X-critic also against Transsexuals

[GroobyKrissy]

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

The point I am making.

[sherm13]

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.

[GroobyKrissy]

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.

[iagodelgado]

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.

[loveboof]

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:


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 when we have already had it confirmed from Seanchai that they are there?! Think carefully you dappy cow... lol

Who has [I]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.
__


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.

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.

[sherm13]

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.

[GroobySteven]

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!

[loveboof]

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

[GroobyKrissy]

This is the question you think you are answering:

Does it matter what their own definitions of TV's are when we have already had it confirmed from Seanchai that they are there?! Think carefully you dappy cow... lol

Who has [I]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.

[GroobyKrissy]

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.

[loveboof]

Krissy, sweetie. Why are you assuming that I agree with Franklin?

I have found almost every addition you have made to this thread to be condescending or rude to somebody - I have been talking to you in kind. It turns out you don't really like it very much. Nobody does.

You believe there is a difference between transvestites and transsexuals. I agree. Do you think it is right to present TV's under the guise of TS porn?

Because this is what I am saying. It is irrelevant whether I can define transgenderism to your liking because my point does not depend upon me knowing the difference between TV/TS on sight. It depends upon the fact that Seanchai has already told us TV's have been used on occasion for his websites.

Now Seanchai doesn't see a problem with this because of his definition of the word 'Shemale'. Fine. It's not my problem...

I agree that the models used in this industry are people first and foremost. They also form a product. It is sold to us, so it is a commodity. If you have a issue with that, then don't work in the porn industry.

In this specific example, I have been using phrases relating to your analogy interchangeably. This does not change my actual point.

I do not believe that all TS women who I find unattractive are TV's. But that doesn't mean that some of them are not. Do you understand what I am saying?

In regards to Franklins views, I have simply been arguing that he has a right to them and should be able to express them without ridicule and censorship!

[christianxxx]

poor dumb Franklin has the same delusion that many fans on many porn forums have. they think somehow that the vocal minority constitutes more of a say-so for companies than the silent majority. This is incorrect. If Shemale-Yum has 2000 members and Franklin and 5 other people hate a scene or model, there are still 1995 other possible members who love it or said nothing. Franklin is not privy to sales, statistics, or numbers.

Many obsessive porn fans seem to think their voice means more than the 1 of however many members a site has, simply because they decided to speak up. Hilarious.

Its extremely insulting because it assumes Seanchai is too stupid or ignorant to run his own sites and make them profitable. Get this through your thick skulls - Seanchai wants to make as much money as possible - ergo he personally and specifically tailors his entire network to maximize that amount of money. Telling him how to run his own business is absolutely retarded. He has been the TS industry leader for 15 years now at least. If I were him I would be so pissed off at Franklin's stupid nonsensical rants.

[GroobyKrissy]

Krissy, sweetie. Why are you assuming that I agree with Franklin?

I have found almost every addition you have made to this thread to be condescending or rude to somebody - I have been talking to you in kind. It turns out you don't really like it very much. Nobody does.

You believe there is a difference between transvestites and transsexuals. I agree. Do you think it is right to present TV's under the guise of TS porn?

Because this is what I am saying. It is irrelevant whether I can define transgenderism to your liking because my point does not depend upon me knowing the difference between TV/TS on sight. It depends upon the fact that Seanchai has already told us TV's have been used on occasion for his websites.

Now Seanchai doesn't see a problem with this because of his definition of the word 'Shemale'. Fine. It's not my problem...

I agree that the models used in this industry are people first and foremost. They also form a product. It is sold to us, so it is a commodity. If you have a issue with that, then don't work in the porn industry.

In this specific example, I have been using phrases relating to your analogy interchangeably. This does not change my actual point.

I do not believe that all TS women who I find unattractive are TV's. But that doesn't mean that some of them are not. Do you understand what I am saying?

In regards to Franklins views, I have simply been arguing that he has a right to them and should be able to express them without ridicule and censorship!

I will take your points one by one:

I assume you agree with Franklin because typically when one defends another person's argument, it is taken as implied approval. If that was not your intention, best to say so at the beginning. As in, "I don't agree with everything Franklin says but he has the right to say it."

I don't care how you speak to me. I've responded in that effect only to illustrate that is not how discussions should be handled. And you're wrong. Just because I press strongly on a point and am unwilling to give it up if not addressed, how does that make it "condescending and rude"? As you say you have done, I have responded in kind to those as well.

Quote me ONE instance when I STARTED OFF by insulting someone who had already not insulted me? Even you, who says, you did not, started off your first post here to me by calling me "obtuse". How is that a conversation starter?

You see, you take discussion as discussion only if someone agrees with you, and everything else as condescending or rude. It is not condescending or rude to point out the flaws of logic that someone has in a train of thought. It is called discussion. Nor of course, is it condescending or rude if it comes from your hallowed mouth. Only when it comes from someone else. This is the very definition of hypocritical.

I would be very happy to have an honest discussion about this... but people aren't willing to be honest... which is my point. You cannot have a conversation about the "TV vs TS" thing unless you admit that you judge that criteria based upon looks alone. If you don't start there, you simply don't have a leg to stand on and all subsequent arguments are invalid.

Yes. I believe there is a difference between TV and TS.

BUT NO, there is no "moral" implication (right vs wrong) in presenting TVs under the guise of Shemale porn. As has already been said, it is a descriptor open to many interpretations. Sites have tours. Tours (especially SMY, which has one of the largest tours around) give a glimpse of the sites overall content. If you don't like what you see, then don't join it. If you do, you probably have a fair idea of what is to be seen on the site.

Now, would I be sympathetic to girls who are TS to voice concern about being featured alongside people they consider to be TV? Sure. Frankly, it is why I am strongly considering not attending this year's Tranny Awards for the first time since it began. It is awesome to be considered and nominated for so many categories, but I am well aware that my name is probably pretty suspect to many involved. I want the TA's to succeed because it is good for the genre as a whole. If that means I don't attend so it isn't looked on as a "joke"... then so be it. It is a truth that I can accept and live with.

You do not have to define what TS means to my liking. What I am stating is that by not having ANY definition down in writing about what you believe, you are leaving it open to interpretation and allowing yourself to say whatever you want. That is cowardly.

As I've already stated... NUMEROUS TIMES NOW... I don't care at all about if you judge a person's TS status on looks. I care when you get high and mighty about it and start calling people TVs publicly who identify as TS, as Franklin has done here.

I've already answered the "...then don't work in the porn industry"... point in my already written answer. The porn industry is different.

I understand what you're saying about unattractive TS not being TV. That is not (logically implied) what Franklin has stated. In defending his views, I took that as approval and agreement. If that is not your though process, then fine. I take your word for it and apologize for mixing the two of you together.

I have at NO TIME called for any sort of censorship or that he (or anyone) should stop expression views... and I never will. But, you've got to realize that some views will have strong reactions from other people. If you're willing to express the views to begin with but don't want any of the consequences, can't defend them, or just are going to devolve into name calling and demeaning insults, then you've got no place expressing them in the first place.

Clearly, I am tough on people I disagree with. But, contrary to popular belief, I do read through EVERY word of EVERY post that I'm involved in quite carefully.... something which others do not do. And again, contrary to popular belief, I think about and digest what has been written before I write a response. I do not rely on memory. I have dual monitors so I have exactly what was written on the other screen as I type a response.

If you had stated somewhere SIMPLY that you disagreed with some of Franklin's views but had a right to say them, I would not even have entered into your conversation timeline. YOU addressed me... I did not initiate a conversation with you.

[loveboof]

Yeah, well fair enough. My initiation into this discussion was after Seanchai deleted a comment from Franklin - which I happened to have read before it was removed.

It was derogatory, but not slander. Franklin was simply stating his opinion.

It was around this time that I did actually differentiate my views from his on certain things by placing qualifiers around a few sentences but I have not felt the need to directly assert my views into the thread.

Your attitude has been consistently condescending and you have called almost everyone who has engaged in discussion with you 'stupid' on multiple occasions.

I too read every word of a post before replying, but I still misread or misinterpret things every now and then. So do you. It happens - nobody's perfect.

