Out Of Touch With Genitals
Blinky the Shark
Wednesday as lawmakers considered a bill outlining punishments for
female genital mutilation..."
"Amendment sponsor Rep. Bill Heath, R-Bremen, was slack-jawed when told
after the vote that some adults seek the piercings.
"'What? I've never seen such a thing,' Heath said. 'I, uh, I wouldn't
approve of anyone doing it. I don't think that's an appropriate thing to
be doing.'"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115166,00.html
--
Blinky Linux RU 4892F
http://linuxnotjustforgeeks.org
http://blinkynet.net
http://blinkynet.net/spag/w2000src.html - Win Source Code Leak
Greg M
> "ATLANTA - Genital piercings for women were banned by the Georgia House
> Wednesday as lawmakers considered a bill outlining punishments for
> female genital mutilation..."
>
> "Amendment sponsor Rep. Bill Heath, R-Bremen, was slack-jawed when told
> after the vote that some adults seek the piercings.
>
> "'What? I've never seen such a thing,' Heath said. 'I, uh, I wouldn't
> approve of anyone doing it. I don't think that's an appropriate thing to
> be doing.'"
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115166,00.html
Next up, tattooes?
Huey Callison
eeeeeYup. On accounta y'know what THAT leads to: DANCIN'.
--
Huey
Jerry Bauer
(in message <slrnc69mmv....@thurston.blinkynet.net>):
> "ATLANTA - Genital piercings for women were banned by the Georgia House
> Wednesday as lawmakers considered a bill outlining punishments for
> female genital mutilation..."
>
> "Amendment sponsor Rep. Bill Heath, R-Bremen, was slack-jawed when told
> after the vote that some adults seek the piercings.
>
> "'What? I've never seen such a thing,' Heath said. 'I, uh, I wouldn't
> approve of anyone doing it. I don't think that's an appropriate thing to
> be doing.'"
I've become inured to this kind of meta-ignorance, and I'm still
disappointed when I see it. People tend to believe that things are
exactly as they see them. I try to maintain a wider perspective, and
too often fail, so I can sympathize to some extent.
Even so, one of the valuable things about education should be the
recognition that there is a vast universe of the unknown, and a tiny
portion that is known in any meaningful sense to the aggregate of
humanity, and a very tiny portion of that known to an individual.
A little learning is all any of us can manage. Danger lies in
failure to learn this.
--
Jerry Randal Bauer
Incredible Rhyme Animal
Already illegal in South Carolina.
Hey, Scoob...do people in South Carolina, or North Carolina, for that matter,
say "f" for "th," like as in "Keef Richards?"
If so, see if you can get them to stop, cause that bothers me.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Lord Jubjub
Greg M <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
Already banned though there is a movement to repeal it.
One legislature defended the ban because tatoos mutilate the sacred
temple of God.
Blinky the Shark
>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115166,00.html
> Next up, tattooes?
The congressman reminds me of a couple of sticks of memory I (actually) bought
for my laptop, last night. Their form factor is called SODIMM.
I'll be here all week.
mike
> Hey, Scoob...do people in South Carolina, or North Carolina, for that
matter,
> say "f" for "th," like as in "Keef Richards?"
>
> If so, see if you can get them to stop, cause that bothers me.
is that where kiefer sutherland was born?
Mark Steese
news:0001HW.BC8A29E2...@News.individual.NET:
>> "ATLANTA - Genital piercings for women were banned by the Georgia
>> House Wednesday as lawmakers considered a bill outlining punishments
>> for female genital mutilation..."
>>
>> "Amendment sponsor Rep. Bill Heath, R-Bremen, was slack-jawed when
>> told after the vote that some adults seek the piercings.
>>
>> "'What? I've never seen such a thing,' Heath said. 'I, uh, I wouldn't
>> approve of anyone doing it. I don't think that's an appropriate thing
>> to be doing.'"
>
> I've become inured to this kind of meta-ignorance,
"Meta-ignorance"? Representative Heath was displaying ignorance of
voluntary genital piercing, not ignorance of ignorance.
> and I'm still disappointed when I see it.
Then you haven't really become inured to it, have you?
> People tend to believe that things are exactly as they see them.
Yeah! What's the world coming to when a guy can get elected to state
government without having an extensive knowledge of cosmetic genital
piercing? I say it's time to draw the line. From this day on, no one
should be elected to any office of public trust unless he or she can can
publicly demonstrate sufficient knowledge of cosmetic genital piercing!
--
Mark Steese
unscramble and underscore to email
---
Blaine's next announced escapade will involve dropping himself from a
helicopter at a great height into a river, which seems to symbolize
nothing more than the general public's increasing desire to see David
Blaine dropped from a great height into a river. --fametracker.com
Blinky the Shark
> Yeah! What's the world coming to when a guy can get elected to state
> government without having an extensive knowledge of cosmetic genital
> piercing? I say it's time to draw the line. From this day on, no one
> should be elected to any office of public trust unless he or she can
> can publicly demonstrate sufficient knowledge of cosmetic genital
> piercing!
There *is* something to be said about pulling one's head out of the
political muck long enough once in a while to glance around and see what
the *real* world - the one in which one's constituents actually live -
looks like. I mean, the practice in question isn't exactly some secret
that you have to be a 32nd degree Mason with a degree in nucular fizziks
to be aware of.
Huey Callison
> There *is* something to be said about pulling one's head out of the
> political muck long enough once in a while to glance around and see what
> the *real* world - the one in which one's constituents actually live -
> looks like. I mean, the practice in question isn't exactly some secret
> that you have to be a 32nd degree Mason with a degree in nucular fizziks
> to be aware of.
I think the occasional "how much does a loaf of bread cost?" or "do ya
eat tamales with the corn husks on, or do you take those off first?"
questions are a good thing for political candidates, for precisely this
reason. It's always nice to know before you elect somebody who "never
heard of such a thing!", or who thinks the word 'evolution' should be
removed from the textbook.
--
Huey
Mark Steese
news:slrnc69mmv....@thurston.blinkynet.net:
> "ATLANTA - Genital piercings for women were banned by the Georgia House
> Wednesday as lawmakers considered a bill outlining punishments for
> female genital mutilation..."
>
> "Amendment sponsor Rep. Bill Heath, R-Bremen, was slack-jawed when told
> after the vote that some adults seek the piercings.
>
> "'What? I've never seen such a thing,' Heath said. 'I, uh, I wouldn't
> approve of anyone doing it. I don't think that's an appropriate thing to
> be doing.'"
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115166,00.html
I can't help but think that if Representative Heath had displayed
familiarity with cosmetic genital piercing, the press would have found that
equally amusing.
Blinky the Shark
> Blinky the Shark <no....@box.invalid> wrote in
> news:slrnc69mmv....@thurston.blinkynet.net:
>> "ATLANTA - Genital piercings for women were banned by the Georgia House
>> Wednesday as lawmakers considered a bill outlining punishments for
>> female genital mutilation..."
>> "Amendment sponsor Rep. Bill Heath, R-Bremen, was slack-jawed when told
>> after the vote that some adults seek the piercings.
>> "'What? I've never seen such a thing,' Heath said. 'I, uh, I wouldn't
>> approve of anyone doing it. I don't think that's an appropriate thing to
>> be doing.'"
>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115166,00.html
> I can't help but think that if Representative Heath had displayed
> familiarity with cosmetic genital piercing, the press would have found that
> equally amusing.
Tough call. I'm not sure that would've been the case, given that it's
*not* really a secret. But ya never know.
Mark Steese
> Mark Steese wrote:
>
>> Yeah! What's the world coming to when a guy can get elected to state
>> government without having an extensive knowledge of cosmetic genital
>> piercing? I say it's time to draw the line. From this day on, no
>> one should be elected to any office of public trust unless he or she
>> can can publicly demonstrate sufficient knowledge of cosmetic genital
>> piercing!
>
> There *is* something to be said about pulling one's head out of the
> political muck long enough once in a while to glance around and see
> what the *real* world - the one in which one's constituents actually
> live - looks like.
The politician in question, Bill Heath, represents District 18 in the
Georgia legislature, which covers Haralson County and parts of Paulding and
Polk Counties. The area is predominantly rural and poor. Maybe I'm wrong,
but I think it's quite likely that the majority of Representative Heath's
constituents are as unfamiliar with cosmetic genital piercing as he is. On
the other hand, since the subject's common knowledge to you, Blinky,
perhaps you can expound upon the demographics of cosmetic genital piercing
in Georgia?
