Re-inking an old tat
drago...@my-deja.com
the last time about 1982. It could use some help, but I'm wondering if
there's some kind of accepted limit to how many times skin can take ink
in the same place. Any thoughts?
dragon
Curt James
Yes. I thought it would be interesting to see what your tattoo looks
like now. And how well did you like the rework/recoloring in '82?
--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/
i'll teach you to turn away.
dmdc> I got my first tattoo in 1977, and it's been re-inked twice since
dmdc> the last time about 1982. It could use some help, but I'm wonderi
dmdc> there's some kind of accepted limit to how many times skin can tak
dmdc> in the same place. Any thoughts?
here's a thought: find a competent artist & stay out of the sun.
whether your skin can take more work is dependent upon the
condition of your skin. post some sharp macro shots & i MIGHT be able to
help, but you should really be assessed by someone in person. someone
qualified to hold a tattoo machine, not some asshole with a tatgun.
lish "the sword of truth
cr...@got.net is just another weapon." -nmn
40.1% / 30 RANA 125 / 68
David Gartner
i'll teach you to turn away. wrote:
> drago...@my-deja.com wrote:
> dmdc> I got my first tattoo in 1977, and it's been re-inked twice
since
> dmdc> the last time about 1982. It could use some help, but I'm
wonderi
> dmdc> there's some kind of accepted limit to how many times skin can
tak
> dmdc> in the same place. Any thoughts?
>
> here's a thought: find a competent artist & stay out of the sun.
>
> whether your skin can take more work is dependent upon the
> condition of your skin. post some sharp macro shots & i MIGHT be able
to
> help, but you should really be assessed by someone in person. someone
> qualified to hold a tattoo machine, not some asshole with a tatgun.
great response! i'm being serious here, and not one bit ironical.
some people who don't know you (and maybe some who do), might think
you're a real bitch for that type of response. like you care what
people think. but i really believe that that's what the OP needed to
hear. and it was exactly the right response to the situation
presented. someone who wants their tattoo re-inked for the third time
is obviously doing something wrong.
david
Curt James
> i'll teach you to turn away. wrote:
> > drago...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > dmdc> I got my first tattoo in 1977,
> > dmdc> accepted limit to how many times skin
snip
> > here's a thought: find a competent artist
> > & stay out of the sun.
> great response! i'm being serious here, and
> not one bit ironical.
greatresponsegreatresponsegreatrespo(retch)
Let me adjust my monocle, ol' Gartner's not being one bit ironical!
> some people who don't know you (and maybe some
> who do), might think you're a real bitch for
> that type of response.
snip
What type of response? How's she a bitch for offering that advice?
Mike, lend David your KY. Although on the narrow side, you can *both*
probably fit your head up her ass.
> someone who wants their tattoo re-inked
> for the third time is obviously doing
> something wrong.
Speaking of something wrong, had Gartner even been BORN in 1977? So
what would he know about the reink necessity for a tattoo from that
year?
--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/
Kavin
"Curt James" <curt...@gmail.com> wrote
> DRLG wrote:
DRLG>> someone who wants their tattoo re-inked
DRLG>> for the third time is obviously doing
DRLG>> something wrong.
>
> Speaking of something wrong, had Gartner even been BORN in 1977? So
> what would he know about the reink necessity for a tattoo from that
> year?
Let's see, you seem to think you can give advice to the married --
although two women saw the wisdom of running from you before the knot
could be tied. You've 'retired' almost as many piercings as you've
kept but you still want to discuss healing techniques. You think
being able to pop out a google link is the same thing as furthering a
discussion. You consider yourself nice but I can give evidence of at
least two who have found you 'inappropriate' within just a few private
e-mails or face to face meetings.
I'm sure Sam okayed that tattoo.
Sweetheart, you don't have to be a snowflake to know what it is to be
cold.
Kavin
Curt James
> Let's see, you seem to think you can
> give advice to the married -- although
> two women saw the wisdom of running
> from you before the knot could be tied.
