Karry - Discussion & Chat

dazaman wrote:@chris26, Nope Slowfox was replying to you and only you

You judge them then complain when they do the same, but as always hijack a thread of a model you have no interest in, which is clear.

I don't post about critics of any show but do against some who decide they will attack other members ! its called Moderating and not Maderating, some should try it

And very strangely it is always the members that complain that you choose to criticize, you and not only you, of course. Much like, again very strangely, many of the complainers have been basically decimated or prohibited to talk for various reasons, some of which are laughable at best, whereas the usual guys are always there, saying and being equally if not more disrespectful than most of the complainers, while the mod team gleefully plumping for them at every single occasion.
Maybe you think that I find it fun to write complaints most of the time (not all the time, as some might want you to believe), well, I'll tell you a secret: it's not.

I find the majority of the comments directed towards me to be snide and offensive, but I choose not to care about that because I'm sure you mods know how to do your job, right?

For many members, everything said against Karry (in order to stay in topic) is "stupid and senseless" and people who do that understand nothing. Is that not an offense? I guess it's not an offense because it is directed towards complainers, it does sound a little racist if we put it like that. If it's not, tell me what it is. And yes, if somebody makes certain remarks, I'll for sure respond in the same tone (if I am judged, I will judge, for sure), and if an intervention is required, I surely do not accept it to be directed only towards me (or towards the complainer).

My so called "patronizing" below was merely a play on some members here who like to enrich their own speeches with Latin idioms just to sound important, whereas their opinion is exactly as valid as that of anybody else in here. Or it should be, but again, judging from what I see, I guess that's not the case. Apparently for you there are opinions that are worth defending and others that are not.

I am strongly against the closing of the topic for the simple reasons that there would be outbreaks somewhere else and perhaps it is better to leave everything in one place (here). I say that also speaking for myself, as if this topic were to be closed, I definitely would find another topic to write about Karry, should there be a reason to in the future. My only suggestion would be to close the topics of the girls who have effectively and definitely left ETV, but that's a different matter.
As I have already expressed, I think that Hilbert's post is far from pointless, as it gives a clearer and more thorough view on what has sparked (correct me if I'm mistaken) the whole "Karry" affair last month (and I repeat, I think most of the writers have been far too kind, I would have had more examples to quote). You cannot tell me which girl I am interested in or not, because that's my choice, and in my opinion Karry is able to do good shows and has done so in the past. You want to know the problem? The problem is that in this forum and also somewhere else, it is considered a CRIME worthy of the death penalty to even only think about asking Karry something even remotely sexual, and this seems to be the only enforced opinion available. I'd like to ask all the people who think like that: why have you started watching this TV? This, I think, is an interesting point of discussion (although maybe more appropriate for the general section than this specific topic). You can see that also from the Wall, with all the comments from the 'defenders' (a term without praise or infamy), they are obsessed about the nakedness issue, while nobody among the complainers spoke about that. And Ludi puddi acts all defensive now, but people tend to forget that he was the first who made Karry get naked, as well as many people who ask ETV for naked pictures of her and, on the exterior, act all defensive like she is a brave princess who doesn't need to show her body (to other people, I guess...).

Back on topic, I haven't followed her latest shows but I've been told that nothing has changed in her behaviour more or less, however, I consider it to be extremely positive that she is out of the nightshows, but at the same time I would be glad to have her back, only if she is ready to work the way her nightshow colleagues all do. Which she has in the past shown to be able to, like her first Thursday shows, for example, which were very good.

Wilsonsand wrote:There is no reason to delete Hilbert post, the only reason is you don´t like it and you don´t want to see it here. This is a discussion thread, not a fans club. The forum consists in it, don´t you like it? Hilbert post doesn´t contain hard critics and don´t break any rules, there are some videos transcribed, ad he usually does...what is wrong? I think there is no problem.

I have stated my reasons quite clearly, please re-read my post.
If you dispute them then you are quite free to do so in a clear and reasoned manner.

Edit: Oh, and my start point follows my latest post.

There is no reason to delete Hilbert post, the only reason is you don´t like it and you don´t want to see it here. This is a discussion thread, not a fans club. The forum consists in it, don´t you like it? Hilbert post doesn´t contain hard critics and don´t break any rules, there are some videos transcribed, ad he usually does...what is wrong? I think there is no problem.

Yes 'robert', I consider "exegesis" to be poorly chosen too, probably trying to impress

Now to my point.
I think this thread needs cleansing.
In fact everything back to and including Hilbert's post are just going over a topic which is over a month old and had been quiet for over one week.
Now, Hilbert's work is long, exhaustive and pointless. In fact it could be considered inflammatory, bringing back a topic which had previously caused much argument here, as it has again.
Luckily I am not a moderator, so the choice to delete is not mine ... but I'd do it .

Chris26 wrote:Very nice exegesis ("analysis", for those without a dictionary at hand)!

Thanks. Appropriately patronised. Not sure Maimonides would understand it as more than a highlighted transcription but I am sure clerics in 15th Century Toledo or 17th Century Salem would recognise it. "Condemned from her very own lips I tell thee!"

@chris26, Nope Slowfox was replying to you and only you

You judge them then complain when they do the same, but as always hijack a thread of a model you have no interest in, which is clear.

I don't post about critics of any show but do against some who decide they will attack other members ! its called Moderating and not Maderating, some should try it

dazaman wrote:

Chris26 wrote:Very nice exegesis ("analysis", for those without a dictionary at hand)!
But I'm afraid it is merely a matter of seconds (maybe minutes) before many people (the usual) will post here saying that it's just another "stupid and senseless attack".
I, for one, commend your patience and precision.
(P.S.: is it OK now, boss?)

