Blocked. So done. I have no problem with being corrected when I make a mistake. Make them all the time. Come at me with a baseball bat, I am coming back with a howitzer. Again, thank you for changing the tone of that crazy. Much appreciated. I really try to be one of the good ones.

Whatever. As I am told by my wife when she gets upset with me and she doesn't like it when I use her logic against her, how I interpret what happens is correct. You were insulting in how you approached me. I dont have a problem being educated, but if you are going to be rude, the energy is matched.

Ah...now I get it. She does not see you posts to me. Got it.

Will do. But she can see the thread.

You jumped on an attacked me. Insulted me and then expected me to bow down because you told me I was mansplaining. I met your energy and you got more insulting. So yes, the tone change was nice.

Not you. The other person

Here is my thing and I appreciate the change on tone in the conversation...from what I am reading, if the offer is made then the rule is satisfied. Am I missing something else?

I grew up on antenna TV and formative years 14 or so forward, cable became a big part of my life, but was limited in available channels. Think the first box we had listed 20 or 30 channels. Became glued to CNN during the first Iraq war.

I will admit, was not familiar with the equal time rules. My memory of the fairness doctrine was a much bigger umbrella then it is that included equal time for candidates.

If I remember correctly, cable barely existed in the 80s. The expansion of channels was starting at that time.

Are you even reading what I write?

Equal time concept in the video. If the show offered time, then the statutenis satisfied. Right?

I dont know you. I dont care if you are male, female or somewhere in between. You jumped on my post. I get to react to what you are saying to me. I did read the statute. I read several versions of commentary of the statute. I admitted what I got wrong. Does not negate that I addressed the

That is what you focus on? So, commentary is now news reporting?

They talk about news, but are they reporting it? And yes, there was something I was wrong about. Fairness was for issues. Equal time is for candidates. Now, I did say that the show may have offered time to other candidates opposing. If that happened, then Equal time would be satisfied.

Ok. What did I get wrong?

How the fairness doctrine change the media landscape when it was removed? How the FCC is being selective in its outrage? OAN never has opposing views on. Will the FCC investigate them? Or Newsmax? Or are they safe because they are fringe cable? Or Fox?

And...that is what I said in the video commentary.

Well...I am a man. Here is the thing. I worked in media too. Just dismissing what I said as mansplaining does not negate my interpretation of what I read and how I understand it. Do you know if The View did not offer equal time to the GOP candidate? If they did, the equal time clause is satisfied.

Did you read the article? Seems The FCC is being selective in its outrage. Also, as I said in the video, if you watched in its entirety, The View may have sent a request to have other candidates on and they refused. Which would satisfy the equal opportunity spirit of the policy.