BZZZT. And my biographer drops the ball.
Three women saw that wisdom (in retrospect, I'm eternally grateful). At
age 20, 30, and 40. Actuarially speaking, marriage is for losers.
Next.
> You've 'retired' almost as many piercings
> as you've kept but you still want to
> discuss healing techniques.
BZZZT. I've retired or removed *MORE* piercings than I've kept. You're
against aesthetics, comfort, and experiencing piercings for their own
sake? I've had my tongue pierced twice and my labrum pierced twice as
well. Oral piercings are not my friend, but I'm glad that I got them
done simply for, again, the experience if nothing else. The tongue I
would have liked to have kept, but the labret was done with no
permanence in mind.
Next.
> You think being able to pop out a google
> link is the same thing as furthering a
> discussion.
BZZZT. I'm not /discussing/ anything. I'm telling you that you're
wrong. Again. Probably ad infinitum. Certainly ad nauseum.
Next.
> You consider yourself nice but I can give
> evidence of at least two who have found you
> 'inappropriate' within just a few private
> e-mails or face to face meetings.
BZZZT. My biographer whiffs another one. If you read RAB at all, there
are more than two who have criiiied about me. Their panties and however
much they're in a bunch are not my concern.
Yes, however not my concern, ol' what'sherface claims she doesn't have
any of those exchanges saved. I'd love to reread them and have her
e'splain what she found inappropriate. Not out of concern, but rather
for amusement's sake.
> Sweetheart, you don't have to be a snowflake
> to know what it is to be cold.
And what do you have to be to get hit in the nuts with a volleyball?
Lucky, I guess.
Next!
--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/
David Gartner
Curt James wrote:
<snip>
> Speaking of something wrong, had Gartner even been BORN in 1977?
1970, actually.
david
Kavin
"Curt James" <curt...@gmail.com> wrote
> Kavin wrote:
>
KT>> Let's see, you seem to think you can
KT>> give advice to the married -- although
KT>> two women saw the wisdom of running
KT>> from you before the knot could be tied.
>
CJ> BZZZT. And my biographer drops the ball.
CJ> Three women saw that wisdom >
Oh, my bad. Three not two. You're right, that makes you look better.
But that changes my assertion how?
KT>> You've 'retired' almost as many piercings
KT>> as you've kept but you still want to
KT>> discuss healing techniques.
>
CJ> BZZZT. I've retired or removed *MORE* piercings than I've kept.
You are way too easy to play, little puppet. Funny how you used to
have a problem with that statement. What was it, "define more"? And
you didn't even address why I don't think any of this makes you
qualified. Once again, you just want to prove you 'aren't wrong'.
>
KT>> You think being able to pop out a google
KT>> link is the same thing as furthering a
KT>> discussion.
>
CJ> BZZZT. I'm not /discussing/ anything. I'm telling you that you're
CJ> wrong.
See, we can agree on something -- you don't discuss. I bet you're fun
at cocktail parties. CJ-- "Wait, I have to log on and Google that
before I can answer. I don't want to be wrong. And I haven't really
been paying attention to what you said. And even if I had been, I'm
afraid I might get it wrong. Must Google, muuusst Google."
>
KT>> You consider yourself nice but I can give
KT>> evidence of at least two who have found you
KT>> 'inappropriate' within just a few private
KT>> e-mails or face to face meetings.
>
CJ> BZZZT. My biographer whiffs another one. If you read RAB at all,
there
CJ> are more than two who have criiiied about me.
You're right, that furthered your argument. And actually, what does
"at least two" mean to you?
CJ> Yes, however not my concern, ol' what'sherface claims she doesn't
have
CJ> any of those exchanges saved.
Wow, so they didn't exist? Oh wait, you said they did.
>> Sweetheart, you don't have to be a snowflake
>> to know what it is to be cold.
>
> And what do you have to be to get hit in the nuts with a volleyball?
> Lucky, I guess.
Creepy, really that you spend even this much time talking about my
nuts. It's okay Curt, they survived. Let it go.