I also happen to be a bit of an arrogant know-it-all in these sort of discussions, so we have something in common :)

In this instance, you are arguing for the sake of it. You are fueling disagreement and dressing it up as a desperate attempt at an honest discussion. We don't all need to agree to have a discussion, but there does have to be common ground. Stop snatching away olive branches and snapping them under the weight of your disapproval...

[GroobyKrissy]

Yeah, well fair enough. My initiation into this discussion was after Seanchai deleted a comment from Franklin - which I happened to have read before it was removed.

It was derogatory, but not slander. Franklin was simply stating his opinion.

It was around this time that I did actually differentiate my views from his on certain things by placing qualifiers around a few sentences but I have not felt the need to directly assert my views into the thread.

Your attitude has been consistently condescending and you have called almost everyone who has engaged in discussion with you 'stupid' on multiple occasions.

I too read every word of a post before replying, but I still misread or misinterpret things every now and then. So do you. It happens - nobody's perfect.

I also happen to be a bit of an arrogant know-it-all in these sort of discussions, so we have something in common :)

In this instance, you are arguing for the sake of it. You are fueling disagreement and dressing it up as a desperate attempt at an honest discussion. We don't all need to agree to have a discussion, but there does have to be common ground. Stop snatching away olive branches and snapping them under the weight of your disapproval...

Please. Tell me WHO has offered an olive branch that I have rejected? It is pretty imagery but ends there.

To the contrary, I have stated my discussion with Giovanna_Hotel closed after his last post, considered my discussion with Sherm13 closed after his last post (with an apology for something that I said that was misinterpreted). Thus far, I am the only one actually issuing any sort of actual apology for words I have spoken.

Again, I asked for specifics which you have failed to supply. In a discussion you can't just make sweeping, broad generalities. Notice how when I say something, I follow it with an example, and typically, what I say speaks to a specific point. All you can do is make a sweeping statement that I'm condescending and rude. Again, show me where I have been that way to someone who hasn't treated me that way to begin with or called me "stupid" first. I'm not saying two wrongs make a right here, but if you can dish, then you can take.

I've not said that I don't misinterpret things... which is why I am asking for a definition... so I don't do that. If it is left undefined, then you're asking for misinterpretation. I don't understand what is so difficult to get about that.

In the future, when Giovanna_Hotel says something I disagree with in the realm of TS-related items, I know it is coming from a place of looking at TS individuals on the basis of looks. That is freeing. In the future I know to be extra careful in trying to inject humor into posts with Shrem13. That is freeing.

If anyone is arguing for the sake of arguing, it is you. You've explained your thought process. I said I took your word for it (i.e. - olive branch accepted), I apologized for lumping you together with Franklin (olive branch extended), and now, you're just throwing that back in my face and again saying that I am consistently condescending (a word you're misusing BTW) and basically just arguing to hear my own voice... So who is snapping olive branches here... you or me?

It comes down to this. If YOU are disagreed with... it is the other person (me) who is always wrong... that is true arrogance. I may come across as arrogant, I may not. Like I said, I don't dumb things down for other people... that is truly (and factually) condescending. When I have taken a condescending tone, it is because any other attempt has failed to get the point across so I literally have to spell the points out. I give people every ounce of room I can give them before going down the road of "let me spell this out for you". Sometimes, there just isn't another way.

What I do do, is when faced with something that I've said that has been misinterpreted, is provable as wrong, or has truly hurt someone's feelings, then I concede the point, move on, and make apologies if necessary. I don't see that from any other poster here at all.

Anyway, I get it. You think I am an arrogant twat in love with my own voice, stirring up trouble just to spend hours here wasting away because I have no other things to do with about 40 blogs to run, a site to run, a social life to maintain, and etc. etc. etc. Great. Just ignore the fact that if I was TRULY this person, I'd be involved in A LOT more threads than I actually am. Go through my history. Notice the threads that I do get seriously involved in. See the theme...? PEOPLE.

I engage here on subjects that I care about because I like this board. I like the people on it (everyone) and I think it is worth having these discussions. I make the points I make because they are pertinent to how girls are looked on within the industry, something that I have firsthand knowledge about. I want things to get better for those who will be there long after I have hung up the heels.

It is a sad state though that people cannot engage in dialogue here without devolving into this soup of nastiness. I was just speaking the other day with someone who once contributed here regularly but doesn't and won't anymore because people, such as yourself, basically ran her off.

Guess what... I'm not going anywhere. Fun!

[giovanni_hotel]

So annoying.
Yes you are condescending Grooby. No loveboof didn't use the word inappropriately. When people TELL YOU what they mean and you choose to interpret that meaning as something else, that my dear is textbook condescension; " You may think that's what you mean, but let me tell you what you really mean..."

You call me Giovann(a). Maybe you're the one Grooby who needs the vocabulary tutorial on condescending behavior.

For the last time, I can give you a scientific definition of transsexualism, and I can give you a definition of what a TG means to me when I look at porn. Whenever I see a pic of someone with a 5 o'clock shadow, bad lipstick, wearing a wig, no 'mone or saline/silicone breasts with a six pack and ripped muscles who looks like at best they started transitioning yesterday, I either think that person either shouldn't be on a tranny porn site, or they are really TV/CD.

Because you technically can't tell if someone is TV or TG from their appearance, in the same way you can't know if someone is a virgin or a slut from a pic, you've held on to this argument Grooby to discredit my opinion as a consumer that there are some TVs passing themselves off as tgirls for the paper in tranny porn.

Your point of view may be correct in a pedantic sense, but it denies reality.

[loveboof]

All you can do is make a sweeping statement that I'm condescending and rude.[B] Again, show me where I have been that way to someone

I didn't want to do this because it represents a tedious trawl through 20 pages 'quote +ing' every single one of your posts.

condescension (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/condescension):
con·de·scen·sion (knd-snshn)
n.
1. The act of condescending or an instance of it.
2. Patronizingly superior behavior or attitude.


A ditto on this for me... and another voice that says Franklin is full of crap.



Good lord you're a sanctimonious prick. I'd shred your supposed logic and reduce you to a bumbling fool...oh wait, you've already done that last part.



I'll go through most any thread you've posted in and point out every grammatical error, word mis-usage, spelling mistake, and of course, GAPS IN LOGIC.

Consider just this Mr. Census:



The stupidity lies in the fact that you cannot take a simple line of reasoning and apply it to yourself. THAT is true stupidity.



And you call other people 'stupid'? [...] I will spell this out for you since you often have reading comprehension problems.
Please... look at your own stupidity before you go putting that label on others.


So, just for clarity here... and since you're an expert on the topic...

I would like you to put down here, in writing, what your qualifications for being featured on a "TS" site are. And if you say, "being TS" then you really are either stupid or a total fraud. Go ahead.


so you're stupid, a fraud, AND chicken. Great!
You basically said nothing... One more try?


just say that you're either chicken to put down your definitions or that you really don't know... in either case, you've pretty much lost credibility to comment further at all.

so please make the effort to connect a few threads of logic.


I already know you run from confrontation but I'll give you the same opportunity as I gave Franklin. In writing...


I know it is strange to have to answer for your words... So sorry for that inconvenience.


You have NO further credibility to speak on the issue.


I don't have to explain the concept of circular reasoning to someone as smart as you? Just admit it and lose all credibility to speak seriously on the subject.


Again with the reading comprehension problem.


you and Franklin have both spewed your crap and find yourselves in a corner.
Stand by your words or just simply say you were wrong. I expect neither though.




I love people who cannot even comprehend the things they have said.



I am assuming you are smart enough to write what you mean




As I did for Franklin, I will spell YOUR OWN WORDS out for you so you can stop wasting my time and start arguing with yourself.

THESE ARE YOUR WORDS.



you simply have no grounds for having LOGICAL discourse because you can't see the logical implications of what someone states.




Let us just do this to make things more easy to understand.

That is stupidity.



Watch how easy it is to simply ANSWER a question.

BEGIN ANSWER
END ANSWER

BEGIN ANSWER
END ANSWER (see how easy that is!)


There are still plenty more. About another 7 pages to go through...

Does this sufficiently answer your question though?

