> > > 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
> >
> > I am appalled at what you say their #1 choice was. Granted, he's a fine actor, but there's no way Steve Guttenburg is the most important person in the last millenium. I don't care how funny Police Academy was.
> >
> > Kelly
>
> Oh, THAT Guttenburg. I thought you meant. . . . .
> never mind. I guess I'm a little out of date.
> Howard

isn't it the guttenberg who did the printing press? that's what i thought... i didn't see it, but, if they made an actor #1..... it must have been the printing press one. Kelly's either confused or kidding

uni"don't worry, Howard"peg