Mark Steese
news:TFSdnSmTV7M...@speakeasy.net:
> I think the occasional "how much does a loaf of bread cost?" or "do ya
> eat tamales with the corn husks on, or do you take those off first?"
> questions are a good thing for political candidates, for precisely this
> reason. It's always nice to know before you elect somebody who "never
> heard of such a thing!", or who thinks the word 'evolution' should be
> removed from the textbook.
So, you're assuming that Representative Heath's constituents are
necessarily better informed about genital piercing than he is? I'm not so
sure. There are a lot of voting districts out there where a clear majority
of the *voters* think the word 'evolution' should be removed from
textbooks.
Blinky the Shark
> Blinky the Shark <no....@box.invalid> wrote in
> news:slrnc6abv1....@thurston.blinkynet.net:
>> Mark Steese wrote:
>>> Yeah! What's the world coming to when a guy can get elected to
>>> state government without having an extensive knowledge of cosmetic
>>> genital piercing? I say it's time to draw the line. From this day
>>> on, no one should be elected to any office of public trust unless he
>>> or she can can publicly demonstrate sufficient knowledge of cosmetic
>>> genital piercing!
>> There *is* something to be said about pulling one's head out of the
>> political muck long enough once in a while to glance around and see
>> what the *real* world - the one in which one's constituents actually
>> live - looks like.
> The politician in question, Bill Heath, represents District 18 in the
> Georgia legislature, which covers Haralson County and parts of
> Paulding and Polk Counties. The area is predominantly rural and poor.
> Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it's quite likely that the majority of
> Representative Heath's constituents are as unfamiliar with cosmetic
> genital piercing as he is. On the other hand, since the subject's
> common knowledge to you, Blinky, perhaps you can expound upon the
> demographics of cosmetic genital piercing in Georgia?
Nah, I'll just let your own call stand -- that they can't read, and no
magazines with pictures ever make it into those three counties.
Never mind that Representative Heath probably does escape those three
counties and can probably read, unless that's where the state
legislature is, which two things would seem to make it possible for
*him* to know something about life outside them, even if his
constituents - if you are correct - don't.
Oliver Sampson
Rhyme Animal) wrote:
>Greg M m...@privacy.net Date: 3/26/04 9:15 PM Eastern writes:
>
>>On 27 Mar 2004 01:37:35 GMT, Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>
>>> "ATLANTA - Genital piercings for women were banned by the Georgia House
>>> Wednesday as lawmakers considered a bill outlining punishments for
>>> female genital mutilation..."
>>>
>>> "Amendment sponsor Rep. Bill Heath, R-Bremen, was slack-jawed when told
>>> after the vote that some adults seek the piercings.
>>>
>>> "'What? I've never seen such a thing,' Heath said. 'I, uh, I wouldn't
>>> approve of anyone doing it. I don't think that's an appropriate thing to
>>> be doing.'"
>>>
>>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115166,00.html
>>
>>Next up, tattooes?
>
> Already illegal in South Carolina.
And they got that funny mini-bottle law there, too. I think they've
been studying a little too much French economic theory on "how to get
people back to work."
>
>Hey, Scoob...do people in South Carolina, or North Carolina, for that matter,
>say "f" for "th," like as in "Keef Richards?"
As I recall my from my NC days, that, no, in general they didn't do
that. Now, I'm not sure they could have told you what an 'f' a 't' or
an 'h' were, or what order they come in.
>
>If so, see if you can get them to stop, cause that bothers me.
The f/th transposition is typical of the East London accent. Stick to
West London.
--
Oliver Sampson Buy my CDs!
ol...@quickaudio.com http://www.cdbaby.com/woodlawn
http://www.oliversampson.com http://www.cdbaby.com/matchpoint
Oliver Sampson
wrote:
But can you fly a tattoo of a confederate flag over the capitol?
Dana Carpender
Blinky the Shark wrote:
> Mark Steese wrote:
>
>
>>Yeah! What's the world coming to when a guy can get elected to state
>>government without having an extensive knowledge of cosmetic genital
>>piercing? I say it's time to draw the line. From this day on, no one
>>should be elected to any office of public trust unless he or she can
>>can publicly demonstrate sufficient knowledge of cosmetic genital
>>piercing!
>
>
> There *is* something to be said about pulling one's head out of the
> political muck long enough once in a while to glance around and see what
> the *real* world - the one in which one's constituents actually live -
> looks like. I mean, the practice in question isn't exactly some secret
> that you have to be a 32nd degree Mason with a degree in nucular fizziks
> to be aware of.
>
Hell, all you have to have is an email address. God knows pron spam
should do the rest.
Dana
netOBSESSIVE
> Genital piercings for women were banned by the Georgia House
> Wednesday as lawmakers considered a bill outlining punishments for
> female genital mutilation..."
Who gets to enforce this law? Or in the case of some women I've
seen...Who HAS to?
--
There are somethings that are better left unsaid, Nothing I said falls
under that category
Nathan
Jerry Bauer
(in message <Xns94B8E794...@216.168.3.44>):
> Jerry Bauer <use...@bauerstar.com> wrote in
> news:0001HW.BC8A29E2...@News.individual.NET:
>
>>> "ATLANTA - Genital piercings for women were banned by the Georgia
>>> House Wednesday as lawmakers considered a bill outlining punishments
>>> for female genital mutilation..."
>>>
>>> "Amendment sponsor Rep. Bill Heath, R-Bremen, was slack-jawed when
>>> told after the vote that some adults seek the piercings.
>>>
>>> "'What? I've never seen such a thing,' Heath said. 'I, uh, I wouldn't
>>> approve of anyone doing it. I don't think that's an appropriate thing
>>> to be doing.'"
>>
>> I've become inured to this kind of meta-ignorance,
>
> "Meta-ignorance"? Representative Heath was displaying ignorance of
> voluntary genital piercing, not ignorance of ignorance.
Heath was ignorant of his ignorance.
Mere ignorance is trivially cured, and Heath has been cured of his
ignorance of voluntary cosmetic genital modification.
Problem solved, right? Do you fail to see that Heath's underlying
handicap has not been addressed?
>
>> and I'm still disappointed when I see it.
>
> Then you haven't really become inured to it, have you?
I have also become inured ("acclimatized, acquainted, adapted,
addicted, confirmed, disciplined, exercised, familiar, familiarized,
given to, habituated, habituated in, seasoned, settled in, trained")
to this kind of pseudo-intellectual posturing. I expect it in this
forum, I am used to it in this forum, I am familiar to it in this
forum. I still don't like it.
>
>> People tend to believe that things are exactly as they see them.
>
> Yeah! What's the world coming to when a guy can get elected to state
> government without having an extensive knowledge of cosmetic genital
> piercing? I say it's time to draw the line. From this day on, no one
> should be elected to any office of public trust unless he or she can can
> publicly demonstrate sufficient knowledge of cosmetic genital piercing!
>
It does not take expertise in a given field to recognize that one is
not an expert in that field.
--
Jerry Randal Bauer
Stan
>Greg M wrote:
>> On 27 Mar 2004 01:37:35 GMT, Blinky the Shark wrote:
>
>>> "ATLANTA - Genital piercings for women were banned by the Georgia House
>>> Wednesday as lawmakers considered a bill outlining punishments for
>>> female genital mutilation..."
>
>>> "Amendment sponsor Rep. Bill Heath, R-Bremen, was slack-jawed when told
>>> after the vote that some adults seek the piercings.
>
>>> "'What? I've never seen such a thing,' Heath said. 'I, uh, I wouldn't
>>> approve of anyone doing it. I don't think that's an appropriate thing to
>>> be doing.'"
>
>>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115166,00.html
>
>> Next up, tattooes?
>
>The congressman reminds me of a couple of sticks of memory I (actually) bought
>for my laptop, last night. Their form factor is called SODIMM.
>
>I'll be here all week.
"So dim" or Sodom?
(I vote for dim, myself.)
Why does what someone does to their own body offend certain others?
Haven't we done a list of piercings and tattoos on this newsgroup? Is
anyone offended knowing about those, or only if it is seen?
--
That is the beauty of the internet; it assures you you are not alone
in your psychosis...Scott on AFCA
Incredible Rhyme Animal
>The f/th transposition is typical of the East London accent.
