-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
Sure. Watch how easy it is to simply ANSWER a question when it has been posed.
ANSWER - "Does it matter what their definitions are when Seanchai has already confirmed that he has used TV's in his websites a number of times?"
Yes, it does matter. One is a CONSUMER and the other is the OWNER. Of course the owner has the right to make decisions based upon any number of reasons why someone should or should not be included on a site. The consumer, beyond voting with a dollar, does not.
END ANSWER
Well that one was meant to be rhetorical, but your response wouldn't have answered it if it had actually been a question!
You seem to have answered 'who has the right to do something' rather than the actual question of: 'does it matter; why?'
(poor reading comprehension backatcha)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
ANSWER - "...can you answer me why you think it is still important for them to be personally accountable with a definition?..."
It is important because it goes to the heart of the matter about how Franklin (or anyone) is making that judgement call. You cannot make any judgement call AT ALL unless you have a definition in mind against which you're comparing.
Yes. Unless of course the owner has already categorically told us all that he has used 'lifestyle TV's'. Then that personal 'definition in mind' is largely irrelevant because the information is coming from an outside source. At this stage, the 'judgement call' becomes about whether they are comfortable being sold TV's in TS packaging. (so to speak)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
END ANSWER (see how easy that is!)
Well it can't be that easy because you seem to have failed yourself! lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
THE REST OF THE STUFF.
Your tomato-ey stuff... nonsense and you know it. Not the point that was being made.
Not nonsense at all. I used your own tomato analogy to rephrase the issue. Why don't you re-read it and see if you can find the 'easy answer' to that conundrum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
What I have a problem with is saying that girls who are found unattractive for whatever reason are simply "TV men" and don't belong on the site.
That's fair enough. Although, I don't recall anyone actually saying that.
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sherm13
I respect your answer but the main problem Krissy, is that you do not seem to respect the answers of others. You give off the aura that you are more intelligent than others and everyone else is simple-minded. I have to imagine that most reading this forum could easily piece that together.
On a side-note, if you feel that the consumer should not have the right to decide who should appear on the site, then why did you phrase the question to Franklin, who is the consumer?
My answer to that is you just like to cause conflict, otherwise there was no point of asking this question. You answer to the question was consumers shouldnt have the right to dictate which models appear on the site, wasn't it? There is no point having a discussion with you because your main goal is to put everyone down in order to get your opinion across, which you believe is 100% fact.
BEGIN ANSWER - "...if you feel that the consumer should not have the right to decide who should appear on the site, then why did you phrase the question to Franklin, who is the consumer?"
Because that was not the original sentiment that was expressed. You're taking one conversation and placing it on top of another.
Originally, Franklin was making the blanket statement that TVs should not appear on TS sites. Agreed?
That is FINE. I have no problem with that statement right there. But he didn't stop there. He then went on to imply that those who don't fit a certain proficiency of beauty are "TV men" and thus should not be (read: unworthy) included on the site because they are not truly TS. That is where I have the problem. I don't know how many times I have to say that. THEN the question does become, on what basis are you making that decision (i.e. - give me some definitions) and the request for those definitions is logically pertinent.
END ANSWER
Please.
Tell me in what instance I have "not respected" the ACTUAL answer of others? Tell me where I have "put everyone down" when it hasn't been said to me first? Quote it please and I'll quote back to you where it was said either about me or someone else first in the same thread.
I am intelligent. I am well educated. I am not going to "dumb myself down" for you or anyone here. I do not believe others are simple-minded. I believe that everyone has the capacity to have an actual conversation without making things personal... something which clearly, you do not. I believe in making a point that is thought out, logical, and can be supported by its own merits. I don't believe in generalities. I believe that if you say something on a forum called "General Discussion" you should be open to actually discussing it and defending your points when challenged. I believe that if someone asks you a question, they deserve an answer.
In this thread, I have posed TWO simple questions to a couple of posters. BOTH have not answered (and no, your quote of Franklin is NOT an answer by any debate standard). Both have hurled the "you're just stupid and you're just being obtuse" line because they are unwilling or unable to answer the question simply and accurately.
