I immediately thought about Michelle Malkin when I first read Ms. Walsh's earlier post about Kathy Sierra. Every time I've read Michelle Malkin write about abusive or hateful posts aimed at her, she offers it as irrefutable proof of the depravity and hatefulness of the left. Joan Walsh's post was the complete opposite -- a thoughtful examination of the troubling issue of on-line misogyny, without waving any partisan fingers. Michelle Malkin's comments? Well, they speak for themselves.

"The truth is, once a contestant makes it to the audience-voting portion of the show, when it's no longer up to the judges whether they stay or go home, vocal talent is only marginally more important than the ability to make the viewers fall in love with you."

Mr. Marchese, I agree with you that last night's result had more to do with personality than vocal talent. However, I think you are making an unfair generalization about the voters vs. the judges. As a casual viewer these past few years (my wife is the real fan), I've watched the same scenario play out over and over. During the regional auditions, many hot babes (or guys) with only marginal talent will get a pass to Hollywood, while a truly unattractive person with similar vocal talent will be sent packing. Case in point: do you remember that swimsuit model from Georgia a few years ago?

Every year, when the field of contestents is turned over to the voters, America quickly dispatches with the beautiful mediocre singers that the judges selected. Just take a look at the final three of any season and compare them to the final 12.

So, while I agree with your assessment about last night's results, overall, I think the American voters do a pretty good job of rewarding talent.

I agree with others who have objected to the main point of this article. I think you misunderstand the complaint from frustrated viewers.

For me, it's not that I want answers to all of the mysteries, and I love this aspect of Lost. Here is my main complaint: I have little faith that the show's writers and producers are playing straight with the viewers. For example, introducing several new main characters into season two, only to kill them off at the end of the season (reportedly for off-screen conduct). Try to tell me, with a straight face, that this aborted story arc was part of the original concept of the series and it was planned out from the beginning.

And while others may enjoy the extensive backstory for each of the characters, I see nothing more than a gold mine for stalling tactics. Do we really need to see another episode about Hurley at the fast food joint or Charley doing heroin? These episodes are not character development, they are filler.

I would like to second the comment made by Rillion. One of the most frustrating things about Lost is that the behavior of the characters defy expectations. I'm not sure that I know how I would act if in a similar situation, but I'm pretty sure that I would meet with my fellow castaways, talk about what was happening, and try to figure out the mysteries of the island. How many times have you seen a character experience something truly bizarre, or learn something about the island, and then return to camp like nothing happened? And seemingly integral characters (Sayed, for example) will simply vanish for several episodes while supposedly important stuff is going on. For me, this is a severe threat to suspension of disbelief.

I'm late to respond to this article, and I realize that someone else may have already mentioned this (I'm not really surprised by the high volume of the responses!). But another reason to stick with Netflix is Blockbuster's annoying and insulting late-return fee scams.

I used to have a Blockbuster card in the 90s, but I gave it up for Hollywood Video because I was disgusted with Blockbuster's late-return policy. Blockbuster deceptively advertised their due-dates (a "three-day rental" included the day you rented the movie; the video was actually due back at midnight on the second night), and they charged outrageous daily late fees (the price of the entire rental period for each day it was late, rather than extending the rental period for the same fee). They even called a collection agency on my brother for some late video returns.

Make no mistake, their late-fee policy was not just an incentive for timely video returns (as it is with most other video chains or independents), it was part of their profit structure, not unlike a speed trap in a two-bit town on the highway.

Netflix comes along with its innovative service, and now Blockbuster is jumping on the bandwagon and advertising "no late fees"? Puh-lease. My memory is not that short. I will never leave Netflix for Blockbuster.

Oh, I was also the "victim" (I use this term very loosely) of one of Blockbuster's edited videos. We rented Y Tu Mama Tambien, and without any indication, we took home a video that had been edited for content, and thus deleting the climactic scene.

Even without Blockbuster's hypocrisy, I still would not switch. I love the Netflix service, and I believe they should be rewarded for their innovation and entrepreneurship.

Oh, I'm also very disappointed in the subtitle to this article. It is misleading and unfairly maligns Netflix. Is Manjoo being paid by Blockbuster?

To quote some of my fellow readers: "Fuck Blockbuster. I will never give them another dime." True that.