X-critic also against Transsexuals

[loveboof]

Sure. Watch how easy it is to simply ANSWER a question when it has been posed.

ANSWER - "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?"
Yes, it does matter. One is a CONSUMER and the other is the OWNER. Of course the owner has the right to make decisions based upon any number of reasons why someone should or should not be included on a site. The consumer, beyond voting with a dollar, does not.
END ANSWER

Well that one was meant to be rhetorical, but your response wouldn't have answered it if it had actually been a question!

You seem to have answered 'who has the right to do something' rather than the actual question of: 'does it matter; why?'
(poor reading comprehension backatcha)

ANSWER - "...can you answer me why you think it is still important for them to be personally accountable with a definition?..."
It is important because it goes to the heart of the matter about how Franklin (or anyone) is making that judgement call. You cannot make any judgement call AT ALL unless you have a definition in mind against which you're comparing.

Yes. Unless of course the owner has already categorically told us all that he has used 'lifestyle TV's'. Then that personal 'definition in mind' is largely irrelevant because the information is coming from an outside source. At this stage, the 'judgement call' becomes about whether they are comfortable being sold TV's in TS packaging. (so to speak)

END ANSWER (see how easy that is!)

Well it can't be that easy because you seem to have failed yourself! lol

THE REST OF THE STUFF.
Your tomato-ey stuff... nonsense and you know it. Not the point that was being made.

Not nonsense at all. I used your own tomato analogy to rephrase the issue. Why don't you re-read it and see if you can find the 'easy answer' to that conundrum.

What I have a problem with is saying that girls who are found unattractive for whatever reason are simply "TV men" and don't belong on the site.

That's fair enough. Although, I don't recall anyone actually saying that.

[GroobyKrissy]

I respect your answer but the main problem Krissy, is that you do not seem to respect the answers of others. You give off the aura that you are more intelligent than others and everyone else is simple-minded. I have to imagine that most reading this forum could easily piece that together.

On a side-note, if you feel that the consumer should not have the right to decide who should appear on the site, then why did you phrase the question to Franklin, who is the consumer?

My answer to that is you just like to cause conflict, otherwise there was no point of asking this question. You answer to the question was consumers shouldnt have the right to dictate which models appear on the site, wasn't it? There is no point having a discussion with you because your main goal is to put everyone down in order to get your opinion across, which you believe is 100% fact.

BEGIN ANSWER - "...if you feel that the consumer should not have the right to decide who should appear on the site, then why did you phrase the question to Franklin, who is the consumer?"
Because that was not the original sentiment that was expressed. You're taking one conversation and placing it on top of another.

Originally, Franklin was making the blanket statement that TVs should not appear on TS sites. Agreed?

That is FINE. I have no problem with that statement right there. But he didn't stop there. He then went on to imply that those who don't fit a certain proficiency of beauty are "TV men" and thus should not be (read: unworthy) included on the site because they are not truly TS. That is where I have the problem. I don't know how many times I have to say that. THEN the question does become, on what basis are you making that decision (i.e. - give me some definitions) and the request for those definitions is logically pertinent.
END ANSWER

Please.

Tell me in what instance I have "not respected" the ACTUAL answer of others? Tell me where I have "put everyone down" when it hasn't been said to me first? Quote it please and I'll quote back to you where it was said either about me or someone else first in the same thread.

I am intelligent. I am well educated. I am not going to "dumb myself down" for you or anyone here. I do not believe others are simple-minded. I believe that everyone has the capacity to have an actual conversation without making things personal... something which clearly, you do not. I believe in making a point that is thought out, logical, and can be supported by its own merits. I don't believe in generalities. I believe that if you say something on a forum called "General Discussion" you should be open to actually discussing it and defending your points when challenged. I believe that if someone asks you a question, they deserve an answer.

In this thread, I have posed TWO simple questions to a couple of posters. BOTH have not answered (and no, your quote of Franklin is NOT an answer by any debate standard). Both have hurled the "you're just stupid and you're just being obtuse" line because they are unwilling or unable to answer the question simply and accurately.