People may piece together things as you describe... I'm fine with that. Anyone who actually takes the time to read through everything objectively, knows that there is a clear breakdown in logic here that I'm getting at. If you were to take my conversations aside and piece them together with the "supposed answers", in a linear format, it would be comical. You have one side (me) asking a couple of simple questions, and getting insults and dodges back.
So, you're basically saying that the only reason one asks questions is to cause conflict? I mean, that is brilliant. So, I can just go out there and say anything I want and if anyone questions me about it, I can just say, "Oh, you're just trying to cause conflict." Right. That's reasonable.
I love the "there is no point..." line. I am WELL open to ALL discussion with people. As you can see, I ALWAYS try to answer EVERY person who quotes me, regardless of whether I like / dislike their point of view. The facts are, when people are presented with other points of view that challenge their belief structures, they, like you, often just spout off the tired, trite: "There is no point..." because they cannot stand on the merits of their own argument.
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FRANKLIN
Ok you're getting tiring - it's little wonder that you're banned from so many forums. You chose the one line in that wikipedia article that supported what YOU think gonzo porn is - and again, you are wrong.
Gonzo (originally journalism) is to take the part of the author as first person "in" the narrative. In porn, it's the photographer as the author and gonzo porn is usually where the cameraman becomes a part of the action as a participant and not just a casusal observor or even a "fly on the wall". Ed Powers, early Joey Silvera, Buttman, etc. are gonzo porn. In our niche, Tony Vee, Buddy Wood, Frank etc. have all done gonzo style porns.
Here is the quote you should have pulled from that wikepedia article, the first lines defining gonzo porn, not your cherry picked ones:
"Gonzo pornography is a style of [Pornographic film - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that attempts to place the viewer directly into the scene. The name is a reference to Gonzo journalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, in which the reporter is part of the event taking place. By analogy, gonzo pornography puts the camera right into the action — often with one or more of the participants both filming and performing sexual acts — without the usual separation characteristic of conventional porn..."
In the scene with Paris Pirelli, which does have a storyline of a girl waiting for her boyfriend to come and have sex with her, Buddy Wood filming the scene, in no way becomes part of the scene. It's purely Christian and Paris in the scene.
I'm really getting tired of your pedantic bickering here, Franklin. Move on.
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
GroobyKrissy, If you can find the actual post it would help, but I thought FRANKLIN was making two distinct points; TVs should NOT be featured on TS sites, and that unattractive TS should not be featured on TS sites.
I don't recall him ever saying unattractive TS were 'TV men'. I'd bet that's a correlation you're making inside your head.
You keep asking for an objective definition of a subjective OBSERVATION, since no one can know from a pic definitively if someone is TG or a CD.
But like many guys on this board, I know a TV when I see one, and it's not really much of an issue of attractiveness. Am I always right in my observation??
NO.
By am I always wrong?? No.
This is what I mean by saying you like to stir shit up for no reason at all because you like to keep some invented controversy going.
You keep arguing over the most basic points that everyone understands, but still haven't been answered to your satisfaction.
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
BEGIN ANSWER - "...if you feel that the consumer should not have the right to decide who should appear on the site, then why did you phrase the question to Franklin, who is the consumer?"
Because that was not the original sentiment that was expressed. You're taking one conversation and placing it on top of another.
Originally, Franklin was making the blanket statement that TVs should not appear on TS sites. Agreed?
That is FINE. I have no problem with that statement right there. But he didn't stop there. He then went on to imply that those who don't fit a certain proficiency of beauty are "TV men" and thus should not be (read: unworthy) included on the site because they are not truly TS. That is where I have the problem. I don't know how many times I have to say that. THEN the question does become, on what basis are you making that decision (i.e. - give me some definitions) and the request for those definitions is logically pertinent.
END ANSWER
Please.
Tell me in what instance I have "not respected" the ACTUAL answer of others? Tell me where I have "put everyone down" when it hasn't been said to me first? Quote it please and I'll quote back to you where it was said either about me or someone else first in the same thread.
