On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 14:06:53 +0200, "Giusi" >
wrote:

>
>"Landon" > ha scritto nel messaggio
> sf > wrote:
>>
>>>I hate tattoos. My dad had them and I hated them. I hate every>>tattoo I
>>>see. They are body disfigurement.
>>
>
>> The reason why you hate it is what I'm more interested in. Please> share
>> that if it doesn't make you uncomfortable.
>
>Does one always know? Is it important to know? I think it's important to
>know why you are prejudiced against a color, race or class but not against
>completely avoidable and extraneous self-decoration. I don't like them
>either. I don't know why and I don't care why. I try not to let my
>feelings slip over onto the person who has tattoos, but I am not sure I
>always succeed. I would express myself with temporary ones were I so moved.
>I actually did that once. Meh.

I can understand that you dislike them for some reason.

Dislike and hate are two entirely different things.

Hate is way more intense and hate ALWAYS has a reason.

"Landon" > ha scritto nel messaggio
, "Giusi" >
> wrote:

>>So tell me what that girl is saying about her innerself by having a stag
>>and >>a gaudy lily under her armpit. Or what about the one who has Disney
>> >>cartoons all over her back and chest? Yeah, I pretty much hate that
>>look.
>
> Perhaps the young lady with the stag and lily is reminded of a> wonderful
> story she loved as a child. It may give her a very good> feeling to look
> at her tat.

Then the tattoist had a bad aim if she wanted them to look at herself.

> The ones who like to put tats that are cartoons on them? If it gives> them
> a feeling of joy to look at them or express deeper thoughts
> through the "cartoons", then who are we to judge their method of>
> expression as long as it doesn't harm us?

I don't buy any of that, because these are not where the owner sees them,
but where 'some' others will. So if it is meant to impress, then I have a
right not to be impressed.

The taste here among movie and TV girls is currently to have barbed wire on
your upper arm, which looks bizarre with an evening gown. Actually, it just
looks bizarre all the time. Or the more demure and less public have a tiny
butterfly or rose on an ankle or near the neck in the back. They are meant
to be seductive and now I know who goes for them.

"Landon" > ha scritto nel messaggio

> Hate is way more intense and hate ALWAYS has a reason.

People are just not that careful about language. I say I hate fried octopus
when I really have almost no feelings at all about it other than that I
don't want to eat it.

On 13/04/2011 11:33 PM, Landon wrote:

> The mental turmoil that most people go through when facing the end of
> their lives is perfectly natural and has happened since time began.
>
> Most often they look into their past to reflect on their lives, not to
> try reliving it.


I cam frightfully close to my time a few months ago after a routine
medical procedure went bad and I ended up with a ruptured coronary
artery. I was sedated at the time and only vaguely aware of seriousness
of the situation. I do remember thinking that it was a good thing that I
was sedated because it sounded like it was serious.

When I came to in ICU I was a mess. I was uncomfortable, in pain,
confused, week and heavily medicated. I have to say that I was feeling
down and pretty well resigned to the fact that my life had jsut changed
for the worse. From the number of monitoring beepers going off and
comments I heard the staff making, I had reason to wonder if I was going
to make it. I was feeling pretty down.

I think it was the third night I was in there that I was listening to my
MP3 player.... Jennifer Warnes singing Leonard Cohen`s First We Take
Manhattan. All of a sudden there was was a wave of relief and I
realized that everything was going to be okay.







>
> Deeply religious people might wish to review their lives to assure
> themselves that they have done nothing to warrant what they think
> might be eternal damnation.
>
> Some may do it just to relive the memory of a wonderful time that they
> had. I certainly wouldn't begrudge them that final pleasure of that is
> what makes them more at ease with their fate.
>
> I live each day for itself. My life is very simple. I love tinkering
> with all manner of things and keep myself very busy doing so. I've
> heard others say; "I'll get so bored if I retire". All I have to say
> to that is they must not have many interests. I've been retired now
> for 2 years and have loved every single minute of it. I've been so
> busy I don't know where to turn next! What a blast!

