Vanessa's Tranny AMA Blog Thread

AngryGerbil · Mar 10, 2017

Enzee said:
humans are able to evolve past nature

Go on....

AngryGerbil · Mar 10, 2017

Enzee said:
That's not what I meant, though I understand why you might be defensive since it is more often the case then not. I was saying that in the subset of 'anti-trans' people, the ones who are ALSO conservative right, seem to be thinking without any logic involved. It's their own preferences for 'normal' gender roles that happens to be an influence on why trans people want a specific pronoun.

AngryGerbil I think you are finding evidence to support your own notions. First off, humans are able to evolve past nature, that's why we are so great. We aren't still clubbing and raping our women, and men aren't required to go kill deer with their bare hands to eat. Women are allowed to leave the home now, men can raise kids, heck.. we also learned how to make tools at some point, which no other species has. To use our historic roots as support for an issue that requires greater cognitive abilities to discuss is irrelevant to the argument. That's like saying if your job isn't hunting or farming, you aren't a man. Or, that we should all be living in trees eating bananas, cause that's what nature intended for our ancestors and who are we to argue?
Even if you disagree with that, there's plenty of examples in nature of non-binary sexes. Many species reproduce asexually, and some even swap genders when there is a shortage of the opposite sex. The binary evolved as the simplest way to spread genes and force evolution without inbreeding. That's it. It has little to no bearing on where we can go as a species due to the intelligence we evolved along the way.

Biology art.

Soygen · Mar 10, 2017

AngryGerbil said:
There was a legit tranny at the sushi place tonight. Pink hair, glittery eye makeup, rainbow skull cap, pierced nose, no tits, huge manly nose and hands, tons of makeup on, yoga pants.... but with a shirt tied around xis waist so that the cheeks in the back were showing but the bulge in front was covered.

I knew it was a tranny right away but it was %100 confirmed when xe went into the men's bathroom.

Knowing Vanessa an Morrow and Jerle and a couple others, I am actually less curious about the pink haired tranny and moreso about the green haired guy she was with.

Did he think it was a girl, or did he know he was with a tranny? If he did know, then I would want to ask him if he thought himself to be gay. And if he said 'no' to that? .......?

These postmodernist kids are not quite within my grasp of comprehension.

Pink hair? Green hair? That should pretty much instantly alert you to not care what either of them think.

Soygen · Mar 10, 2017

ZyyzYzzy said:
"Evolve past nature". What the fuck do those loaded words even mean?

Cad · Mar 10, 2017

jayrebb said:
WOAH! Slow down, chief. The Wachowski's did not invent The Matrix. They wrote a great screenplay that was largely based on others ideas, namely a few scripts in particular that were submitted for review decades earlier.

They deserve a lot of credit, but invent might be going it too strong.

The story in question, "Third Eye", was submitted at this time. "Third Eye" had already been copyrighted in 1983 before being submitted.

tldr; The legal play-by-play speaks for itself. The author lacked enough funding (and the right law firm) to get justice. The author was, however, able to secure a settlement against her representation in the civil case against the Wachowski's.

Very telling, that when the judge awarded attorney's fees to the Wachowski's upon dismissal, they never asked for the 305,235.62 they were owed. A little civil court inside hand-shake likely took place.

Because I know that when a big business friend of mine sued another major corporation, there was tremendous pressure by the billion-dollar dog "Take it easy, alright?" before opening arguments began the day of trial. The small dog attorney told his client there was nothing he could do, and he was going to have to take cues from them essentially and make a "fair and conservative" argument because he couldn't risk having his law firm targeted by the big dog law firm for damages in a counter-suit.

Law firms/lawyers take on more liability than people realize. 50 Cent just secured a 14.1 million dollar malpractice judgement against a law firm in his SMS headphones case.

I don't know where you get your facts, but pretty much all of this is completely made up.

"The author" in your case was tossed on a motion to dismiss because they had no evidence. You can read the opinion here: Casetext or 574 F.Supp.2d 1074 if you have legal case services.

Importantly:

As respects the Matrix films, Stewart has admitted that Matrix 1 is neither strikingly nor substantially similar to her treatment and the 47–page manuscript;131 that Matrix 2 is neither strikingly nor substantially similar to her treatment and 47–page manuscript;132 and that Matrix 3 is neither strikingly nor substantially similar to her treatment and 47–page manuscript.133 She has also admitted that the protectable expression in “The Third Eye” is not substantially similar to the protectable expression in Matrix 1, 2, and 3,134 and that the Wachowskis independently created Matrix 1, 2, and 3.135 Although the admissions relate only to the six-page treatment and the 47–page edited manuscript, they preclude a finding that the 29–page draft, which forms the core of the 45–page instrument and which is virtually identical to the 47–page manuscript, is strikingly similar to the accused films.