I am intelligent. I am well educated. I am not going to "dumb myself down" for you or anyone here. I do not believe others are simple-minded. I believe that everyone has the capacity to have an actual conversation without making things personal... something which clearly, you do not. I believe in making a point that is thought out, logical, and can be supported by its own merits. I don't believe in generalities. I believe that if you say something on a forum called "General Discussion" you should be open to actually discussing it and defending your points when challenged. I believe that if someone asks you a question, they deserve an answer.
In this thread, I have posed TWO simple questions to a couple of posters. BOTH have not answered (and no, your quote of Franklin is NOT an answer by any debate standard). Both have hurled the "you're just stupid and you're just being obtuse" line because they are unwilling or unable to answer the question simply and accurately.
People may piece together things as you describe... I'm fine with that. Anyone who actually takes the time to read through everything objectively, knows that there is a clear breakdown in logic here that I'm getting at. If you were to take my conversations aside and piece them together with the "supposed answers", in a linear format, it would be comical. You have one side (me) asking a couple of simple questions, and getting insults and dodges back.
So, you're basically saying that the only reason one asks questions is to cause conflict? I mean, that is brilliant. So, I can just go out there and say anything I want and if anyone questions me about it, I can just say, "Oh, you're just trying to cause conflict." Right. That's reasonable.
I love the "there is no point..." line. I am WELL open to ALL discussion with people. As you can see, I ALWAYS try to answer EVERY person who quotes me, regardless of whether I like / dislike their point of view. The facts are, when people are presented with other points of view that challenge their belief structures, they, like you, often just spout off the tired, trite: "There is no point..." because they cannot stand on the merits of their own argument.
Are you trying to prove my point?
You insulted my answer by calling it "broad" first off. Then, you state I am unable to have a conservation without it getting personal, which is both ironic and insulting.
I never called you "stupid" or "obtuse." I never insulted your intelligence. I'm pointing out the fact that you are genrally combative and dismissive of anyone else challenging you. Your answer to your own question proves that. It was a set up to get your point across, nothing more.
Asking and answering questions in itself is not conflict. The way in which you have answered and asked questions in this thread is what anyone can see was to start conflict to get your opinion across to those who you see are wrong.
Whatever, I am done arguing with you. There is no point having a discussion with someone who just wants to prove that there opinion is 100% fact. Your question does not have a clear-cut answer and its really just an opinion. This isnt something that only has one answer.
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
loveboof
Well that one was meant to be rhetorical, but your response wouldn't have answered it if it had actually been a question!
You seem to have answered 'who has the right to do something' rather than the actual question of: 'does it matter; why?'
(poor reading comprehension backatcha)
Yes. Unless of course the owner has already categorically told us all that he has used 'lifestyle TV's'. Then that personal 'definition in mind' is largely irrelevant because the information is coming from an outside source. At this stage, the 'judgement call' becomes about whether they are comfortable being sold TV's in TS packaging. (so to speak)
Well it can't be that easy because you seem to have failed yourself! lol
Not nonsense at all. I used your own tomato analogy to rephrase the issue. Why don't you re-read it and see if you can find the 'easy answer' to that conundrum.
That's fair enough. Although, I don't recall anyone actually saying that.
Good grief. Again, having to actually spell something out for you. Here you go.
The "right to do" speaks to the "does it matter" (the "why" is implied in the "does it matter". Here is why.
The owner has the right to say, "You're not appearing on the site because you wore blue heels and I dislike blue heels." or "You are appearing on the site because I like your fingernails, they're long and pointy." He is the OWNER of the site and thus qualified to make those kinds of decisions.
The CONSUMER of the site DOES NOT have the right to make those types of decisions, and thus, it does matter how they're defining terms upon which they're making petitions for changes in a site's model index by making the personal judgement that people deemed unattractive are "TV" and not truly "TS".
It is not poor reading comprehension, it is you thinking you're clever and me not realizing that you weren't clever enough to string the logic together.
As stated originally, the owner has the right to pick and choose any model for any reason. Thus his definition or admission of using any type of model or any model type is irrelevant. Again, a simple string of logic that you fail to see.