On 14/04/2011 4:11 AM, sf wrote:

>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Mohandas Gandhi Quotes. I like your Christ, I do not like your
>> Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. Mohandas Gandhi
>
> Sheldon and people like him want to be in other people's faces with
> their body art, but they can't take it when someone says it's just
> body disfigurement. Too bad, so sad.
>

I didn`t get that from Sheldon`s post. I thought he said he had no
problem with them so long as they didn`t preach about the benefits.

Personally, I view view it as disfigurement. I am not impressed withe
tattoos, even when bright, shiny and new, and I know that the tats and
the skin are going to deteriorate.

There will always be people who will jump on the latest fashion fads in
an ironically lame attempt to display their individuality. There are
lots of people who have a hard time looking at old photos and seeing
their ridiculous clothes and hair styles. The people with tattoos are
stuck with theirs.

"Storrmmee" wrote:
>
>something dh and i were talking about th e other day, why get one on a part
>of your body you can't see? Lee

What I can SEE is that your dh has a low IQ just like yours. People
wear clothing, under clothing, jewelry, and all sorts of cosmetics
that they can't 'see'... why do you bother to comb your hair...
obviously your dh never looks at you.

In article >,
"Giusi" > wrote:

> "Landon" > ha scritto nel messaggio
> sf > wrote:
> >
> >>I hate tattoos. My dad had them and I hated them. I hate every>>tattoo I
> >>see. They are body disfigurement.
> >
>
> > The reason why you hate it is what I'm more interested in. Please> share
> > that if it doesn't make you uncomfortable.
>
> Does one always know? Is it important to know?

I would say that it is important to know why you hated something so
intensely. Since you don't seem to be the one who is a hater, no, it's
not important.

> I think it's important to
> know why you are prejudiced against a color, race or class but not against
> completely avoidable and extraneous self-decoration. I don't like them
> either. I don't know why and I don't care why. I try not to let my
> feelings slip over onto the person who has tattoos, but I am not sure I
> always succeed. I would express myself with temporary ones were I so moved.
> I actually did that once. Meh.

A simple dislike is just a personal preference. Hate is much more
important to understand.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

In article >,
Landon > wrote:


> But I don't hate it. Its that young lady's way of expressing her
> feelings. What's to hate? I find it odd that she would put a tat in a
> place where she has to lift her arm for anyone to properly see it, but
> that's my logical mind thinking, not my emotions.

She's a public high school teacher. I'm not sure a large tattoo that is
visible with normal warm weather clothing would always be accepted.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:
> "Storrmmee" wrote:
>>
>> something dh and i were talking about th e other day, why get one on a part
>> of your body you can't see? Lee
>
> What I can SEE is that your dh has a low IQ just like yours. People
> wear clothing, under clothing, jewelry, and all sorts of cosmetics
> that they can't 'see'... why do you bother to comb your hair...
> obviously your dh never looks at you.

At the gym, one person had "Woody The Wood Pecker" on his Pecker. There
were several males had smiley faces on their circumcised heads. That's got
to hurt!

At work two identical twins, their parents had a their initials tattooed on
their ankles so the they could tell them apart shortly after they were
born.

As for me just one Scorpion on upper right arm. When I was running and
working out many many years ago.. Sleeveless shirts was the way to go.
Workplace a regular short sleeve shirt would hide and still have that so
called professional look.

My reason for getting one goes like this. In the bible, book of Leviticus
somewhere, exactly I do not remember. States it was a sin to put markings
on ones own body, considered defiling God's Temple. I got one as an atheist
and as a rejection of that book in which I refuse to live by.

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 06:47:51 -0400, Landon > wrote:

> At what age did you decide that you hated tats, sf? I'm really
> curious. Was there an event that spawned this hatred of all tats?
>
From the time I was old enough to know they didn't wash off, I've
hated them.


> I mention this because I grew up seeing tats all over my Dad. He was a
> career navy man and of the "old" Navy. The sailor then who had no tats
> was considered the exception. My Dad had over one hundred of them on
> his body.

He sounds like he should have been in the circus. Thank god my father
didn't have that many.
>
> My list of things hated is
> long, but each thing that I hate has a reason.

Mementos belong on a charm bracelet and art belongs on the wall, not
permanently attached to your body.
>
> Are you willing to discuss with me your reason for hating tats? I hope
> so, because I don't understand it.

