Action needed now.

[Jailminister]

BB and BR, Just ignore my postings, ok. I have showed you the facts of the documents. AFA has it right. I will repeat this again. The fcc ruling is that the program in question did not violate the rules. That means that the rules made by the FCC allows that language to be used on commercial public airwaves. That is what we have said the whole time. The people in Hollywood are always trying to push for more in order to compete with non-commercial programming that uses this foul language. They are now given the go ahead to use it, by this FCC ruling. That should be as plain as it could be. That is truth, undeniable.
I apologize to you, BR for calling you BB, but I had been going back and forth between both of you and just typed in BB. That does not change the fact that what was said was right.
I have worked with the AFA for many years now and I have always found them to be honest and the things they stand for are right. I just don't understand why some of you are unable to understand this issue.

 

[Jailminister]

PS: Just so you don't think I am the only one who feels this way Please go here and see what a US Congressman has said.
Click Here

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Jailminister:
BB and BR, Just ignore my postings, ok. I have showed you the facts of the documents.

You did not.
You have not.
You cannot.

AFA has it right.

Correction: they are completely wrong.

I will repeat this again. The fcc ruling is that the program in question did not violate the rules. That means that the rules made by the FCC allows that language to be used on commercial public airwaves.

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.

They are now given the go ahead to use it, by this FCC ruling.

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

That should be as plain as it could be. That is truth, undeniable.

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

I have worked with the AFA for many years now and I have always found them to be honest and the things they stand for are right. I just don't understand why some of you are unable to understand this issue.

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.

 

[Jailminister]

Your refusal to not accept what they said shows your tolerance for their ruling. It was not hard for a congressman to understand the ruling, but I guess you just don't want to understand it. Is it possible that you don't mind the use of foul language on TV? Just wondering.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Jailminister:
Your refusal to not accept what they said shows your tolerance for their ruling. It was not hard for a congressman to understand the ruling, but I guess you just don't want to understand it. Is it possible that you don't mind the use of foul language on TV? Just wondering.

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.

 

[Jailminister]

B in R, Like I said, just ignore my postings. I have proven it. Many here understand it, a US congressman understands it, You just don't want to admit it.

 

[Jailminister]

Progress is being made on the FCC ruling that it is ok to use the F-word on TV.
Click Here

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by Jailminister:
BB and BR, Just ignore my postings, ok.

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.

I have showed you the facts of the documents.

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.

AFA has it right.

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

I will repeat this again. The fcc ruling is that the program in question did not violate the rules.

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

That means that the rules made by the FCC allows that language to be used on commercial public airwaves.

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.

That is what we have said the whole time.

And you’ve been wrong the whole time.

The people in Hollywood are always trying to push for more in order to compete with non-commercial programming that uses this foul language.

Generally speaking, this is true.

They are now given the go ahead to use it, by this FCC ruling.

And this is not true.

That should be as plain as it could be.

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

That is truth, undeniable.

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

I apologize to you, BR for calling you BB, but I had been going back and forth between both of you and just typed in BB.

Actually, I’ve barely participated in this discussion…

That does not change the fact that what was said was right.

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.

I have worked with the AFA for many years now and I have always found them to be honest…

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.

…and the things they stand for are right.

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.

I just don't understand why some of you are unable to understand this issue.

The feeling is mutual.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by Jailminister:
Progress is being made on the FCC ruling that it is ok to use the F-word on TV.
Click Here

Alright! Saved from the imaginary
wolf again!!

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Jailminister:
Progress is being made on the FCC ruling that it is ok to use the F-word on TV.
Click Here

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.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Jailminister:
B in R, Like I said, just ignore my postings. I have proven it. Many here understand it, a US congressman understands it, You just don't want to admit it.

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.

 

[Brett]

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.

 

[Jailminister]

That's fine guys, Just ignore it. Some of us don't mind standing up for right, while people like you just stick their head in the sand.

 

[Brett]

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?

 

[Jailminister]

Brett, I have posted it many times. You just don't want to get it.

 

[Brett]

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.

 

[Jailminister]

Brett, I guess you just don't want to go back and reread what I have posted. I quoted right out of the ruling. A US congressman has agreed with me and so has hundreds of thousands of other people have agreed with me, so you ignoring the facts is your business.
As a threshold matter, the material aired during the
``Golden Globe Awards'' program does not describe or depict sexual and excretory activities and organs. The word
``f......'' may be crude and offensive, but, in the context presented here, did not describe sexual or excretory organs or activities. Rather, the performer used the word
``f......'' as an adjective or expletive to emphasize an exclamation. Indeed, in similar circumstances, we have found that offensive language used as an insult rather than
as a description of sexual or excretory activity or organs is not within the scope of the Commission's prohibition of indecent program content
If it isn't prohibited then it is a signal to Hollywood that they can use it if they want to do so.

 

[Brett]

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.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Jailminister:
Brett, I guess you just don't want to go back and reread what I have posted. I quoted right out of the ruling. A US congressman has agreed with me and so has hundreds of thousands of other people have agreed with me, so you ignoring the facts is your business.

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?

As a threshold matter, the material aired during the
``Golden Globe Awards'' program does not describe or depict sexual and excretory activities and organs. The word
``f......'' may be crude and offensive, but, in the context presented here, did not describe sexual or excretory organs or activities. Rather, the performer used the word
``f......'' as an adjective or expletive to emphasize an exclamation. Indeed, in similar circumstances, we have found that offensive language used as an insult rather than
as a description of sexual or excretory activity or organs is not within the scope of the Commission's prohibition of indecent program content
If it isn't prohibited then it is a signal to Hollywood that they can use it if they want to do so.

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?

 

[Jailminister]

B in R, You must be so spiritual blind that you just refuse to get it. I have asked you to ignore it, but you continue with your false logic. The ruling says that the word does not violate the FCC rules. So the only conclusion from that is that they have NBJECTION to the word being used on public airwaves. If you don't want your child to have candy then don't give it to them. If they violate the no candy rule then they should be punished. The FCC made the rules and so now Hollywood knows they can go ahead ond use it and not be subject to any fines or lost of licenses.
I mention the US congressman because he gets it and understands the Pandoras box that now has been opened. The rules need to be changed and if we as Christians don't want to have to deal with vulgarity on the public airwaves then we need to step up to the plate and let our voices be heard. THIS HAS BEEN THE POINT OF THIS THREAD THE WHOLE TIME.