----------------------------Original message---------------------------- The long-running thread here about whether or not the government/tax-payers should be spending money on tv programming has been extremely helpful in helping me form more focused opinions. But more a tangible, and therefore influential, event has started me on really re-thinking about my earlier dogma of supporting publicly funded programs to the bitter end. I watch a *lot* of public television. I love it. But, it also was the only free station that showed what I wanted to watch because I don't watch sitcoms, sports, drama serials, newsmagine programs or talk shows (okay, one or two). I also don't have the personal resources to pay for a quality cable station like Bravo (in my area they were asking something like $18 a month for Bravo). But now, in the nick of time, Bravo is being offered free in my cable tv service area. Well, this seems like a smart move on the part of Bravo and/or the cable company, because if they can offer the service free and a lot of people watch it, they can ask for big money in advertising costs from the same corporate giants who finance the programming on PBS. I would support PBS being sold to someone (preferably *not* Murdoch) on the condition that the government regulate it heavily, which is my liberalism showing. We'd just be spending the same money on the regulatory agency instead of the Public Broadcasting System.