Don't be a dick, Sampson. I didn't make it personal in my post. Plenty of people have posted in here saying that The Who are too low by the criteria. Negative Creep just did it on this very page. It's not just me. The Who's huge lead in influence ought to more than make-up for Bruce Springsteen's lead in impact of live performance on career.
Sorry Clash, I wasn't trying to be a dick, but the toilet bowl comment was pretty dickish, I'll admit. I apologize.
My main point though was this, and I hope you take this the right way - your devotion to the Who, your repeated posts on them on every thread, your never being satisfied with their positioning, your accusations of bias against anyone who doesn't share your lofty view of them in all ways, is a detriment. In fact, it winds up turning more people away from what else you write (which is always good, outside of the Who, but also including a lot of your stuff on them) and from liking the Who more themselves. You can't possibly WANT to turn people off to the group, but that's what happens. I said on another thread (Greatest Rock Artists) recently to someone who was complaining about wading through hundreds of your Who posts that I think you're one of the best people on the site to talk music with, provided it's not about the Who, just because you can't see straight on them anymore. Earlier in this thread, when I tweaked the criteria and the Who moved up as a result, you said that the three names higher were the only three you could tolerate being above them, but now you can't tolerate it anymore apparently. I've tried explaining the rankings to you as detailed as I can, and respect you dissenting on it, but it's like you don't believe that they actually earned the fourth spot fairly or that the others earned their spots and that's frustrating. If it was an isolated incident then that'd be one thing, just a difference of opinion, but it's not with you and the Who, it's WAY deeper seated than that, and I don't understand why. Every single tiny thing with them you push for having count far more than its worth, then you denigrate others above them in various categories to try and tear them down. That's just not cool at all, and if you were an editor having to see this barrage of posts from one person about one artist all the time you'd understand. It just gets tiring after awhile, that's all.
As I said before, when you talk about other artists, and you seem to have huge tastes otherwise, always want to learn more about other artists and have great insights to other topics, your personality itself almost changes completely than when you're talking the Who, and that's when you're great talking with. Just not with the Who anymore. Maybe they're too close to your heart, like a mother defending her children's behavior to outsiders. But after how many thousand of points you've made on the Who I don't think it's likely that any editor is unaware of anything they did, including what Pete had for breakfast this morning, so at a certain point it just becomes suffocating. That's all I was trying to convey. So one last time, the Who do great in the criteria but just not quite as great overall as the three names above them, close though it may be with Springsteen, he edges them out by a slim margin. The other two by even more. No conspiracy, no missed or undervalued area, no fiendish plot... no hard feelings though either.
How about talking Johnny Otis for a change? Anyone... anyone???