Those list are as stupid as this article. Thank you for your Grey matter depleting contribution. The editor should have your head in a jar of formaldehyde attached to a plaque with this horrid article engraved in steel to remember your wretched choice of words and topic.

Best article ever!

Pierce totally misses the boat on this one.

List-making isn't about putting things in correct order - it's about starting discussions. By Pierce's estimation, AFI's 100 Greatest Movies was likely an equally "stupid" exercise. Forget that it introduced a new generation of moviegoers to classic cinema, or how it cultivated a new dialogue in which Americans think critically about the movies they watch.

Who cares if any of these lists are right? The point is that they're fun to make - and talk about.

Of course, Pierce is right on the money but that is not going to stop people from making lists. List-making is a mania. I once determined (by counting crtics ratings) that the 1930's was the greatest decade for film-making with 1939 the greatest year. Biography magazine printed my editor letter to that effect. If someone were to perform the same task now (it should be easier with computers), I'm sure the results would be significantly different. How could it be otherwise? Those doing the ratings are viewing films from much younger eyes than mine. Today's films are often about technology. There is no way to compare these films with the acting talents of yesteryear. But, as I said before, that "ain't" going to stop folks from trying. I think I'll pass on the 2008 version of best TV. I don't watch that much of it anymore except for old movies. Guess I'm getting old.