I notice a lot of African Americans do it. I was thinking it had its roots in
southern dialect.
Greg Goss
>Why does what someone does to their own body offend certain others?
>Haven't we done a list of piercings and tattoos on this newsgroup? Is
>anyone offended knowing about those, or only if it is seen?
I'm offended by the existenct. But I have no right to control what
someone does to themselves, so I remain offended in (usually) silence.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
Mark Steese
>> The politician in question, Bill Heath, represents District 18 in the
>> Georgia legislature, which covers Haralson County and parts of
>> Paulding and Polk Counties. The area is predominantly rural and
>> poor. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it's quite likely that the
>> majority of Representative Heath's constituents are as unfamiliar
>> with cosmetic genital piercing as he is. On the other hand, since
>> the subject's common knowledge to you, Blinky, perhaps you can
>> expound upon the demographics of cosmetic genital piercing in
>> Georgia?
>
> Nah, I'll just let your own call stand -- that they can't read, and no
> magazines with pictures ever make it into those three counties.
So, *your* call is that everyone who can read has necessarily read about
cosmetic genital piercing, and all magazines with pictures necessarily show
pictures of that practice.
And you think *Heath* needs to go out and look at the real world?
Mark Steese
> I have also become inured ("acclimatized, acquainted, adapted,
> addicted, confirmed, disciplined, exercised, familiar, familiarized,
> given to, habituated, habituated in, seasoned, settled in, trained")
> to this kind of pseudo-intellectual posturing.
Of course you have. It's your principal mode of discourse. Must have
something to do with the malign effects of "the television perspective-
distortion vortex."
Incidentally, one common fault of pseudo-intellectuals is their inability
to distinguish between a thesaurus and a dictionary. They look up a word
in a thesaurus and assume that all of the entries following a particular
word express exactly the same meaning as the word in question. It's quite
amusing.
Sanford Manley
> Jerry Bauer <use...@bauerstar.com> wrote in
> news:0001HW.BC8AE9AC...@News.individual.NET:
>
>> I have also become inured ("acclimatized, acquainted, adapted,
>> addicted, confirmed, disciplined, exercised, familiar, familiarized,
>> given to, habituated, habituated in, seasoned, settled in, trained")
>> to this kind of pseudo-intellectual posturing.
>
> Of course you have. It's your principal mode of discourse. Must have
> something to do with the malign effects of "the television perspective-
> distortion vortex."
>
> Incidentally, one common fault of pseudo-intellectuals is their inability
> to distinguish between a thesaurus and a dictionary. They look up a word
> in a thesaurus and assume that all of the entries following a particular
> word express exactly the same meaning as the word in question. It's quite
> amusing.
You can't fool me...a Thesaurus is a large angry dinosaur with a big
vocabulary.
--
Sanford M. Manley
"Even very young children need to be informed about dying.
Explain the concept of death very carefully to your
child. This will make threatening him with it much more effective." -- P. J.
O'Rourke
http://www.livejournal.com/users/ansaman/
Austkin
> God knows pron spam
>should do the rest.
"pron"? Isn't the term "porn"?
Dana Carpender
Austkin wrote:
Well, sure, if you don't mind drawing even more pron spam.
Dana
mike
"Dana Carpender" <dcarpen...@kiva.net> wrote in message
news:iRl9c.18834$K91.60493@attbi_s02...
although its more akin to chanting "bloody mary" in the bathroom.
yeah, i can understand masking words like scientologiy, circumcision,
abortion, nazis, etc... some people do google group word searches and have
to add their 2 cents. but porn? eh. i just like typing pr0n, cuz its all
"leet". or l33t. or whatever.
Blinky the Shark
> Blinky the Shark <no....@box.invalid> wrote in
> news:slrnc6akpq....@thurston.blinkynet.net:
>>> The politician in question, Bill Heath, represents District 18 in the
>>> Georgia legislature, which covers Haralson County and parts of
>>> Paulding and Polk Counties. The area is predominantly rural and
>>> poor. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it's quite likely that the
>>> majority of Representative Heath's constituents are as unfamiliar
>>> with cosmetic genital piercing as he is. On the other hand, since
>>> the subject's common knowledge to you, Blinky, perhaps you can
>>> expound upon the demographics of cosmetic genital piercing in
>>> Georgia?
>> Nah, I'll just let your own call stand -- that they can't read, and no
>> magazines with pictures ever make it into those three counties.
> So, *your* call is that everyone who can read has necessarily read about
> cosmetic genital piercing, and all magazines with pictures necessarily show
> pictures of that practice.
I didn't say "everyone" and I didn't say "all magazines". I didn't even come
close. So of course that's not my call.
> And you think *Heath* needs to go out and look at the real world?
Yes. And the only conflict is with the words *you* put in my writing.
Blinky the Shark
>> Austkin wrote:
>> >>Dana Carpender wrote:
Those conventions (not for search engine avoidance) were around a long
time before spam and today's search engines, for what it's worth: grilf,
filk, newsfroups...
Stan
>Stan <sze...@myway.com> wrote:
>
>>Why does what someone does to their own body offend certain others?
>>Haven't we done a list of piercings and tattoos on this newsgroup? Is
>>anyone offended knowing about those, or only if it is seen?
>
>I'm offended by the existenct. But I have no right to control what
>someone does to themselves, so I remain offended in (usually) silence.
The existence of tattoos or piercings offend you? Religious or
aesthetic reasons? Would it affect how you feel about the person with
one (or both) of them? Do you have friends with either? I might see
someone, especially at the extreme, and think WTF? but I wouldn't hold
it against that person. (Not arguing, just curious.)
Stan
Lots42 The Library Avenger
>cosmetic genital piercing, and all magazines with pictures necessarily show
>pictures of that practice.
>
>And you think *H
Blah, blah, blah.
Seems to me that the general usenet public is dissapointed that Heath went
screaming into legislation with a pure and simple ignorance of something google
could teach him about. If you're going to vote on something, you should damn
well know something about.
--
"Oh, trusty soda machine! I push you for root beer, you give me coke." -
Willow Rosenberg
[ Yendi: "It's almost 10! Why didn't you eat dinner?"
Me: "Because I was writing." ] - Shadesong, via Livejournal
Jerry Bauer
(in message <Xns94B97321...@216.168.3.44>):
> Jerry Bauer <use...@bauerstar.com> wrote in
> news:0001HW.BC8AE9AC...@News.individual.NET:
>
>> I have also become inured ("acclimatized, acquainted, adapted,
>> addicted, confirmed, disciplined, exercised, familiar, familiarized,
>> given to, habituated, habituated in, seasoned, settled in, trained")
>> to this kind of pseudo-intellectual posturing.
>
> Of course you have. It's your principal mode of discourse. Must have
> something to do with the malign effects of "the television perspective-
> distortion vortex."
>
> Incidentally, one common fault of pseudo-intellectuals is their inability
> to distinguish between a thesaurus and a dictionary. They look up a word
> in a thesaurus and assume that all of the entries following a particular
> word express exactly the same meaning as the word in question. It's quite
> amusing.
>
Gracious, Mark! Put that thing away! You're frightening the mares
and shaming the stallions!
Nullibicity
>
> "ATLANTA - Genital piercings for women were banned by the Georgia House
> Wednesday as lawmakers considered a bill outlining punishments for
> female genital mutilation..."
>
> "Amendment sponsor Rep. Bill Heath, R-Bremen, was slack-jawed when told
> after the vote that some adults seek the piercings.
>
> "'What? I've never seen such a thing,' Heath said. 'I, uh, I wouldn't
> approve of anyone doing it. I don't think that's an appropriate thing to
> be doing.'"
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115166,00.html
Yes, it's funny that a legislator is banning something he hadn't thought
existed voluntarily, but what about the implications of the actual bill,
and that it was passed 160-0 with no debate? It probably started out
with good intentions (or was it racist, meant to single out certain
ethnic groups?), but ends up implying that women don't own their own
bodies. Further, I'm certainly in favor of protecting women's genitals,
but what about men's? Where's the equal protection under the law? Oh,
right -- we can't have that, because then circumcision would be
challenged, and we have to keep that legal so as to stop masturbation.
--
Nullibicity
http://www.nullibicity.com/
Greg Goss
> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>>>[Haven't we done a list of piercings and tattoos]
>>I'm offended by the existence. But I have no right to control what
>>someone does to themselves, so I remain offended in (usually) silence.