People may piece together things as you describe... I'm fine with that. Anyone who actually takes the time to read through everything objectively, knows that there is a clear breakdown in logic here that I'm getting at. If you were to take my conversations aside and piece them together with the "supposed answers", in a linear format, it would be comical. You have one side (me) asking a couple of simple questions, and getting insults and dodges back.

So, you're basically saying that the only reason one asks questions is to cause conflict? I mean, that is brilliant. So, I can just go out there and say anything I want and if anyone questions me about it, I can just say, "Oh, you're just trying to cause conflict." Right. That's reasonable.

I love the "there is no point..." line. I am WELL open to ALL discussion with people. As you can see, I ALWAYS try to answer EVERY person who quotes me, regardless of whether I like / dislike their point of view. The facts are, when people are presented with other points of view that challenge their belief structures, they, like you, often just spout off the tired, trite: "There is no point..." because they cannot stand on the merits of their own argument.

[GroobySteven]

It is gonzo. Gonzo porn is porn without any plot. It's sad that you don't know what you're making.

Gonzo pornography - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ok you're getting tiring - it's little wonder that you're banned from so many forums. You chose the one line in that wikipedia article that supported what YOU think gonzo porn is - and again, you are wrong.

Gonzo (originally journalism) is to take the part of the author as first person "in" the narrative. In porn, it's the photographer as the author and gonzo porn is usually where the cameraman becomes a part of the action as a participant and not just a casusal observor or even a "fly on the wall". Ed Powers, early Joey Silvera, Buttman, etc. are gonzo porn. In our niche, Tony Vee, Buddy Wood, Frank etc. have all done gonzo style porns.

Here is the quote you should have pulled from that wikepedia article, the first lines defining gonzo porn, not your cherry picked ones:

"Gonzo pornography is a style of [Pornographic film - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that attempts to place the viewer directly into the scene. The name is a reference to Gonzo journalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, in which the reporter is part of the event taking place. By analogy, gonzo pornography puts the camera right into the action — often with one or more of the participants both filming and performing sexual acts — without the usual separation characteristic of conventional porn..."

In the scene with Paris Pirelli, which does have a storyline of a girl waiting for her boyfriend to come and have sex with her, Buddy Wood filming the scene, in no way becomes part of the scene. It's purely Christian and Paris in the scene.

I'm really getting tired of your pedantic bickering here, Franklin. Move on.

[giovanni_hotel]

GroobyKrissy, If you can find the actual post it would help, but I thought FRANKLIN was making two distinct points; TVs should NOT be featured on TS sites, and that unattractive TS should not be featured on TS sites.

I don't recall him ever saying unattractive TS were 'TV men'. I'd bet that's a correlation you're making inside your head.

You keep asking for an objective definition of a subjective OBSERVATION, since no one can know from a pic definitively if someone is TG or a CD.

But like many guys on this board, I know a TV when I see one, and it's not really much of an issue of attractiveness. Am I always right in my observation??
NO.

By am I always wrong?? No.

This is what I mean by saying you like to stir shit up for no reason at all because you like to keep some invented controversy going.
You keep arguing over the most basic points that everyone understands, but still haven't been answered to your satisfaction.

[sherm13]

BEGIN ANSWER - "...if you feel that the consumer should not have the right to decide who should appear on the site, then why did you phrase the question to Franklin, who is the consumer?"
Because that was not the original sentiment that was expressed. You're taking one conversation and placing it on top of another.

Originally, Franklin was making the blanket statement that TVs should not appear on TS sites. Agreed?

That is FINE. I have no problem with that statement right there. But he didn't stop there. He then went on to imply that those who don't fit a certain proficiency of beauty are "TV men" and thus should not be (read: unworthy) included on the site because they are not truly TS. That is where I have the problem. I don't know how many times I have to say that. THEN the question does become, on what basis are you making that decision (i.e. - give me some definitions) and the request for those definitions is logically pertinent.
END ANSWER

Please.