So, I don't know where you get that idea.

Secondly, it's only according to Stewart that her lawyers didn't collect the fees owed. I read a few of the opinions in the Utah case against her counsel and couldn't find anything about that. She did win a judgment against one of her attorneys (Lubell), a default, because he had died and nobody showed up to defend. My guess is he was probably bankrupt anyway.

Thirdly, we fucking sue the biggest of the biggest corporations all the time and any intimidation like you're talking about is pure fantasy. It does not happen. I personally deposed the billionaire CEO of a mortgage servicer and intentionally harangued him to waste his time because he was a dick. I was called "flippant" and a "twerp" in that depo, and it was hilarious. Repurcussions against me or my law firm? Zero. We've represented Apple, sued Microsoft, etc... You are just categorically making some bullshit up here. Suing a law firm for malpractice is almost impossible. And guess who has money and time to defend lawsuits? Law firms. Bring it. Guess what, nobody does.

I have no idea how bad the law firm that represented 50 Cent screwed up; from perusing the stories it sounds pretty hilarious though. To act like such is common is pure idiocy.

a_skeleton_03 · Mar 10, 2017

I don't know if you know this

Cad but

jayrebb is full on #woke troll pretty close to being on par with @Woolygimp or @Lumi

Soygen · Mar 10, 2017

Troll implies some kind of joke. I'm not sure about jayrebb, but Wooly and Lumie were 100% serious.

Cad · Mar 10, 2017

a_skeleton_03 said:
I don't know if you know this Cad but jayrebb is full on #woke troll pretty close to being on par with @Woolygimp or @Lumi

Well, ok. I don't know what I expected but that's not too surprising.

jayrebb · Mar 10, 2017

Cad said:
I don't know where you get your facts, but pretty much all of this is completely made up.

"The author" in your case was tossed on a motion to dismiss because they had no evidence. You can read the opinion here: Casetext or 574 F.Supp.2d 1074 if you have legal case services.

Importantly:

So, I don't know where you get that idea.

Secondly, it's only according to Stewart that her lawyers didn't collect the fees owed. I read a few of the opinions in the Utah case against her counsel and couldn't find anything about that. She did win a judgment against one of her attorneys (Lubell), a default, because he had died and nobody showed up to defend. My guess is he was probably bankrupt anyway.

Thirdly, we fucking sue the biggest of the biggest corporations all the time and any intimidation like you're talking about is pure fantasy. It does not happen. I personally deposed the billionaire CEO of a mortgage servicer and intentionally harangued him to waste his time because he was a dick. I was called "flippant" and a "twerp" in that depo, and it was hilarious. Repurcussions against me or my law firm? Zero. We've represented Apple, sued Microsoft, etc... You are just categorically making some bullshit up here. Suing a law firm for malpractice is almost impossible. And guess who has money and time to defend lawsuits? Law firms. Bring it. Guess what, nobody does.

I have no idea how bad the law firm that represented 50 Cent screwed up; from perusing the stories it sounds pretty hilarious though. To act like such is common is pure idiocy.

76 lbs

The dismissal speaks more to a case not being brought, than the Wachowski's actually coming up with any original ideas.

I fail to see how any of the "corrections" here amount to anything more than that.

Agree to disagree, everyone has their own interpretation. A weak case, failure to make a case, failure to present evidence doesn't really mean the Wachowski's came up with the concept for the Matrix on their own. The standard to move forward wasn't being met by Lubell for whatever reason by simply submitting the scripts, that absolutely doesn't surprise me at all. That doesn't mean the Wachowski's didn't borrow ideas from Third Eye or steal the entire premise from it or someone else.

The problem is proving it.

We have reason to suspect that the Wachowski's are hacks that collected copy-written stories and scripts on the science fiction genre for decades before writing the Matrix. That, we know, is a provable fact.

That the collection of stories similar to The Matrix occurred, whether the court believes in their similarity to the degree necessary to move forward under the law really-- well, that really doesn't matter in the court of public opinion.

If you don't believe theft of ideas is commonplace in Hollywood, to me, that would be the only real idiocy here.

