-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
You're just pointing out the negative things I have said... A POINT I HAVE ALREADY CONCEDED....
You don't think it's even slightly impressive just by sheer volume alone? I mean all that condescension and rudeness from one person, in one thread... I think it's worth a head nod at least :/ lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
I threw the first punch to Franklin here
Cool. I accept your hard fought resignation over the blame :)
We have seen evidence of your gratuitous rudeness, and continued evidence of your pure condescension.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
See, this is how reasonable people act. Are you so proud of yourself now that you've gotten me to say I was wrong about something? I don't mind doing so. The facts speak for themselves and can't be denied.
Yes I am happy. It was very gracious of you to acknowledge this inescapable fact now that there is nowhere else for you to turn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
Wow... you're so clever. I can just imagine you rolling naked on the floor with glee, shaking with excitement and gloating that you've caught me! Congratulations.
How did you know I was naked baby? ;) lol
But yeah, in most of those cases you were responding to something equally rude or condescending. However, you are responsible for your own actions Krissy - I find 'eye for an eye' to be a fairly puerile excuse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
As I stated before, the difference between someone who is arrogant and someone who is not, is being able to admit to being wrong.
Nope, you can still be arrogant and admit being wrong (as you're proving right now lol)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
Again... you're so clever yet you misread a simple statement. THE DEFINITION ITSELF IS FROM A TEXTBOOK (i.e. - dictionary)... SO IS CORRECT... THE APPLICATION IS NOT, which I explained.
Ok, so my textbook definition is correct - but it is only your own definition which applies to this situation? Is that what you're actually trying to say to me?
Do you really believe that it is not condescension if someone has done it to you first? Grow up.
______
And yeah, I have cut some irrelevant sections of your posts for succinctness. The originals are there for anyone to view.
I did this so everyone could clearly see what I was highlighting for my responses.
(Any other straws you want to grasp at while you're flailing around on the floor?)
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
I have never stated that the two are interchangeable and the same thing. Nor have I ever implied that logically.
What I have stated emphatically, is that YOU, not knowing the individual PERSONALLY, cannot accurately make the determination of "TV" or "TS". If you do, you're doing it on the basis of looks alone. All I ask is that if you do that, then admit it.
As I said, I should have known better than to reply...
I see where you are coming from and yes that does answer my question. However, I do think that there is definitely some offense that can be taken from what you are saying here. I'm not speaking for FRANKLIN or anyone else, but from my own point of view - if I go to a site expecting TS, I don't expect to be deceived with TVs. As you said, unless you know the person in question then it's pretty much impossible to know whether someone is early TS/TV or just fuck ugly, so you are relying on the honesty of the site/dvd/whatever to provide genuine content.
Personally I never realised that the performer mentioned earlier was a gay guy in a wig, I just presumed he wasn't that passable. To me though it's fraud to advertise that person as being a TS or Shemale when they aren't.
And some TVs are very easy to spot. I'm not going to name names here as that would be disrespectful, but some are quite clearly men in women's clothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
seanchai
I'm really getting tired of your pedantic bickering here, Franklin. Move on.
Not defending FRANKLIN here as some of his arguments here have been very pedantic and you're absolutely right but can the same not be said for GroobyKrissy who has argued virtually everything that can be argued in this thread?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
christianxxx
Its extremely insulting because it assumes Seanchai is too stupid or ignorant to run his own sites and make them profitable. Get this through your thick skulls - Seanchai wants to make as much money as possible - ergo he personally and specifically tailors his entire network to maximize that amount of money. Telling him how to run his own business is absolutely retarded. He has been the TS industry leader for 15 years now at least. If I were him I would be so pissed off at Franklin's stupid nonsensical rants.
I agree totally that fans of anything can often think they know better than the people involved. However I do think there is always room for criticism and feedback provided it is constructive. All business owners want to make as much money as possible, but huge numbers of businesses fail so the person at the helm isn't automatically the best person to run it or is beyond being criticised. Look at the situation with IAFD - if the owner was beyond criticism a third gender would never have been introduced.