>
>The existence of tattoos or piercings offend you? Religious or
>aesthetic reasons?
Aesthetics. I like the human body. Almost all BMo are a
disimprovement.
> Would it affect how you feel about the person with
>one (or both) of them? Do you have friends with either?
My protege has a heart in the small of her back, and has hinted at
another one that I've never seen. An ex-lover had labial rings, but
she took them out after a couple of weeks. Many people I know have
ear piercings. My father had an anchor with a banner across it. He
wouldn't say what the banner had once contained, but it was blank by
the time I saw it.
Many people say that a tattoo or piercing proclaims an ability to
withstand pain to achieve something. To me, it seems to proclaim an
inability to think for onseself, an inability to resist fads.
>I might see
>someone, especially at the extreme, and think WTF? but I wouldn't hold
>it against that person. (Not arguing, just curious.)
--
Blinky the Shark
>> Incidentally, one common fault of pseudo-intellectuals is their inability
>> to distinguish between a thesaurus and a dictionary. They look up a word
>> in a thesaurus and assume that all of the entries following a particular
>> word express exactly the same meaning as the word in question. It's quite
>> amusing.
> Gracious, Mark! Put that thing away! You're frightening the mares
> and shaming the stallions!
Ladies and gentlemen -- I believe we have a winner!
mike
> Many people say that a tattoo or piercing proclaims an ability to
> withstand pain to achieve something. To me, it seems to proclaim an
> inability to think for onseself, an inability to resist fads.
and i cant think of anything id want on my body for the rest of my life. i
guess when im in the nursing home i can tell who all the hotties were,
because theyll all have wrinkled grey angels on the smalls of their backs.
>
> >I might see
> >someone, especially at the extreme, and think WTF? but I wouldn't hold
> >it against that person. (Not arguing, just curious.)
how bout the guy who had his brothers arm surgically attached to his chest?
Dana Carpender
mike wrote:
>>Many people say that a tattoo or piercing proclaims an ability to
>>withstand pain to achieve something. To me, it seems to proclaim an
>>inability to think for onseself, an inability to resist fads.
>
>
> and i cant think of anything id want on my body for the rest of my life. i
> guess when im in the nursing home i can tell who all the hotties were,
> because theyll all have wrinkled grey angels on the smalls of their backs.
>
>
Oh, trust me, I've seen plenty of women who are not particularly hot who
have tattoos.
And I'm with you on that "can't think of anything I want on my body for
the rest of my life" thing. I mean, look at the scorn people now heap
on '80s fashions they were scrambling to buy back then. What makes
anyone think they'll like their current tattoos any better in 20 years time?
Dana
Greg M
> Many people say that a tattoo or piercing proclaims an ability to
> withstand pain to achieve something. To me, it seems to proclaim an
> inability to think for onseself, an inability to resist fads.
That's the silliest, most ridiculous thing I've heard about tattooes. Pain
doesn't have anything to do with it. Nothing at all. Get a grip man.
And fad? There were tattooes all over the frozen hunter they pulled out of
the ice in Europe.
Bill Van
Nullibicity <nullibic...@SPAMBLOCKnullibicity.com.invalid> wrote:
> Yes, it's funny that a legislator is banning something he hadn't thought
> existed voluntarily, but what about the implications of the actual bill,
> and that it was passed 160-0 with no debate? It probably started out
> with good intentions (or was it racist, meant to single out certain
> ethnic groups?), but ends up implying that women don't own their own
> bodies.
The practices in question include removal of all or parts of the
clitoris and the labia, and something called infibulation, which appears
to amount to sewing part of the vagina shut. It is sometimes done during
infancy, most commonly between the ages of four and eight, sometimes
without anaesthetic.
*The mutilation* is about as strong a statement as can be made that
women don't own their own bodies. It denies them the possibility of
sexual pleasure, for life. Your suggestion that attempts to stop this
practice amount to denying women ownership of their bodies makes me
shudder.
Extending this legislation to include piercing, of course, is plain
stupid and deserves the ridicule it has been getting. But let's not lose
sight of its original purpose.
bill
mike
> And I'm with you on that "can't think of anything I want on my body for
> the rest of my life" thing. I mean, look at the scorn people now heap
> on '80s fashions they were scrambling to buy back then. What makes
> anyone think they'll like their current tattoos any better in 20 years
time?
i knew a guy who had freddy krueger tattooed on his arm along with some
other cheesy gorey stuff. it wasnt (to me) even cool back then, in the late
80s/early 90s.
Blinky the Shark
And you see what happened to *him*, don't you?
Blinky the Shark
Very true. My original post showed two things from the news article I
linked: a mutilation law was passed; and its *creator* didn't even know
that there was such a thing as voluntary genital piercings for jewelry.
Put 'em together, and you get the ridiculable. Apart - there is this
law, and there is this guy who doesn't even know blah blah - neither are
surprising. It's the *convergence* that's amazing, and what I sense is
the real story, and that was the point of my OP.
Greg M
> Greg M wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 22:09:33 -0500, Greg Goss wrote:
>
>>> Many people say that a tattoo or piercing proclaims an ability to
>>> withstand pain to achieve something. To me, it seems to proclaim an
>>> inability to think for onseself, an inability to resist fads.
>
>> That's the silliest, most ridiculous thing I've heard about tattooes. Pain
>> doesn't have anything to do with it. Nothing at all. Get a grip man.
>
>> And fad? There were tattooes all over the frozen hunter they pulled out of
>> the ice in Europe.
>
> And you see what happened to *him*, don't you?
Hey hey .. don't go confusing the issue with facts.
N Jill Marsh
<dcarpen...@kiva.net>wrote:
greg:
>>>Many people say that a tattoo or piercing proclaims an ability to
>>>withstand pain to achieve something. To me, it seems to proclaim an
>>>inability to think for onseself, an inability to resist fads.
I would suggest that you speak with less shallow or more mature
people, it would allow you to draw broader and more sensible
conclusions.
mike:
>> and i cant think of anything id want on my body for the rest of my life.
And if you can't do that, then the very first thing anything with a
sustained interest in bodyart would strongly advise you to do is to
never get a tattoo. There are some very bad reasons to get a tattoo,
and treating it not as something that you are permanently
incorporating into your body is probably the worst one.
>And I'm with you on that "can't think of anything I want on my body for
>the rest of my life" thing. I mean, look at the scorn people now heap
>on '80s fashions they were scrambling to buy back then. What makes
>anyone think they'll like their current tattoos any better in 20 years time?
You make the same mistake Greg does, and assume that fashion is the
sole reason anyone would choose to tattoo themselves. There are many
reasons why people choose to do it, and many of them rise far beyond
such ephemeral influences as trend, peer pressure, etc.
I am sure that you think you'll like your current wedding rings just
as well in 20 years time, yet silver & moonstone jewellery could
easily be described as trendy. Of course you chose that symbol because
it spoke to you in spite of that, and what it represents to you goes
so far beyond anything else that you will always love that ring even
if it ends up looking dated or worn to others.
--
nj"useless to collectors"m
'Imbroidery and diamonds were ordinary among them.'
Dana Carpender
mike wrote:
Stupidest tattoo I think I've ever seen was the Bud Man. At the very
least I'd want sizable monthly checks from Anheiser Busch for wearing
their damned advertising. Sheesh.
Dana
Incredible Rhyme Animal
>Think naked shrimp.
It's all part of a cosmic unconciousness.
Rick B.
Would you settle for a free lunch every day? 40 San Franciscans did:
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m3190/18_33/54576257/p1/article.jh
tml or http://tinyurl.com/2gvgx
--
"Everyone is going to go to law school sooner or later."
--Eugene Volokh
I am not in Antarctica
Bob Ward
wrote:
>
>I am sure that you think you'll like your current wedding rings just
>as well in 20 years time, yet silver & moonstone jewellery could
>easily be described as trendy. Of course you chose that symbol because
>it spoke to you in spite of that, and what it represents to you goes
>so far beyond anything else that you will always love that ring even
>if it ends up looking dated or worn to others.
I think you'll agree that it is a lot easier to have a set of rings
remanufactured than it is to change a tattoo.