[arena95]

the weirdest of threads!
I am not at all an expert on the matter so the greatest of my admiration goes to anyone who knows exactly who is CD, IV ,TS or shemale!
defining the terms is one thing, being able to determinate exactly who is what another! I could not do so not in a millon years, too many of the somewhere in this thread ever so rightly mentioned shades of grey!
it is hard for me imagining for instance joanna jet waking up one morning during her 15 years presence on the internet, looking in the mirror and saying to herself: "good grief, hip hip hurray, I am no longer a TV, from now on I am a TS and I can feature on SMY without consumers complaining about my presence!"
so why not quit putting labels and trying to impose our preferences on everybody else!
I have never kicked in a larger open door than this one, if you do not like what you see, for heavens sake, stop looking!
and btw, I resent people called stupid whom I know for a fact are not!!!

[GroobyKrissy]

So annoying.
Yes you are condescending Grooby. No loveboof didn't use the word inappropriately. When people TELL YOU what they mean and you choose to interpret that meaning as something else, that my dear is textbook condescension; " You may think that's what you mean, but let me tell you what you really mean..."

You call me Giovann(a). Maybe you're the one Grooby who needs the vocabulary tutorial on condescending behavior.

For the last time, I can give you a scientific definition of transsexualism, and I can give you a definition of what a TG means to me when I look at porn. Whenever I see a pic of someone with a 5 o'clock shadow, bad lipstick, wearing a wig, no 'mone or saline/silicone breasts with a six pack and ripped muscles who looks like at best they started transitioning yesterday, I either think that person either shouldn't be on a tranny porn site, or they are really TV/CD.

Because you technically can't tell if someone is TV or TG from their appearance, in the same way you can't know if someone is a virgin or a slut from a pic, you've held on to this argument Grooby to discredit my opinion as a consumer that there are some TVs passing themselves off as tgirls for the paper in tranny porn.

Your point of view may be correct in a pedantic sense, but it denies reality.

My sincere apologies. For some reason I had it stuck in my head that it was Giovanna... not Giovanni. I'm sorry. I hate it when people refer to me as Chrissy or Kristie so I know how that can grate on your nerves. It was an honest mistake.

You're wrong about condescending. I'll explain why in my post to Loveboof.

You've already stated that you judge TS status on looks alone. I don't have a problem with that as I've already stated. My discussion with you is done unless you want to open it up again, but I see no question in your statement, so closed.

Again, apologies about the misnaming.

[BellaBellucci]

This thread is...

http://www.wixiban.com/images/ccg1e/roa/1EROA017.jpg

~BB~

[GroobyKrissy]

I didn't want to do this because it represents a tedious trawl through 20 pages 'quote +ing' every single one of your posts.

condescension (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/condescension):
con·de·scen·sion (knd-snshn)
n.
1. The act of condescending or an instance of it.
2. Patronizingly superior behavior or attitude.

There are still plenty more. About another 7 pages to go through...

Does this sufficiently answer your question though?

Wow... that was an epic... waste of time. For all your harping on me about not answering a question accurately... WOW. I asked:

"Again, show me where I have been that way to someone who hasn't treated me that way to begin with or called me "stupid" first."

Your post is an epic waste of time as you selectively chose to answer it. Something you railed on me for doing. I have already conceded the point that I become condescending at times:

"When I have taken a condescending tone..."

I asked you to show me where I have done so outright, that is without being "condescended" to first. In each of those instances I can point to where the person that I'm replying to has taken that tone with me first. But since you're so great at doing homework, I'll let you find those for yourself too. EPIC FAIL on your part. But points for trying.

Now let me delve into your misuse of the word "condescending". I will use your (unattributed) definition of: Patronizingly superior behavior or attitude.

That is textbook, so correct.

However, I would say there is a difference between preceding an argument with a barb (or insult) and being outright condescending. There is also a difference between just offering an insult and being condescending. Just because you're insulting one during the point of an argument doesn't mean you're being condescending.

"A ditto on this for me... and another voice that says Franklin is full of crap."
INSULT / OBSERVATION - not condescending.

"Good lord, you're a sanctimonious prick. I'd shred your supposed logic and reduce you to a bumbling fool... oh wait, you've already done that last part."
INSULT / OBSERVATION - not condescending.

"I'll go through most any thread you've posted in and point out every grammatical error, word mis-usage, spelling mistake, and of course, GAPS IN LOGIC."
NOT AN INSULT AND NOT CONDESCENDING - You took this completely out of context. It was in reply to the poster calling someone else "stupid" when clearly, everyone makes mistakes or doesn't speak correctly at times. That was the point.

AND SO FORTH.

If you're truly being condescending, you believe that the person being addressed doesn't have the intellectual capabilities to work out the issue on their own, so you're "dumbing it down" on their behalf. In other words, you can be completely condescending without being being acutely insulting at all... the condescending itself is the insult.

As in, to your female secretary:

Here are some instructions on how to put together this desk.
This is called a screwdriver. It is what you use to turn the screws. This is called a screw... and so forth, when you know full well that the person knows those things. That is being condescending.

In my arguments, I give the person the opportunity to answer a question or make a valid point. When the answer is an insult, I'm not just going to sit there and take it. I'll, as you said yourself, answer in kind.

When the answer or point is completely illogical, then I'll address why point by point. That is not being condescending. That is pointing out flaws in an argument.

As stated previously, I've already conceded the point that I travel into the realm of being condescending at times. Also, as previously stated, it is usually because I tried a reasonable argument and it has been thrown back as "stupid" or completely misrepresented. That leaves one with no choice but to point-by-point it or else just become a doormat.

Anyway... EPIC FAIL on your part for not answering the question posed accurately. But anyway... what were you saying about arguing for the sake of arguing... and who is doing that now with semantics?

[TSPornFan]

Ok you're getting tiring - it's little wonder that you're banned from so many forums. QUOTE]

What? I'm only banned at one forum. Admittedly that was my fault for saying some very rude things about a model.

[QUOTE=seanchai;1253888]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!

I've been a member at your sites. I have not noticed anyone presented as a TV. You said you have shot them for your sites. Yet, as I said I have not seen anyone presented as a TV or any labels named TV.


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)...

NO ONE said the top girls must work for other companies. However, it looks bad for any genre when the top girls do not work outside of their sites. That speaks volumes. Some girls don't work for other sites because of their brands. Others like Sarina Valentina and Bailey Jay have problems with other companies' production quality. Some girls who I will not name feel that they were cheated and lied to by top companies.


poor dumb Franklin has the same delusion that many fans on many porn forums have. they think somehow that the vocal minority constitutes more of a say-so for companies than the silent majority. This is incorrect. If Shemale-Yum has 2000 members and Franklin and 5 other people hate a scene or model, there are still 1995 other possible members who love it or said nothing. Franklin is not privy to sales, statistics, or numbers.

Many obsessive porn fans seem to think their voice means more than the 1 of however many members a site has, simply because they decided to speak up. Hilarious.

Its extremely insulting because it assumes Seanchai is too stupid or ignorant to run his own sites and make them profitable. Get this through your thick skulls - Seanchai wants to make as much money as possible - ergo he personally and specifically tailors his entire network to maximize that amount of money. Telling him how to run his own business is absolutely retarded. He has been the TS industry leader for 15 years now at least. If I were him I would be so pissed off at Franklin's stupid nonsensical rants.

Shut the hell up. Dude you lost all creditability when you said Bambi Prescott is a top TS pornstar. She is no where near popular as so many TS pornstars.

No one told him how to run anything.

It is true that Grooby is the leader in TS orn. Let's look at the facts. No other TS company tries to compete against Grooby. No other company releases nearly as much TS content as Grooby. If you have NO competition then of course you're going to be on top.

Popular site sites like Kink, Devil's Films, and Reality Junkies make some Ts porn. The vast majority of it is straight. They're also not trying to be number one in TS porn. They're trying to release a good product and make some money from us TS fans.

In straight porn Brazzers is considered the leader. However, there is a lot of competition from Naughty America, Bangbros, Devil's Films, Evil Angel, etc. At least Brazzers can proudly be number one. To a certain extent Brazzers has worked hard in terms of video production. However, their tube sites hurt their image as number one. Personally I don't think they need the tube sites to be on top. That's my opinion.

