100 most influential persons in history.

What the f**k does it mean when one claims Johann Sebastian Bach is one rank "higher" than Lao Tzu, or Plato is 10 ranks higher than Michelangelo????

These ranks are absolutely idiotic. People should stop ranking (based entirely on subjective and undefiniable standards) or getting obsessed with ranking and start doing some real thinking.

We've had this exact same topic, with the exact same list a year or so ago, and the discussion rambled on for 10 pages. Let's get serious here: this type of list is extremely subjective. How do you compare Netwon with Muhammad or Jesus or Columbus? It's not even apples and oranges, it's more like pianos and lollipops. There simply are not any objective criteria as to what makes a person more important than another. This is a list made by a Westerner who seems to value science quite a bit and it would be very different if it was made by say an African who is interested first and foremost in art or a Chinese who is interested in religion.

The reaction of that Turk forumer says it all: for him Ataturk was probably the most important person in history; for someone like myself, Ataturk would not crack the top 100. But it's simply a matter of values, background and criteria used.

Frankly, I think that the whole exercise is rather pointless, and the initial author of the list probably made it so that he could exploit our society's obsession with rankings, and sell his book.

Then Moses should be at the top of the list. There are hundreds of such lists anyway, big deal.