Nullibicity
>
> In article <406638D6...@SPAMBLOCKnullibicity.com.invalid>,
> Nullibicity <nullibic...@SPAMBLOCKnullibicity.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Yes, it's funny that a legislator is banning something he hadn't thought
> > existed voluntarily, but what about the implications of the actual bill,
> > and that it was passed 160-0 with no debate? It probably started out
> > with good intentions (or was it racist, meant to single out certain
> > ethnic groups?), but ends up implying that women don't own their own
> > bodies.
>
> The practices in question include removal of all or parts of the
> clitoris and the labia, and something called infibulation, which appears
> to amount to sewing part of the vagina shut. It is sometimes done during
> infancy, most commonly between the ages of four and eight, sometimes
> without anaesthetic.
>
> *The mutilation* is about as strong a statement as can be made that
> women don't own their own bodies. It denies them the possibility of
> sexual pleasure, for life. Your suggestion that attempts to stop this
> practice amount to denying women ownership of their bodies makes me
> shudder.
I guess I wasn't clear. Of course this is a barbaric practice that
should be banned; forced mutilation is wrong. However, with the
piercing amendment in question, *adult* women apparently could not get
pierced. A bill was unanimously passed that said the government has the
right to invade a woman's privacy, to dictate what she can willingly do
to parts of her body. Shouldn't mentally competent adults be able to
make their own decisions about their bodies? A better bill would only
outlaw involuntary or coerced genital mutilation/modification (for both sexes).
--
Nullibicity
http://www.nullibicity.com/
Boron Elgar
<nullibic...@SPAMBLOCKnullibicity.com.invalid> wrote:
> A better bill would only
>outlaw involuntary or coerced genital mutilation/modification (for both sexes).
...which would effectively outlaw circs, so it will not be written
into law that way.
Boron
Mark Steese
>>>> The politician in question, Bill Heath, represents District 18 in
>>>> the Georgia legislature, which covers Haralson County and parts of
>>>> Paulding and Polk Counties. The area is predominantly rural and
>>>> poor. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it's quite likely that the
>>>> majority of Representative Heath's constituents are as unfamiliar
>>>> with cosmetic genital piercing as he is. On the other hand, since
>>>> the subject's common knowledge to you, Blinky, perhaps you can
>>>> expound upon the demographics of cosmetic genital piercing in
>>>> Georgia?
>
>>> Nah, I'll just let your own call stand -- that they can't read, and
>>> no magazines with pictures ever make it into those three counties.
>
>> So, *your* call is that everyone who can read has necessarily read
>> about cosmetic genital piercing, and all magazines with pictures
>> necessarily show pictures of that practice.
>
> I didn't say "everyone" and I didn't say "all magazines".
And I didn't say "they can't read," so that's not *my* call, is it?
You reinterpreted what I wrote to mean "they can't read, and no
magazines with pictures ever make it into those three counties." By
that interpretation, it follows that as far as you're concerned,
everyone who can read must be familiar with labial jewelry, and all
magazines with pictures must show pictures of pierced vulvas.
If you choose to wilfully misinterpret what other people write, don't
look shocked when it comes your turn.
--
Mark Steese
unscramble and underscore to email
---
Blaine's next announced escapade will involve dropping himself from a
helicopter at a great height into a river, which seems to symbolize
nothing more than the general public's increasing desire to see David
Blaine dropped from a great height into a river. --fametracker.com
Mark Steese
> Jerry Bauer wrote:
>
>>> Incidentally, one common fault of pseudo-intellectuals is their
>>> inability to distinguish between a thesaurus and a dictionary. They
>>> look up a word in a thesaurus and assume that all of the entries
>>> following a particular word express exactly the same meaning as the
>>> word in question. It's quite amusing.
>
>> Gracious, Mark! Put that thing away! You're frightening the mares
>> and shaming the stallions!
>
> Ladies and gentlemen -- I believe we have a winner!
Gee, Blinky, if mine's so impressive, how come you're sucking Jerry's?
kay w
JerryRB:
>>> Gracious, Mark! Put that thing away! You're frightening the mares
>>> and shaming the stallions!
Blinky:
>> Ladies and gentlemen -- I believe we have a winner!
MarkS:
>Gee, Blinky, if mine's so impressive, how come you're sucking Jerry's?
Some-bod-y's jeal-ous.
--
But Tonto he was smarter/ And one day said "Kemo Sabe,
Kiss my ass; I bought a boat. / I'm going out to sea."
Lyle Lovett
N Jill Marsh
Not the point of that paragraph - that aspect of tattoo was addressed
in this bit you snipped:
"And if you can't do that, then the very first thing anything with a
sustained interest in bodyart would strongly advise you to do is to
never get a tattoo. There are some very bad reasons to get a tattoo,
and treating it not as something that you are permanently
incorporating into your body is probably the worst one."
To be clearer about the paragraph you left in:
People can choose symbols or do things for reasons that might appear
trendy to others, but which very definitely are not to them and it's
better not to assume such shallow or immature motivations when others
might exist; out of fashion to you might mean something very dear and
treasured to them.
--
nj"think before you ink"m
"If I answer that right an' win another refrigerator I'll jes' DIE!"
Incredible Rhyme Animal
Changing a tattoo isn't any more difficult than remanufacturing a ring. See,
for example:.
http://www.cosmictattoo.com/coverups.html
or
http://www.eurotattoo.co.nz/coverrd.shtml
As far as "what are you going to look like when you're 60," well, old and
wrinkly, the same as any other 60 year old. It's not like you'd look like a
supermodel apart from that faded tattoo.
As far as "what if you get tired of it?" well, sure, that's a concern, but you
can minimize that concern by getting a high quality design. You will regret a
cross made with a compass point and india ink in study hall. You probably won't
regret a tiger like this guy has:
Mark Steese
@mb-m03.aol.com:
> Previously,
>
> JerryRB:
>>>> Gracious, Mark! Put that thing away! You're frightening the mares
>>>> and shaming the stallions!
>
> Blinky:
>>> Ladies and gentlemen -- I believe we have a winner!
>
> MarkS:
>>Gee, Blinky, if mine's so impressive, how come you're sucking Jerry's?
>
>
> Some-bod-y's jeal-ous.
No need to be jealous, kay -- I'm sure Blinky will share.
Bob Ward
Rhyme Animal) wrote:
>Bob Ward bob...@email.com writes:
>
>>On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 07:23:50 -0500, N Jill Marsh <njm...@storm.ca>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>I am sure that you think you'll like your current wedding rings just
>>>as well in 20 years time, yet silver & moonstone jewellery could
>>>easily be described as trendy. Of course you chose that symbol because
>>>it spoke to you in spite of that, and what it represents to you goes
>>>so far beyond anything else that you will always love that ring even
>>>if it ends up looking dated or worn to others.
>>
>>
>>I think you'll agree that it is a lot easier to have a set of rings
>>remanufactured than it is to change a tattoo.
>
> Changing a tattoo isn't any more difficult than remanufacturing a ring. See,
>for example:.
>
Rings can usually be taken off for those occasions, if any, where they
might be inappropriate.
mike
> > Stupidest tattoo I think I've ever seen was the Bud Man. At the
> > very least I'd want sizable monthly checks from Anheiser Busch
> > for wearing their damned advertising. Sheesh.
>
> Would you settle for a free lunch every day? 40 San Franciscans did:
>
> http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m3190/18_33/54576257/p1/article.jh
> tml or http://tinyurl.com/2gvgx
then theres that homeless guy who had "bumfights" tattooed across his
forehead.
i think he got a 40 out of it.
kay w
JerryRB:
>>>>> Gracious, Mark! Put that thing away! You're frightening the mares
>>>>> and shaming the stallions!
Blinky:
>>>> Ladies and gentlemen -- I believe we have a winner!
MarkS:
>>>Gee, Blinky, if mine's so impressive, how come you're sucking Jerry's?
Me(kay):
Some-bod-y's jeal-ous.
MarkS:
>No need to be jealous, kay -- I'm sure Blinky will share.
I doubt it. If he won't give up Jerry for you, he won't give up Jerry for me.
N Jill Marsh
>On 29 Mar 2004 00:22:27 GMT, george...@aol.comWerewikf (Incredible
>Rhyme Animal) wrote:
>
>> Changing a tattoo isn't any more difficult than remanufacturing a ring. See,
>>for example:
>>
>Rings can usually be taken off for those occasions, if any, where they
>might be inappropriate.
A tattoo is a permanent piece of art that is incorporated into a human
body. If one is unwilling to change one's body in such a permanent
manner, don't do it.