I'm not criticising Seanchai's sites or his running of them but I do think it's important to acknowledge that input is important. Realistically a lot of FRANKLIN's arguments have been discussed and many of his criticisms have been dispelled because Seanchai has addressed them. If it had been done in a calmer manner by everyone involved, it could have been an educational experience.
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
loveboof
You don't think it's even slightly impressive just by sheer volume alone? I mean all that condescension and rudeness from one person, in one thread... I think it's worth a head nod at least :/ lol
Cool. I accept your hard fought resignation over the blame :)
We have seen evidence of your gratuitous rudeness, and continued evidence of your pure condescension.
Yes I am happy. It was very gracious of you to acknowledge this inescapable fact now that there is nowhere else for you to turn.
How did you know I was naked baby? ;) lol
But yeah, in most of those cases you were responding to something equally rude or condescending. However, you are responsible for your own actions Krissy - I find 'eye for an eye' to be a fairly puerile excuse.
Nope, you can still be arrogant and admit being wrong (as you're proving right now lol)
Ok, so my textbook definition is correct - but it is only your own definition which applies to this situation? Is that what you're actually trying to say to me?
Do you really believe that it is not condescension if someone has done it to you first? Grow up.
______
And yeah, I have cut some irrelevant sections of your posts for succinctness. The originals are there for anyone to view.
I did this so everyone could clearly see what I was highlighting for my responses.
(Any other straws you want to grasp at while you're flailing around on the floor?)
Well, as expected.
A. An excuse (in tiny type) under the guise of "succinctness" about why you misquoted me out of context and edited a quote to make your own post sound more menacing that it really was. THAT is childish. If you can't own up to that being an incorrect way to win an argument, fine.
B. You keep pounding this point, which, for the record, has absolutely NOTHING to do with the points I have actually put forth (succinctly put in the next post). This is a total sidebar and a personal attack against me because you basically have no way to discuss calmly the other points. I have already conceded the point that I sound condescending at times... and explained why. I have already conceded the point that, yes, I will return slight for slight when it is given. I am NOBODY'S DOORMAT and it is simply insane that you would ask that I take the abuse that I've been given without defending myself and replying back in turn. Then you whine about it. Boo-Hoo. If that is your only point... i.e. - That I can give as well as take... WOW... that is a sad point to be cornering an argument on and calling it a win.
C. You completely choose to ignore ANY reasoning that you are wrong in any way. Wow... in most cases? A bit late to state that now, after you've already made a BFD about it, standing on your grandiose and epic thread "exposing" me?? And then, basically your acknowledgement of that fact is again, another slight with the "however...". That is ARROGANT. You cannot escape that FACT.
I have thus far issued THREE apologies and/or admissions of something incorrect I have done. No modifiers, backhanded spout offs, etc. etc. TO DATE... not one person has done the same to me. I'm not whining about it... it is a statement of fact. So basically, you all are saying that I AM THE ONLY ONE AT FAULT HERE? That is crazy.
Half of the time I have been defending myself against comments that are personal attacks against me. Something I do OCCASIONALLY with a word or two of "that is stupid" or "you're being stupid".
If you want to be intellectually honest about this, then find every single negative thing that has bee said to me in this thread and then list those... We'll see who's list is longer.
The fact of the matter is this. You're picking on this one topic over and over again, which I've already conceded because you have nothing else. Want to have an actual discussion. Fine. Get back to the original point... start it off any way you'd like and let's go from there. No name calling, no bickering, no condescending attitudes. Just straight logic and civility. Let's see who breaks first. I can guarantee it won't be me... it hasn't been for most ALL of the posts that I've done.
And yes, it is OK to answer back in kind when it has been given to you repeatedly. AS I ALREADY STATED, I was not referencing this thread alone when I said the "first blood" comment. I was speaking from a history of dealing with the people involved. You were referencing this thread. I conceded that was OK and using that, I was wrong about Franklin. You were wrong about everything else... but once spoken... it magically becomes intractable except for your backhanded admission.
Good lord. This is you at your best? This is you putting your great mind to work and the best you can come up with is ONE time that I put someone else down before I was insulted? Forget that within the next post or two the poster said quite bluntly "You are stupid". Yeah, forget anything that anyone says except for Krissy. That's mature.
