Also, I hate movies like Dragnet, Bewithced and others which mock old shows and contain a wholely unearned sense of superiority. I prefer the t.v. adaptations that try to make a good movie out of the material. I'm not sure you could make a good movie out of Land of the Lost, but if not, why bother at all?

If all people want to do is laugh at the original, the show is readily available via DVD or TV.com.

"We" didn't raise Susan Boyle to celebrity status so we could gnash her between our teeth. A lot of us don't read celebrity trash magazines. I had no idea she'd been deemed a crazy diva until I read your column (which I don't read to get the latest celebrity gossip). Maybe "we" means "you"? I.e., people who write for the media and need the subject of celebrities to fill space? Or maybe "we" means "them"? As is the people whose careers are dedicated to this subject?

I don't know anyone relishing Boyle's hard times as a celebrity, and no one I know mentions any of the other people you discuss. (I don't have any idea who Octo-Mom is.) I don't live in any rarified world, either. People I know watch a lot of television, and hardly restrict themselves to PBS. I don't think the worship-then-destroy mentality is all-pervasive. Don't deny it's there, but don't relish being accused of a crime I didn't commit.

But I do agree with the comments of others here that this isn't about "ordinary" people. It may be that more people are putting themselves in front of cameras and doing it in new ways. Not becoming actors or singers or writers, but simply inviting a television crew into their lives. Nevertheless, I don't think these people are "ordinary" even if they may be untalented. And by choosing to make themselves the focus of national attention, I think their experience is fairly typical of the celebrity experiece as it has always been. And they are about as prepared for it as any of the unknown actors who suddenly turned out to be Friends.

Just out of curiosity, just how much do you think the state should own a woman's body and be able to tell her what to do with it? Because that's all that making abortion illegal will do. It certainly won't reduce the number of abortions significantly -- that's been shown empirically -- but it will kill a lot more women. Does that matter to you, or are you content with turning women into walking incubators as long as it brings more deformed and unwanted babies into the world?

Similarly, how much of your own autonomy are you willing to give up? Will you be okay with it if the government can force you to give up a kidney to help save someone else's life? I assume so, if you want to remain consistent in your views.

I'm totally pro-choice. I said in my previous letter that I don't agree with O'Reilly about anything. That's beside the point. He doesn't have to apologize for being anti-abortion just because some nut killed an abortion doctor. Asking O'Reilly to feel responsible for the murder of Tiller is like asking Jane Fonda to feel responsible for the kidnapping of Patty Hearst.

If O'Reilly were slain tomorrow, would this site, or any other, express regret at having regularly and strongly criticized him? I don't agree with O'Reilly on probably anything. I consider him an arrogant self-righteous blowhard. But I think it's perfectly understandable that he could despise what Tiller stood for, want to see what he did for a living made illegal, but still have nothing to apologize for in relation to what's happened. And I don't think there's any reason he should change his stance on abortion, or late term abortion, just because Tiller was shot. He didn't incite anyone to kill Tiller, and he doesn't have anything to apologize for.

I never encountered them before, and I couldn't care less. I have no idea if they are accurate or not, and I couldn't care less. I think it's great to see real talent and to be reminded there are all kinds of beauty in the world. I agree with the headline. She lost and still won.