Anyways wasn’t this the precedent for the previous elimination games? We always eliminated the person we thought was the worst or most mediocre not the greatest. Indeed all the previous games determined who was the greatest.
Impertinent, certainly. 
I don’t think it really qualifies as pedantry to point out that somebody else entirely invented the automobile, though.
However, between the assembly line, welfare capitalism and The International Jew, without which WWII might not have happened, Ford might be the most influential man of the 20th century.
Yup. Where is Marie Curie - She’s arguably more important to society than Roentgen, plus the two Nobel prizes and the development of an entire field of medicine (Nuclear Medicine) in addition to Diagnostic Radiology.
So, are we now going by who is the greatest? Because originally, it was most influential. Then it became, most positive/least negative influence. Then it became, the person whose negative influence most canceled out their positive influence. (Which doesn’t even make that much sense to me.) And now you seem to be saying that it’s just, who’s greatest?
Like I said, you need to decide what you want the rules to be and restart. Left Hand of Dorkness had some good ideas. I would also recommend eliminating more than one person per round, because even at two rounds per week, that’s going to take almost a year, which personally seems like an unreasonably long time for this sort of a game.
Just my $.02, take it or leave it.
Those things were developed over centuries, not by anything analogous to a single individual or even small group.
Muhammad Ali.
Game over.
Suggested rules for the game:
But the last 3 people playing next fall will be able to swing the vote around to something really unexpected: Emperor Asoka - FOR THE WIN!
Hart actually gives an explanation on this too-Becquerel discovered radioactivity and thus deserves most of the credit regarding that field.
You seem rather confident of all this! Instead, Hebrew prehistory is still a mystery; to prove they had no early contact with Egypt would obviously be harder than to prove they did! As just one example of circumstantial evidence suggesting early associations in the Nile River Basin, consider Qemant, the “Pagan-Hebraic” religion in Ethiopia.
I’d never heard of the book but stumbled across it (a foreign edition of 1st edition) in a used book store afew years ago, thumbed through it, and picked it up. I bought John Garner’s Art of Fiction the same day - a wonderful book even for someone, like myself, with no intention of writing fiction. See why I’m no fan of buying books on-line? 
I didn’t say they had no contact with Egypt, I said they were never enslaved in Egypt. As a matter of fact, Egypt occupied Canaan during the time of the alleged Exodus, so obviously there was contact between Egypt and Canaan from pre-Israelite times. The earliest inscription mentioning “Israel” at all is from an Egyptian Pharaoh claiming to have destroyed it.
What I’m saying is that the distinct Canannite people known as “Israelites” were never enslaved in Egypt, and never had a mass Exodus, a sojourn in Sinai or a “return” to and conquest of Canaan. They have no period of absence from Canaan, and no archaeological evidence of Israelites in Egypt has ever been discovered (even though they were purportedly enslaved there for 400 years), nor is there any trace of them in the Sinai Peninsula, even at the small oasis of Kadesh Barnea where 2 million people allegedly lived for 38 years.
You have to admire someone who thoroughly cleans up their campsite when they pack up.
It’s somewhere in the Mosaic Law: “Take only pictures; leave only footprints.”
Only YOU can prevent forest fires, people of Israel.
Yeah anyway, I vote for Jesus.
What crap. Sorry, but that’s ridiculous. Queen Elizabeth and Isabella, but not Catherine the Great? No Marie Curie? No Susan B. Anthony? No Harriet Beecher Stowe? No Joan of Arc? No Jane Austen? No Cleopatra? No Emily Dickinson? No Pocahontas?
I could go on. All of those women had accomplishments as significant as many of the men on the list.
Hey, stopping putting out the bush, I’m trying to talk here.
No Charles Dickins? No Richard Dawkins? No Ernest Hemingway? This list SUCKS!
Writers of fiction (and Dawkins, for that matter) are just not that influential. It’s not like anybody ever invaded Poland because of a Dickens novel.
Tell it to the Polish - they’re still smarting from the Two Cities rebellion of 1898. 