So, let's have a discussion. State your point because with all of this, I don't even know what it was to begin with.
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Genetic
As I said, I should have known better than to reply...
I see where you are coming from and yes that does answer my question. However, I do think that there is definitely some offense that can be taken from what you are saying here. I'm not speaking for FRANKLIN or anyone else, but from my own point of view - if I go to a site expecting TS, I don't expect to be deceived with TVs. As you said, unless you know the person in question then it's pretty much impossible to know whether someone is early TS/TV or just fuck ugly, so you are relying on the honesty of the site/dvd/whatever to provide genuine content.
Personally I never realised that the performer mentioned earlier was a gay guy in a wig, I just presumed he wasn't that passable. To me though it's fraud to advertise that person as being a TS or Shemale when they aren't.
And some TVs are very easy to spot. I'm not going to name names here as that would be disrespectful, but some are quite clearly men in women's clothing.
Not defending FRANKLIN here as some of his arguments here have been very pedantic and you're absolutely right but can the same not be said for GroobyKrissy who has argued virtually everything that can be argued in this thread?
Good grief. So another person jumps on the bandwagon.
What in god's green earth could you possibly have taken slight from in my response directed to YOU... because the "As I said, I should have known better than to reply..." is basically implying that I said something inappropriate or wrong TO YOU.
You asked me a question. I answered it clearly. If you didn't want an answer, then don't ask the question. Your posing of the question was straightforward and polite. I answered it straightforwardly and politely. I asked at the end if that was a satisfactory answer to your question.
Somehow you have taken up offense from my answering a question that you, yourself posed to me. I don't understand that AT ALL. If I ask someone a question and they answer it with an honest opinion, then OK. I may disagree. I may state why. But I don't get offended by the sheer fact that they answered it.
FOR THE RECORD
I have NOT argued "...virtually everything that can be argued in this thread..." I have made ONE basic point and the rest has been:
A: Pointing out why responses to that point have been either flawed logically or just outright incorrect.
OR
B: Defending myself against personal attacks.
The ONE basic point that I have made, that everything flows through is simple: You cannot judge a person's TS status based upon looks alone. If you do so, you have no right at all discussing matters related to the subject with any seriousness. END BASIC POINT.
For those who will not admit that they do this (base TS status solely on looks)... yeah, I have a continuing problem with you spouting nonsense from a "moral high ground" stance about who is TV and who is TS. You are making the distinction based upon looks alone as I stated but are unwilling to admit that because it really does show you for a superficial and disingenuous person.
For those of you who HAVE admitted it (such as Giovanni_hotel), I have no further words to discuss as you have stated an outlook on life that it would be foolish to argue with because I believe people can believe and have whatever outlook on other people they so choose. That is their right as individuals. It is also my right to believe that that is a sad way to look at PEOPLE.
Honestly, Genetic... I am just not sure AT ALL how anything I wrote in direct reply to YOU could be taken as anything but a straight answer to your question. That is how I intended it and how it was written (and I've re-read it several times now). Please explain.
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
Well, as expected.
An excuse (in tiny type) under the guise of "succinctness" about why you misquoted me out of context and edited a quote to make your own post sound more menacing that it really was. THAT is childish. If you can't own up to that being an incorrect way to win an argument, fine.
FFS Krissy, I haven't edited anything to be more 'menacing'. Let's face it, your posts are a sprawling mass of hysterical BS and pointless information. If I want to reply to specific things you have said, it is just clearer if I break your Leviathan comments down into smaller, relevant sections.
Occasionally there has been a further context to your words, but in those instances that context has been irrelevant imo - like my post where I am just highlighting some of the times I thought you were being rude or condescending... (whatever the context is, that is my opinion of your attitude! You cannot tell me it's incorrect.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
Then you whine about it. Boo-Hoo.
Out of the two of us, honestly, which one seems to fit this description better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
your grandiose and epic thread "exposing" me?? And then, basically your acknowledgement of that fact is again, another slight with the "however...". That is ARROGANT. You cannot escape that FACT.
I said myself that I am arrogant. You know in that nice level message I sent to you :) It was an irenic (not a typo - look it up if you're unsure) attempt at diffusing our situation.