No, I don't see any point in discussing it. I as much right to say I
can't stand it as you do to say how much you like it.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 06:54:05 -0400, Landon > wrote:

> But I don't hate it. Its that young lady's way of expressing her
> feelings. What's to hate? I find it odd that she would put a tat in a
> place where she has to lift her arm for anyone to properly see it, but
> that's my logical mind thinking, not my emotions.

There you go. Art is emotional. If you can't feel emotions about
art, then buy comic books.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

"Storrmmee" > wrote in message
...
> something dh and i were talking about th e other day, why get one on a
> part of your body you can't see? Lee

Probably because only you know it is there. One of the teachers at Angela's
dance studio has several tattoos. Actually several of them have them. But
this particular teacher was telling us why she got the ones that she does
have. One is in memory of her deceased grandma. One was to give her hope.
I can't remember now what the third one was for.

The people who get them seem to think they have some sort of deep inner
meaning to them. I don't personally get it, but... I guess that's okay.

"Dan Abel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Landon > wrote:
>
>
>> But I don't hate it. Its that young lady's way of expressing her
>> feelings. What's to hate? I find it odd that she would put a tat in a
>> place where she has to lift her arm for anyone to properly see it, but
>> that's my logical mind thinking, not my emotions.
>
> She's a public high school teacher. I'm not sure a large tattoo that is
> visible with normal warm weather clothing would always be accepted.

My daughter had an older female teacher in Elementary school that had a very
visible tattoo. Here they seem to be pretty common.

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:14:48 -0400, Landon > wrote:

> I see no difference between someone liking a beautiful piece of art
> enough to hang it on the wall of their home for all to see, and
> someone liking a drawing enough to have it placed on their body for
> all to see.

I see a world of difference. Most people don't even see their own
tattoos unless they're looking in the mirror and you can enjoy your
art you own, no matter how weird, without inflicting it on complete
strangers when it hangs on the wall. You can change out art on the
wall: move it around or sell it. Tattoos are permanent. There is no
changing your mind, no returns or redos unless you want to spend a lot
of time, money, effort and pain doing it.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On 14/04/2011 4:17 AM, sf wrote:

>>>
>>> http://i55.tinypic.com/22ki2g.jpg
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Very* nice!!
>>
>> Both the tat, and her :-)
>
> She has nice boobs. Her tattoo is ugly, but at least she has an
> identifying mark in case the worst happens.


To be perfectly honest, I think the picture would be nicer without the
tattoo and without the strategically placed hand.
I have to wonder how those inked antlers start sagging and jiggling when
she walks.

When I see multiple tattoos I start thinking trailer park.

In article >,
Landon > wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 14:16:18 +0200, "Giusi" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Landon" > ha scritto nel messaggio
> >> I reserve my *hate* for things that are much more complicated than the>
> >> methods that others use to show their inner feelings. I may dislike a
> >> certain painting or article of clothing, or even someone choice of>
> >> tattoo, but I wouldn't ever say that I hate any of them.
> >
> >So tell me what that girl is saying about her innerself by having a stag and
> >a gaudy lily under her armpit. Or what about the one who has Disney
> >cartoons all over her back and chest? Yeah, I pretty much hate that look.
>
> Perhaps the young lady with the stag and lily is reminded of a
> wonderful story she loved as a child. It may give her a very good
> feeling to look at her tat.

I've known that woman for 25 years. It's true she was a girl when I
first knew her, but she passed into adulthood a dozen years ago. I met
her at church camp that 25 years ago. Her father had started going
there when *he* was a young child. Her father and mother met there.
All of her relatives, including her grandparents, went there. Her
father and mother liked it there so well that her father became the
caretaker for the place. It was a redwood forest. The tattoo is to
commemorate that place. There were many deer there, especially since
they lived there all year. If you look at the tattoo, you can see the
ferns, which grew all over, but especially under the shade of the
redwoods. The lillies are very striking (but much smaller), and grew
along the banks of the rivers. They were very visible when struck by
the odd sunbeam.

ObFood: They have wonderful food at the church camp. For the last
several years, my wife has done the baking. She will be doing it again
this year. My daughter and son will also be working in the kitchen.
It's two weeks in July.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Landon wrote:
>
> I think a lot of people don't like tattoos because they are, more or
> less, a permanent attachment to the body that is applied with needles
> to shoot ink under the skin. The thought of doing that is repulsive to
> some people. I've had people tell me that. Its a fear, not a like or
> dislike really.