No... you didn't use my original analogy. You CHANGED it with an "IF". You can take just about any analogy, change it with an "IF" modifier, and make it untrue. That is just stupid for you to even debate. Again with the trying to be clever when you're not.
Here is your reading comprehension problem... since you "...cannot recall anyone actually saying that." I warn you, you've got to actually make some logical connections here but for someone of your cleverness, it shouldn't be too difficult. The second statement entirely contradicts the first. Even you should see that.
Franklin:
Quote:
I cannot respect your opinion about TVs on TS sites. Shemale Yum does not say TV Yum. The site's name is Shemale. The site does not say that TV men will be featured. Shemales are TS women. TVs are not transsexuals. A TV should not be featured on any TS site.
and Franklin again:
Quote:
I clearly said that TVs not belong on TS sites.
I said poor quality TS models should not be in porn. I did not deny or question their status as TS women.
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Out for a while. Errands to run and things to do today.
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
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)...
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
giovanni_hotel
GroobyKrissy, If you can find the actual post it would help, but I thought FRANKLIN was making two distinct points; TVs should NOT be featured on TS sites, and that unattractive TS should not be featured on TS sites.
I don't recall him ever saying unattractive TS were 'TV men'. I'd bet that's a correlation you're making inside your head.
You keep asking for an objective definition of a subjective OBSERVATION, since no one can know from a pic definitively if someone is TG or a CD.
But like many guys on this board, I know a TV when I see one, and it's not really much of an issue of attractiveness. Am I always right in my observation??
NO.
By am I always wrong?? No.
This is what I mean by saying you like to stir shit up for no reason at all because you like to keep some invented controversy going.
You keep arguing over the most basic points that everyone understands, but still haven't been answered to your satisfaction.
My satisfaction would be just what you just stated.
That is all I'm asking for. You judge TS status based upon looks. I don't know why that was so difficult for you to just come out and say originally.
If you think you can know a TV (implied: as opposed to a true TS) when you see one (implied: based upon a picture or series of), then you are making a judgement based upon looks. There is no way around that. And that is fine. That is the way you view people and although I don't agree with doing that, it is fine for you to have that opinion. It is then fine as well for me to say that you have no real credibility when speaking about matters that are TS-related since your only premise for being "TS" is based upon looks.
The facts about being "always right" or "always wrong" is irrelevant. It is the very action of making that judgement call in the first place that I was questioning.
Franklin has NOT made two distinct points. Do a little homework for yourself and read his original post on the matter and then his follow up... I think it is somewhere around page 5 or so. He clearly stated that TV's should not be featured on TS sites and then followed that up by all but stating outright that he considers all unattractive TS to be TV. A bit later he walked that back a tiny bit.
It is not an invented controversy when I can quote you back what you said, ask for an explanation and then am ignored for the rest of the thread. That is cowardice. In all of the heated conversations that I've had with people, once faced with their own words quoted back to them, they've abruptly ended the conversation after hurling an insult or two.
I congratulate you on actually purposefully or mistakenly saying what I postulated in the beginning. People judge TS status based upon looks alone. Whether rightly or wrongly. If you do it, just admit it, own it, and stand by it when you're questioned in the future about it.
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sherm13
Are you trying to prove my point?
You insulted my answer by calling it "broad" first off. Then, you state I am unable to have a conservation without it getting personal, which is both ironic and insulting.
I never called you "stupid" or "obtuse." I never insulted your intelligence. I'm pointing out the fact that you are genrally combative and dismissive of anyone else challenging you. Your answer to your own question proves that. It was a set up to get your point across, nothing more.
Asking and answering questions in itself is not conflict. The way in which you have answered and asked questions in this thread is what anyone can see was to start conflict to get your opinion across to those who you see are wrong.
Whatever, I am done arguing with you. There is no point having a discussion with someone who just wants to prove that there opinion is 100% fact. Your question does not have a clear-cut answer and its really just an opinion. This isnt something that only has one answer.
OK, this last one that then I am really out.
So, by calling your answer "broad" I was insulting you?
I think your answer "The only qualification is for someone to appear on a TS site, whether CD/TS, is to appear feminine and interested in the scene" to the question of "What qualifies you to be on a TS site?" can definitely be categorized as "broad". That's not an insult, it is an observation and I'm sorry you took it that way.