[loveboof]

Wow... that was an epic... waste of time. For all your harping on me about not answering a question accurately... WOW. I asked:

"Again, show me where I have been that way to someone who hasn't treated me that way to begin with or called me "stupid" first."

Ooo. Unfortunately I was ready for ya Krissy..

Yeah I chose to ignore that part of your question because it was already a distinction you had placed on my words.



I have found almost every addition you have made to this thread to be condescending or rude to somebody


Your attitude has been consistently condescending and you have called almost everyone who has engaged in discussion with you 'stupid' on multiple occasions.

To which you replied:

Just because I press strongly on a point and am unwilling to give it up if not addressed, how does that make it "condescending and rude"?

After that you went on to clarify my assessment of your attitude for me. Thanks lol.

__


In each of those instances I can point to where the person that I'm replying to has taken that tone with me first. But since you're so great at doing homework, I'll let you find those for yourself too.

Don't be so lazy! You wouldn't accept anything from me until I 'proved' my point - surprisingly it was not sufficient for you (shocker). I will require you to prove to me that on each of the occasions I highlighted, you were responding in kind to someone else.

(Spoiler: you'll fail on the first one to Franklin... but please do try anyway)



I will use your definition of [condescending]: Patronizingly superior behavior or attitude.

That is textbook, so correct.

That's all that needs to be said about that ;)

[sherm13]

[quote=seanchai;1253823]Ok you're getting tiring - it's little wonder that you're banned from so many forums. QUOTE]




I've been a member at your sites. I have not noticed anyone presented as a TV. You said you have shot them for your sites. Yet, as I said I have not seen anyone presented as a TV or any labels named TV.

Here is the description of one of the models featured this week when she appeared on the site two years ago:


"Very cute and friendly tv who has only just started crossdressing."

[TSPornFan]

[quote=FRANKLIN;1254031]

Here is the description of one of the models featured this week when she appeared on the site two years ago:


"Very cute and friendly tv who has only just started crossdressing."

Okay, thanks. I normally don't look at models who aren't my type. That's why I've never noticed models being presented as TVs.

[GroobyKrissy]

Ooo. Unfortunately I was ready for ya Krissy..

Yeah I chose to ignore that part of your question because it was already a distinction you had placed on my words.

To which you replied:

After that you went on to clarify my assessment of your attitude for me. Thanks lol.

Don't be so lazy! You wouldn't accept anything from me until I 'proved' my point - surprisingly it was not sufficient for you (shocker). I will require you to prove to me that on each of the occasions I highlighted, you were responding in kind to someone else.

(Spoiler: you'll fail on the first one to Franklin... but please do try anyway)


That's all that needs to be said about that ;)

No.

Still an epic failure. You're just pointing out the negative things I have said... A POINT I HAVE ALREADY CONCEDED. I give back what I get. BUT...

OK, I see what you're doing here, and that's fine. You're limiting this to THIS THREAD. In that case, I concede the point. I threw the first punch to Franklin here out of frustration for his taking up a tone with Wendy and calling her stupid and being truly condescending.

I was speaking generally, not limited to this thread as I've had conversations with a couple of the parties involved here before. I did not make that entirely clear so that fault lies with me.

See, this is how reasonable people act. Are you so proud of yourself now that you've gotten me to say I was wrong about something? I don't mind doing so. The facts speak for themselves and can't be denied.

In all the other cases (non-Franklin), even in this thread, it was not me who threw the first punch. Now be intellectually honest as I have done and admit that.

As to the rest. Wow... you're so clever. I can just imagine you rolling naked on the floor with glee, shaking with excitement and gloating that you've caught me! Congratulations.

As I stated before, the difference between someone who is arrogant and someone who is not, is being able to admit to being wrong. I was wrong about Franklin throwing the first punch to me in this thread (before... not so much). You were CLEARLY wrong about all the others. Retraction? Of course not. Apology? Wouldn't count on it. Admission of fault? Nah.

Again... you're so clever yet you misread a simple statement. THE DEFINITION ITSELF IS FROM A TEXTBOOK (i.e. - dictionary)... SO IS CORRECT... THE APPLICATION IS NOT, which I explained.

[GroobyKrissy]

I didn't want to do this because it represents a tedious trawl through 20 pages 'quote +ing' every single one of your posts.

condescension (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/condescension):
con·de·scen·sion (knd-snshn)
n.
1. The act of condescending or an instance of it.
2. Patronizingly superior behavior or attitude.

There are still plenty more. About another 7 pages to go through...

Does this sufficiently answer your question though?

By the way... I love how you edited the quote in some, omitting the actual discussion point to make your point more valid...

YOUR QUOTE OF ME:

And you call other people 'stupid'? [...] I will spell this out for you since you often have reading comprehension problems.
Please... look at your own stupidity before you go putting that label on others. What I actually said IN RESPONSE TO THIS cherry picked statement "Oh so you only want praise?" (the context):

I normally don't comment on things that I'm not quoted in but SERIOUSLY??? THAT (your bold) is what you take from that comment? And you call other people 'stupid'? Just because someone doesn't 'like' something, that isn't a statement to the contrary. I will spell this out for you since you often have reading comprehension problems. Just because a business owner (or anyone for that matter) says they don't like/want criticism, that doesn't inherently mean they only want praise.

Please... look at your own stupidity before you go putting that label on others. Condescending, yes. Insulting, yes. After being directly and bluntly called stupid by the poster earlier. With your oh-so-clever and logical brain, even you must admit that the question of "Oh so you only want praise?" given the CONTEXT of the conversation is, in fact, a stupid conclusion to draw. In this case, the full context changes the application of the quote. I knew I didn't just string it together like that but nice to see you have some editing skills to match your cleverness.

Anyway, nice how you leave the ... in place of the actual supporting argument, which is pertinent to the response. When I quote someone, I do so fully with the context intact. Can't say the same about you.

[GroobyKrissy]

Don't be so lazy! You wouldn't accept anything from me until I 'proved' my point - surprisingly it was not sufficient for you (shocker). I will require you to prove to me that on each of the occasions I highlighted, you were responding in kind to someone else.

(Spoiler: you'll fail on the first one to Franklin... but please do try anyway)


That's all that needs to be said about that ;) (and no, it is not your full quote because the rest is not pertinent to your request.)

I've already conceded Franklin so that leaves you with... almost nothing. But here you go:

This is Giovanni_Hotel's first mention of me in this thread:

GroobyKrissy, I'm far from afraid of confrontation, but I'm also not going to get into an interwebz back-and-forth with someone who argues with their own reflection. You're a repetitive bigmouth. No thanks. This is YOUR FIRST mention of me in this thread (bold mine):

@ Krissy, you're being similarly evasive/obtuse by focusing so much energy on the specific definitions. You know full well that it is a grey area to define, but by hammering down on the others for an air-tight explanation is just deflecting their main points. Why don't you attempt to practice some of that 'comprehension' you are so pining for and actually work out the real meat of what it is they are trying to say... So, that is all ya got unless I missed one. Franklin accounted for over HALF of your epic post proving me so completely wrong on a point I had already conceded given I was speaking generally and you were speaking about this thread only.

In both of the other instances, the insult / condescending tone was directed at me first and I gave it back.

Retraction now? Apology now? Admission of guilt now? Nah. Thanks.

[GroobyKrissy]

And yes, now I am arguing with Loveboof for the sake of arguing. This is really a stupid argument to have. On the other points. No. Pertinent. On this. Definitely just for the sake of it.

[lifeisfiction]

Taking bets this thread will hit 50, lol. The funny thing about an argument is that no one will convince the otherside they are right, but they hope they will. I just think you folks are wasting each others time. No one is going to change their opinion, nor will there be any winners. Make peace and move on.

[loveboof]

You're just pointing out the negative things I have said... A POINT I HAVE ALREADY CONCEDED....

You don't think it's even slightly impressive just by sheer volume alone? I mean all that condescension and rudeness from one person, in one thread... I think it's worth a head nod at least :/ lol



I threw the first punch to Franklin here

Cool. I accept your hard fought resignation over the blame :)

We have seen evidence of your gratuitous rudeness, and continued evidence of your pure condescension.



See, this is how reasonable people act. Are you so proud of yourself now that you've gotten me to say I was wrong about something? I don't mind doing so. The facts speak for themselves and can't be denied.