There's also a passage in the Old Testament that forbids tattoos.
Deuterotomy or Leviticus says do not paint your body like foreigners.
When I read that and learned that it was about empires north of
Jeruselem liking tattoos my objection to them went away. It turns out
I'm from well north of Jeruselem. North enough that those empires are
southern empires relative to where my ancestors came from.

> I see no difference between someone liking a beautiful piece of art
> enough to hang it on the wall of their home for all to see, and
> someone liking a drawing enough to have it placed on their body for
> all to see. Both are an expression of their mind in that it symbolizes
> some part of their inner soul. They have found something that stirs
> their emotions for one reason or another and have chosen to announce
> that discovery by placing it in a position that puts it into the eyes
> of anyone who is either in their home or looking at the home of their
> soul; their body.

That's a pretty positive notion. A lot of the tattoos I've seen were
taken for more flippant reasons than that. It's probably why I don't
object to them but I still don't have one.

> Hate is such a strong expression. Its the ultimate in emotional
> repulsion and should be reserved for things that deserve its depth.

Which is consistent with its original in the Old Testament. Certain
actions are hated.

In article >,
sf > wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:14:48 -0400, Landon > wrote:
>
> > I see no difference between someone liking a beautiful piece of art
> > enough to hang it on the wall of their home for all to see, and
> > someone liking a drawing enough to have it placed on their body for
> > all to see.
>
> I see a world of difference. Most people don't even see their own
> tattoos unless they're looking in the mirror and you can enjoy your
> art you own, no matter how weird, without inflicting it on complete
> strangers when it hangs on the wall. You can change out art on the
> wall: move it around or sell it. Tattoos are permanent. There is no
> changing your mind, no returns or redos unless you want to spend a lot
> of time, money, effort and pain doing it.

And I'd bet there isn't a tattooed person out there who doesn't know
they're permanent. That's why I don't get all the flapping about "but
they're permanennnnnt!" The tattooed people know, and they made that
choice anyway.

Miche

--
Electricians do it in three phases

Landon wrote:
>> I mention this because I grew up seeing tats all over my Dad. He was a
>> career navy man and of the "old" Navy. The sailor then who had no tats
>> was considered the exception. My Dad had over one hundred of them on
>> his body.

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 09:14:45 -0700, sf > wrote:
>He sounds like he should have been in the circus.

What a rude and tacky thing to say.

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 09:08:18 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 13/04/2011 11:33 PM, Landon wrote:
>
>> The mental turmoil that most people go through when facing the end of
>> their lives is perfectly natural and has happened since time began.
>>
>> Most often they look into their past to reflect on their lives, not to
>> try reliving it.
>
>
>I cam frightfully close to my time a few months ago after a routine
>medical procedure went bad and I ended up with a ruptured coronary
>artery. I was sedated at the time and only vaguely aware of seriousness
>of the situation. I do remember thinking that it was a good thing that I
>was sedated because it sounded like it was serious.
>
>When I came to in ICU I was a mess. I was uncomfortable, in pain,
>confused, week and heavily medicated. I have to say that I was feeling
>down and pretty well resigned to the fact that my life had jsut changed
>for the worse. From the number of monitoring beepers going off and
>comments I heard the staff making, I had reason to wonder if I was going
>to make it. I was feeling pretty down.
>
>I think it was the third night I was in there that I was listening to my
>MP3 player.... Jennifer Warnes singing Leonard Cohen`s First We Take
>Manhattan. All of a sudden there was was a wave of relief and I
>realized that everything was going to be okay.

Wow, I'm glad you're ok now. That was very similar, but longer lasting
than my own experience.

I had a massive heart attack and was being worked on by the "Heart
Crew" at the local emergency room. I was having a very bad time
breathing, and felt like I was coming to an end. I managed to whisper
to the women who was obviously the top Doc in the room that I couldn't
breath. She said to me, (and I'll remember these words forever), "Sir,
I've done all I can for now. The rest is between you and your God"

I felt panic at first and really tried to take a breath. I still
couldn't, and I could feel the room closing in on me. I freaked out
pretty much and I heard someone say that my pulse was fading out.