This thread has not been about 'exposing you'. If anything like that has happened, you have done it yourself.
I think our first interaction on this site was in the Jamie French begging for aid thread, where I stood up for you against a few arseholes who were being unreasonable. In this instance, I was helping Franklin out because the whole Groobiverse was turing out in force to put him down. You have already admitted to being unnecessarily harsh to Franklin in this thread - so whether you realise it or not, you agree with my rationale for contributing to this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
If you want to be intellectually honest about this, then find every single negative thing that has bee said to me in this thread and then list those... We'll see who's list is longer.
After my first interjection into this thread, I went away for a while. When I came back there were an additional ten pages. I read them. The overwhelming impression I got was that you (particularly you) were being consistently rude or condescending to just about everyone!
This was my impression - you cannot tell me it is wrong, because I am telling you how I felt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
You're picking on this one topic over and over again, which I've already conceded because you have nothing else.
Krissy, at this stage, I am just replying to your comments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
I conceded that was OK and using that, I was wrong about Franklin. You were wrong about everything else...
Again, I wasn't wrong Krissy. How could you be right (and me wrong) about my own feelings?
I showed you countless examples of your rude or obnoxious attitude, and you are still somehow arguing with me. Let me be ultra clear about this:
I have found you to be consistently rude and condescending in this thread.
What else can you say to that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
So, let's have a discussion. State your point because with all of this, I don't even know what it was to begin with.
Part of my point I have once again attempted to explain above.
I don't believe you can tell a TV from TS by looks alone - I was the first person in this thread to say it was a grey area. However, I also don't think that matters because Seanchai has told us that he has featured TV's on his websites! From there arises the issue of whether it is right to (possibly inadvertently) mislead the consumers about what they are viewing.
Franklin has a right to express his opinions - and imo he is not always right, but he is not always wrong.
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Oh, and it seems another one of Franklin's posts has been deleted...
Completely ridiculous moderation!
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Oh wow.. two grooby employees dislike me mentioning the unwarranted deletion of a members post... lol
What a joke. Any member here who does not work for Seanchai should be completely outraged by the wanton removal of any comment!
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
I removed it - as it was going over the same old ground and been covered - it's starting to become harrassment from him and it's now clear why he's been banned from Kink's forum and apparantely a few others, I've tried to engage him and answer his questions pertinantly over the years but he absolutely refuses to listen.
If you don't like the way the forum is run - go elsewhere - I've told you this before.
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
loveboof
Oh wow.. two grooby employees dislike me mentioning the unwarranted deletion of a members post... lol
What a joke. Any member here who does not work for Seanchai should be completely outraged by the wanton removal of any comment!
For the record, I don't work for Seanchai; nor do i particularly need shoots with his company (so no, he has no hold over me on that issue either).
That being said I don't seen an issue here; I'm not outraged. His company's board, so we play by their rules. Don't like it - start your own forum. :).
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
seanchai
If you don't like the way the forum is run - go elsewhere - I've told you this before.
I could do that. Or you guys could just be more reasonable in your moderation!
I wouldn't have a problem with your removal of posts or threads (or members) if you were just transparent about it and let us, as a community, know what you're doing.
It feels inherently underhanded when you swipe away a members post just because you dont like it. I accept that he has been very critical of your business - and could well have crossed the line a few times, but the bulk of his comments have been fine.
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wendy Summers
For the record, I don't work for Seanchai; nor do i particularly need shoots with his company (so no, he has no hold over me on that issue either).
That being said I don't seen an issue here; I'm not outraged. His company's board, so we play by their rules. Don't like it - start your own forum. :).
Super weak sauce Wendy! Like way too weak - tastes like toilet water to me.
I had you pegged higher than that...
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
this thread keeps on going and going ... why not just lock the dam thing .. its moved off topic now anyway .
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
loveboof
I could do that. Or you guys could just be more reasonable in your moderation!
I wouldn't have a problem with your removal of posts or threads (or members) if you were just transparent about it and let us, as a community, know what you're doing.
It feels inherently underhanded when you swipe away a members post just because you dont like it. I accept that he has been very critical of your business - and could well have crossed the line a few times, but the bulk of his comments have been fine.