Kavin
dino
> Actuarially speaking, marriage is for losers.
>
>
So speaks someone who isn't married. Don't comment on something you
know *nothing* about. I've been married for almost 5 years and have
my first child on the way....I've never been happier and certainly
wouldn't class myself a loser. In fact I would say I've won!
d
--
Before you criticise someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes.
That way, when you criticise them, you are a mile away from them, and
you have their shoes.
-- Frieda Norris
drago...@my-deja.com
> dmdc> I got my first tattoo in 1977, and it's been re-inked twice
since
> dmdc> the last time about 1982. It could use some help, but I'm
wonderi
> dmdc> there's some kind of accepted limit to how many times skin can
tak
> dmdc> in the same place. Any thoughts?
>
> here's a thought: find a competent artist & stay out of the sun.
Yup! The first time it was re-inked it was because it faded in the
sun. Haven't been in the sun since, but it is an *old* tat, and the
outlines are getting fuzzy and the color is just drab looking. I've
read that there are different inks in use now than when I last got it
done....another reason to possibly try again.
> whether your skin can take more work is dependent upon the
> condition of your skin. post some sharp macro shots & i MIGHT be able
to
> help, but you should really be assessed by someone in person. someone
> qualified to hold a tattoo machine, not some asshole with a tatgun.
Thanks for your thoughts. I agree. I'll find someone to take a look
at it in person and see what they think about it.
dragon
David Gartner
Kavin wrote:
<snip>
> Creepy, really that you spend even this much time talking about my
> nuts. It's okay Curt, they survived. Let it go.
YM "let THEM go."
you could tell him, "Nimm dein Kinn von mein Eiern weg," which, roughly
translated, means "Get your chin off my nuts." :)
david
Curt James
> Oh, my bad. Three not two.
Get your facts straight next time.
> You're right
Glad you agree.
> , that makes you look better.
Really, it does if you think about it. But, hey, perish that thought,
right, Kav? Like I said, actuarially speaking, marriage is for losers.
You don't need Google to know that most marriages tank and that many
lose big financially, spiritually, physically, and mentally as a
result. But as a romantic, I'm happy to have been in several
relationships which led to a marriage proposal. As a realist, however,
I'm also happy that I didn't lose my shirt over divorce proceedings.
> But that changes my assertion how?
I'm not really interested in your assertion. That shouldn't surprise
you in the least, of course.
> You are way too easy to play, little puppet.
HA! Now that statement does interest me. Way to quote. If not the
originator, I certainly used that word in association with
what'shisname repeatedly in this ng. Because you love the Google:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.arts.bodyart/msg/c92a1e2edf8a094b?hl=en
> Funny how you used to have a problem with
> that statement.
I flipped it to a positive. You should learn to look on the bright
side.
> What was it, "define more"?
You're the biographer. Perhaps you could tell me.
> And you didn't even address why
Why? What? Who? Where? When? How? Huuuuh?
> I don't think
This much is all too obvious of you, Kavin.
> any of this makes you qualified.
> Once again, you just want to prove
I don't have to prove anything. You make my case each time you post.
> you 'aren't wrong'.
AGAIN we agree! :-)
> See, we can agree on something --
Yeah! We're getting along famously.
> you don't discuss.
It's all case-by-case. You get the lecture. Deal.
> I bet you're fun at cocktail parties.
I'm a corner bar guy. What is this thing you call cocktail parties? Oh,
wait, I don't give a flying.
> Must Google, muuusst Google."
I looooooooooooove Google. I want to marry Google. But I'm sworn to
wait until age 50 to go for number four.
> what does "at least two" mean to you?
That you have too much time on your hands? Just a guess.
> Wow, so they didn't exist? Oh wait,
> you said they did.
I've had email exchanges with at least (counts on fingers) twelve
RABbits. I'm sure you'll find that useful for the book you're writing.
> Creepy, really that you spend even this
> much time talking about my nuts.
Not creepy at all. Funny as hell. In fact, I have an IAM forum named
iam.big nuts. (You're not mentioned.)