Yes I am happy. It was very gracious of you to acknowledge this inescapable fact now that there is nowhere else for you to turn.



Wow... you're so clever. I can just imagine you rolling naked on the floor with glee, shaking with excitement and gloating that you've caught me! Congratulations.
How did you know I was naked baby? ;) lol

But yeah, in most of those cases you were responding to something equally rude or condescending. However, you are responsible for your own actions Krissy - I find 'eye for an eye' to be a fairly puerile excuse.



As I stated before, the difference between someone who is arrogant and someone who is not, is being able to admit to being wrong.
Nope, you can still be arrogant and admit being wrong (as you're proving right now lol)



Again... you're so clever yet you misread a simple statement. THE DEFINITION ITSELF IS FROM A TEXTBOOK (i.e. - dictionary)... SO IS CORRECT... THE APPLICATION IS NOT, which I explained.
Ok, so my textbook definition is correct - but it is only your own definition which applies to this situation? Is that what you're actually trying to say to me?

Do you really believe that it is not condescension if someone has done it to you first? Grow up.

______

And yeah, I have cut some irrelevant sections of your posts for succinctness. The originals are there for anyone to view.

I did this so everyone could clearly see what I was highlighting for my responses.

(Any other straws you want to grasp at while you're flailing around on the floor?)

[Genetic]

I have never stated that the two are interchangeable and the same thing. Nor have I ever implied that logically.

What I have stated emphatically, is that YOU, not knowing the individual PERSONALLY, cannot accurately make the determination of "TV" or "TS". If you do, you're doing it on the basis of looks alone. All I ask is that if you do that, then admit it.

As I said, I should have known better than to reply...

I see where you are coming from and yes that does answer my question. However, I do think that there is definitely some offense that can be taken from what you are saying here. I'm not speaking for FRANKLIN or anyone else, but from my own point of view - if I go to a site expecting TS, I don't expect to be deceived with TVs. As you said, unless you know the person in question then it's pretty much impossible to know whether someone is early TS/TV or just fuck ugly, so you are relying on the honesty of the site/dvd/whatever to provide genuine content.

Personally I never realised that the performer mentioned earlier was a gay guy in a wig, I just presumed he wasn't that passable. To me though it's fraud to advertise that person as being a TS or Shemale when they aren't.

And some TVs are very easy to spot. I'm not going to name names here as that would be disrespectful, but some are quite clearly men in women's clothing.




I'm really getting tired of your pedantic bickering here, Franklin. Move on.
Not defending FRANKLIN here as some of his arguments here have been very pedantic and you're absolutely right but can the same not be said for GroobyKrissy who has argued virtually everything that can be argued in this thread?




Its extremely insulting because it assumes Seanchai is too stupid or ignorant to run his own sites and make them profitable. Get this through your thick skulls - Seanchai wants to make as much money as possible - ergo he personally and specifically tailors his entire network to maximize that amount of money. Telling him how to run his own business is absolutely retarded. He has been the TS industry leader for 15 years now at least. If I were him I would be so pissed off at Franklin's stupid nonsensical rants.

I agree totally that fans of anything can often think they know better than the people involved. However I do think there is always room for criticism and feedback provided it is constructive. All business owners want to make as much money as possible, but huge numbers of businesses fail so the person at the helm isn't automatically the best person to run it or is beyond being criticised. Look at the situation with IAFD - if the owner was beyond criticism a third gender would never have been introduced.

I'm not criticising Seanchai's sites or his running of them but I do think it's important to acknowledge that input is important. Realistically a lot of FRANKLIN's arguments have been discussed and many of his criticisms have been dispelled because Seanchai has addressed them. If it had been done in a calmer manner by everyone involved, it could have been an educational experience.

[GroobyKrissy]

You don't think it's even slightly impressive just by sheer volume alone? I mean all that condescension and rudeness from one person, in one thread... I think it's worth a head nod at least :/ lol


Cool. I accept your hard fought resignation over the blame :)

We have seen evidence of your gratuitous rudeness, and continued evidence of your pure condescension.


Yes I am happy. It was very gracious of you to acknowledge this inescapable fact now that there is nowhere else for you to turn.


How did you know I was naked baby? ;) lol

But yeah, in most of those cases you were responding to something equally rude or condescending. However, you are responsible for your own actions Krissy - I find 'eye for an eye' to be a fairly puerile excuse.


Nope, you can still be arrogant and admit being wrong (as you're proving right now lol)


Ok, so my textbook definition is correct - but it is only your own definition which applies to this situation? Is that what you're actually trying to say to me?

Do you really believe that it is not condescension if someone has done it to you first? Grow up.

______

And yeah, I have cut some irrelevant sections of your posts for succinctness. The originals are there for anyone to view.

I did this so everyone could clearly see what I was highlighting for my responses.

(Any other straws you want to grasp at while you're flailing around on the floor?)

Well, as expected.

A. An excuse (in tiny type) under the guise of "succinctness" about why you misquoted me out of context and edited a quote to make your own post sound more menacing that it really was. THAT is childish. If you can't own up to that being an incorrect way to win an argument, fine.

B. You keep pounding this point, which, for the record, has absolutely NOTHING to do with the points I have actually put forth (succinctly put in the next post). This is a total sidebar and a personal attack against me because you basically have no way to discuss calmly the other points. I have already conceded the point that I sound condescending at times... and explained why. I have already conceded the point that, yes, I will return slight for slight when it is given. I am NOBODY'S DOORMAT and it is simply insane that you would ask that I take the abuse that I've been given without defending myself and replying back in turn. Then you whine about it. Boo-Hoo. If that is your only point... i.e. - That I can give as well as take... WOW... that is a sad point to be cornering an argument on and calling it a win.

C. You completely choose to ignore ANY reasoning that you are wrong in any way. Wow... in most cases? A bit late to state that now, after you've already made a BFD about it, standing on your grandiose and epic thread "exposing" me?? And then, basically your acknowledgement of that fact is again, another slight with the "however...". That is ARROGANT. You cannot escape that FACT.

I have thus far issued THREE apologies and/or admissions of something incorrect I have done. No modifiers, backhanded spout offs, etc. etc. TO DATE... not one person has done the same to me. I'm not whining about it... it is a statement of fact. So basically, you all are saying that I AM THE ONLY ONE AT FAULT HERE? That is crazy.

Half of the time I have been defending myself against comments that are personal attacks against me. Something I do OCCASIONALLY with a word or two of "that is stupid" or "you're being stupid".

If you want to be intellectually honest about this, then find every single negative thing that has bee said to me in this thread and then list those... We'll see who's list is longer.

The fact of the matter is this. You're picking on this one topic over and over again, which I've already conceded because you have nothing else. Want to have an actual discussion. Fine. Get back to the original point... start it off any way you'd like and let's go from there. No name calling, no bickering, no condescending attitudes. Just straight logic and civility. Let's see who breaks first. I can guarantee it won't be me... it hasn't been for most ALL of the posts that I've done.

And yes, it is OK to answer back in kind when it has been given to you repeatedly. AS I ALREADY STATED, I was not referencing this thread alone when I said the "first blood" comment. I was speaking from a history of dealing with the people involved. You were referencing this thread. I conceded that was OK and using that, I was wrong about Franklin. You were wrong about everything else... but once spoken... it magically becomes intractable except for your backhanded admission.

Good lord. This is you at your best? This is you putting your great mind to work and the best you can come up with is ONE time that I put someone else down before I was insulted? Forget that within the next post or two the poster said quite bluntly "You are stupid". Yeah, forget anything that anyone says except for Krissy. That's mature.

So, let's have a discussion. State your point because with all of this, I don't even know what it was to begin with.

[GroobyKrissy]

As I said, I should have known better than to reply...

I see where you are coming from and yes that does answer my question. However, I do think that there is definitely some offense that can be taken from what you are saying here. I'm not speaking for FRANKLIN or anyone else, but from my own point of view - if I go to a site expecting TS, I don't expect to be deceived with TVs. As you said, unless you know the person in question then it's pretty much impossible to know whether someone is early TS/TV or just fuck ugly, so you are relying on the honesty of the site/dvd/whatever to provide genuine content.