Which is why the bulk of his comments have been left - and answered.
There is transparancy, read the rules it's there - and furthermore, the management has the ability to delete. Generally, in criticism I'll prefer to answer but when it turns into harrassment especially as I've answered his points in this post, then I'm going to simply delete it. I'd asked him earlier in the postings to give it a rest and move on.
I think the moderation is very reasonable - many forums and moderators wouldn't even allow this line of questioning.
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LibertyHarkness
this thread keeps on going and going ... why not just lock the dam thing .. its moved off topic now anyway .
This fellow Libertron seconds that...!
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LibertyHarkness
this thread keeps on going and going ... why not just lock the dam thing .. its moved off topic now anyway .
There you go ... if Libby owned this forum, she'd lock it and let it fall. That would be her choice of moderation. Many others would have simply deleted it and not bothered answering.
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
to right ... on some of the straight forums i am on , when a thread goes completely off the rails it just gets locked ..and its done with ..
all that is happening here is people repeating themselves over and over ... and the OP topic of it about Xcritic has been long left in the ashes now ..
Just dont see the point in the thread now .. if the certain posters here want to go tit for tat why not take it private messages :)
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LibertyHarkness
Just dont see the point in the thread now .. if the certain posters here want to go tit for tat why not take it private messages :)
There is no money in private messages.
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
seanchai
There you go ... if Libby owned this forum, she'd lock it and let it fall. That would be her choice of moderation. Many others would have simply deleted it and not bothered answering.
Do whatever you want to do.
I assume by the fact that none of my messages have been deleted they have been deemed okay for this discussion...
Let Krissy reply to me, then lock it. (Give her the last say)
[Edit:]
Quote:
Originally Posted by
seanchai
Which is why the bulk of his comments have been left - and answered.
I meant the bulk of the comments which were removed...
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
loveboof
FFS Krissy, I haven't edited anything to be more 'menacing'. Let's face it, your posts are a sprawling mass of hysterical BS and pointless information. If I want to reply to specific things you have said, it is just clearer if I break your Leviathan comments down into smaller, relevant sections.
Occasionally there has been a further context to your words, but in those instances that context has been irrelevant imo - like my post where I am just highlighting some of the times I thought you were being rude or condescending... (whatever the context is, that is my opinion of your attitude! You cannot tell me it's incorrect.)
Out of the two of us, honestly, which one seems to fit this description better?
I said myself that I am arrogant. You know in that nice level message I sent to you :) It was an irenic (not a typo - look it up if you're unsure) attempt at diffusing our situation.
This thread has not been about 'exposing you'. If anything like that has happened, you have done it yourself.
I think our first interaction on this site was in the Jamie French begging for aid thread, where I stood up for you against a few arseholes who were being unreasonable. In this instance, I was helping Franklin out because the whole Groobiverse was turing out in force to put him down. You have already admitted to being unnecessarily harsh to Franklin in this thread - so whether you realise it or not, you agree with my rationale for contributing to this thread.
After my first interjection into this thread, I went away for a while. When I came back there were an additional ten pages. I read them. The overwhelming impression I got was that you (particularly you) were being consistently rude or condescending to just about everyone!
This was my impression - you cannot tell me it is wrong, because I am telling you how I felt.
Krissy, at this stage, I am just replying to your comments.
Again, I wasn't wrong Krissy. How could you be right (and me wrong) about my own feelings?
I showed you countless examples of your rude or obnoxious attitude, and you are still somehow arguing with me. Let me be ultra clear about this:
I have found you to be consistently rude and condescending in this thread.
What else can you say to that?
Part of my point I have once again attempted to explain above.
I don't believe you can tell a TV from TS by looks alone - I was the first person in this thread to say it was a grey area. However, I also don't think that matters because Seanchai has told us that he has featured TV's on his websites! From there arises the issue of whether it is right to (possibly inadvertently) mislead the consumers about what they are viewing.
Franklin has a right to express his opinions - and imo he is not always right, but he is not always wrong.
So, I agree with others that this is a VERY pointless argument to have, and as I stated last night, it is now arguing for the sake of arguing. So, I will say this, leave it here and address your point in the next post.
