pslarrylegend1

I am done too. You make some points, but I have a hard time seeing how the bad singers aren't part of a cruel joke. The next day, radio shows are saying their names and replaying the bad auditions. Just because they are one of many doesn't make it unless cruel in my eyes. And the whole William Hung thing. I tend to agree that the Sanjaya thing is a cruel joke. I just don't see it being any more cruel of a joke than those things, and in my opinion it is much less of a cruel joke. At least the kid can say that he legitimately made it past hundreds of thousands of other people.

The point with the 1%(and it is probably even less than 1%, I am just picking an arbitrary number) is that the producers waste half of the judges time for the sole purpose of making fools of people. And they do this because they know people are entertained by the judges reaction to these bad singers. A large chunk of the viewers that are entertained by that, also find it entertaining to see the reaction of Simon and the crew when the worst remaining in the bunch makes it another week. Though you don't enjoy it, can't you at least see how others could enjoy it in a non-mean spirited way? Or at

I vaguely see your point because he is getting a lot more screen time than those people, but we will have to just agree to disagree.Also, worst doesn't mean worst in this case. He is the worst out of the 10 or so remaining people. AFter eliminating 100s of thousands of people. Someone made the comparison if I was on a poker reality show and was touted by the public as the worst. I don't think this really makes your point any clearer. If I was the biggest donk out of 10 remaining contestants, I would feel pretty good about making it as far as I did. And the worst talked would light a fire unde

Didn't Sanjaya go on the show on his own free will?Less than 1% of the people that audition get in to see the judges. Half of those are the really bad ones just to make fools of them. You don't think they face ridicule when they go home to their peers? But you know what, it is funny to see the judges reactions to them. It is also funny to see the judges reaction when they see that Sanjaya is there another week. Everyone just needs to stop taking the show so seriously. The kid is continuing on his own free will. If he feels he is outclassed at any time, he can step down and end it all. If he d

If you enjoy that part of the show, can't you at least see how some people might find the show more enjoyable if a bad singer keeps getting strung along in the competition? Not really to be hateful, just to make the show more entertaining for themselves. In a "wouldn't it be funny if Sanjaya won" kind of way. Thats kind of how the whole thing started on Stern and then snowballed.

Doesn't the opening round of AI auditions make victims out of people in the same way? They bring terrible singers in who think there good and make fools out of them. Do you enjoy this stage of AI, Daniel?Not trying to disrespect your opinion, just making a point that it is inconsistent.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I find Daniel's reasoning to be inconsistent when he calls voting for Sanjaya to be hateful.The show American Idol thrives on being hateful. This is why the show is so popular. They have the judges degrade the contestants. In the opening rounds, better singers are turned down while poor singers are brought on camera to make fools of them. And though it is sad, this is why a good portion of viewers watch the show. These are the same viewers getting on board with Vote for the Worst. A lot of the viewers could care less who wins, but if keeping a bad sin