Then that's their job, isn't it?
Okay? Why would that matter. The point is that caring about something that doesn't meet someone else's standards for "worthwhile" doesn't mean that they aren't doing anything worthwhile, or even that they aren't doing far more worthwhile things than yourself or JimF. That's why it makes no sense that you're upset that they aren't doing something "worthwhile" in this specific instance. The implication is that if they ever do anything that's not worthwhile, you get to criticize them for not spending that time doing something worthwhile. The logical end, then, is that if people aren't constantly doing things worthwhile 100 percent of the time, you will always be criticizing them.
Or they could just stop doing the first silly thing. It's cute when the Big Bang Theory team does this kind of stuff -- but then only because they're the punchline.
In what way is it silly? Because you don't care about it? Again, other people do. You need to illustrate
why it's unworthy of someone's time. And honestly there is very little anger here. It's not like the community at large is frothing at the mouth. It's just that
so many are disappointed. It's a near universal consensus that the ending was handled poorly. The reason this is so big is because so many agree, not because people are just super duper angry.
I've already covered this.
You didn't. Why can you do as you wish with your time, but it's not appropriate for others to do the same?
No, I've been saying they care way too much about something meaningless.
How much should they care about it? What metric are you using to measure how much someone cares about it?