All of a sudden, I felt perfectly calm. I relaxed and felt no pain or
problems. Even the fact that I wasn't able to breath didn't bother me
any longer. I remember hearing the Doc tell someone to get my wife out
of the room and thinking "well, this it!"

Then, as you said, a wave of warmth passed through my entire body and
I took a deep breath. I got tingles all over my body like
pins-and-needles and then everything was ok.

If that happens a second time, it won't be so scary. When you get real
close to the end, it no longer seems to matter. I thought that was a
remarkable experience.

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 16:30:28 +0100, Janet > wrote:

>In article >,
says...
>>
>> If you dislike them, then aim your eyes at something that doesn't
>> offend you.
>>
>> Hate? What a waste of emotion to hate someone else's expression of
>> their likes by putting colorful images on their body.
>
>It's not as if anyone's personal opinion on tattoos impinges on your
>opinion in any way. Or even, on your unseen tatts.
>
> If you dislike such opinions or tastes why don't you direct your
>attention elsewhere?
>
> Janet

1. I didn't say anything about my opinion being impinged.

2. This is a discussion group. I'm discussing a stated opinion.

Is there something about that you don't understand? I'd be more than
willing to discuss it with you.

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 09:27:54 -0700, sf > wrote:

>On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:14:48 -0400, Landon > wrote:
>
>> I see no difference between someone liking a beautiful piece of art
>> enough to hang it on the wall of their home for all to see, and
>> someone liking a drawing enough to have it placed on their body for
>> all to see.
>
>I see a world of difference. Most people don't even see their own
>tattoos unless they're looking in the mirror and you can enjoy your
>art you own, no matter how weird, without inflicting it on complete
>strangers when it hangs on the wall. You can change out art on the
>wall: move it around or sell it. Tattoos are permanent. There is no
>changing your mind, no returns or redos unless you want to spend a lot
>of time, money, effort and pain doing it.

Actually, there is no difference other than in your prejudiced mind.

Enjoy your little world. There are lots of people who hate skin color.

There is even a name for them. They even have a group of their own
that has three repeats of the same letter.

Perhaps you could join if you haven't already.

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 16:30:18 +0100, Janet > wrote:

>In article >,
says...
>>
>
>>
>> Hate is way more intense and hate ALWAYS has a reason.
>
> I hate mindless idiotic pronouncements; no particular reason.
>
> Janet

You just can't handle the truth. Or, your too stupid to understand it.

Which?

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 14:53:44 +0200, "Giusi" >
wrote:

>
>"Landon" > ha scritto nel messaggio
>
>> Hate is way more intense and hate ALWAYS has a reason.
>
>People are just not that careful about language. I say I hate fried octopus
>when I really have almost no feelings at all about it other than that I
>don't want to eat it.

Then hate isn't what you're feeling. If it were, you'd have a reason
for that hate. That was my point.

On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 07:39:18 +1300, Miche > wrote:

>In article >,
> sf > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:14:48 -0400, Landon > wrote:
>>
>> > I see no difference between someone liking a beautiful piece of art
>> > enough to hang it on the wall of their home for all to see, and
>> > someone liking a drawing enough to have it placed on their body for
>> > all to see.
>>
>> I see a world of difference. Most people don't even see their own
>> tattoos unless they're looking in the mirror and you can enjoy your
>> art you own, no matter how weird, without inflicting it on complete
>> strangers when it hangs on the wall. You can change out art on the
>> wall: move it around or sell it. Tattoos are permanent. There is no
>> changing your mind, no returns or redos unless you want to spend a lot
>> of time, money, effort and pain doing it.
>
>And I'd bet there isn't a tattooed person out there who doesn't know
>they're permanent. That's why I don't get all the flapping about "but
>they're permanennnnnt!" The tattooed people know, and they made that
>choice anyway.
>
>Miche

People who are prejudiced against skin color are well known for what
and who they are. There are way less of them now then in the 50's when
most of this batch were young people.

The KKK is full of them. You can't reason with them. They won't
discuss their unreasoning hate with you. They just hate.

Mostly, they are nothing more than shallow, uneducated people with
simple minds.

Don't waste your time trying to make them more than they are.