Tell me in what instance I have "not respected" the ACTUAL answer of others? Tell me where I have "put everyone down" when it hasn't been said to me first? Quote it please and I'll quote back to you where it was said either about me or someone else first in the same thread.

I am intelligent. I am well educated. I am not going to "dumb myself down" for you or anyone here. I do not believe others are simple-minded. I believe that everyone has the capacity to have an actual conversation without making things personal... something which clearly, you do not. I believe in making a point that is thought out, logical, and can be supported by its own merits. I don't believe in generalities. I believe that if you say something on a forum called "General Discussion" you should be open to actually discussing it and defending your points when challenged. I believe that if someone asks you a question, they deserve an answer.

In this thread, I have posed TWO simple questions to a couple of posters. BOTH have not answered (and no, your quote of Franklin is NOT an answer by any debate standard). Both have hurled the "you're just stupid and you're just being obtuse" line because they are unwilling or unable to answer the question simply and accurately.

People may piece together things as you describe... I'm fine with that. Anyone who actually takes the time to read through everything objectively, knows that there is a clear breakdown in logic here that I'm getting at. If you were to take my conversations aside and piece them together with the "supposed answers", in a linear format, it would be comical. You have one side (me) asking a couple of simple questions, and getting insults and dodges back.

So, you're basically saying that the only reason one asks questions is to cause conflict? I mean, that is brilliant. So, I can just go out there and say anything I want and if anyone questions me about it, I can just say, "Oh, you're just trying to cause conflict." Right. That's reasonable.

I love the "there is no point..." line. I am WELL open to ALL discussion with people. As you can see, I ALWAYS try to answer EVERY person who quotes me, regardless of whether I like / dislike their point of view. The facts are, when people are presented with other points of view that challenge their belief structures, they, like you, often just spout off the tired, trite: "There is no point..." because they cannot stand on the merits of their own argument.

Are you trying to prove my point?

You insulted my answer by calling it "broad" first off. Then, you state I am unable to have a conservation without it getting personal, which is both ironic and insulting.

I never called you "stupid" or "obtuse." I never insulted your intelligence. I'm pointing out the fact that you are genrally combative and dismissive of anyone else challenging you. Your answer to your own question proves that. It was a set up to get your point across, nothing more.

Asking and answering questions in itself is not conflict. The way in which you have answered and asked questions in this thread is what anyone can see was to start conflict to get your opinion across to those who you see are wrong.

Whatever, I am done arguing with you. There is no point having a discussion with someone who just wants to prove that there opinion is 100% fact. Your question does not have a clear-cut answer and its really just an opinion. This isnt something that only has one answer.

[GroobyKrissy]

Well that one was meant to be rhetorical, but your response wouldn't have answered it if it had actually been a question!

You seem to have answered 'who has the right to do something' rather than the actual question of: 'does it matter; why?'
(poor reading comprehension backatcha)

Yes. Unless of course the owner has already categorically told us all that he has used 'lifestyle TV's'. Then that personal 'definition in mind' is largely irrelevant because the information is coming from an outside source. At this stage, the 'judgement call' becomes about whether they are comfortable being sold TV's in TS packaging. (so to speak)

Well it can't be that easy because you seem to have failed yourself! lol

Not nonsense at all. I used your own tomato analogy to rephrase the issue. Why don't you re-read it and see if you can find the 'easy answer' to that conundrum.

That's fair enough. Although, I don't recall anyone actually saying that.

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".

It is not poor reading comprehension, it is you thinking you're clever and me not realizing that you weren't clever enough to string the logic together.

As stated originally, the owner has the right to pick and choose any model for any reason. Thus his definition or admission of using any type of model or any model type is irrelevant. Again, a simple string of logic that you fail to see.

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.

Here is your reading comprehension problem... since you "...cannot recall anyone actually saying that." I warn you, you've got to actually make some logical connections here but for someone of your cleverness, it shouldn't be too difficult. The second statement entirely contradicts the first. Even you should see that.