Under the law you can do quite a bit of borrowing, and nobody can do a damned thing about it unless you can present 1) some type of correspondence with the defendant that produces a conversation to that effect, preferably written 2) witnesses who worked with the defendant on the process that can testify to that effect, and one better if they can demonstrate intent

In the end, you still need the right judge and the right firm. Emphasis on the right judge. There is a whole school of tactics dedicated to making sure you get the right judge. As a plaintiff you learn all about the game and how its played, especially as you start talking to other people who have brought suits successfully.

jayrebb · Mar 10, 2017

@a_skeleton_03 Moral of the story is, try cashing a check from the Wachowski's before you start shilling for them?

Sylas · Mar 10, 2017

uh yeah, Gender and biological sex are the same thing. Now gender roles have a biological basis but are also impacted by cultural norms, and gender expression is nearly entirely based on cultural norms.

You are male, you will always be male, from a biological, gender sense. That's what Gender Dysphoria / Gender Identity Disorder is. Your brain believes you are the opposite gender.

zzeris · Mar 10, 2017

Wow, watching jayrebb argue with a real lawyer is both amazing and hilarious.

Cad , keep this titillating exchange going bro! What evil plans do the Wachowskis have for the world next?

Enzee · Mar 10, 2017

ZyyzYzzy said:
"Evolve past nature". What the fuck do those loaded words even mean?

seriously? Do you see any birds talking on cell phones? Did cars naturally evolve into existence over time and we just pluck them from trees?

We get closer and closer to mastering nature every day. We can modify genes to alter evolutionary traits in animals and plants. How can you say that nature intended things to be a certain way as a basis for the 'right or wrong'-ness of something when we can literally change the nature of things ourselves now. Most of our society is based on unnatural things that couldn't exist in nature. The argument makes no sense. Might as well tell me there's a dude with a white beard in the sky who both gave us free will but yet people pray to asking him to make other people do things, and he says it's wrong.

jayrebb · Mar 10, 2017

zzeris We have enough hard evidence to suggest that the Wachowski's were in a position to borrow ideas, ideas proven to exist in the treatments submitted-- namely "Third Eye". Unfortunately the case wasn't strong enough to go forward, for what could be a whole smorgasbord of reasons that we can only speculate on.

Cad won't likely be taking this one any further.

The dismissal he posted is neither a yay, nor a nay as to whether the Wachowski's stole ideas or not. It could mean the case wasn't presented properly. Maybe Lubell didn't put enough time into creating a substantial similarity argument. Maybe his argument just sucked and he was a shitty lawyer. It sounds like they expected the general themes and ideas of "Third Eye" to be enough to meet the standard, and that the treatments would speak for themselves. Its not quite that easy, unless the fix is in, and even then you get appeals and precedents can reverse even the most shit of rulings.

But I don't expect plebeian passersby to understand that. The plaintiff failed to bring evidence that could meet the standard of substantial similarity for this particular judge. You are free to read "Third Eye" on your own time, and then you can decide if the Wachowski's were at all influenced by the concept for the Matrix on your own-- WIthout

Cad extrapolating a dismissal for you as some kind of exoneration of the Wachowski's-- "Third Eye" aside.

Let the case go forward, make another case, switch judges, hit the the sword-sharpening shop really hard (a little lawyer speak there for you buddy), get a jury finding on it, and then we can all suck off the Wachowski's inverted clits together.

Fair enough, slappy?

Enzee · Mar 10, 2017

Sylas said:
uh yeah, Gender and biological sex are the same thing. Now gender roles have a biological basis but are also impacted by cultural norms, and gender expression is nearly entirely based on cultural norms.

You are male, you will always be male, from a biological, gender sense. That's what Gender Dysphoria / Gender Identity Disorder is. Your brain believes you are the opposite gender.

Maybe you should consult some dictionaries. Biological sex is a potential attribute of gender, but they are not the same thing. SOMETIMES they are used interchangeably, but not ALL the time.

The first google response
"the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones)."

Oxford, under their usage paragraph:
"Although the words gender and sex are often used interchangeably, they have slightly different connotations; sex tends to refer to biological diferences, while gender more often refers to cultural and social differences and sometimes encompasses a broader range of identities than the binary of male and female."

Oxford's initial definitions (skipping the grammar based ones)
"Either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."