Personally I never realised that the performer mentioned earlier was a gay guy in a wig, I just presumed he wasn't that passable. To me though it's fraud to advertise that person as being a TS or Shemale when they aren't.

And some TVs are very easy to spot. I'm not going to name names here as that would be disrespectful, but some are quite clearly men in women's clothing.

Not defending FRANKLIN here as some of his arguments here have been very pedantic and you're absolutely right but can the same not be said for GroobyKrissy who has argued virtually everything that can be argued in this thread?

Good grief. So another person jumps on the bandwagon.

What in god's green earth could you possibly have taken slight from in my response directed to YOU... because the "As I said, I should have known better than to reply..." is basically implying that I said something inappropriate or wrong TO YOU.

You asked me a question. I answered it clearly. If you didn't want an answer, then don't ask the question. Your posing of the question was straightforward and polite. I answered it straightforwardly and politely. I asked at the end if that was a satisfactory answer to your question.

Somehow you have taken up offense from my answering a question that you, yourself posed to me. I don't understand that AT ALL. If I ask someone a question and they answer it with an honest opinion, then OK. I may disagree. I may state why. But I don't get offended by the sheer fact that they answered it.

FOR THE RECORD
I have NOT argued "...virtually everything that can be argued in this thread..." I have made ONE basic point and the rest has been:

A: Pointing out why responses to that point have been either flawed logically or just outright incorrect.

OR

B: Defending myself against personal attacks.

The ONE basic point that I have made, that everything flows through is simple: You cannot judge a person's TS status based upon looks alone. If you do so, you have no right at all discussing matters related to the subject with any seriousness. END BASIC POINT.

For those who will not admit that they do this (base TS status solely on looks)... yeah, I have a continuing problem with you spouting nonsense from a "moral high ground" stance about who is TV and who is TS. You are making the distinction based upon looks alone as I stated but are unwilling to admit that because it really does show you for a superficial and disingenuous person.

For those of you who HAVE admitted it (such as Giovanni_hotel), I have no further words to discuss as you have stated an outlook on life that it would be foolish to argue with because I believe people can believe and have whatever outlook on other people they so choose. That is their right as individuals. It is also my right to believe that that is a sad way to look at PEOPLE.

Honestly, Genetic... I am just not sure AT ALL how anything I wrote in direct reply to YOU could be taken as anything but a straight answer to your question. That is how I intended it and how it was written (and I've re-read it several times now). Please explain.

[loveboof]

Well, as expected.

An excuse (in tiny type) under the guise of "succinctness" about why you misquoted me out of context and edited a quote to make your own post sound more menacing that it really was. THAT is childish. If you can't own up to that being an incorrect way to win an argument, fine.


FFS Krissy, I haven't edited anything to be more 'menacing'. Let's face it, your posts are a sprawling mass of hysterical BS and pointless information. If I want to reply to specific things you have said, it is just clearer if I break your Leviathan comments down into smaller, relevant sections.

Occasionally there has been a further context to your words, but in those instances that context has been irrelevant imo - like my post where I am just highlighting some of the times I thought you were being rude or condescending... (whatever the context is, that is my opinion of your attitude! You cannot tell me it's incorrect.)



Then you whine about it. Boo-Hoo.

Out of the two of us, honestly, which one seems to fit this description better?



your grandiose and epic thread "exposing" me?? And then, basically your acknowledgement of that fact is again, another slight with the "however...". That is ARROGANT. You cannot escape that FACT.

I said myself that I am arrogant. You know in that nice level message I sent to you :) It was an irenic (not a typo - look it up if you're unsure) attempt at diffusing our situation.

This thread has not been about 'exposing you'. If anything like that has happened, you have done it yourself.

I think our first interaction on this site was in the Jamie French begging for aid thread, where I stood up for you against a few arseholes who were being unreasonable. In this instance, I was helping Franklin out because the whole Groobiverse was turing out in force to put him down. You have already admitted to being unnecessarily harsh to Franklin in this thread - so whether you realise it or not, you agree with my rationale for contributing to this thread.



If you want to be intellectually honest about this, then find every single negative thing that has bee said to me in this thread and then list those... We'll see who's list is longer.

After my first interjection into this thread, I went away for a while. When I came back there were an additional ten pages. I read them. The overwhelming impression I got was that you (particularly you) were being consistently rude or condescending to just about everyone!

This was my impression - you cannot tell me it is wrong, because I am telling you how I felt.



You're picking on this one topic over and over again, which I've already conceded because you have nothing else.
Krissy, at this stage, I am just replying to your comments.



I conceded that was OK and using that, I was wrong about Franklin. You were wrong about everything else...
Again, I wasn't wrong Krissy. How could you be right (and me wrong) about my own feelings?

I showed you countless examples of your rude or obnoxious attitude, and you are still somehow arguing with me. Let me be ultra clear about this:

I have found you to be consistently rude and condescending in this thread.

What else can you say to that?



So, let's have a discussion. State your point because with all of this, I don't even know what it was to begin with.
Part of my point I have once again attempted to explain above.

I don't believe you can tell a TV from TS by looks alone - I was the first person in this thread to say it was a grey area. However, I also don't think that matters because Seanchai has told us that he has featured TV's on his websites! From there arises the issue of whether it is right to (possibly inadvertently) mislead the consumers about what they are viewing.

Franklin has a right to express his opinions - and imo he is not always right, but he is not always wrong.

[loveboof]

Oh, and it seems another one of Franklin's posts has been deleted...

Completely ridiculous moderation!

[loveboof]

Oh wow.. two grooby employees dislike me mentioning the unwarranted deletion of a members post... lol

What a joke. Any member here who does not work for Seanchai should be completely outraged by the wanton removal of any comment!

[GroobySteven]

I removed it - as it was going over the same old ground and been covered - it's starting to become harrassment from him and it's now clear why he's been banned from Kink's forum and apparantely a few others, I've tried to engage him and answer his questions pertinantly over the years but he absolutely refuses to listen.

If you don't like the way the forum is run - go elsewhere - I've told you this before.

[Wendy Summers]

Oh wow.. two grooby employees dislike me mentioning the unwarranted deletion of a members post... lol

What a joke. Any member here who does not work for Seanchai should be completely outraged by the wanton removal of any comment!

For the record, I don't work for Seanchai; nor do i particularly need shoots with his company (so no, he has no hold over me on that issue either).

That being said I don't seen an issue here; I'm not outraged. His company's board, so we play by their rules. Don't like it - start your own forum. :).

[loveboof]

If you don't like the way the forum is run - go elsewhere - I've told you this before.

I could do that. Or you guys could just be more reasonable in your moderation!

I wouldn't have a problem with your removal of posts or threads (or members) if you were just transparent about it and let us, as a community, know what you're doing.

It feels inherently underhanded when you swipe away a members post just because you dont like it. I accept that he has been very critical of your business - and could well have crossed the line a few times, but the bulk of his comments have been fine.

[loveboof]

For the record, I don't work for Seanchai; nor do i particularly need shoots with his company (so no, he has no hold over me on that issue either).

That being said I don't seen an issue here; I'm not outraged. His company's board, so we play by their rules. Don't like it - start your own forum. :).

Super weak sauce Wendy! Like way too weak - tastes like toilet water to me.

I had you pegged higher than that...

[LibertyHarkness]

this thread keeps on going and going ... why not just lock the dam thing .. its moved off topic now anyway .

[GroobySteven]

I could do that. Or you guys could just be more reasonable in your moderation!

I wouldn't have a problem with your removal of posts or threads (or members) if you were just transparent about it and let us, as a community, know what you're doing.

It feels inherently underhanded when you swipe away a members post just because you dont like it. I accept that he has been very critical of your business - and could well have crossed the line a few times, but the bulk of his comments have been fine.

Which is why the bulk of his comments have been left - and answered.
There is transparancy, read the rules it's there - and furthermore, the management has the ability to delete. Generally, in criticism I'll prefer to answer but when it turns into harrassment especially as I've answered his points in this post, then I'm going to simply delete it. I'd asked him earlier in the postings to give it a rest and move on.
I think the moderation is very reasonable - many forums and moderators wouldn't even allow this line of questioning.

[Willie Escalade]

this thread keeps on going and going ... why not just lock the dam thing .. its moved off topic now anyway .
This fellow Libertron seconds that...!