Tats are great. Tats are art. Racists even *******ize Tats by using
them to shout their hate for skin color. I've always thought that was
particularly humorous.

In article >,
Dave Smith > wrote:

> On 14/04/2011 2:39 PM, Miche wrote:
>
> >
> > And I'd bet there isn't a tattooed person out there who doesn't know
> > they're permanent. That's why I don't get all the flapping about "but
> > they're permanennnnnt!" The tattooed people know, and they made that
> > choice anyway.
>
> I m quite sure that they realize that tattoos are permanent. I just
> wonder if they are in denial about the effects of time on tattoos and
> the living canvas on which they are drawn.

Perhaps that's part of the charm. The tattoo changes as they do.

Miche

--
Electricians do it in three phases

On 14/04/2011 2:39 PM, Miche wrote:

>
> And I'd bet there isn't a tattooed person out there who doesn't know
> they're permanent. That's why I don't get all the flapping about "but
> they're permanennnnnt!" The tattooed people know, and they made that
> choice anyway.

I m quite sure that they realize that tattoos are permanent. I just
wonder if they are in denial about the effects of time on tattoos and
the living canvas on which they are drawn.

On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 07:39:18 +1300, Miche > wrote:

> In article >,
> sf > wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:14:48 -0400, Landon > wrote:
> >
> > > I see no difference between someone liking a beautiful piece of art
> > > enough to hang it on the wall of their home for all to see, and
> > > someone liking a drawing enough to have it placed on their body for
> > > all to see.
> >
> > I see a world of difference. Most people don't even see their own
> > tattoos unless they're looking in the mirror and you can enjoy your
> > art you own, no matter how weird, without inflicting it on complete
> > strangers when it hangs on the wall. You can change out art on the
> > wall: move it around or sell it. Tattoos are permanent. There is no
> > changing your mind, no returns or redos unless you want to spend a lot
> > of time, money, effort and pain doing it.
>
> And I'd bet there isn't a tattooed person out there who doesn't know
> they're permanent. That's why I don't get all the flapping about "but
> they're permanennnnnt!" The tattooed people know, and they made that
> choice anyway.
>
I certainly hope so. However, it still remains that I prefer not to
be subjected to tattoos. Mangle and disfigure your body all you want,
but keep it out of my sight and don't talk about your fixation on
self-mutilation around me.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 15:21:16 -0400, Landon > wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 09:27:54 -0700, sf > wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:14:48 -0400, Landon > wrote:
> >
> >> I see no difference between someone liking a beautiful piece of art
> >> enough to hang it on the wall of their home for all to see, and
> >> someone liking a drawing enough to have it placed on their body for
> >> all to see.
> >
> >I see a world of difference. Most people don't even see their own
> >tattoos unless they're looking in the mirror and you can enjoy your
> >art you own, no matter how weird, without inflicting it on complete
> >strangers when it hangs on the wall. You can change out art on the
> >wall: move it around or sell it. Tattoos are permanent. There is no
> >changing your mind, no returns or redos unless you want to spend a lot
> >of time, money, effort and pain doing it.
>
> Actually, there is no difference other than in your prejudiced mind.
>
> Enjoy your little world. There are lots of people who hate skin color.
>
> There is even a name for them. They even have a group of their own
> that has three repeats of the same letter.
>
> Perhaps you could join if you haven't already.

All that because I can't stand tattoos and won't back down about it.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 21:24:34 +0100, Janet > wrote:

>In article <micheinnz-0E6594.07391815042011@dynamic-24-42-201-
>193.knology.net>, says...
>>
>> And I'd bet there isn't a tattooed person out there who doesn't know
>> they're permanent. That's why I don't get all the flapping about "but
>> they're permanennnnnt!" The tattooed people know, and they made that
>> choice anyway.
>
> A bit like promising to love someone " for ever and ever". Lots of
>people do that too.I suspect a lot of people interpret "permanent" as
>something like "It will stay there for as long as I want it to, but
>circumstances change I'll probably be able to get it surgically removed"
>(not).

Only a certifiable pinhead can't tell the difference between a factual
reality (tats) and a fleeting feeling (love). You're either
certifiably insane or you're into masturbation, mental and jerking
people off. People get tattoos because they need something that's
lasting... not something that ends permanently at the altar, oral sex.