A tattoo becomes part of a person; it will age and change as a person
ages and changes. If one is repelled by the fact that the art is
going to do this and not exist within your skin like some creepy
reverse Dorian Gray painting, don't do it.
A tattoo replaces one's blank skin with tattooed skin. It should be
as appropriate to display in a situation as that blank skin. If for
some reason the choice of subject, employment requirements or family
beliefs makes it otherwise, be prepared to cover it or don't do it.
In spite of coverups as well as laser tattoo removal techniques,
tattoos are best considered as permanent. If one is reluctant to
commit in that manner, don't do it.
In spite of such widely held negative beliefs about tattoos indicating
personality problems, substance abuse or shallow trendiness, there are
very many other reasons why people choose to have them. If one is
tempted to judge another's motivation without intimate knowledge of
such, don't do it.
--
nj"or be prepared to look like an ass"m
"He then went away, and Miss Bingley was left to all the satisfaction
of having forced him to say what gave no one any pain but herself."
Incredible Rhyme Animal
Boy, if I did something like that, you'd say I was "Georging" the question.
You said "you can't change a tattoo." You can. Can you make it go away? Well,
no. But if you get tired of a bad tracing of the tazmanian devil, you can have
it changed to, say, a huge picture of Charles Lindbergh.
Also, if anyone's seeing your bare back like that, it's probably okay with them
if you've got Charles Lindbergh on it anyway.
mike
> In spite of such widely held negative beliefs about tattoos indicating
> personality problems, substance abuse or shallow trendiness, there are
> very many other reasons why people choose to have them. If one is
> tempted to judge another's motivation without intimate knowledge of
> such, don't do it.
there are a lot of tatted up samoans and stuff out here. im sure theyre
proud of their tribal heritage, and whatnot. and the homies with LA in times
roman script on the back of their neck. theyre all hardcore.
but the average hottie slinging hash at applebees with the butterfly down by
her asscrack? my vote goes with "how cute is that?", aka: shallow
trendiness.
i bet you have some crazy tats, eh?
N Jill Marsh
<mikein562...@hotmail.com>wrote:
njm:
I'll repost my internym from the last post:
"or be prepared to look like an ass". That fitted nicely onto the
last sentence of every one of those paragraphs.
>i bet you have some crazy tats, eh?
I have no tats.
--
nj"mmm, maybe one in the china cabinet"m
"...now and then we had a hope that if we lived and
were good, God would permit us to be pirates."
Bob Ward
Rhyme Animal) wrote:
>Bob Ward bob...@email.com writes:
>
>>On 29 Mar 2004 00:22:27 GMT, george...@aol.comWerewikf (Incredible
>>Rhyme Animal) wrote:
>>
>>>Bob Ward bob...@email.com writes:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 07:23:50 -0500, N Jill Marsh <njm...@storm.ca>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I am sure that you think you'll like your current wedding rings just
>>>>>as well in 20 years time, yet silver & moonstone jewellery could
>>>>>easily be described as trendy. Of course you chose that symbol because
>>>>>it spoke to you in spite of that, and what it represents to you goes
>>>>>so far beyond anything else that you will always love that ring even
>>>>>if it ends up looking dated or worn to others.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I think you'll agree that it is a lot easier to have a set of rings
>>>>remanufactured than it is to change a tattoo.
>>>
>>> Changing a tattoo isn't any more difficult than remanufacturing a ring.
>>See,
>>>for example:.
>>>
>>
>>Rings can usually be taken off for those occasions, if any, where they
>>might be inappropriate.
>
> Boy, if I did something like that, you'd say I was "Georging" the question.
>
>
> You said "you can't change a tattoo." You can. Can you make it go away? Well,
>no. But if you get tired of a bad tracing of the tazmanian devil, you can have
>it changed to, say, a huge picture of Charles Lindbergh.
>
You know, Gerorge, I really didn't say that at all, and you know that.
What I DID say, and you can confirm that by looking back up the page a
bit, is "I think you'll agree that it is a lot easier to have a set of
rings remanufactured than it is to change a tattoo."
Leave it to George to fuck it up so completely with the correct quoter
right there in the same message and all.
artyw
> Jerry Bauer <use...@bauerstar.com> wrote in
> news:0001HW.BC8AE9AC...@News.individual.NET:
> Incidentally, one common fault of pseudo-intellectuals is their inability
> to distinguish between a thesaurus and a dictionary. They look up a word
> in a thesaurus and assume that all of the entries following a particular
> word express exactly the same meaning as the word in question. It's quite
> amusing.
Is pseudo-intellectural in the thesaurus, er dictionary?
(I couldn't find it in a quick search of online dictionaries)
I once tried to become a pseud, but I failed the entrance test when I
couldn't distinguish between post modern and post raisin bran.
Incredible Rhyme Animal
>but the average hottie slinging hash at applebees with the butterfly down by
>her asscrack? my vote goes with "how cute is that?", aka: shallow
>trendiness.
Well, or, she likes to think that there's some inch of her that rises above the
hash slinging in a way a butterfly might.
Incredible Rhyme Animal
>
>You know, Gerorge, I really didn't say that at all, and you know that.
You were clearly going for that. It's apparently news to you you can cover up a
tattoo easily enough.
>What I DID say, and you can confirm that by looking back up the page a
>bit, is "I think you'll agree that it is a lot easier to have a set of
>rings remanufactured than it is to change a tattoo."
And now you should say "okay, well, i was wrong about that."
>Leave it to George to fuck it up so completely with the correct quoter
>right there in the same message and all.
It looks to me like the one who fucked up is you, Baby Puppy.
Bob Ward
Rhyme Animal) wrote:
>Bob Ward bob...@email.com writes:
>
>>
>>You know, Gerorge, I really didn't say that at all, and you know that.
>
>You were clearly going for that. It's apparently news to you you can cover up a
>tattoo easily enough.
>
You are clearly trying to George the issue. There is really no need
for you to tell me what I was "going for" - I stated it in very clear
terms.
Covering up a tattoo is not the same as its not being there at all.
If one is unhappy with a piece of jewelry, one can have it melted down
and made into a new design, or one can remove it and throw it away.
Either option is clearly easier than having the tattoo altered into
something else that is going to be out of fashion in a few years, or
going in for multiple sessions of tattoo removal at a cost of several
hundred dollars per session.
>>What I DID say, and you can confirm that by looking back up the page a
>>bit, is "I think you'll agree that it is a lot easier to have a set of
>>rings remanufactured than it is to change a tattoo."
>
>And now you should say "okay, well, i was wrong about that."
>
But I wasn't wrong, so what's your point?
mike
"Incredible Rhyme Animal" <george...@aol.comWerewikf> wrote in message
news:20040329000724...@mb-m29.aol.com...
i admire shallow trendiness in hotties. dont get me wrong.
Huey Callison
> > i bet you have some crazy tats, eh?
> I have no tats.
He means 'poody tats'.
--
Huey
N Jill Marsh
<bas-...@grace.speakeasy.net>wrote:
Oh. I have one of those. He is pretty crazy, but I'm hoping that
will go away when he grows up.
--
nj"two tweety birds as well"m
"I tell you so often that I love the sound of my name in your mouth."
Kevin O'Neill
Incredible Rhyme Animal wrote:
> Bob Ward bob...@email.com writes:
>
> >On 29 Mar 2004 00:22:27 GMT, george...@aol.comWerewikf (Incredible
> >Rhyme Animal) wrote:
> >
> >>Bob Ward bob...@email.com writes:
> >>
> >>>On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 07:23:50 -0500, N Jill Marsh <njm...@storm.ca>
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>I am sure that you think you'll like your current wedding rings just
> >>>>as well in 20 years time, yet silver & moonstone jewellery could
> >>>>easily be described as trendy. Of course you chose that symbol because
> >>>>it spoke to you in spite of that, and what it represents to you goes
> >>>>so far beyond anything else that you will always love that ring even
> >>>>if it ends up looking dated or worn to others.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I think you'll agree that it is a lot easier to have a set of rings
> >>>remanufactured than it is to change a tattoo.
> >>
> >> Changing a tattoo isn't any more difficult than remanufacturing a ring.
> >See,
> >>for example:.
> >>
> >
> >Rings can usually be taken off for those occasions, if any, where they
> >might be inappropriate.
>
> Boy, if I did something like that, you'd say I was "Georging" the question.
>
> You said "you can't change a tattoo." You can. Can you make it go away? Well,
> no.