[GroobySteven]

this thread keeps on going and going ... why not just lock the dam thing .. its moved off topic now anyway .


There you go ... if Libby owned this forum, she'd lock it and let it fall. That would be her choice of moderation. Many others would have simply deleted it and not bothered answering.

[LibertyHarkness]

to right ... on some of the straight forums i am on , when a thread goes completely off the rails it just gets locked ..and its done with ..

all that is happening here is people repeating themselves over and over ... and the OP topic of it about Xcritic has been long left in the ashes now ..

Just dont see the point in the thread now .. if the certain posters here want to go tit for tat why not take it private messages :)

[GroobySteven]

Just dont see the point in the thread now .. if the certain posters here want to go tit for tat why not take it private messages :)

There is no money in private messages.

[loveboof]

There you go ... if Libby owned this forum, she'd lock it and let it fall. That would be her choice of moderation. Many others would have simply deleted it and not bothered answering.

Do whatever you want to do.

I assume by the fact that none of my messages have been deleted they have been deemed okay for this discussion...

Let Krissy reply to me, then lock it. (Give her the last say)

[Edit:]

Which is why the bulk of his comments have been left - and answered.

I meant the bulk of the comments which were removed...

[GroobyKrissy]

FFS Krissy, I haven't edited anything to be more 'menacing'. Let's face it, your posts are a sprawling mass of hysterical BS and pointless information. If I want to reply to specific things you have said, it is just clearer if I break your Leviathan comments down into smaller, relevant sections.

Occasionally there has been a further context to your words, but in those instances that context has been irrelevant imo - like my post where I am just highlighting some of the times I thought you were being rude or condescending... (whatever the context is, that is my opinion of your attitude! You cannot tell me it's incorrect.)


Out of the two of us, honestly, which one seems to fit this description better?


I said myself that I am arrogant. You know in that nice level message I sent to you :) It was an irenic (not a typo - look it up if you're unsure) attempt at diffusing our situation.

This thread has not been about 'exposing you'. If anything like that has happened, you have done it yourself.

I think our first interaction on this site was in the Jamie French begging for aid thread, where I stood up for you against a few arseholes who were being unreasonable. In this instance, I was helping Franklin out because the whole Groobiverse was turing out in force to put him down. You have already admitted to being unnecessarily harsh to Franklin in this thread - so whether you realise it or not, you agree with my rationale for contributing to this thread.


After my first interjection into this thread, I went away for a while. When I came back there were an additional ten pages. I read them. The overwhelming impression I got was that you (particularly you) were being consistently rude or condescending to just about everyone!

This was my impression - you cannot tell me it is wrong, because I am telling you how I felt.


Krissy, at this stage, I am just replying to your comments.


Again, I wasn't wrong Krissy. How could you be right (and me wrong) about my own feelings?

I showed you countless examples of your rude or obnoxious attitude, and you are still somehow arguing with me. Let me be ultra clear about this:

I have found you to be consistently rude and condescending in this thread.

What else can you say to that?


Part of my point I have once again attempted to explain above.

I don't believe you can tell a TV from TS by looks alone - I was the first person in this thread to say it was a grey area. However, I also don't think that matters because Seanchai has told us that he has featured TV's on his websites! From there arises the issue of whether it is right to (possibly inadvertently) mislead the consumers about what they are viewing.

Franklin has a right to express his opinions - and imo he is not always right, but he is not always wrong.

So, I agree with others that this is a VERY pointless argument to have, and as I stated last night, it is now arguing for the sake of arguing. So, I will say this, leave it here and address your point in the next post.

1. You have staged a COMPLETELY personal attack on me, which by your own admission TWO THIRDS of which was incorrect (I was attacked first). As of yet, you have not apologized, retracted, or otherwise been decent enough to acknowledge that. EDITING A QUOTE BASED ON YOUR OPINION OF WHAT IS RELEVANT IS SHADY, especially without acknowledging it [(...) is your acknowledgement that you edited out the context of a quote]?

2. I am not whining about anything nor am I arguing with you. I am RESPONDING to YOUR attacks. I DID NOT first bring up the topic about being condescending/rude at all... YOU DID. You're so good about checking the record... when it is convenient to you. You found it somehow pertinent to the discussion and injected it into it. So to say that I am now whining because I have simply responded? C'mon now. That is completely, intellectually dishonest.

3. You're not just replying to my comments.... YOU STARTED THIS LINE OF COMMENTS about who is condescending / rude and for what reason. It is I who am replying to yours. Again. Be intellectually honest about the part you have played in this.

4. YOU WERE WRONG. Your epic post assertion is that I was condescending / rude to people FIRST. Over HALF of that post dealt with ONE person, who I conceded. THE OTHER 2/3 of your post dealt with TWO PEOPLE. Who you were WRONG ABOUT... THEY THREW THE FIRST PUNCH.

5. WHO CARES WHAT YOU THINK? I have found you consistently rude and condescending in this thread as well... and yet, I still answer your posts HONESTLY and without EDITING THEM to make myself look better. That is your right to think that way... it is mine to think that way as well.

6. YOU ARE BLIND TO YOURSELF AND OTHERS. As I stated earlier, you're acting like I am the ONLY ONE here being what you call condescending / rude. THAT IS A JOKE. You are basically stating that I should just let others walk all over me and respond with, "Please sir, may I have some more?" THAT IS A JOKE. To those who have asked me simple questions, I have given simple answers (at least I thought... GENETIC???). To those who have given insult, I have returned. To those who have spoken condescendingly to me, I have returned that sentiment. I already conceded that two wrongs don't make a right, but in debate, if you let the other person just simply attack you negatively without responding... you have already lost.

Anyway, those are my last words on the matter. I will, of course read any reply you have but seriously... this is a stupid argument and not pertinent to the points at all. Especially when I have already conceded a large part of what you're saying. So on to your actual point.

[loveboof]

Let Krissy reply to me, then lock it. (Give her the last say)


Cool. So now we're done...

[GroobySteven]

I meant the bulk of the comments which were removed...

Two of his posts were removed.

[loveboof]

Two of his posts were removed.

*The bulk of the content in the posts which were removed.

(i.e. you could have just edited out the offending sentences, leaving behind a red coloured indication that you have done so)

[GroobyKrissy]

Part of my point I have once again attempted to explain above.

I don't believe you can tell a TV from TS by looks alone - I was the first person in this thread to say it was a grey area. However, I also don't think that matters because Seanchai has told us that he has featured TV's on his websites! From there arises the issue of whether it is right to (possibly inadvertently) mislead the consumers about what they are viewing.

Franklin has a right to express his opinions - and imo he is not always right, but he is not always wrong.

OK. This is NOT condescending at all, but I have stated this time after time now and you haven't gotten it so I am left only point-to-point. Agreed?

First. I will begin by restating your view so you know that I understand it, and have from the beginning. You are stating that the Owner's admission that he features TVs on the website is relevant to the Consumers' desire / critique that those models who they, for whatever reason, say are TV should not be featured on the site. You say this because, in your opinion it is the Owner's responsibility to feature ORANGES on an ORANGE-related site, not blood-oranges, not tangerines, not tangelos... what is commonly accepted as an ORANGE.

Is that correct?

I am stating that the owner's admission that he features TVs, TS, donkeys, or whatever else is not relevant at all for the following reasons:

1. The owner has the right to feature whoever, whatever, and however he wants. I think you've already stated that is correct.

2. The owner is not forcing a purchase. The consumer is making A CHOICE to purchase a product (inclusive of what is on the aforementioned tour). Sites are graphical and have tours. SMY (I use this site because it has been pretty much beaten up here as the example) happens to have one of the largest around which gives you a VERY SOLID, THOROUGH glimpse as to what you'll see there. Because the consumer has made a choice based upon an educated view of the site, subsequent expressions of dislike become less meaningful. Consumers vote with their dollars.

3. It is a proven fact that the very definitions of TV and TS are open for discussion (as you put it, gray area). Thus, it is irrelevant as to what the OWNER DEFINES as TV or TS since the multitude of CONSUMERS will, in fact, have their own definitions of the terms that either will or won't agree with the owner's. That is the reason why a particular consumer (Franklin in this case), when making a distinct argument about "TVs do not belong on TS sites" MUST state a definition of the two terms. Otherwise the ENTIRE discussion is based upon speculation and individual interpretations.