> It's okay Curt, they survived. Let it go.
Not on your life.
Curt James
Wasn't asking you, David. But, yeah, who'z yer daddy? No more killfile,
eh? HA!
--
David Gartner
i'm posting from google, fucktart.
david
Curt James
re marriage
> I've been married for almost 5
> years and have my first child on
> the way....I've never been happier
> and certainly wouldn't class myself
> a loser. In fact I would say I've won!
Hth!
--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/
Curt James
> i'm posting from google, fucktart.
Review:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.arts.bodyart/msg/1cb2d1cc2d22156e
--
David Gartner
Curt James wrote:
you're simply impossible.
Curt James
swap out those letters for the full name? Funny.
--
dino
> http://www.google.com/......
>
>
> Hth!
No thanks. You still don't know what you are talking about so shut up
about marriage. Stop being a dick and just give up.
d
--
No one is listening until you fart
Curt James
re statistical likelihood of divorce
> You still don't know what you are talking about
> so shut up about marriage.
At a scant number of years into your Forever&Ever, I suspect those
words apply equally to you. Perhaps even more than they apply to me.
But, hey, please report back in ten years on how well your marriage is
doing, 'kay?
> Stop being a dick and just give up.
>
> d
Oh, dino. You don't know me very well.
--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/
i'll teach you to turn away.
dmdc> i'll teach you to turn away. wrote:
>> here's a thought: find a competent artist & stay out of the s
dmdc> sun. Haven't been in the sun since, but it is an *old* tat, and
dmdc> outlines are getting fuzzy and the color is just drab looking.
dmdc> read that there are different inks in use now than when I last g
dmdc> done....another reason to possibly try again.
yes, inks are superior now. that doesn't mean they can take
unprotected hours in the sun without turning into muddy crap.
dmdc> Thanks for your thoughts. I agree. I'll find someone to take a look
dmdc> at it in person and see what they think about it.
for examples of what is possible these days, see:
http://compunction.dyndns.org/tattoos.html
& visit your dermatologist at least yearly for a cancer check.
lish "i have holes poked in me
cr...@got.net rendering me useless to collectors." -jerkcity
i'll teach you to turn away.
DG> i'll teach you to turn away. wrote:
>> here's a thought: find a competent artist & stay out of the sun.
DG> some people who don't know you (and maybe some who do), might think
DG> you're a real bitch for that type of response. like you care what
DG> people think. but i really believe that that's what the OP needed
i'm all about the tough love. it works better than the other
kind.
lish "well, i may be a lot of things
cr...@got.net but i won't be ignored." -mm
dino
> dino wrote:
>
> re statistical likelihood of divorce
>
> > You still don't know what you are talking about
> > so shut up about marriage.
>
> At a scant number of years into your Forever&Ever, I suspect those
> words apply equally to you.
I didn't say I knew it all. I said you don't know what you are
talking about!
This kind of attitude really fucks me off. People that complain about
marriage and how likely it is to fail are IME usually single people
who have never been married. I have been single (obviously) and now I
am married after almost 4 years with my wife pre-marriage. You have
*never* been married so you are not qualified to judge/comment so
once again shut up about marriage!
>Perhaps even more than they apply to me.
Kindly explain how that makes sense.
> But, hey, please report back in ten years on how well your marriage is
> doing, 'kay?
No problem for me. I think I stand a damn good chance of still being
happy and with the same woman. Marriage is all about the people
involved after all.
> > Stop being a dick and just give up.
>
> Oh, dino. You don't know me very well.
As well as I want to
d.
--
Relationships are hard. It's like a full-time job, and we should
treat it like one. If your boyfriend or girlfriend
wants to leave you, they should give you two weeks' notice. There
should be severance pay, and before they leave you, they should have
to find you a temp.
-- Bob Ettinger
Kavin
"dino" <di-noRE...@utvinternet.ie> wrote
>
> No thanks. You still don't know what you are talking about so shut
> up
> about marriage. Stop being a dick and just give up.
