> I think Stan Lee (creater of Spider-Man, Avengers, Fantastic Four, Hulk, Iron Man, Daredevil, X-Men, and dozen other important super-heroes) belongs on the list.

While Stan the Man is certainly a cool guy, does he belong on the list of Top 100 people of the whole frickin' millenium? The audacity that you could even begin to assemble such a list bugs me. Take 1000 years of history, and you expect to be able to make a decent list? Sigh... it seems like a bad idea from the start. Have I mentioned that I'm against "Top 100" lists? I'd prefer a "100 of the Most Influential" list. That way you can leave people off without problem, and you don't have to rank them (the ranking is what really gets me). But I suppose it's not as easily marketable. Oh well. I'll just be happy when we've got this millennium business behind us and we get a reprieve from these infernal lists.

I would like to point out the value of such lists though, and that is that it gets you to think about things you might not ordinarily do. When the much-debated AFI "Top 100 Films" list came out, I went and rented a bunch of movies (some that I'd seen; some that I hadn't) just because they were on that list. While I may not agree with the list itself, everything on there is worth watching and I'm happy I saw the things I did. With this "Influential People" thing, I've been thinking about what really makes a person influential (and I believe the discussion on the forum so far has been good, as per the norm here). Man, I'm in a rambling mood tonight.

Stephen