4. Once it has been established that the person judges TS status based upon looks alone (there is no other way to do so from pictures and a videos), then that person loses credibility to actually state what TS is, therefore the whole argument about who is TS and who is TV, is also invalid. Therefore the argument that TVs should not be featured on TS sites is also invalid, regardless of the owner's admission.

I really cannot state it any clearer than that. I am open to friendly discussion as to where / why I am wrong.

[Wendy Summers]

this thread keeps on going and going ... why not just lock the dam thing .. its moved off topic now anyway .
Agreed!

[GroobyKrissy]

Just so everyone knows, Loveboof and I have kissed and made up in private and will be continuing the conversation there after our make-up sex session.

He can state this publicly if he wants as well.

[loveboof]

Just so everyone knows, Loveboof and I have kissed and made up in private and will be continuing the conversation there after our make-up sex session.

He can state this publicly if he wants as well.

lol..

X-critic also against Transsexuals thread, done.
(Imagine Gordon Ramsey saying it...)

[Wendy Summers]

Last Post! #forthelolz

[GroobyKrissy]

Umm... I am supposed to get the last word here.

[loveboof]

This thread is...

http://www.wixiban.com/images/ccg1e/roa/1EROA017.jpg


btw - lol. Bella is always welcome in any discussion about anything! (except star signs...)

[MrsKellyPierce]

Shouldn't we be celebrating the fact both IAFD and Xcritic are implementing changes??

[Genetic]

Good grief. So another person jumps on the bandwagon.

What in god's green earth could you possibly have taken slight from in my response directed to YOU... [snip ranting and raving]

Honestly, Genetic... I am just not sure AT ALL how anything I wrote in direct reply to YOU could be taken as anything but a straight answer to your question. That is how I intended it and how it was written (and I've re-read it several times now). Please explain.

There's no bandwagon here. I repeatedly said it was my opninion and my opinion only that it is deceptive and wrong for a website to promote gay men in women's clothing as transexuals. I'm only replying now because you've asked for an explanation which I feel you deserve

The "offense could be taken" part of my post was in regard to the line you have taken about early stages TS and TVs being hard to tell apart. And I fully admit I worded it badly. As you like using bold and I hope this clarifies my stance - I agree with you but some people who identify with the opposite gender may not appreciate hearing that they look no different to a man in a wig. Hell if everyone's panties are in a bunch over the words "tranny", "shemale" and any other perceived sleight, someone is bound to take offense to the opinion you offered even if it's the truth.

My comment about knowing better than to reply to you is because you and I have crossed paths before on this forum and I knew that any reply to your post would result in you replying with an aggressive post longer than the longest of Wikipedia articles. It isn't intended to be offensive to you, I just am aware that you don't make short posts (neither do I) and I know that I should be spending my time doing something more productive than arguing semantics on the interwebz, whether on this subject or any other. Honestly, everyone in this thread has wasted a lot of their life in arguing over pedantic issues.

Believe me, I have only replied now in order to answer your question which I hope will make you realise that my last post was my admitting I stood corrected, and further that I took no offense to it.

[GroobyKrissy]

There's no bandwagon here. I repeatedly said it was my opninion and my opinion only that it is deceptive and wrong for a website to promote gay men in women's clothing as transexuals. I'm only replying now because you've asked for an explanation which I feel you deserve

The "offense could be taken" part of my post was in regard to the line you have taken about early stages TS and TVs being hard to tell apart. And I fully admit I worded it badly. As you like using bold and I hope this clarifies my stance - I agree with you but some people who identify with the opposite gender may not appreciate hearing that they look no different to a man in a wig. Hell if everyone's panties are in a bunch over the words "tranny", "shemale" and any other perceived sleight, someone is bound to take offense to the opinion you offered even if it's the truth.

My comment about knowing better than to reply to you is because you and I have crossed paths before on this forum and I knew that any reply to your post would result in you replying with an aggressive post longer than the longest of Wikipedia articles. It isn't intended to be offensive to you, I just am aware that you don't make short posts (neither do I) and I know that I should be spending my time doing something more productive than arguing semantics on the interwebz, whether on this subject or any other. Honestly, everyone in this thread has wasted a lot of their life in arguing over pedantic issues.

Believe me, I have only replied now in order to answer your question which I hope will make you realise that my last post was my admitting I stood corrected, and further that I took no offense to it.

Thanks for clearing your stance up. I appreciate it and consider the matter closed, as well as any previous conversations (which I don't recall off the top of my head... so I must have considered those closed as well), amicably.

BTW... do people realize that my posts are really not that long? It is just that I quote the full person in every post, because I think that is fair to do so my reply is seen with the original post. If you take all the quotes out of my posts, as well as line breaks to keep points / ideas separate, they really are not that long... paragraph or two most times. Also, maybe it is because I have two high resolution monitors that I work on and people are viewing at a lower resolution. I know when I checked this thread on my phone, it seemed like I had to scroll for days.

Anyway.

[AmyDaly]

Shouldn't we be celebrating the fact both IAFD and Xcritic are implementing changes??

What changes are xcritic performing? If anything they seem to be the most vocal about making sure us TS bullies are put in our place so that we shut up and take any abuse that comes our way. I think this industry has seen its last days of when TS Performers are going to keep our mouths shut about how the "straight side" treats us.

[WendyWilliams]

Exactly Amy. I have read the behind the scenes emails from people about Xcritic and I have spoke to the owner , only thing that came was they are going to give us our own "section". However the views of the owner via twitter were LOUD and clear.

Great step but unless one's viewpoint changes then not sure how that makes it successful.

[robertlouis]

What changes are xcritic performing? If anything they seem to be the most vocal about making sure us TS bullies are put in our place so that we shut up and take any abuse that comes our way. I think this industry has seen its last days of when TS Performers are going to keep our mouths shut about how the "straight side" treats us.

How dare you attempt to bring this weary thread back on topic....:joke:

But seriously, thanks Amy. Maybe we'll get just a little sanity back at last.

[GroobyKrissy]

How dare you attempt to bring this weary thread back on topic....:joke:

But seriously, thanks Amy. Maybe we'll get just a little sanity back at last.

No need to be just kidding. I sincerely apologize to the OP for getting so way off topic. It seems to be my nature to do so in most serious threads. I think way too fast for my own good sometimes and it doesn't help matters that I can type a mile a minute as well.

Also, I apologize to those having to sift through and read. I have read through all my posts again, and although already conceded and explained, I will take full responsibility for being condescending / rude at times and I apologize to those who felt / know I have been so to them. Whether deservedly or not, it is not the way I want to be viewed, nor is it the way I want to treat people. I stand by my points... not the way they were communicated and said.

2013 is a New Year. Let's start it off as such and let bygones be bygones.

[robertlouis]

No need to be just kidding. I sincerely apologize to the OP for getting so way off topic. It seems to be my nature to do so in most serious threads. I think way too fast for my own good sometimes and it doesn't help matters that I can type a mile a minute as well.

Also, I apologize to those having to sift through and read. I have read through all my posts again, and although already conceded and explained, I will take full responsibility for being condescending / rude at times and I apologize to those who felt / know I have been so to them. Whether deservedly or not, it is not the way I want to be viewed, nor is it the way I want to treat people. I stand by my points... not the way they were communicated and said.

2013 is a New Year. Let's start it off as such and let bygones be bygones.

No problems Krissy. When people are passionate about an issue it usually makes sense to work it to exhaustion. Nowadays we do it over the internet; before we'd have argued in a bar and then had a drink together. That's just how it is.

Anyway, in the spirit of your post, here's wishing you the very best of all possible years in 2013.

[GroobyKrissy]

No problems Krissy. When people are passionate about an issue it usually makes sense to work it to exhaustion. Nowadays we do it over the internet; before we'd have argued in a bar and then had a drink together. That's just how it is.

Anyway, in the spirit of your post, here's wishing you the very best of all possible years in 2013.

Thanks and to you as well!

[AcadiaVeneer]

LOL Ain't Nobody Got Time Fo Dat! This thread made me laugh.