Is laser tattoo removal really news to you? A few hundred bucks per treatment for
a medium sized tat, five or six treatments, and it's a funny story to tell the gang
down at the local pub.
> But if you get tired of a bad tracing of the tazmanian devil, you can have
> it changed to, say, a huge picture of Charles Lindbergh.
Or it could just be gone.
I mean, I agree with N Jill here, you shouldn't get inked if you don't intend to
stay inked, but in fact you can wake up with "I love Ken" on your bicep and get rid
of it if you can come up with maybe two grand total and a reason to wear a shirt
for a couple of months. Which, come to think of it, is not too much more than a
new set of wedding rings costs, if I remember rightly when one of my married
friends lost his.
Kevin
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> Greg M <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> > On 27 Mar 2004 01:37:35 GMT, Blinky the Shark wrote:
> > > "ATLANTA - Genital piercings for women were banned by the Georgia House
> > > Wednesday as lawmakers considered a bill outlining punishments for
> > > female genital mutilation..."
> > > "Amendment sponsor Rep. Bill Heath, R-Bremen, was slack-jawed when told
> > > after the vote that some adults seek the piercings.
> > > "'What? I've never seen such a thing,' Heath said. 'I, uh, I wouldn't
> > > approve of anyone doing it. I don't think that's an appropriate thing to
> > > be doing.'"
> > > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115166,00.html
> > Next up, tattooes?
> eeeeeYup. On accounta y'know what THAT leads to: DANCIN'.
I heard an NPR piece on one fo those southron states where Tat's are
already illegal. Well, tatoo parlors, you can get 'em all you want, but
it's illegal to give 'em.
John
--
Remove the dead poet to e-mail, tho CC'd posts are unwelcome.
Ask me about joining the NRA.
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> > Many people say that a tattoo or piercing proclaims an ability to
> > withstand pain to achieve something. To me, it seems to proclaim an
> > inability to think for onseself, an inability to resist fads.
> and i cant think of anything id want on my body for the rest of my life.
Raquele Welch.
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> Mark Steese wrote:
> > Yeah! What's the world coming to when a guy can get elected to state
> > government without having an extensive knowledge of cosmetic genital
> > piercing? I say it's time to draw the line. From this day on, no one
> > should be elected to any office of public trust unless he or she can
> > can publicly demonstrate sufficient knowledge of cosmetic genital
> > piercing!
> There *is* something to be said about pulling one's head out of the
> political muck long enough once in a while to glance around and see what
> the *real* world - the one in which one's constituents actually live -
> looks like. I mean, the practice in question isn't exactly some secret
> that you have to be a 32nd degree Mason with a degree in nucular fizziks
> to be aware of.
Still you can see how, the sort of guy who's wandering around with the
loacal rotraians, and meeting with the local business comitees and
worrying about zoning variances, who then makes it to the statehouse,
well, the constituants he's dealing with aren't exactly the tatooed and
pierced motorcycle set, you know?
So the guy was pretty whitebread. Someone needed to introduce him to this
little facet of life, and for the rest of us, it's going to be funny
watching him discover it, but hey, the systems working.
Incredible Rhyme Animal
>
>Is laser tattoo removal really news to you?
No, but I did forget about it. However, sometimes it doesn't make it go all the
way away.
Incredible Rhyme Animal
>On 29 Mar 2004 05:13:59 GMT, george...@aol.comWerewikf (Incredible
>Rhyme Animal) wrote:
>
>>Bob Ward bob...@email.com writes:
>>
>>>
>>>You know, Gerorge, I really didn't say that at all, and you know that.
>>
>>You were clearly going for that. It's apparently news to you you can cover
>up a
>>tattoo easily enough.
>>
>
>You are clearly trying to George the issue.
Sure, I am, bob.
> There is really no need
>for you to tell me what I was "going for" - I stated it in very clear
>terms.
Uh huh.
>
>Covering up a tattoo is not the same as its not being there at all.
But, it is "changing a tattoo."
>If one is unhappy with a piece of jewelry, one can have it melted down
>and made into a new design, or one can remove it and throw it away.
Okay.
>Either option is clearly easier than having the tattoo altered into
>something else that is going to be out of fashion in a few years,
How, exactly?
>or
>going in for multiple sessions of tattoo removal at a cost of several
>hundred dollars per session.
See Kevin's post.
You have lost.
>
>>>What I DID say, and you can confirm that by looking back up the page a
>>>bit, is "I think you'll agree that it is a lot easier to have a set of
>>>rings remanufactured than it is to change a tattoo."
>>
>>And now you should say "okay, well, i was wrong about that."
>>
>
>But I wasn't wrong,
Well, except about how hard it is to change a tattoo, and now about how
expensive it is to remove one.
>so what's your point?
Just say you were wrong. I notice you never do that. Why?
Kevin O'Neill
Huey Callison wrote:
> Blinky the Shark <no....@box.invalid> wrote:
> > There *is* something to be said about pulling one's head out of the
> > political muck long enough once in a while to glance around and see what
> > the *real* world - the one in which one's constituents actually live -
> > looks like. I mean, the practice in question isn't exactly some secret
> > that you have to be a 32nd degree Mason with a degree in nucular fizziks
> > to be aware of.
>
> I think the occasional "how much does a loaf of bread cost?" or "do ya
> eat tamales with the corn husks on, or do you take those off first?"
> questions are a good thing for political candidates, for precisely this
> reason. It's always nice to know before you elect somebody who "never
> heard of such a thing!", or who thinks the word 'evolution' should be
> removed from the textbook.
This reminds me of when the MonikaGate thing broke, and George Will was on TV
explaining it all to us, and said that he had never heard of phone sex, that
he'd had to have someone tell him what it was when he read about it. I mean,
that's fine if that's how you want to live your life, but how is this nimrod
qualified to explain the various moral implications of something to me if he's
only just had his secretary tell him what it is, fer chrissakes?
Kevin
Pixel Dent
ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
>
> I heard an NPR piece on one fo those southron states where Tat's are
> already illegal. Well, tatoo parlors, you can get 'em all you want, but
> it's illegal to give 'em.
>
>
> John
I know when I lived in Massachusetts tattoo parlors were illegal there
as well. There was a movement to change that but I can't remember if
they were legalized before I left. Of course non-Christian religions are
also illegal in Massachusetts so in some ways it's like a little piece
of the Bible Belt in the middle of New England ;-)
Greg Goss
>mike <mikein562...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> and i cant think of anything id want on my body for the rest of my life.
>
>Raquele Welch.
Isn't she 65 or so by now? And only going to get older for the rest
of Mike's life.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
Bob Ward
Rhyme Animal) wrote:
>
>>Either option is clearly easier than having the tattoo altered into
>>something else that is going to be out of fashion in a few years,
>
> How, exactly?
>
Time, pain, money - how many ways do you need?
http://patient-info.com/tattoo.htm
http://people.howstuffworks.com/tattoo-removal.htm
http://www.tattooremoval.org/
http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/12/01/tattoo.removal.ap/
>>or
>>going in for multiple sessions of tattoo removal at a cost of several
>>hundred dollars per session.
>
> See Kevin's post.
>
He has a cheap place to get tattoos removed?
>You have lost.
How's that again?
>
>
>>
>>>>What I DID say, and you can confirm that by looking back up the page a
>>>>bit, is "I think you'll agree that it is a lot easier to have a set of
>>>>rings remanufactured than it is to change a tattoo."
>>>
>>>And now you should say "okay, well, i was wrong about that."
>>>
>>
>>But I wasn't wrong,
>
> Well, except about how hard it is to change a tattoo, and now about how
>expensive it is to remove one.
>
Please enlighten us.
>>so what's your point?
>
> Just say you were wrong. I notice you never do that. Why?
>
>
Because I'm not wrong.
>
Bob Ward
<kon...@brazosport.edu> wrote:
>
>I mean, I agree with N Jill here, you shouldn't get inked if you don't intend to
>stay inked, but in fact you can wake up with "I love Ken" on your bicep and get rid
>of it if you can come up with maybe two grand total and a reason to wear a shirt
>for a couple of months. Which, come to think of it, is not too much more than a
>new set of wedding rings costs, if I remember rightly when one of my married
>friends lost his.
>
>Kevin
But we weren't talking about a new set of wedding rings - if the rings
are not lost, the stones can be reset, and, perhaps the gold reworked
to something more appropriate.