On Apr 14, 11:54*am, Landon > wrote:
> Landon wrote:
> >> I mention this because I grew up seeing tats all over my Dad. He was a
> >> career navy man and of the "old" Navy. The sailor then who had no tats
> >> was considered the exception. My Dad had over one hundred of them on
> >> his body.
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 09:14:45 -0700, sf > wrote:
> >He sounds like he should have been in the circus.
>
> What a rude and tacky thing to say.

That's what I thought also...

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 07:39:18 +1300, Miche > wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> sf > wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:14:48 -0400, Landon > wrote:
>> >
>> > > I see no difference between someone liking a beautiful piece of art
>> > > enough to hang it on the wall of their home for all to see, and
>> > > someone liking a drawing enough to have it placed on their body for
>> > > all to see.
>> >
>> > I see a world of difference. Most people don't even see their own
>> > tattoos unless they're looking in the mirror and you can enjoy your
>> > art you own, no matter how weird, without inflicting it on complete
>> > strangers when it hangs on the wall. You can change out art on the
>> > wall: move it around or sell it. Tattoos are permanent. There is no
>> > changing your mind, no returns or redos unless you want to spend a lot
>> > of time, money, effort and pain doing it.
>>
>> And I'd bet there isn't a tattooed person out there who doesn't know
>> they're permanent. That's why I don't get all the flapping about "but
>> they're permanennnnnt!" The tattooed people know, and they made that
>> choice anyway.
>>
> I certainly hope so. However, it still remains that I prefer not to
> be subjected to tattoos. Mangle and disfigure your body all you want,
> but keep it out of my sight and don't talk about your fixation on
> self-mutilation around me.

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 15:21:16 -0400, Landon > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 09:27:54 -0700, sf > wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:14:48 -0400, Landon > wrote:
>> >
>> >> I see no difference between someone liking a beautiful piece of art
>> >> enough to hang it on the wall of their home for all to see, and
>> >> someone liking a drawing enough to have it placed on their body for
>> >> all to see.
>> >
>> >I see a world of difference. Most people don't even see their own
>> >tattoos unless they're looking in the mirror and you can enjoy your
>> >art you own, no matter how weird, without inflicting it on complete
>> >strangers when it hangs on the wall. You can change out art on the
>> >wall: move it around or sell it. Tattoos are permanent. There is no
>> >changing your mind, no returns or redos unless you want to spend a lot
>> >of time, money, effort and pain doing it.
>>
>> Actually, there is no difference other than in your prejudiced mind.
>>
>> Enjoy your little world. There are lots of people who hate skin color.
>>
>> There is even a name for them. They even have a group of their own
>> that has three repeats of the same letter.
>>
>> Perhaps you could join if you haven't already.
>
> All that because I can't stand tattoos and won't back down about it.

You said, "Keep it out of my sight!" And more.

"Landon" > wrote in message
...
> Landon wrote:
>>> I mention this because I grew up seeing tats all over my Dad. He was a
>>> career navy man and of the "old" Navy. The sailor then who had no tats
>>> was considered the exception. My Dad had over one hundred of them on
>>> his body.
>
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 09:14:45 -0700, sf > wrote:
>>He sounds like he should have been in the circus.
>
> What a rude and tacky thing to say.

Yep.

On 4/14/2011 11:11 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 14/04/2011 2:39 PM, Miche wrote:
>
>>
>> And I'd bet there isn't a tattooed person out there who doesn't know
>> they're permanent. That's why I don't get all the flapping about "but
>> they're permanennnnnt!" The tattooed people know, and they made that
>> choice anyway.
>
> I m quite sure that they realize that tattoos are permanent. I just
> wonder if they are in denial about the effects of time on tattoos and
> the living canvas on which they are drawn.
>

The colors get less vibrant and the lines gets fuzzy and defused. That's
a shame. My guess is that the problem is that people live longer than
they use to.

I wouldn't get one but I like looking at 'em. People have been doing
this for thousands of years and and the reasons it's practiced is buried
deep in our history and psyche.

Someone should formulate inks with a limited lifetime so that the tats
disappear in a couple of years. I think there would be a market for
this. It could create a tattoo boom.

