Here are some of your responses to Mike's last column.

E.C. writes: Mike, I love your column but a big super Grrr to you regarding Kenneth Briggs and Jonathan Jayne. They deserve just as much opportunity in the spotlight as the "beautiful" people. Who cares if they have no talent. Ninety percent of what comes out of Hollywood has no talent, morals, class ... I could go on. So what if their 15 minutes turns into 15 days, weeks, months. I say go for it. They a taking advantage of a window of opportunity, exploiting their time on "Idol." Sounds American to me.

Terry writes: You’re losing me. I know that it’s not a big deal to you, nor is it to me, but I used to enjoy reading your column. Lately, it’s just a lot of celebrity bull s**t! Celebrity worship is pathetic! Get a life.

Hal writes: So -- the 30 minutes of fame for the "Idol" rejects is grrr-ing you? These guys are rejects? REJECTS? And Mr. Cowell gets loads of props from you for "weeding out" the bad singers? And WHO gets the credit for letting these guys in to audition in the first place? I believe the vast majority of the American public is aware that these guys were let in to audition BECAUSE they were OBVIOUSLY bound for SPECTACULAR rejection (read, Chuck Barris and "The Gong Show"). And it insults my intelligence for anyone to suggest otherwise.

Mike, I am an avid reader of your column. I have an extremely low tolerance for obviously rude people, but I use that to better my own character -- developing patience. But I think you missed the mark on this particular issue. Continuing to be an avid reader.

Stacy E. writes: Mike, I complete agree with you -- the "AI" rejects are getting way too much attention. I was appalled to hear the rude and obnoxious Ian Bernardo on my local radio station
(in Atlanta) on my drive to work a few days ago. Why does he deserve to promote himself? I was disgusted and quickly changed the station.

Natalie E. writes: What is even worse is that people actually seem to get their thrills by watching someone get "told off" by Simon -- doesn't say much for the greater American society now does it?

Lori K. writes: Read your column today with delight. However, while you note that it's Simon and Co.'s job to weed out the rejects, it's really obvious that the rejects were put there to "entertain" those of us who watch.

You had a story about a person who auditioned on your Web site ... and she had more of the "inside" story. Of the 10,000 or so people, they are herded through like cattle and in 15 seconds either pass or go. Now how is it possible that 90 percent of those rejects even made it through the line? Common sense tells us that Simon and Co. couldn't possibly even see but a handful of those being screened.

But Fox and "Idol" want to make it "entertainment." Those "rejects" are put on there on purpose, and of course it's edited up the ying yang to be sure us watchers only get the juicy stuff and focus on the antics.

I wonder if the "real" contestants were the only ones on, would we still watch? I mean, the ratings are high for the top 20, and those are the "real" contestants. But maybe the media hype has worked. After all, Simon has been more than gentle the last two weeks.

Mike N. writes: Mike, couldn't agree more with you comments about the "Idol" misfits. It happens every year. Some goofball auditions to get some sympathy and attention. I think they also got a free trip to Disney. These guys are not as dumb as they look. They are playing the media like a violin and folks like Rosie are falling for it hook, line and sinker.

Ray writes: OK, my one Grrr about these stupid, rich Hollywood brats -- why do their itty bitty dogs have to wear diamond collars that cost more than my annual income? I don't want to hear about them anymore!! Mike, please make it stop!! I really used to like your column -- I honestly think you have great writing. But I'm wondering why I'm wasting my time, when lately, I could just be reading a gossip magazine. Please, change the name of your column from "Grrr!!" to "Oh-my-God, guess what Simon said on 'American Idol'"

Steve P. writes: Mariel, it's women like you who give the rest of them a bad name. Yes, men like to look at pretty young women but don't deny for a moment that women don't like to look at handsome young men either. I believe you're jealous because you don't get the attention you think you deserve from men. With your attitude I feel sorry for your husband. Why don't you try being a little more honest with yourself and stop blaming men for your own shortcomings. Mike, you're doing a great job.

Bennett writes: For Mariel and her rant that men are responsible for America's obsession with celebrities: If you were a man you'd be called a sexist pig! Men are responsible for America's obsession with celebrities because we like sex? I'll bet your husband and you have a great sex life! You say you don't hate men, but you blame everything on us! And, in deference to your warped view on sex, there actually ARE women who actually enjoy it and drool over pictures of scantily clad men (I'm married to one!). Every see the cover of Cosmo? You didn't see the captions, "How to demand better Orgasms", "Sex Tricks to teach your Man"… or maybe you think that Cosmo is really written by men for men under the guise that it's a women's magazine? Sex is healthy, and FUN! Just because you are a prude don't assume the rest of us agree with you or even would even take the time to worry about what you think. I sincerely hope your husband reads both your comment and mine and realizes that there are women out there who don't blame men for everything and think sex is the root of all evil! Do men look at cute women? Of course. But, women also ogle cute, sexy men! Get a life! And I hope your husband gets a better woman!!!

Respond to Mike | Pre-Order The GRRR! Book | Mike's Page | The GRRR! Archives