Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Willie Escalade
Can someone define "poor quality TS models"? Some girls one person might like others would not.
The point I am making.
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
OK, this last one that then I am really out.
So, by calling your answer "broad" I was insulting you?
I think your answer "The only qualification is for someone to appear on a TS site, whether CD/TS, is to appear feminine and interested in the scene" to the question of "What qualifies you to be on a TS site?" can definitely be categorized as "broad". That's not an insult, it is an observation and I'm sorry you took it that way.
But seriously, "...appear feminine..." "...interested in the scene..." So basically, anyone who can have a convincingly feminine appearance (completely subjective) and is a good actor / actress is qualified to be on a TS site? Even I do not agree with that premise.
You took an obvious (to me at least) OBSERVATION and made it personal, upon which you've based the rest of your conversation with me. If you had just come out in the beginning and said, "I find your statement that my answer is "broad" to be insulting," I would have apologized for the confusion and written something like I wrote above.
I didn't say YOU insulted me. I said it has been done in this thread and used as an excuse to escape having a dialogue.
Your "setup" is laughable. That's not insulting to say by the way so don't take it so. It is more than clear that I will answer anybody who quotes me so you can hardly call it a "setup" if you know the prey is going to walk into the "trap" willingly.
Anyway, so I guess you find any type of discussion to be "combative" and "dismissive". Of course, those actually hurling the insults and doing the actual "dodging"... they're rock stars of debate, right?
The point is this. Debate and discussion are two sided. If one person is asking and answering questions and the other person is just insulting and dodging... well then... draw your own conclusions.
I don'[t have to be 100% correct. As I just stated in a post to Giovanna_hotel, I am satisfied with his answer and consider that discussion closed. I don't have any personal grudges against him and will continue to dialogue with him as he/I see fit. It doesn't change the way that I view him as a person at all. It just gives me some insight on where future posts are coming from and I'll be able to more accurately asses whether a reply should be given or not. That is the power of words... once they're out there, they clear the air.
That is why I ask repeatedly for these definitions. Until they are put down and defined, they are open to interpretation, which you already admit is not "clear-cut". My supposition is that if it is not "clear-cut" in one's mind, then you should either abstain from voicing an opinion on the matter or else clear up your definition and be ready to define it if you do.
Rather than reply to this, I will just agree to disagree and move on. Good day.
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sherm13
Rather than reply to this, I will just agree to disagree and move on. Good day.
And good day to you as well.
And whether you believe it or not, I really do apologize for the "broad" statement. I really only meant is as a humorous observation, which I thought the explanation point made clear. Sometimes in type, humor does not translate.
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
I LOVE this thread. In a matter of seconds it goes from some unimportant company dislikes transsexuals, to what is a transsexual, to ...
The rest is flame about what constitutes a true transsexual.
Please, please, PLEASE keep Yum (and Black-tgirls) doing people early in transition. That's how it works in real life.
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
Good grief. Again, having to actually spell something out for you. Here you go.
The "right to do" speaks to the "does it matter" (the "why" is implied in the "does it matter". Here is why.
The owner has the right to say, "You're not appearing on the site because you wore blue heels and I dislike blue heels." or "You are appearing on the site because I like your fingernails, they're long and pointy." He is the OWNER of the site and thus qualified to make those kinds of decisions.
The CONSUMER of the site DOES NOT have the right to make those types of decisions, and thus, it does matter how they're defining terms upon which they're making petitions for changes in a site's model index by making the personal judgement that people deemed unattractive are "TV" and not truly "TS".
This is the question you think you are answering:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
loveboof
Does it matter what their definitions are when Seanchai has already confirmed that he has used TV's in his websites a number of times?
Does it matter what their own definitions of TV's are [in respect to proving whether they have been used on grooby websites] when we have already had it confirmed from Seanchai that they are there?! Think carefully you dappy cow... lol
Who has the right to choose what goes on the site is completely irrelevant! Obviously that is down to the site owners - although it would be wise to put something up there that actually appeals to the customers if you want to sell it.
__
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
No... you didn't use my original analogy. You CHANGED it with an "IF". You can take just about any analogy, change it with an "IF" modifier, and make it untrue. That is just stupid for you to even debate. Again with the trying to be clever when you're not.
You came up with an analogy about tomatoes being fruit but classified as vegetables. You're right, I did change your flakey analogy by making it more pertinent! I added 'IF' because that is the only way it would make sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
loveboof
If tomatoes were sentient, intelligent creatures who found it strongly offensive to be associated with vegetables, then it would be down to the greengrocer to correctly label and display the fruit. You would not expect the average, ill-informed consumer to provide pitch perfect definitions.
