I recently went off on ABC, CBS and NBC for their failure to give people more meaningful convention coverage instead of a barrage of re-runs. (See earlier commentary here.)

In response, Doc Eide writes: "I haven't tried goat gonads, but I'm sure they're preferable to (Teresa) Heinz-Kerry or (Sen. Hillary) Clinton."

Mathrew Canfield: "...Even though 'Fear Factor' and 'According to Jim' are awful programs, they are still more entertaining and informative than the conventions."

Bill Anderson believes that if the conventions were more pertinent, people might actually demand better network coverage: "Back when conventions actually achieved something - like writing the party platform - they were worth watching. But now they hold all the appeal of the halftime show at a football game!"

Patti More says she's glad the networks did next to nothing with the Democratic convention, and will do just as little with the GOP gathering: "BORING! Why would anyone want to watch?"

Sheri Wolf doesn't blame the networks as much as she blames people like Patti: "Re-runs...get higher ratings than coverage of the...convention. The public. Go figure."

And Lori Tuttle had an interesting point: "(The convention) is (aired) on Al-Jazeera. Maybe that explains why we know less about Arabs than they know about us."

What I know is that I appreciate hearing from everyone. Thanks for writing.

Want to share your thoughts with Ken Schram? You can e-mail him at kenschram@komo4news.com