Franklin:

I cannot respect your opinion about TVs on TS sites. Shemale Yum does not say TV Yum. The site's name is Shemale. The site does not say that TV men will be featured. Shemales are TS women. TVs are not transsexuals. A TV should not be featured on any TS site.

and Franklin again:

I clearly said that TVs not belong on TS sites.

I said poor quality TS models should not be in porn. I did not deny or question their status as TS women.

[GroobyKrissy]

Out for a while. Errands to run and things to do today.

[Willie Escalade]

Can someone define "poor quality TS models"? Some girls one person might like others would not.

As for the "top" girls not appearing on some sites...maybe it's THEIR OWN decision not to. It's similar to Louis Vuitton...they are HIGHLY selective of where their product is released; if you want their stuff, you have to go to the proper places to get it (just as if you want the bootleg stuff you go elsewhere)...

[GroobyKrissy]

GroobyKrissy, If you can find the actual post it would help, but I thought FRANKLIN was making two distinct points; TVs should NOT be featured on TS sites, and that unattractive TS should not be featured on TS sites.

I don't recall him ever saying unattractive TS were 'TV men'. I'd bet that's a correlation you're making inside your head.

You keep asking for an objective definition of a subjective OBSERVATION, since no one can know from a pic definitively if someone is TG or a CD.

But like many guys on this board, I know a TV when I see one, and it's not really much of an issue of attractiveness. Am I always right in my observation??
NO.

By am I always wrong?? No.

This is what I mean by saying you like to stir shit up for no reason at all because you like to keep some invented controversy going.
You keep arguing over the most basic points that everyone understands, but still haven't been answered to your satisfaction.

My satisfaction would be just what you just stated.

That is all I'm asking for. You judge TS status based upon looks. I don't know why that was so difficult for you to just come out and say originally.

If you think you can know a TV (implied: as opposed to a true TS) when you see one (implied: based upon a picture or series of), then you are making a judgement based upon looks. There is no way around that. And that is fine. That is the way you view people and although I don't agree with doing that, it is fine for you to have that opinion. It is then fine as well for me to say that you have no real credibility when speaking about matters that are TS-related since your only premise for being "TS" is based upon looks.

The facts about being "always right" or "always wrong" is irrelevant. It is the very action of making that judgement call in the first place that I was questioning.

Franklin has NOT made two distinct points. Do a little homework for yourself and read his original post on the matter and then his follow up... I think it is somewhere around page 5 or so. He clearly stated that TV's should not be featured on TS sites and then followed that up by all but stating outright that he considers all unattractive TS to be TV. A bit later he walked that back a tiny bit.

It is not an invented controversy when I can quote you back what you said, ask for an explanation and then am ignored for the rest of the thread. That is cowardice. In all of the heated conversations that I've had with people, once faced with their own words quoted back to them, they've abruptly ended the conversation after hurling an insult or two.

I congratulate you on actually purposefully or mistakenly saying what I postulated in the beginning. People judge TS status based upon looks alone. Whether rightly or wrongly. If you do it, just admit it, own it, and stand by it when you're questioned in the future about it.

[GroobyKrissy]

Are you trying to prove my point?

You insulted my answer by calling it "broad" first off. Then, you state I am unable to have a conservation without it getting personal, which is both ironic and insulting.

I never called you "stupid" or "obtuse." I never insulted your intelligence. I'm pointing out the fact that you are genrally combative and dismissive of anyone else challenging you. Your answer to your own question proves that. It was a set up to get your point across, nothing more.

Asking and answering questions in itself is not conflict. The way in which you have answered and asked questions in this thread is what anyone can see was to start conflict to get your opinion across to those who you see are wrong.

Whatever, I am done arguing with you. There is no point having a discussion with someone who just wants to prove that there opinion is 100% fact. Your question does not have a clear-cut answer and its really just an opinion. This isnt something that only has one answer.

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.