Two of his posts were removed.Quote:
Originally Posted by loveboof
Printable View
Two of his posts were removed.Quote:
Originally Posted by loveboof
*The bulk of the content in the posts which were removed.Quote:
Originally Posted by seanchai
(i.e. you could have just edited out the offending sentences, leaving behind a red coloured indication that you have done so)
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by loveboof
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.
Agreed!Quote:
Originally Posted by LibertyHarkness
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..Quote:
Originally Posted by GroobyKrissy
X-critic also against Transsexuals thread, done.
(Imagine Gordon Ramsey saying it...)
Last Post! #forthelolz
Umm... I am supposed to get the last word here.
btw - lol. Bella is always welcome in any discussion about anything! (except star signs...)Quote:
Originally Posted by BellaBellucci
Shouldn't we be celebrating the fact both IAFD and Xcritic are implementing changes??