
>
> Anyway, I could live with most of their top choices (Galileo and Einstein were in the top 10, Newton was #2 and Guttenburg was #1) but there were some that baffled me. For instance, the fact that Princess Diana was on the list at all, and the fact that she beat the man who built the Ottoman Empire and the man who headed the Manhattan Project.
>
> Also, in some cases the makers of the show seemed to care more about who an achievement is popularly attributied to than who is actually responsible (ex Descartes and the coordinate system).
> I'd write more, but I'm short on time. So, what does everyone else think?
>
> -Balanthalus

As you stated, the name of the program used the word "influential". By it's definition you must consider to whom an achievement is attributed, regardless of it's factuality. If it was proven that all of Shakespeare's works were actually written by some guy named Shekkie, could you really argue that Shekkie has been more influential than the persona of Shakespeare himself? As far as Diana, again look at the influence that she has had globally, -even postumously.

Where was Nostradamus on the list? He seems to be influencing millions of tabloid readers alomst weekly.

Je "just my 2 cents" ff