Stadler, I think you're the one is not getting my point, or perhaps didn't read the entire last post.
Kattelox's last point is spot on.
To add to that, this is not the thread where anyone should have to "back that up." It's not about unhealthily having to agree that Neil is the greatest. You don't have to agree at all. But for one thing, there is no objectively backing any of this up. So the person who thinks Neil is objectively the best or objectively the greatest is just as wrong as the person who thinks Bob Dylan is. Katt is dead on about the house example. You can measure it. Either it's the tallest or not. In the case of the greatest lyricist, band, singer, writer, painter, any artist at all - there's really no such thing.
There is no such thing as the best. It might fun to have a debate about who's better and to try to throw in some stats to back up your position in the right thread, right place, right time, etc. That's not what you've been doing. You've been trying to insert objectivity where there simply is none to be had. There doesn't "have to be some standard" - there actually is no standard. Best and greatest are subjective words and always have been. If your wife tells you that you're the best husband ever, are you going to say "well, come on, let's not go overboard. I haven't done, x, y, and z that better husbands do." No, of course not. Or if she posts on social media that she has the best husband ever, are you going to take issue with it? What about when Rush, or Dream Theater, or probably a million other bands, say, "we have the best fans in the world." Should we correct them? No. Best is a subjective word. That's the default. That's what you should think someone means every time they use that word unless they're giving you reason to think otherwise.
If they haven't given you reason to think otherwise, saying you have to laugh is indeed belittling.
----
Edit:
Hey Stadler. I'm editing this instead of quoting and making a new post because I know you tend to read and reply one by one instead of reading all new posts first (I sometimes do as well) and also to not bump it up to the most recent thing in this thread for those who'd just like to to move on.
In my first sentence above, I felt like you perhaps didn't read the whole posts because I thought what I was saying was pretty clear... but got to thinking that maybe it isn't completely clear so I'm going to add to it.
I understand that you're distinguishing between the person who says "the best and greatest" to mean "the best/greatest to that person," or "in that person's opinion" etc etc vs the person who is trying to objectively say no, it's not their personal opinion - X artist is in fact the greatest. I understand that point and I know your comments aren't directed to the person who uses best subjectively. You're not belittling someone for their personal taste and I get that.
However - a couple things. You seem to think that there is an objective best/greatest, that such a thing exists, and that you know who it is. But there isn't an objective truth here (see above). So even if user A were to come in and post that Neil is definitively, factually the best ever and that's just the way it is, you posting that no, it's actually Bob Dylan (or Cohen, etc) only makes you just as wrong as user A - so now you're just both wrong. But no one did that here, or the Haken thread. People just used the term best/greatest without specifying objective vs subjective. And so you coming in to correct them, either because you assumed someone's intent was "objective" or because you want to make sure no one's intent is objective "just in case" is indeed belittling. No one was really saying that or hinting at it. In this thread they were just celebrating what made Neil so great.
Poll