Of course, for a temporary solution, removing a ring is easily
accomplished, although under some circumstances could be far more
expensive that tattoo removal, if the wife finds out.
Bob Ward
Rhyme Animal) wrote:
And it's still not as easy as getting a ring restyled.
Not as cheap, either.
Incredible Rhyme Animal
>On 29 Mar 2004 15:55:21 GMT, george...@aol.comWerewikf (Incredible
>Rhyme Animal) wrote:
>
>>
>>>Either option is clearly easier than having the tattoo altered into
>>>something else that is going to be out of fashion in a few years,
>>
>> How, exactly?
>>
>
>Time, pain, money - how many ways do you need?
Well, except that's not really true. A laser treatment takes longer than a new
tattoo, and sure costs a lot more.
>>>or
>>>going in for multiple sessions of tattoo removal at a cost of several
>>>hundred dollars per session.
>>
>> See Kevin's post.
>>
>
>He has a cheap place to get tattoos removed?
No, he claimed it was comparable to the price of a decent set of wedding
rings, I think was the comparison.
so you were wrong.
>
>>You have lost.
>
>How's that again?
You
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>What I DID say, and you can confirm that by looking back up the page a
>>>>>bit, is "I think you'll agree that it is a lot easier to have a set of
>>>>>rings remanufactured than it is to change a tattoo."
>>>>
>>>>And now you should say "okay, well, i was wrong about that."
>>>>
>>>
>>>But I wasn't wrong,
>>
>> Well, except about how hard it is to change a tattoo, and now about how
>>expensive it is to remove one.
>>
>
>Please enlighten us.
>
>>>so what's your point?
>>
>> Just say you were wrong. I notice you never do that. Why?
>>
>>
>Because I'm not wrong.
You are Shawn Wilson and I...
Incredible Rhyme Animal
But you did, in fact, say "changed," which can be done for the price of a new
tattoo. What's it cost to get a ring restyled?
Greg Goss
>Of course, for a temporary solution, removing a ring is easily
>accomplished, although under some circumstances could be far more
>expensive that tattoo removal, if the wife finds out.
When I saw this in the opening sequence of "Unbreakable", I tried
looking at my ring finger. Taking off my ring would never convince
anyone. There is a groove around my ring finger about a millimetre
deep. To anyone looking at my hand, it's almost as obvious as the
gold ring would be except that it also screams "hypocrite".
Kevin O'Neill
ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
Yeah, you know, if the guy's introducing legislation that makes something
illegal based on it being done to little girls against thier wills and before
they have a chance to have an opinion, but he doesn't even know enough about
the subject to know that lots of people do something broadly similar
voluntarily as adults which he would be making illegal, and if when aquainted
with that fact his reflex is to say "They shouldn't do that" instead of "Oh,
well, we don't mean them and if we need to we'll write that in", you can
understand that 1) I don't really think that constitutes the system working
all that well, and 2) it's hard for me to take these people seriously when
they claim they're the party of individual rights. Capiche?
Kevin
Huey Callison
I took mine off two weeks ago after not doing so for three years and some.
It took at least ten minutes, some hand lotion, and a substantial
amount of pain, and two weeks later, you can still see the divots in the
sides of my ring fingers and the callouses, both where my ring fingers
meet the palms of my hands, and above where the rings sat on my fingers.
It occurs to me that I need to get both rings sized up, and I need to
remember to take them off before I go out in the backyard and split
firewood.
--
Huey
Opus the Penguin
Which reminds me due to the assonance...
What's the origin of the term "poon tang"? What exactly is it? Can I
get poon without the tang or are they inseparable? Googling on the term
gives me a general idea of the answers (and is certainly educational),
but I lack specifics.
--
Opus the Penguin (that's my real email addy)
You snipped my sig!
Opus the Penguin
> A tattoo is a permanent piece of art that is incorporated into a
> human body. If one is unwilling to change one's body in such a
> permanent manner, don't do it.
Why does it have to be that way, though? Can't they invent an ink that
breaks down after a year or five? Then you can get your trendy, cool
tatoo and it'll dissolve on its own.
Patrick M Geahan
> Why does it have to be that way, though? Can't they invent an ink that
> breaks down after a year or five? Then you can get your trendy, cool
> tatoo and it'll dissolve on its own.
There are 'henna' tattoos - they apparently dissappear after some short
period of time.
--
-------Patrick M Geahan---...@thepatcave.org---ICQ:3784715------
"You know, this is how the sum total of human knowledge is increased.
Not with idle speculation and meaningless chatter, but with a medium-sized
hammer and some free time." - spa...@pffcu.com, a.f.c-a
Dana Carpender
Opus the Penguin wrote:
> N Jill Marsh <njm...@storm.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>A tattoo is a permanent piece of art that is incorporated into a
>>human body. If one is unwilling to change one's body in such a
>>permanent manner, don't do it.
>
>
> Why does it have to be that way, though? Can't they invent an ink that
> breaks down after a year or five? Then you can get your trendy, cool
> tatoo and it'll dissolve on its own.
>
Y'know, that's a brilliant damn idea. If someone came up with such a
thing and patented it, I bet they'd make a fortune.
Dana
Dana Carpender
Patrick M Geahan wrote:
> Opus the Penguin <nospa...@netzero.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Why does it have to be that way, though? Can't they invent an ink that
>>breaks down after a year or five? Then you can get your trendy, cool
>>tatoo and it'll dissolve on its own.
>
>
> There are 'henna' tattoos - they apparently dissappear after some short
> period of time.
>
Well, but too short, and they only come in one color, I think. You
can't get the sort of complex art work you can with real tattoos. But
if you had a range of non-toxic inks that were bright and clear for,
say, 3 years, and then were gradually and harmlessly absorbed, that
would be a great thing.
Dana
Blinky the Shark
> I heard an NPR piece on one fo those southron states where Tat's are
> already illegal. Well, tatoo parlors, you can get 'em all you want, but
> it's illegal to give 'em.
"Oh! People do that *voluntarily*? As *adults*? I didn't know that." ;)
--
Blinky Linux RU 4892F
http://linuxnotjustforgeeks.org
http://blinkynet.net
http://blinkynet.net/spag/w2000src.html - Win Source Code Leak
Incredible Rhyme Animal
>
>Patrick M Geahan wrote:
>
>> Opus the Penguin <nospa...@netzero.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Why does it have to be that way, though? Can't they invent an ink that
>>>breaks down after a year or five? Then you can get your trendy, cool
>>>tatoo and it'll dissolve on its own.
>>
>>
>> There are 'henna' tattoos - they apparently dissappear after some short
>> period of time.
>>
>
>Well, but too short, and they only come in one color, I think.
Right.
> You
>can't get the sort of complex art work you can with real tattoos.
No, prolly not. Although, for every Guy Atchison or Mark Pacheco design out
there, there are dozens and dozens and dozens of tribal designs and weeping
folk art jesus that make Rev. Howard Finster look like Da Vinci, and I don't
know why henna would be a problem for that kind of thing
Also, there are temporary tattoos and just having something painted on.
> But
>if you had a range of non-toxic inks that were bright and clear for,
>say, 3 years, and then were gradually and harmlessly absorbed, that
>would be a great thing.
Eh, you know...I believe they have those, I'd see people come to the studio
complaining that their tattoo had faded badly, so I think it's
more...relatively few people make some modification to their body thinking
they'll want it gone in three or so years. They either want it gone in a week
or two or they want it indefinitely, regardless of how they actually feel about
it three or so years down the road. You know, it's sort of like dates.
Opus the Penguin
> Opus the Penguin wrote:
>
>> Why does it have to be that way, though? Can't they invent an ink
>> that breaks down after a year or five? Then you can get your
>> trendy, cool tatoo and it'll dissolve on its own.
>>
>
> Y'know, that's a brilliant damn idea.
Why, thank you.
Or what about that new technology we were talking about that puts
moving pictures on paper? People could get that implanted
subcutaneously and attached to a power source that recharges from
blood flow or muscle action or something. (These things don't
take a lot of power if I recall.) Then you could get a tattoo but
turn it off by pressing the third knuckle of your pinkie or
something.
> If someone came up with
> such a thing and patented it, I bet they'd make a fortune.
It's always the people with knowledge and a willingness to work hard
that make money off my ideas. It's not fair. Somebody should come up
with a way for *me* to profit.