+- The UK Babe Channels Forum (https://www.babeshows.co.uk)
+-- Forum: Daytime Shows (/forumdisplay.php?fid=24)
+--- Forum: Former Daytime Shows (/forumdisplay.php?fid=237)
+---- Forum: Asian Connections (/forumdisplay.php?fid=182)
+---- Thread: Asian Connections - Dayshow (/showthread.php?tid=30430)
RE: Asian Connections - Dayshow - hugh_g_rection - 14-05-2014 16:09
(14-05-2014 15:46 )JuanKerr Wrote: hugh, rich, you both have the intelligence of a cabbage.
How can you possibly know to whom I was referring, if I didn't specify?
Wow. Haha, you seem pretty angry. It's only a wank channel forum mate! Maybe you should go and have a sit down, maybe come back when you've calmed down a bit.
Then you'll be able to see why saying 'the hypocrisy in the last few posts', is effectively accusing the people who made those posts of being hypocritical.
RE: Asian Connections - Dayshow - richpk - 14-05-2014 16:19
(14-05-2014 15:12 )hugh_g_rection Wrote: Haha. One of those 'last few posts' was my post! Please tell me this is some kind of fish or troll.
Never feed the troll
RE: Asian Connections - Dayshow - richpk - 14-05-2014 16:21
(14-05-2014 15:46 )JuanKerr Wrote: hugh, rich, you both have the intelligence of a cabbage.
How can you possibly know to whom I was referring, if I didn't specify?
so when you said the last few posts, you were not refering to the last few posts then?
okey dokey
RE: Asian Connections - Dayshow - Addison - 14-05-2014 16:22
(14-05-2014 15:46 )JuanKerr Wrote: How can you possibly know to whom I was referring, if I didn't specify?
How can anyone know, if you don't specify? If you make an accusation ("hypocrite") but leave out the name(s) of the one(s) you're accusing, you leave people with no other option than to make inferences. Your attack is founded upon implication; otherwise it's cracking a fart off into the void.
RE: Asian Connections - Dayshow - JuanKerr - 15-05-2014 00:07
(14-05-2014 16:22 )Addison Wrote:(14-05-2014 15:46 )JuanKerr Wrote: How can you possibly know to whom I was referring, if I didn't specify?
How can anyone know, if you don't specify? If you make an accusation ("hypocrite") but leave out the name(s) of the one(s) you're accusing, you leave people with no other option than to make inferences. Your attack is founded upon implication; otherwise it's cracking a fart off into the void.
So my comment, 'the last few posts', has to have been directed at an individual, does it? It can't possibly have meant the 'general tone' or consensus of a group of people offering the counter-argument?
As for the posts of mine you quoted on the last page, all they show is that I'm no fan of the ladyboys. I wasn't aware I'd ever made a secret of that. If they seem a little hostile, it's because they were said in response to my feelings that more than a little positive discrimination was happening at the channel.
RE: Asian Connections - Dayshow - Addison - 15-05-2014 23:43
(15-05-2014 00:07 )JuanKerr Wrote: So my comment, 'the last few posts', has to have been directed at an individual, does it? It can't possibly have meant the 'general tone' or consensus of a group of people offering the counter-argument?
I suppose, but then you run the risk of people including your posts in the ones being put under the spotlight, and rendering the issue moot (since you certainly seem to have shifted your position a bit vis-a-vis the transgender presenters, relative to what it was a few months ago), a possibility that rich and hugh were having a bit of fun with, I think. One complication is that you don't seem to want to state your objections in a direct, declarative way; you keep couching everything in questions, and it gets to be a pain working out which ones are seeking an answer, and which ones are meant to be rhetorical!
RE: Asian Connections - Dayshow - JuanKerr - 16-05-2014 00:01
(15-05-2014 23:43 )Addison Wrote: One complication is that you don't seem to want to state your objections in a direct, declarative way; you keep couching everything in questions, and it gets to be a pain working out which ones are seeking an answer, and which ones are meant to be rhetorical!
But I have made my objections clear, by directly answering the two questions you asked in an earlier post.
In any case, this discussion has long since moved away from the post that started it.
RE: Asian Connections - Dayshow - Addison - 16-05-2014 02:00
(16-05-2014 00:01 )JuanKerr Wrote: But I have made my objections clear, by directly answering the two questions you asked in an earlier post.
I'm not sure you directly answered two!
(13-05-2014 23:53 )Addison Wrote: So you want [the shemales] to stay?
(14-05-2014 13:30 )JuanKerr Wrote: I can't answer this.
Does not being able to answer count as an answer? (Maybe, if you extrapolate, but that sure doesn't make it a 'direct' one). Or are you showing us what a form of hypocrisy is, by saying you can't answer, and then claiming that this is because you're so indifferent to the presence of the shemales, you're simply unable to summon the enthusiasm to decide 'yes' or 'no'? (Someone who's actually indifferent isn't likely to have got so worked up about shemales in the past that they ended up making dismissive asides about them in replies).
Still, new leaf and all that, because this sounds much more promising:
(14-05-2014 13:30 )JuanKerr Wrote: Do I think [shemales] deserve a place on the show? Yes, of course.
If you really mean it, good on you for saying it.
RE: Asian Connections - Dayshow - JuanKerr - 16-05-2014 09:48
(16-05-2014 02:00 )Addison Wrote:(16-05-2014 00:01 )JuanKerr Wrote: But I have made my objections clear, by directly answering the two questions you asked in an earlier post.
I'm not sure you directly answered two!
(13-05-2014 23:53 )Addison Wrote: So you want [the shemales] to stay?
(14-05-2014 13:30 )JuanKerr Wrote: I can't answer this.
Does not being able to answer count as an answer? (Maybe, if you extrapolate, but that sure doesn't make it a 'direct' one).
Listen, Addison, you're obviously a well-educated man, so you can see that I did answer this question because I went onto clarify why I couldn't give you a simple yes or no.
I'll say again, I have no desire to watch the ladyboys, so how can I possibly have a preference regarding whether they stay or not?
That is not the same as you asking me if I think they should be removed from the channels on the grounds that they're not naturally-born females.
And I'll repeat, this is not what the original discussion was about anyway.
RE: Asian Connections - Dayshow - disconnected - 16-05-2014 14:36
Slightly off topic:-
I tend to pop by here and the online version of the show, every so often, just to see whether Ice has made a comeback. Last Sunday, I believe it was, just after 10pm, I was treated to a view of Ali, alone on the couch, with her tits out and having a whale of a time on the phone. This went on until approximately 10:30pm when they turned off the lights and normal service was restored - close-up of cushions on couch. No mention of it here.
Then yesterday, I logged in just after 10pm and there was Anne, alone on the couch, admittedly in no way nude but doing the hottest show that I've ever seen her do! This carried on until about 10:15pm when normal service was resumed. Again, no mention of it here.
Anyone know how long this has been going on for and how far do they go?
You can guess where I'm going to be at 10pm tonight - fingers crossed it's not a Shemale only show