1. You have staged a COMPLETELY personal attack on me, which by your own admission TWO THIRDS of which was incorrect (I was attacked first). As of yet, you have not apologized, retracted, or otherwise been decent enough to acknowledge that. EDITING A QUOTE BASED ON YOUR OPINION OF WHAT IS RELEVANT IS SHADY, especially without acknowledging it [(...) is your acknowledgement that you edited out the context of a quote]?
2. I am not whining about anything nor am I arguing with you. I am RESPONDING to YOUR attacks. I DID NOT first bring up the topic about being condescending/rude at all... YOU DID. You're so good about checking the record... when it is convenient to you. You found it somehow pertinent to the discussion and injected it into it. So to say that I am now whining because I have simply responded? C'mon now. That is completely, intellectually dishonest.
3. You're not just replying to my comments.... YOU STARTED THIS LINE OF COMMENTS about who is condescending / rude and for what reason. It is I who am replying to yours. Again. Be intellectually honest about the part you have played in this.
4. YOU WERE WRONG. Your epic post assertion is that I was condescending / rude to people FIRST. Over HALF of that post dealt with ONE person, who I conceded. THE OTHER 2/3 of your post dealt with TWO PEOPLE. Who you were WRONG ABOUT... THEY THREW THE FIRST PUNCH.
5. WHO CARES WHAT YOU THINK? I have found you consistently rude and condescending in this thread as well... and yet, I still answer your posts HONESTLY and without EDITING THEM to make myself look better. That is your right to think that way... it is mine to think that way as well.
6. YOU ARE BLIND TO YOURSELF AND OTHERS. As I stated earlier, you're acting like I am the ONLY ONE here being what you call condescending / rude. THAT IS A JOKE. You are basically stating that I should just let others walk all over me and respond with, "Please sir, may I have some more?" THAT IS A JOKE. To those who have asked me simple questions, I have given simple answers (at least I thought... GENETIC???). To those who have given insult, I have returned. To those who have spoken condescendingly to me, I have returned that sentiment. I already conceded that two wrongs don't make a right, but in debate, if you let the other person just simply attack you negatively without responding... you have already lost.
Anyway, those are my last words on the matter. I will, of course read any reply you have but seriously... this is a stupid argument and not pertinent to the points at all. Especially when I have already conceded a large part of what you're saying. So on to your actual point.
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
loveboof
Let Krissy reply to me, then lock it. (Give her the last say)
Cool. So now we're done...
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
loveboof
I meant the bulk of the comments which were removed...
Two of his posts were removed.
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
seanchai
Two of his posts were removed.
*The bulk of the content in the posts which were removed.
(i.e. you could have just edited out the offending sentences, leaving behind a red coloured indication that you have done so)
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
loveboof
Part of my point I have once again attempted to explain above.
I don't believe you can tell a TV from TS by looks alone - I was the first person in this thread to say it was a grey area. However, I also don't think that matters because Seanchai has told us that he has featured TV's on his websites! From there arises the issue of whether it is right to (possibly inadvertently) mislead the consumers about what they are viewing.
Franklin has a right to express his opinions - and imo he is not always right, but he is not always wrong.
OK. This is NOT condescending at all, but I have stated this time after time now and you haven't gotten it so I am left only point-to-point. Agreed?
First. I will begin by restating your view so you know that I understand it, and have from the beginning. You are stating that the Owner's admission that he features TVs on the website is relevant to the Consumers' desire / critique that those models who they, for whatever reason, say are TV should not be featured on the site. You say this because, in your opinion it is the Owner's responsibility to feature ORANGES on an ORANGE-related site, not blood-oranges, not tangerines, not tangelos... what is commonly accepted as an ORANGE.
Is that correct?
I am stating that the owner's admission that he features TVs, TS, donkeys, or whatever else is not relevant at all for the following reasons:
1. The owner has the right to feature whoever, whatever, and however he wants. I think you've already stated that is correct.
2. The owner is not forcing a purchase. The consumer is making A CHOICE to purchase a product (inclusive of what is on the aforementioned tour). Sites are graphical and have tours. SMY (I use this site because it has been pretty much beaten up here as the example) happens to have one of the largest around which gives you a VERY SOLID, THOROUGH glimpse as to what you'll see there. Because the consumer has made a choice based upon an educated view of the site, subsequent expressions of dislike become less meaningful. Consumers vote with their dollars.