But seriously, "...appear feminine..." "...interested in the scene..." So basically, anyone who can have a convincingly feminine appearance (completely subjective) and is a good actor / actress is qualified to be on a TS site? Even I do not agree with that premise.
You took an obvious (to me at least) OBSERVATION and made it personal, upon which you've based the rest of your conversation with me. If you had just come out in the beginning and said, "I find your statement that my answer is "broad" to be insulting," I would have apologized for the confusion and written something like I wrote above.
I didn't say YOU insulted me. I said it has been done in this thread and used as an excuse to escape having a dialogue.
Your "setup" is laughable. That's not insulting to say by the way so don't take it so. It is more than clear that I will answer anybody who quotes me so you can hardly call it a "setup" if you know the prey is going to walk into the "trap" willingly.
Anyway, so I guess you find any type of discussion to be "combative" and "dismissive". Of course, those actually hurling the insults and doing the actual "dodging"... they're rock stars of debate, right?
The point is this. Debate and discussion are two sided. If one person is asking and answering questions and the other person is just insulting and dodging... well then... draw your own conclusions.
I don'[t have to be 100% correct. As I just stated in a post to Giovanna_hotel, I am satisfied with his answer and consider that discussion closed. I don't have any personal grudges against him and will continue to dialogue with him as he/I see fit. It doesn't change the way that I view him as a person at all. It just gives me some insight on where future posts are coming from and I'll be able to more accurately asses whether a reply should be given or not. That is the power of words... once they're out there, they clear the air.
That is why I ask repeatedly for these definitions. Until they are put down and defined, they are open to interpretation, which you already admit is not "clear-cut". My supposition is that if it is not "clear-cut" in one's mind, then you should either abstain from voicing an opinion on the matter or else clear up your definition and be ready to define it if you do.
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Willie Escalade
Can someone define "poor quality TS models"? Some girls one person might like others would not.
The point I am making.
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
OK, this last one that then I am really out.
So, by calling your answer "broad" I was insulting you?
I think your answer "The only qualification is for someone to appear on a TS site, whether CD/TS, is to appear feminine and interested in the scene" to the question of "What qualifies you to be on a TS site?" can definitely be categorized as "broad". That's not an insult, it is an observation and I'm sorry you took it that way.
But seriously, "...appear feminine..." "...interested in the scene..." So basically, anyone who can have a convincingly feminine appearance (completely subjective) and is a good actor / actress is qualified to be on a TS site? Even I do not agree with that premise.
You took an obvious (to me at least) OBSERVATION and made it personal, upon which you've based the rest of your conversation with me. If you had just come out in the beginning and said, "I find your statement that my answer is "broad" to be insulting," I would have apologized for the confusion and written something like I wrote above.
I didn't say YOU insulted me. I said it has been done in this thread and used as an excuse to escape having a dialogue.
Your "setup" is laughable. That's not insulting to say by the way so don't take it so. It is more than clear that I will answer anybody who quotes me so you can hardly call it a "setup" if you know the prey is going to walk into the "trap" willingly.
Anyway, so I guess you find any type of discussion to be "combative" and "dismissive". Of course, those actually hurling the insults and doing the actual "dodging"... they're rock stars of debate, right?
The point is this. Debate and discussion are two sided. If one person is asking and answering questions and the other person is just insulting and dodging... well then... draw your own conclusions.
I don'[t have to be 100% correct. As I just stated in a post to Giovanna_hotel, I am satisfied with his answer and consider that discussion closed. I don't have any personal grudges against him and will continue to dialogue with him as he/I see fit. It doesn't change the way that I view him as a person at all. It just gives me some insight on where future posts are coming from and I'll be able to more accurately asses whether a reply should be given or not. That is the power of words... once they're out there, they clear the air.
That is why I ask repeatedly for these definitions. Until they are put down and defined, they are open to interpretation, which you already admit is not "clear-cut". My supposition is that if it is not "clear-cut" in one's mind, then you should either abstain from voicing an opinion on the matter or else clear up your definition and be ready to define it if you do.