This is what you are asking of the porn consumers in this discussion. You seem to be refusing them the right of objecting to the disingenuous marketing of transvestites as transsexuals simply because they cannot tell the fruit from the vegetables.
What I am clearly saying here is that it is not down to the consumer to correctly label and define the product - it is down to the person selling it! In this case, TV's have been disingenuously presented as TS. This is the issue that Franklin (et al.) have been expressing (among other things). You missed it because you were too busy pleasuring yourself to the sound of your own voice.
I have been perfectly nice to you. I have not (until this post) insulted you in any way. Get your fucking head out your arse so you can actually see the computer screen.
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
And good day to you as well.
And whether you believe it or not, I really do apologize for the "broad" statement. I really only meant is as a humorous observation, which I thought the explanation point made clear. Sometimes in type, humor does not translate.
True about the humor part. I'm not really offended by that "Broad" comment, by the way. I included it as part of my post. I have thicker skin than most.
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
loveboof
What I am clearly saying here is that it is not down to the consumer to correctly label and define the product - it is down to the person selling it! In this case, TV's have been disingenuously presented as TS. This is the issue that Franklin (et al.) have been expressing (among other things). You missed it because you were too busy pleasuring yourself to the sound of your own voice.
No no no. TV's have not been presented as TS's - they've been presented under the porn word, "shemale" and I've covered that already.
ENOUGH!
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
seanchai
No no no. TV's have not been presented as TS's - they've been presented under the porn word, "shemale" and I've covered that already.
ENOUGH!
Yes that's a fair point Seanchai. In your case, they have been inadvertently incorrectly presented based on porn criteria and assumptions. So not 'disingenuous' - apologies.
(but Krissy is having a hard enough time wrapping her pretty little head around the concept as it is - best to keep talking about the greengrocer and his fruit & veg stand) :P
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
loveboof
This is the question you think you are answering:
Does it matter what their own definitions of TV's are [in respect to proving whether they have been used on grooby websites] when we have already had it confirmed from Seanchai that they are there?! Think carefully you dappy cow... lol
Who has the right to choose what goes on the site is completely irrelevant! Obviously that is down to the site owners - although it would be wise to put something up there that actually appeals to the customers if you want to sell it.
__
You came up with an analogy about tomatoes being fruit but classified as vegetables. You're right, I did change your flakey analogy by making it more pertinent! I added 'IF' because that is the only way it would make sense.
What I am clearly saying here is that it is not down to the consumer to correctly label and define the product - it is down to the person selling it! In this case, TV's have been disingenuously presented as TS. This is the issue that Franklin (et al.) have been expressing (among other things). You missed it because you were too busy pleasuring yourself to the sound of your own voice.
I have been perfectly nice to you. I have not (until this post) insulted you in any way. Get your fucking head out your arse so you can actually see the computer screen.
You have got to be kidding. Calling someone "obtuse" is not an insult? Read what you've written and the way it was said. Clearly demeaning. Wow... so you can swear. Big man. Now I feel ever so small and intimidated by your big, macho self.
Your first point is semantics and a poor argument at best and a badly worded question at worst. I've already stated that the "rights to do" speaks to the "does it matter", and the reason why... which you've conveniently forgotten to address other than rewording your dribble again and restating it. Again though... just for you.
It matters because if you were not making the distinction based upon looks alone (or some other kind of, as of yet, unstated definition), you wouldn't care because you'd never know. THAT is my sole point. Get that through your thick skull. In this case, the personal definitions speak to the "right" you think you have as a consumer to tell a site owner how to run their site or which models they should feature.
You are correct that is is not down to the consumer to correctly label and define the product; however, I like to think of PEOPLE as more than just PRODUCTS. That is the point where you and I disagree.
If this were milk being called milk when it was really water... yeah, I'd have a problem with that. But these are PEOPLE who you and Franklin (since you seem to agree with him so much, I'll include you here) are basically writing off as "TV men" and therefore "should not be" (i.e. - do not belong: i.e. - are not "TS enough") featured on the site. THAT IS THE POINT which you seem to fail to see.
Anyway, it is clearly evident that you see people as commodities here, and again, that's fine. That is your view of life... and a sad one at that. Until you change that point of view, which obviously isn't going to happen, we really do have little to discuss.
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
And, I'll go ahead an write a reply now since I know it is coming.
Yes, I know this is porn. Yes, I know some girls expect the marketing, etc. etc. Yes, like most other girls in porn, I allow for a great deal of leeway when it comes to being marketed as a product that I wouldn't allow for apart from that world.
What I do not tolerate is people making a personal judgement and not being honest about why they're making it... and that is what is being done here.