3. It is a proven fact that the very definitions of TV and TS are open for discussion (as you put it, gray area). Thus, it is irrelevant as to what the OWNER DEFINES as TV or TS since the multitude of CONSUMERS will, in fact, have their own definitions of the terms that either will or won't agree with the owner's. That is the reason why a particular consumer (Franklin in this case), when making a distinct argument about "TVs do not belong on TS sites" MUST state a definition of the two terms. Otherwise the ENTIRE discussion is based upon speculation and individual interpretations.
4. Once it has been established that the person judges TS status based upon looks alone (there is no other way to do so from pictures and a videos), then that person loses credibility to actually state what TS is, therefore the whole argument about who is TS and who is TV, is also invalid. Therefore the argument that TVs should not be featured on TS sites is also invalid, regardless of the owner's admission.
I really cannot state it any clearer than that. I am open to friendly discussion as to where / why I am wrong.
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LibertyHarkness
this thread keeps on going and going ... why not just lock the dam thing .. its moved off topic now anyway .
Agreed!
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
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.
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
Just so everyone knows, Loveboof and I have kissed and made up in private and will be continuing the conversation there after our make-up sex session.
He can state this publicly if he wants as well.
lol..
X-critic also against Transsexuals thread, done.
(Imagine Gordon Ramsey saying it...)
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Umm... I am supposed to get the last word here.
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BellaBellucci
btw - lol. Bella is always welcome in any discussion about anything! (except star signs...)
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Shouldn't we be celebrating the fact both IAFD and Xcritic are implementing changes??
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
Good grief. So another person jumps on the bandwagon.
What in god's green earth could you possibly have taken slight from in my response directed to YOU... [snip ranting and raving]
Honestly, Genetic... I am just not sure AT ALL how anything I wrote in direct reply to YOU could be taken as anything but a straight answer to your question. That is how I intended it and how it was written (and I've re-read it several times now). Please explain.
There's no bandwagon here. I repeatedly said it was my opninion and my opinion only that it is deceptive and wrong for a website to promote gay men in women's clothing as transexuals. I'm only replying now because you've asked for an explanation which I feel you deserve
The "offense could be taken" part of my post was in regard to the line you have taken about early stages TS and TVs being hard to tell apart. And I fully admit I worded it badly. As you like using bold and I hope this clarifies my stance - I agree with you but some people who identify with the opposite gender may not appreciate hearing that they look no different to a man in a wig. Hell if everyone's panties are in a bunch over the words "tranny", "shemale" and any other perceived sleight, someone is bound to take offense to the opinion you offered even if it's the truth.
My comment about knowing better than to reply to you is because you and I have crossed paths before on this forum and I knew that any reply to your post would result in you replying with an aggressive post longer than the longest of Wikipedia articles. It isn't intended to be offensive to you, I just am aware that you don't make short posts (neither do I) and I know that I should be spending my time doing something more productive than arguing semantics on the interwebz, whether on this subject or any other. Honestly, everyone in this thread has wasted a lot of their life in arguing over pedantic issues.
Believe me, I have only replied now in order to answer your question which I hope will make you realise that my last post was my admitting I stood corrected, and further that I took no offense to it.
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Genetic
There's no bandwagon here. I repeatedly said it was my opninion and my opinion only that it is deceptive and wrong for a website to promote gay men in women's clothing as transexuals. I'm only replying now because you've asked for an explanation which I feel you deserve
The "offense could be taken" part of my post was in regard to the line you have taken about early stages TS and TVs being hard to tell apart. And I fully admit I worded it badly. As you like using bold and I hope this clarifies my stance - I agree with you but some people who identify with the opposite gender may not appreciate hearing that they look no different to a man in a wig. Hell if everyone's panties are in a bunch over the words "tranny", "shemale" and any other perceived sleight, someone is bound to take offense to the opinion you offered even if it's the truth.
