There are a lot of things I could say to respond to your breathtaking ignorance of your own surroundings, but you know what? Just don't watch The Prisoner. It's not meant for you.

I really hate saying that, but I think the point of the whole show is just wasted on someone who thinks just saying you believe in individuality or non conformity is the same as actually being a real individual or a real non conformist.

If you truly did believe in a person's right to not conform to society if they do not wish to, then there is no way you would ever call such a fundamental part of human existence trite.

The Prisoner is one of the most influential works of my life. I saw it first when I was 12, when PBS around here played it right after Doctor Who on Saturday afternoons. It literally blew me away and I still love it to this day, and see it as easily among the best television shows ever made.

That being said, I have absolutely no expectation that this mini series is going to be good at all. The few things that I have heard so far are not helping either. I honestly have been dreading this series a bit since I first heard about it last year.

But I will still watch it, and I will give it a chance to not completely embarrass itself.

And just a little note for all the haters of the show- as much as the FX and stock footage use is dated and admittedly weak, the writing, message, and themes are absolutely not. The show is all about the struggle of the individual against the society that demands they conform. The spy angle is just window dressing. And in a day when rock stars sell out and make Pepsi commercials before they're has beens, kids are drugged into obedience by teachers, and very few people think either is a bad thing, the world could use a more non-conformity and real individuals.

I watched the episode, and it did bother me, although not as much apparently as it has many others.

But the one thing that really got me was the testimony on the stand by the woman who gave birth to her termanlly ill child knowing full well that the child would die almost immediately. She talked at great length in loving terms about how important it was for her child to be allowed to pass on in her arms. That instead of letting her child pass away peacefully in her womb, birthing the child only to let it slowly and I would imagine painfully suffocate over several hours was somehow more dignified. Did anyone else find this a bit ghoulish?

Who would something like that really be in the interests of? The child? Again, how is the child really better off having to endure an agonizing death that there is no remedy for instead of going on peacefully before being born? Seems like such a decision has a lot more to do with the feelings of the mother.

As sympathetic as we all would feel towards the character, I really had a hard time seeing the choice that her character apparently made as being very selfish. If your child is going to die regardless of what you do, why is the choice that causes an immense amount of pain and suffering for your child before dying the kinder one? Just so you can hold your child for an hour or two, and not have to have an abortion? It just seemed to me so much like cruelty for appearances' sake.

I like to keep this civil, and polite, but that post you just had comparing Polanski and his crime to that of Bin Laden, and Hitler, especially Hitler, that is just downright insane. Not to mention very, very offensive.

You are aware that Polanski is a holocaust survivor, right? He saw his parents put on a train for Nazi death camp, where his mother did in fact die in a concentration camp. He escaped a Polish Ghetto when he was ten.

If you hate Polanski for what he did, fine. But when you compare him to Islamic terrorists that would walk past you to kill him for being a Jew, or to Nazis that actually did try to kill him, you really go off the deep end.