Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
loveboof
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:
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?
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
[quote=seanchai;1253823]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:
Originally Posted by
seanchai
No no no. TV's have not been presented as TS's - they've been presented under the porn word, "shemale" and I've covered that already.
ENOUGH!
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Willie Escalade
Can someone define "poor quality TS models"? Some girls one person might like others would not.
As for the "top" girls not appearing on some sites...maybe it's THEIR OWN decision not to. It's similar to Louis Vuitton...they are HIGHLY selective of where their product is released; if you want their stuff, you have to go to the proper places to get it (just as if you want the bootleg stuff you go elsewhere)...
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
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.
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.
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
loveboof
I have found almost every addition you have made to this thread to be condescending or rude to somebody
Quote:
Originally Posted by
loveboof
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
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.
__
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
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)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
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 ;)
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
[quote=FRANKLIN;1254031]
Quote:
Originally Posted by
seanchai
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."
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
[quote=sherm13;1254038]
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FRANKLIN
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.
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
loveboof
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.
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
loveboof
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:
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:
Quote:
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):
Quote:
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.
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
loveboof
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:
Quote:
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):
Quote:
@ 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.
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
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.
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
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.