Rather than reply to this, I will just agree to disagree and move on. Good day.
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sherm13
Rather than reply to this, I will just agree to disagree and move on. Good day.
And good day to you as well.
And whether you believe it or not, I really do apologize for the "broad" statement. I really only meant is as a humorous observation, which I thought the explanation point made clear. Sometimes in type, humor does not translate.
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
I LOVE this thread. In a matter of seconds it goes from some unimportant company dislikes transsexuals, to what is a transsexual, to ...
The rest is flame about what constitutes a true transsexual.
Please, please, PLEASE keep Yum (and Black-tgirls) doing people early in transition. That's how it works in real life.
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
Good grief. Again, having to actually spell something out for you. Here you go.
The "right to do" speaks to the "does it matter" (the "why" is implied in the "does it matter". Here is why.
The owner has the right to say, "You're not appearing on the site because you wore blue heels and I dislike blue heels." or "You are appearing on the site because I like your fingernails, they're long and pointy." He is the OWNER of the site and thus qualified to make those kinds of decisions.
The CONSUMER of the site DOES NOT have the right to make those types of decisions, and thus, it does matter how they're defining terms upon which they're making petitions for changes in a site's model index by making the personal judgement that people deemed unattractive are "TV" and not truly "TS".
This is the question you think you are answering:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
loveboof
Does it matter what their definitions are when Seanchai has already confirmed that he has used TV's in his websites a number of times?
Does it matter what their own definitions of TV's are [in respect to proving whether they have been used on grooby websites] when we have already had it confirmed from Seanchai that they are there?! Think carefully you dappy cow... lol
Who has the right to choose what goes on the site is completely irrelevant! Obviously that is down to the site owners - although it would be wise to put something up there that actually appeals to the customers if you want to sell it.
__
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
No... you didn't use my original analogy. You CHANGED it with an "IF". You can take just about any analogy, change it with an "IF" modifier, and make it untrue. That is just stupid for you to even debate. Again with the trying to be clever when you're not.
You came up with an analogy about tomatoes being fruit but classified as vegetables. You're right, I did change your flakey analogy by making it more pertinent! I added 'IF' because that is the only way it would make sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
loveboof
If tomatoes were sentient, intelligent creatures who found it strongly offensive to be associated with vegetables, then it would be down to the greengrocer to correctly label and display the fruit. You would not expect the average, ill-informed consumer to provide pitch perfect definitions.
This is what you are asking of the porn consumers in this discussion. You seem to be refusing them the right of objecting to the disingenuous marketing of transvestites as transsexuals simply because they cannot tell the fruit from the vegetables.
What I am clearly saying here is that it is not down to the consumer to correctly label and define the product - it is down to the person selling it! In this case, TV's have been disingenuously presented as TS. This is the issue that Franklin (et al.) have been expressing (among other things). You missed it because you were too busy pleasuring yourself to the sound of your own voice.
I have been perfectly nice to you. I have not (until this post) insulted you in any way. Get your fucking head out your arse so you can actually see the computer screen.
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
And good day to you as well.
And whether you believe it or not, I really do apologize for the "broad" statement. I really only meant is as a humorous observation, which I thought the explanation point made clear. Sometimes in type, humor does not translate.
True about the humor part. I'm not really offended by that "Broad" comment, by the way. I included it as part of my post. I have thicker skin than most.
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
loveboof
What I am clearly saying here is that it is not down to the consumer to correctly label and define the product - it is down to the person selling it! In this case, TV's have been disingenuously presented as TS. This is the issue that Franklin (et al.) have been expressing (among other things). You missed it because you were too busy pleasuring yourself to the sound of your own voice.
No no no. TV's have not been presented as TS's - they've been presented under the porn word, "shemale" and I've covered that already.
ENOUGH!
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
seanchai
No no no. TV's have not been presented as TS's - they've been presented under the porn word, "shemale" and I've covered that already.
ENOUGH!
Yes that's a fair point Seanchai. In your case, they have been inadvertently incorrectly presented based on porn criteria and assumptions. So not 'disingenuous' - apologies.
