If you have a better definition, or even a definition, go for it. Something more specific than *They're all transitionals* would be nice.
Before acknowledging that e-s is either a lier or an idiot I want to give him an opportunity to explain himself or revise his remarks. The burden is not on me to substantiate the statement. When someone makes a statement that transitionals don't exist they have an obligation to define what it is that does not exist, especially when the documented evidence for evolutionary transition is so overwhelming.
If you want to expand your role as the protective big sister to your posse I'll give you a chance to define a transitional fossil.
(hint: real scientists use phylogenetic taxonomy and morphological data matrices. Something more specific than *That dog don't hunt* with numbers and coefficients would be nice.)