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 11:55:33 -1000, dsi1
> wrote:

> Someone should formulate inks with a limited lifetime so that the tats
> disappear in a couple of years. I think there would be a market for
> this. It could create a tattoo boom.

That's a new twist on an old idea! Fast fading tattoos instead of
long lasting. You could make a fortune!

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On 4/14/2011 5:27 PM, merryb wrote:
> On Apr 14, 11:54 am, > wrote:
>> Landon wrote:
>>>> I mention this because I grew up seeing tats all over my Dad. He was a
>>>> career navy man and of the "old" Navy. The sailor then who had no tats
>>>> was considered the exception. My Dad had over one hundred of them on
>>>> his body.
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 09:14:45 -0700, > wrote:
>>> He sounds like he should have been in the circus.
>>
>> What a rude and tacky thing to say.
>
> That's what I thought also...

It's a mattes of taste, but for all my life I have had what seems an
instinctive distaste for deliberate mutilation like tattoos and
extension of earlobes and lips as among some primitive tribes. I always
preferred not to look at pictures from societies where tattoos were
celebrated like the Maori of New Zealand. Rather than watch an actor
with extensive tattooing, I will still shut off the movie. I'm not all
that fond of indiscriminate piercing either like nose and lip rings.
People can do what they want without my active opposition but I will do
my best to avoid certain things. I guess I got used to ear rings even if
my wife did not like pierced ears either but allowed my daughter to have
them.

--


James Silverton, Potomac

I'm "not"

On 4/14/2011 11:59 AM, sf wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 11:55:33 -1000, dsi1
> > wrote:
>
>> Someone should formulate inks with a limited lifetime so that the tats
>> disappear in a couple of years. I think there would be a market for
>> this. It could create a tattoo boom.
>
> That's a new twist on an old idea! Fast fading tattoos instead of
> long lasting. You could make a fortune!
>

This would be great for folks who are afraid of commitment. My
understanding is that there are a lot of those...

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 21:45:55 +0100, Janet > wrote:

>In article >,
says...
>>
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 16:30:28 +0100, Janet > wrote:
>>
>> >In article >,
>> says...
>> >>
>> >> If you dislike them, then aim your eyes at something that doesn't
>> >> offend you.
>> >>
>> >> Hate? What a waste of emotion to hate someone else's expression of
>> >> their likes by putting colorful images on their body.
>> >
>> >It's not as if anyone's personal opinion on tattoos impinges on your
>> >opinion in any way. Or even, on your unseen tatts.
>> >
>> > If you dislike such opinions or tastes why don't you direct your
>> >attention elsewhere?
>> >
>> > Janet
>>
>> 1. I didn't say anything about my opinion being impinged.
>>
>> 2. This is a discussion group. I'm discussing a stated opinion.
>
> Isn't everyone? Doesn't your advice to others apply equally to yourself?
>
>
> Janet

Your reply makes no sense. Think about it.

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 14:13:37 -0700, sf > wrote:

>On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 15:21:16 -0400, Landon > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 09:27:54 -0700, sf > wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:14:48 -0400, Landon > wrote:
>> >
>> >> I see no difference between someone liking a beautiful piece of art
>> >> enough to hang it on the wall of their home for all to see, and
>> >> someone liking a drawing enough to have it placed on their body for
>> >> all to see.
>> >
>> >I see a world of difference. Most people don't even see their own
>> >tattoos unless they're looking in the mirror and you can enjoy your
>> >art you own, no matter how weird, without inflicting it on complete
>> >strangers when it hangs on the wall. You can change out art on the
>> >wall: move it around or sell it. Tattoos are permanent. There is no
>> >changing your mind, no returns or redos unless you want to spend a lot
>> >of time, money, effort and pain doing it.
>>
>> Actually, there is no difference other than in your prejudiced mind.
>>
>> Enjoy your little world. There are lots of people who hate skin color.
>>
>> There is even a name for them. They even have a group of their own
>> that has three repeats of the same letter.
>>
>> Perhaps you could join if you haven't already.
>
>All that because I can't stand tattoos and won't back down about it.

Your prejudice makes no more sense than that of a racist. Your reasons
are silly. Your justifications are lame and your stance is that of a
stubborn 10 year old.