(but Krissy is having a hard enough time wrapping her pretty little head around the concept as it is - best to keep talking about the greengrocer and his fruit & veg stand) :P
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
loveboof
This is the question you think you are answering:
Does it matter what their own definitions of TV's are [in respect to proving whether they have been used on grooby websites] when we have already had it confirmed from Seanchai that they are there?! Think carefully you dappy cow... lol
Who has the right to choose what goes on the site is completely irrelevant! Obviously that is down to the site owners - although it would be wise to put something up there that actually appeals to the customers if you want to sell it.
__
You came up with an analogy about tomatoes being fruit but classified as vegetables. You're right, I did change your flakey analogy by making it more pertinent! I added 'IF' because that is the only way it would make sense.
What I am clearly saying here is that it is not down to the consumer to correctly label and define the product - it is down to the person selling it! In this case, TV's have been disingenuously presented as TS. This is the issue that Franklin (et al.) have been expressing (among other things). You missed it because you were too busy pleasuring yourself to the sound of your own voice.
I have been perfectly nice to you. I have not (until this post) insulted you in any way. Get your fucking head out your arse so you can actually see the computer screen.
You have got to be kidding. Calling someone "obtuse" is not an insult? Read what you've written and the way it was said. Clearly demeaning. Wow... so you can swear. Big man. Now I feel ever so small and intimidated by your big, macho self.
Your first point is semantics and a poor argument at best and a badly worded question at worst. I've already stated that the "rights to do" speaks to the "does it matter", and the reason why... which you've conveniently forgotten to address other than rewording your dribble again and restating it. Again though... just for you.
It matters because if you were not making the distinction based upon looks alone (or some other kind of, as of yet, unstated definition), you wouldn't care because you'd never know. THAT is my sole point. Get that through your thick skull. In this case, the personal definitions speak to the "right" you think you have as a consumer to tell a site owner how to run their site or which models they should feature.
You are correct that is is not down to the consumer to correctly label and define the product; however, I like to think of PEOPLE as more than just PRODUCTS. That is the point where you and I disagree.
If this were milk being called milk when it was really water... yeah, I'd have a problem with that. But these are PEOPLE who you and Franklin (since you seem to agree with him so much, I'll include you here) are basically writing off as "TV men" and therefore "should not be" (i.e. - do not belong: i.e. - are not "TS enough") featured on the site. THAT IS THE POINT which you seem to fail to see.
Anyway, it is clearly evident that you see people as commodities here, and again, that's fine. That is your view of life... and a sad one at that. Until you change that point of view, which obviously isn't going to happen, we really do have little to discuss.
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
And, I'll go ahead an write a reply now since I know it is coming.
Yes, I know this is porn. Yes, I know some girls expect the marketing, etc. etc. Yes, like most other girls in porn, I allow for a great deal of leeway when it comes to being marketed as a product that I wouldn't allow for apart from that world.
What I do not tolerate is people making a personal judgement and not being honest about why they're making it... and that is what is being done here.
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
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!
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
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.
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
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!
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.
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
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...
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
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...
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!
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
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.
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
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:
con·de·scen·sion (knd-snshn)
n.
1. The act of condescending or an instance of it.
2. Patronizingly superior behavior or attitude.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
A ditto on this for me... and another voice that says Franklin is full of crap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
The stupidity lies in the fact that you cannot take a simple line of reasoning and apply it to yourself. THAT is true stupidity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
so you're stupid, a fraud, AND chicken. Great!
You basically said nothing... One more try?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
I already know you run from confrontation but I'll give you the same opportunity as I gave Franklin. In writing...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
I know it is strange to have to answer for your words... So sorry for that inconvenience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
You have NO further credibility to speak on the issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
Again with the reading comprehension problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
I love people who cannot even comprehend the things they have said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
I am assuming you are smart enough to write what you mean
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
you simply have no grounds for having LOGICAL discourse because you can't see the logical implications of what someone states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
Let us just do this to make things more easy to understand.
That is stupidity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
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?
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
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!!!
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
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.
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.
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
-
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.
