[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'211286\' date=\'Mar 26 2009, 05:05 PM\']
Okay, wiseass, here you go.[/quote]
Yeah, this will end well.
My first criticsm of Mr. Seacrest is that, for a host, he doesn't have the presence like he should have. He doesn't command the stage like he's supposed to. He just blends in, and to tell you the truth it's like he's just there to be there.
And you're entitled to that opinion, but not only don't I agree, I wonder what show you're watching. But that is a subjective opinion, and we are both entitled to assess it as we see fit.
Another criticism I have of him is that he's gone so far in his career based on convenience. He's not getting hired because of talent. He's getting hired because he's one of the last- well, actual emcees, for lack of a better term- around.
Words fail. Are you really arguing that he's the best in his field only because he's the only one in it?
To me it doesn't take much to host "American Idol," if we're basing it solely on his performance. Spare me the "it's harder than it looks."
No, you will not be spared that. Particularly because when you say
He's in TV, I'm not. I get it.
...you admit you are speaking from a lack of information.
Just because someone keeps getting hired, it doesn't automatically translate to that person having talent.
"Just because people keep wanting to pay him to do a job, doesn't mean that he does it well." Isn't that the very definition of being good at your job? Whether you personally enjoy it is immaterial. It's your right not to enjoy it, of course, but as Matt said, "I don't care for him" and "he sucks!" are two VERY different positions.
I think Rush Limbaugh is a complete hypocrite and a blowhard. Listening to the content of his show makes my brain hurt. I am also continually awed by his talent as a broadcaster based on the success of his show. See the difference?
I let you have your piece, so why can't I have mine, you know?
I believe that is precisely what I invited you to do.