My comment about knowing better than to reply to you is because you and I have crossed paths before on this forum and I knew that any reply to your post would result in you replying with an aggressive post longer than the longest of Wikipedia articles. It isn't intended to be offensive to you, I just am aware that you don't make short posts (neither do I) and I know that I should be spending my time doing something more productive than arguing semantics on the interwebz, whether on this subject or any other. Honestly, everyone in this thread has wasted a lot of their life in arguing over pedantic issues.
Believe me, I have only replied now in order to answer your question which I hope will make you realise that my last post was my admitting I stood corrected, and further that I took no offense to it.
Thanks for clearing your stance up. I appreciate it and consider the matter closed, as well as any previous conversations (which I don't recall off the top of my head... so I must have considered those closed as well), amicably.
BTW... do people realize that my posts are really not that long? It is just that I quote the full person in every post, because I think that is fair to do so my reply is seen with the original post. If you take all the quotes out of my posts, as well as line breaks to keep points / ideas separate, they really are not that long... paragraph or two most times. Also, maybe it is because I have two high resolution monitors that I work on and people are viewing at a lower resolution. I know when I checked this thread on my phone, it seemed like I had to scroll for days.
Anyway.
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
KellyShore
Shouldn't we be celebrating the fact both IAFD and Xcritic are implementing changes??
What changes are xcritic performing? If anything they seem to be the most vocal about making sure us TS bullies are put in our place so that we shut up and take any abuse that comes our way. I think this industry has seen its last days of when TS Performers are going to keep our mouths shut about how the "straight side" treats us.
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Exactly Amy. I have read the behind the scenes emails from people about Xcritic and I have spoke to the owner , only thing that came was they are going to give us our own "section". However the views of the owner via twitter were LOUD and clear.
Great step but unless one's viewpoint changes then not sure how that makes it successful.
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AmyDaly
What changes are xcritic performing? If anything they seem to be the most vocal about making sure us TS bullies are put in our place so that we shut up and take any abuse that comes our way. I think this industry has seen its last days of when TS Performers are going to keep our mouths shut about how the "straight side" treats us.
How dare you attempt to bring this weary thread back on topic....:joke:
But seriously, thanks Amy. Maybe we'll get just a little sanity back at last.
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
robertlouis
How dare you attempt to bring this weary thread back on topic....:joke:
But seriously, thanks Amy. Maybe we'll get just a little sanity back at last.
No need to be just kidding. I sincerely apologize to the OP for getting so way off topic. It seems to be my nature to do so in most serious threads. I think way too fast for my own good sometimes and it doesn't help matters that I can type a mile a minute as well.
Also, I apologize to those having to sift through and read. I have read through all my posts again, and although already conceded and explained, I will take full responsibility for being condescending / rude at times and I apologize to those who felt / know I have been so to them. Whether deservedly or not, it is not the way I want to be viewed, nor is it the way I want to treat people. I stand by my points... not the way they were communicated and said.
2013 is a New Year. Let's start it off as such and let bygones be bygones.
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
No need to be just kidding. I sincerely apologize to the OP for getting so way off topic. It seems to be my nature to do so in most serious threads. I think way too fast for my own good sometimes and it doesn't help matters that I can type a mile a minute as well.
Also, I apologize to those having to sift through and read. I have read through all my posts again, and although already conceded and explained, I will take full responsibility for being condescending / rude at times and I apologize to those who felt / know I have been so to them. Whether deservedly or not, it is not the way I want to be viewed, nor is it the way I want to treat people. I stand by my points... not the way they were communicated and said.
2013 is a New Year. Let's start it off as such and let bygones be bygones.
No problems Krissy. When people are passionate about an issue it usually makes sense to work it to exhaustion. Nowadays we do it over the internet; before we'd have argued in a bar and then had a drink together. That's just how it is.
Anyway, in the spirit of your post, here's wishing you the very best of all possible years in 2013.
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
robertlouis
No problems Krissy. When people are passionate about an issue it usually makes sense to work it to exhaustion. Nowadays we do it over the internet; before we'd have argued in a bar and then had a drink together. That's just how it is.
Anyway, in the spirit of your post, here's wishing you the very best of all possible years in 2013.
Thanks and to you as well!
-
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
LOL Ain't Nobody Got Time Fo Dat! This thread made me laugh.