Miriam Webster (which sort of supports you, as it puts the sex one as A, I include to show fairness)
"a : sex the feminine gender
b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex"

Dictionary.com
"1.either the male or female division of a species, especially as differentiated by social and cultural roles and behavior:
the feminine gender.
2. a similar category of human beings that is outside the male/femalebinary classification and is based on the individual's personal awareness or identity."

Out of 4 dictionary entries, 3/4 put my definition as the main one or only one. All of them acknowledge that gender is often used to define something different then sex, Miriam Webster just thinks that's the secondary definition.

jayrebb · Mar 10, 2017

zzeris I'd bet your the type of guy that thinks Bubba Clinton didn't rape anyone because he has never been accused in court papers of being a rapist?

Also what's up with that avatar-- cheerleader. Get a skirt on.

Sylas · Mar 10, 2017

literally every single one of your definitions matches mine, not yours.

ZyyzYzzy · Mar 10, 2017

Enzee said:
seriously? Do you see any birds talking on cell phones? Did cars naturally evolve into existence over time and we just pluck them from trees?

We get closer and closer to mastering nature every day. We can modify genes to alter evolutionary traits in animals and plants. How can you say that nature intended things to be a certain way as a basis for the 'right or wrong'-ness of something when we can literally change the nature of things ourselves now. Most of our society is based on unnatural things that couldn't exist in nature. The argument makes no sense. Might as well tell me there's a dude with a white beard in the sky who both gave us free will but yet people pray to asking him to make other people do things, and he says it's wrong.

So having cell phones means we are no longer constrained by the inherit traits of biological compounds.

Shut the fuck up

Cad · Mar 10, 2017

jayrebb said:
zzeris We have enough hard evidence to suggest that the Wachowski's were in a position to borrow ideas, ideas proven to exist in the treatments submitted-- namely "Third Eye".

So, you can present such to us then, right?

jayrebb said:
Unfortunately the case wasn't strong enough to go forward, for what could be a whole smorgasbord of reasons that we can only speculate on.

If only there were a 57 page opinion explaining the judge's reasoning so we wouldn't have to speculate. Oh well, I guess we'll just never know.

jayrebb said:
The dismissal he posted is neither a yay, nor a nay as to whether the Wachowski's stole ideas or not. It could mean the case wasn't presented properly. Maybe Lubell didn't put enough time into creating a substantial similarity argument. Maybe his argument just sucked and he was a shitty lawyer. It sounds like they expected the general themes and ideas of "Third Eye" to be enough to meet the standard, and that the treatments would speak for themselves. Its not quite that easy, unless the fix is in, and even then you get appeals and precedents can reverse even the most shit of rulings.

If only you read the opinion rather than just totally making shit up!

jayrebb said:
But I don't expect plebeian passersby to understand that. The plaintiff failed to bring evidence that could meet the standard of substantial similarity for this particular judge. You are free to read "Third Eye" on your own time, and then you can decide if the Wachowski's were at all influenced by the concept for the Matrix on your own-- WIthout Cad extrapolating a dismissal for you as some kind of exoneration of the Wachowski's-- "Third Eye" aside.

Let the case go forward, make another case, switch judges, hit the the sword-sharpening shop really hard (a little lawyer speak there for you buddy), get a jury finding on it, and then we can all suck off the Wachowski's inverted clits together.

Yea, I mean, I wish I could just switch judges and try again when I get an unfavorable ruling too. Those pesky facts (or lack of facts) always getting in the way!

Cad · Mar 10, 2017

jayrebb said:
In the end, you still need the right judge and the right firm. Emphasis on the right judge. There is a whole school of tactics dedicated to making sure you get the right judge. As a plaintiff you learn all about the game and how its played, especially as you start talking to other people who have brought suits successfully.

Wow yea I hope one day I learn to bring suits successfully. Then my career will REALLY take off. Thats been the missing ingredient.

Search

Vanessa's Tranny AMA Blog Thread

AngryGerbil

Poet Warrior

AngryGerbil

Poet Warrior

Soygen

The Dirty Dozen For the Price of One

Soygen

The Dirty Dozen For the Price of One

Cad

scientia potentia est

a_skeleton_03

Soygen

The Dirty Dozen For the Price of One

Cad

scientia potentia est

jayrebb

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider

jayrebb

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider

Sylas

zzeris

King Turd of Shit Hill

Enzee

Trakanon Raider

jayrebb

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider

Enzee

Trakanon Raider

jayrebb

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider

Sylas

ZyyzYzzy

RIP USA

Cad

scientia potentia est

Cad

scientia potentia est