Action needed now.

You did not.
You have not.
You cannot.

Correction: they are completely wrong.

WRONG.
Let's try this yet again: show us in the text of the ruling that the interpretation supports the usage of the expletive. You have simply stated your unsupported claim yet again, which lends absolutely no credence to your point.

Again: show us in the text of the ruling that the interpretation supports the usage of the expletive.

One more time: show us in the text of the ruling that the interpretation supports the usage of the expletive.

One last time: show us in the text of the ruling that the interpretation supports the usage of the expletive.

I simply do not understand why you have not done this after about a week on this thread. If you are right, then it should not be that difficult.

 

Alas, one more time: simply forego the tired contumely and provide the proof from the ruling that gives approval to use the expletive.

I have read the ruling, and proved my point using the actual text from the link that you provided. Thus far, I have done more than you have in terms of supporting one's argument.

By the way, personal jabs do not support your contention anymore than repeating the unsupported claims. Your perception of my attitude is as off base as your interpretation of the ruling. Stop repeating your claims and provide the proof that is so apparent.

 

Since you won’t be convinced by the plain English of the FCC’s decision, please feel free to ignore my posts. But don't be surprised if I continue standing for the truth. You can teach your distortions all you want (that’s between you and God) and I’ll go on correcting you unless you change your mind.

No you haven’t. Unfortunately, lots of people in the United States know the meaning of words but they lack basic reading comprehension skills. I'm not saying that you do, but the policy makers at AFA don't seem to have a clue.

No they don’t. And this isn’t the first time they’ve distorted the truth.

Yes, in this very particular circumstance and usage of the word.

Not the way you are alleging. You’ve taken a very specific ruling regarding a very specific situation and use of the word and are trying to leverage it to say that there are no restrictions.

It is similar to saying that if the FCC allows the brief visual depiction of a woman’s breast in a single show regarding the detection and treatment of breast cancer (something that happened a number of years ago), that women can always appear topless in every show and context on television.

And that just isn’t true.

And you’ve been wrong the whole time.

Generally speaking, this is true.

And this is not true.

It should be, but AFA has misled many people and they seem incapable of making simple distinctions.

It is clearly demonstrably false, and that should be clear to everyone.

Actually, I’ve barely participated in this discussion…

It has no bearing on your argument, but simply serves as a vivid example that you are not a careful reader. You may only see what you want to see in the FCC decision.

If they are honest, they are culturally illiterate. They don’t seem to understand satire or comedy very well and always work to interpret things in the worst possible way. They also don’t seem to understand context or age appropriate content.

If they applied the same standards of pietistic legalism to the pages of scripture, they would be against the Bible itself for all of the rough language, sex, sin, and violence contained within it.

That is highly debatable, but many of the political/social differences I have with AFA are in regarding to Baptist distinctives such a separation of church and state. It is not a Baptist group and does not adhere to Baptist principles, so I shouldn’t be surprised that I disagree with them.

The feeling is mutual.

 

Alright! Saved from the imaginary
wolf again!!

 

How is that progress? People complaining doesn't equal progress, especially when the FCC is shaking their heads and rolling their eyes at people who are protesting something that doesn't exist.

 

Like I have said, you have proven absolutely nothing. Utilizing your doctrine of repetition, let me say that again: you have proven absolutely nothing. You have, however, been consistent in perpetually regurgitating the false claims of the website you initially provided. I have asked you several times to provide the evidence to support your bizarre claims utilizing direct quotations/evidence from the body of the opinion issued by the FCC. Perhaps one of the "many here" could assist you with supporting your claims, as you have failed to do so. I have yet to see anyone come forward with the overwhelming evidence.

So one more time: give us proof to support your claims. As I stated in the first sentence: you have proven absolutely nothing. It's that simple - give us the evidence that the FCC has given approval. Several times you have stated that you provided proof. Stating something with perpetuity does not constitute proof. [Perhaps you never took debate in college.] It shouldn't be that hard if your evidence is irrefutable. Incidentally, your statement that "a US congressman understands it" proves absolutely nothing.

I am not a spoon-fed automaton that simply accepts what someone states as fact without any evidence. The ball is in your court: if the evidence is so overwhelming, this should not be such a daunting task. Stop the juvenile personal jabs and provide us with evidence.

 

BR and BB, I think that banging your head against the wall would be a more productive use of your time. Everyone else here can see your points, as you have elucidated them well, using the FCC ruling and the AFA article as evidence. Whether you ask Jailminister for evidence for his position 8 times or 9 times, it won't make any difference.

 

Stop being such a troll. How can you, with a clear conscience, continue to claim to crusade for what is "right", all the while ignoring numorous, repeated attempts to justify your position using quotes from the fcc ruling?

Clearly, you're wrong. You simply refuse to justify your position because you cannot justify your position; that is, your position is untenable. Is continuing to ignore that fact really the Christlike thing to do?

 

No, you haven't posted it. Haven't you even read the requests here? We'd like you to actually quote a paragraph or two from the FCC ruling to defend your assertion that the 'f' word can now be used at will on TV at any time. We've read the FCC ruling, and we come to a different conclusion that you, so if you want us to believe you, then why not just quote the paragraph(s) that support your stance? Is that so hard? Pointing to the website you provided is not proof, anymore so than me pointing to the talk.origins website proves evolution.

 

Thank you.

But I still take issue with your interpretation. Just because the FCC will not punish programs that use the 'f' word in a nonsexual sense does not mean that they condone it. If I had a child and he eats too much candy, i might not punish him for it but it doesn't mean I condone it either.

Condoning something and supporting something are two different things.

 

There you go again with your statement that a US Congressman gets it. What exactly is your fixation with this point? This adds nothing to your argument.

As for the "hundreds of thousands of other people" who agree with you: isn't is somewhat perplexing that nobody has assisted you in supporting your contentions, or are you normally not that inquisitive?

IT DOES NOT CONDONE THE USAGE, AND YOU HAVE ONCE AGAIN FAILED TO PROVE THAT. The last sentence is yours, and has absolutely no basis in fact. Provide your PROOF that this ruling now gives license to the usage of this expletive. If the "hundreds of thousands of people" get it, then why do you repeatedly fail to provide support for your claims?