As far as my not knowing what I'm talking about as far as TV is concerned, I know crap when I see it. I don't have to step in it to insure that it's crap--I walk around it. And 90% of TV today is crap.
It may very well be crap to those who watch it, DR Dan (the Man). But saying it's all (or 90%) crap without actually watching it carries no weight. Your statement speaks for itself. You are damning TV shows without watching them.
It's like reviewing something without listening to it, reading it or watching it.
The idea of a TV show may not appeal to you....but you will never know whether that impression means anything until you've actually seen the show.
As for your contention that nominations in excess of five becomes meaningless -- except as a means of pandering to producers, et al -- consider this: Nominating committees are a handful of people poring over videotapes submitted by production companies and networks.
For far too long, many wonderful shows and performers have been omitted while these committees confine their nominees to the shows they select for the top five.
Sure, there have been exceptions. But this new way of doing things opens the choices up and allows many formerly disgruntled Emmy voters a greater opportunity to actually vote for whom "they" consider to be the best....not a select few designated by some nominating committee that was under pressure to submit five nominees from a vast field of deserving contenders.
As you have made it clear that you are contemptuous of TV, color me puzzled that you have anything to say about Emmy nominations at all. Why would you care?
As for your "crap" analogy, well....I know an uninformed opinion when I read one, too. You have every right to hold and express opinions, but if you're going to post them, don't be surprised or offended that someone comes along and stickes a few pins in them. You would certainly do the same thing, I believe.