Your original post prejudging any reply and taking away any chance of a real discussion even before anyone tries, also taking away valid points hilbert was making.

So they have the right to judge you as well or is it only you who are allowed to judge them?

I think you might have some problems with the use of the English language if you see any "prejudging any reply and taking away any chance of a real discussion" in that post of mine. I merely stated (and I was proven right mere seconds after by Slowfox, admittedly something I did not expect from him as I hoped he would not do that, given his position) that Hilbert's post would be seen as "a waste of valuable time" (to paraphrase Slowfox's words) or as a "stupid and senseless attack", since this is nighthawk's opinion about anything against Karry (or ETV, for that matter, but that is another point). These posts, in whatever high regard you might hold the writers, would definitely not be "a real discussion", as they would be the usual stale and rancid "backwards" crusade against anybody who dares to say anything against our beloved and perfect princess. A "real discussion" is possible between people who first of all are able to examine different points of view on an objective level, something that, and excuse if I might sound arrogant here, I don't think some members can do (on both fields of the "battle", of course).

For me, this transcription provides an interesting point in favour of the complainers and should warrant a more thorough analysis. What is the point of trying to explain this to people who would consider this "a waste of time" or another "stupid and senseless attack"? Is there really room for discussion with these people? That's why I believe that I definitely did not take away "any chance of a real discussion". Over and out, and it would be cool if you actually looked behind you sometimes instead of always forward.

Slowfox wrote:well, let me be more precise.

at least I spent 100 hours with something I enjoyed, opposite to others who waste their time with something they dislke and disagree with.

clear enough now ?

You didn't need to specify anything, it was clear before as well, and it still doesn't give you the right to deem your time to be better spent than other people's time.
Because following your reasoning, I could say the opposite as well: your 100 hours are a waste of time and Hilbert's post was a thorough and constructive use of his time, but I know better than to do that.

Slowfox wrote:and if you want to continue with plain polemics rather then forwarding a decent opinion to the subject strongly recommend to change the field

I certainly didn't start this. As Watcher rightfully wrote somewhere else, this is a public place so everybody can comment on everything. I'm sorry you consider my posts to be "plain polemics" and not containing a "decent opinion", but kindly excuse me if I don't take advices from you. I prefer continuing to voice my opinions here the same way I always did.

Slowfox wrote:...
at least I spent 100 hours with something I enjoyed, opposite to others who waste their time with something they dislke and disagree with.
...

So I guess I'm also one of the "others who waste their time..." guys in your eyes, but not everything is black or white.

If I didn't like the idea of erotic TV and web shows at all, I wouldn't even be a member here.
So it must be allowed to make positive remarks about ETV things I like and not so postive remarks about things I don't like,
no matter if I spend many hours on the phone or if I just watch some shows and send some messages from time to time like my humble self.
This board would imho be boring, if it consists of praises and greeting cards.

Worst case scenario for me are web schedules like this week.....simply not interested in ~ 90 % of the shows, nothing good or bad to write about.
Well, that may be my personal problem...

So, personally I'm happy for you that you spent time with something you enjoyed and I'm happy too for the guy who wrote lengthy transscripts of
Karry's deliberations (as long as I don't have to read that), but wasn't that you who started the "too much time on hands" thing ?

Chris26 wrote:

Slowfox wrote:I figure there are too many people having too much time.

speaking of time, it was only a matter of time for someone to get the ball rolling again, with enough others catching the bait like the hawk his prey.

So as there are people "having too much time" calling a girl on an erotic channel for more than 100 hours, there are people "having much time" doing this... who are you to judge?

Who are they to judge indeed

Chris26 wrote:Very nice exegesis ("analysis", for those without a dictionary at hand)!
But I'm afraid it is merely a matter of seconds (maybe minutes) before many people (the usual) will post here saying that it's just another "stupid and senseless attack".
I, for one, commend your patience and precision.
(P.S.: is it OK now, boss?)

Your original post prejudging any reply and taking away any chance of a real discussion even before anyone tries, also taking away valid points hilbert was making.

So they have the right to judge you as well or is it only you who are allowed to judge them?

Chris26 wrote:

Slowfox wrote:see what I mean ?

Unfortunately, I do but you don't.

well, let me be more precise.

at least I spent 100 hours with something I enjoyed, opposite to others who waste their time with something they dislke and disagree with.

clear enough now ?

and if you want to continue with plain polemics rather then forwarding a decent opinion to the subject strongly recommend to change the field

Chris26 wrote:

Slowfox wrote:see what I mean ?

Unfortunately, I do but you don't.

What is this...kindergarten?

Slowfox wrote:see what I mean ?

Unfortunately, I do but you don't.

Chris26 wrote:

Slowfox wrote:I figure there are too many people having too much time.

speaking of time, it was only a matter of time for someone to get the ball rolling again, with enough others catching the bait like the hawk his prey.

So as there are people "having too much time" calling a girl on an erotic channel for more than 100 hours, there are people "having much time" doing this... who are you to judge?

see what I mean ?

Slowfox wrote:I figure there are too many people having too much time.

speaking of time, it was only a matter of time for someone to get the ball rolling again, with enough others catching the bait like the hawk his prey.

So as there are people "having too much time" calling a girl on an erotic channel for more than 100 hours, there are people "having much time" doing this... who are you to judge?

I figure there are too many people having too much time.

speaking of time, it was only a matter of time for someone to get the ball rolling again, with enough others catching the bait like the hawk his prey.