When this situation comes up -- as with "Roseanne" and "Alf" and too many others -- someone points out that the expense of restoring the original, uncut episodes may be greater than the revenue that's lost from the people (like us) who won't buy the sets. (I've talked to many "laymen" who say they don't know or care if episodes are cut -- I'm afraid we're in a minority.) But I do know this. We know for a fact that there ARE people who will refuse to buy a set that has cut episodes (because we're among their number) -- but is there even ONE person on Earth who PREFERS cut episodes? I mean, is there anyone who says, "I refuse to buy this set if the episodes are UNCUT?" I doubt it -- so screwed-up releases like this can only DECREASE sales, not increase them. So REVENUE will be down. However, PROFIT is another story -- and we don't know what the "bottom line" is on releases like this. It all depends on what the expense would have been to find (or restore) the original episodes vs. how much revenue is lost by releasing them cut. Economics aside -- no "Mama's Family" for me, and I'm really disappointed (and angry) at Warners now.