Sounds interesting, disconnected, but I'm not sure I understand what it is you're telling us.
I thought the online version was there specifically so that the presenters could put on more explicit shows after 10pm when it finishes on Sky?
Are you saying that the online show normally finishes when the Sky one does?
(16-05-2014 10:48 )JuanKerr Wrote: [ -> ][..] 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.
The most recent discussion has been about shemales, generally, and about attitudes towards them, specifically (with a side-issue skirmish over what hypocrisy is, and who's been guilty of it), and the hole you've dug for yourself is that you've been seen to take up different and contradictory positions in a relatively short space of time. To be pro shemale:
(14-05-2014 14:30 )JuanKerr Wrote: [ -> ]I think [shemales] deserve a place on the show
shemale indifferent:
(14-05-2014 14:30 )JuanKerr Wrote: [ -> ]I simply have no preference regarding whether they stay or not
And implicitly shemale oppositional:
(08-11-2013 15:10 )JuanKerr Wrote: [ -> ]they might as well just rename this channel SheMalesTV 
more-or-less at the same time, is to fatally stretch credibility (asking whether shemales should stay on the show, and asking if they deserve a place on the show is tantamount to posing the same question twice, I think. It was meant to be a bit of an elephant trap. How can they stay if they don't deserve a place? How can it be shown that they deserve a place on the show other than allowing them an on-going presence on it?).
There's never been anything concrete to suggest that the programme makers have been implementing a discriminatory 'pro shemale' agenda. Ice and Kipsi have come and gone on the show, and likewise so have shemales Balloon, Opal and Lisa. Nadia and Amy (post-reassignment op. female?) remain, as do Ali, Cherry and Anne (the line-ups may've been shuffled again recently; since Balloon's departure, I haven't been keep tabs on the show nearly as much). A balance is being more-or-less maintained. Both types of presenters seem to be being retained or let go on the same basis (leaving aside the fact that people can decide to leave jobs themselves, for a number of reasons).
Balloon leaving has probably annoyed me as much as Ice leaving has annoyed you (although who knows, one or other or both might return at some point). The difference is, I'm not guilty of implicitly laying the blame for that at the door of the makers of the show, the natural-borns that remain, or those on the forum who only enjoy watching the latter.
(16-05-2014 16:05 )JuanKerr Wrote: [ -> ]Sounds interesting, disconnected, but I'm not sure I understand what it is you're telling us.
I thought the online version was there specifically so that the presenters could put on more explicit shows after 10pm when it finishes on Sky?
Are you saying that the online show normally finishes when the Sky one does?
thats the only show there is
(16-05-2014 16:14 )Addison Wrote: [ -> ]The most recent discussion has been about shemales, generally, and about attitudes towards them, specifically (with a side-issue skirmish over what hypocrisy is, and who's been guilty of it), and the hole you've dug for yourself is that you've been seen to take up different and contradictory positions in a relatively short space of time. To be pro shemale:
Can I retract that comment about you being intelligent?
The most recent discussion began when a viewer labelled themselves straight while simultaneously admitting he found a presenter sexually attractive, regardless of their natural gender. It was you and others who decided to twist my responses to this, into a 'shemale-bashing' debate.
I'm not in any kind of hole, but you like to pretend I am by continually ignoring and/or twisting my points so that they sit nicely as targets for your argument.
Any negative comments I've made have, as I've already explained, been in response to my belief that positive discrimination has, at times, been employed by the channel.
You say there is no evidence to support this, but that doesn't mean it's not been happening.
Retract what you want. Your assessment of my intelligence concerns me as little as your view that snookerloopy ought to label himself the way you believe he should appears to concern him (as far as I can tell, he hasn't dignified your barb-dressed-up-as-altruistic-concern with a reply yet). He made a declarative personal statement: he's a straight guy who enjoys Thai Chat presenters he likes the look of, irrespective of whether or not their gender is known to him. Within such a subjective, self-contained realm, the objections and 'diagnoses' of others looking on can't be an advance on how the guy himself has chosen to define himself in this instance. Case closed.
Your 'interest' in how he characterises or ought to characterise the nature of his enjoyment (in part by prodding your finger at the dictionary) is really a channelling of frustration in the direction of the pro-shemale forum members, now that you've been warned by mods that derogatory remarks aimed directly at the shemales themselves will no longer be tolerated. On that basis, what you're trying to dismiss as irrelevant here is still part of the wider, on-going discussion, which is why we find ourselves where we are.
(17-05-2014 01:17 )Addison Wrote: [ -> ]Retract what you want. Your assessment of my intelligence concerns me as little as your view that snookerloopy ought to label himself the way you believe he should appears to concern him (as far as I can tell, he hasn't dignified your barb-dressed-up-as-altruistic-concern with a reply yet).
Okay, let's try a different route. How many times have you heard some bigot say, "I'm not a racist, but..."
Would you, I wonder, accept and defend this person's right to label himself a non-racist, in the face of blatantly racist remarks?
(16-05-2014 15:36 )disconnected Wrote: [ -> ]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 
disconnect, in ref to after 10pm show on internet. officially there is no show after 10pm. any after hours showing is purely down to the performers.up to the introduction of 4am start on freeview the internet was logged out until 5am for start of dayshow at 5.30am. previous of course is was logged in 24hrs for the now defunct thai hardcore show.since the demise of thai H/C the girls logged off the computor at 10pm but since the introduction of 4am freeview they do not log off. any overun is {as far as i can ascertain}down to the request of the caller to that particular performer.how far they go is also their choice. remember they also have rules and regulations to adhere to. to my knowledge the only current performers who show any nudity after 10pm is amy and ali. hope this answers your question.
(17-05-2014 02:35 )JuanKerr Wrote: [ -> ]Okay, let's try a different route [...] Would you, I wonder, accept and defend this person's right to label himself a non-racist, in the face of blatantly racist remarks?
snookerloopy wasn't claiming to be a 'non' anything. I don't think there's anything in the realm of race and racism that would be equivalent to what he said; there's not really the same possibility for ambiguity or a 'third way,' is there? Maybe you can take the statement that prompted all this:
(09-05-2014 08:30 )snookerloopy Wrote: [ -> ]im a straight guy but apple is beautiful ladyboy or no ladyboy
and alter it to clarify what it is you're trying to ask or demonstrate?
(19-05-2014 00:43 )Addison Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe you can take the statement that prompted all this:
(09-05-2014 08:30 )snookerloopy Wrote: [ -> ]im a straight guy but apple is beautiful ladyboy or no ladyboy
and alter it to clarify what it is you're trying to ask or demonstrate?
I'm not asking anything, nor am I trying to demonstrate anything.
(19-05-2014 16:05 )JuanKerr Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not asking anything, nor am I trying to demonstrate anything.
So when you said "If you, I wonder," you weren't really wondering, but taking another rhetorical leak in the wind? You can't really have it both ways, if you're meaningfully trying to establish/clarify your position in a discussion.