"dammit, i can hear the birds chirp"

These commnets came in a few moments later, again by Pari. They are on "Who was the most influential of them all".

“just read your post on greatness and either it was too convoluted for me to understand it (dude, you should NOT try to write in ayn rand's style... it's very hard on the brain) or your ideas on greatness are not right according to me...
greatness is in some sense a prefix... and needs to be attached to a value/property for it to have any significance. and in that sense, the influence/greatness theory is correct. it might be wrong to say hitler was a great person, but he WAS a great LEADER... for exactly the reason that he could pull/organize/motivate/lead to action large numbers of people. he might be evil, but he was as great/greater than winston churchill in that respect.
the same stands for pele/gates/edison... they were/are great _____ (fill in the blank appropriately). full stop. bill gates is great in terms of the software and the company he build, his marketing skills etc. bill gates is not a great person for us when it comes to us having a choice. and every person is going to have different notions about what is a more important value.
dammit, i can hear the birds chirp. i should sleep. g'nite!”

The confusion clearly is in understanding the meaning of the word greatness, so refer to the good old dictionary. This is what dictionary.com says: Greatness: (Used of persons) standing above others in character or attainment or reputation. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/great

Guess this bit clarifies the confusion between ‘great’ as an adjective or prefix as you call it and ‘greatness’ when we talk of persons. “First, there ceases to remain any difference between great leaders like Winston Churchill and evil leaders like Hitler.” This sentence is the only place where I imply greatness in the first meaning of the word and it very clearly differentiates between the two.

And hey, the article is pretty lucid and intelligible!!!