He's basing it all on his parents' loving marriage. You know the
type -- the child is raised by a 'loving' grandmother and uncle.
And notice he got jilted in his 20s, 30s and 40s. The last one is
still fresh. I'll bet it stings.
Maybe Mr. Alexander is correct about CJ.
Kavin
Kavin
"Curt James" <curt...@gmail.com> wrote
> But as a romantic, I'm happy to have been in several
> relationships which led to a marriage proposal. As a realist,
> however,
> I'm also happy that I didn't lose my shirt over divorce proceedings.
So divorce is a foregone conclusion for you? Yeah, that's textbook
romantic.
Kavin
Ray Pearson
"i'll teach you to turn away." <cr...@got.net> wrote in message
news:3e3sgbF...@individual.net...
> drago...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> & visit your dermatologist at least yearly for a cancer check.
>
Liquid nitrogen is your friend
R
Curt James
> So divorce is a foregone conclusion for you?
> Yeah, that's textbook romantic.
Thus spake Kavin Eyes-Wide-Shut Taylor. (Probably a good reason you
took that shot to the crotch.) Although conflicting philosophies,
realism and romanticism can exist together.
--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/
Curt James
> I didn't say I knew it all.
That goes without saying.
> This kind of attitude really fucks me off.
Agitated easily? Does not bode well for you.
> I am married after almost 4 years with my
> wife pre-marriage.
Which means absolutely squat.
> You have *never* been married so you are
> not qualified to judge/comment
I'll judge and comment all I like. Best of luck with your marriage.
You, like anyone else, will need it.
> so once again shut up about marriage!
You're a little brittle about this whole marriage thing, aren't you?
I'd go so far as to call it... overwrought.
SHUT UP ABOUT MARRIAGE! SHUT UP ABOUT MARRIAGE! Relax, d.
re "You still don't know what you are talking about so shut up about
marriage." possibly applying more to dino than it does to yours truly
> Kindly explain how that makes sense.
With pleasure: You are married. You're in the thick of a relationship.
Your wife is pregnant. You think your relationship with your wife will
last Until Death Do You Part™.
None of those factors currently apply to me.
*You* are blinded by merit of your situation. And that whole IME stuff
is not a necessity. I'm sure many could comment on what would happen to
someone who would jump off a cliff without having had experienced
actually falling off a mountainside.
Or would you like to argue that as well? Rhetorical.
> I think I stand a damn good chance of still
> being happy and with the same woman.
Only a damn good CHANCE? Sounds like somewhere between doubt and wiggle
room to me. You're toast.
--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/
Curt James
re marriage and me
> He's basing it all on his parents' loving marriage. You know the
> type -- the child is raised by a 'loving' grandmother and uncle.
You loooove talking about me. I'm moving my PR work from what'shisname
to you. Go!
> And notice he got jilted in his 20s, 30s and 40s.
And since you apparently do love all things CJ as a topic:
I was just about exactly 20. She started dating someone while I was in
the military. But she wanted to give it another go. I said yes, got my
$1500 ring back and then dropped her. So, yes, I was jilted but not
without some satisfaction. She's divorced, btw. (Take note, d.)
I was 29 when the next one called me at work to say she had moved out.
The neighbors told me that it looked like a SWAT team surrounded our
place and moved everything out in short order. (Most if not all of the
contents was hers, so good.) Our relationship was mutually fracturing
and she made the right decision. You call it jilted. I call it a sigh
of relief for both of us.
She emailed me within the last few years inviting me to dinner with her
one daughter while her husband was out of the country. (Again, take
note, d. Travel may not be advised.) She's still married, hopefully
happily.
> The last one is still fresh. I'll bet it stings.
AHAHAHAH! The so-called last one is more correctly defined as the most
recent one. I've said I'll give it another go nearing age 50. I'm 43 in
August, so I've got a wait. Of course, these things come when they do
and there's not much a person can do about it. Love and lust are like
that. (Yeah, d. Pay attention.)
The break is not what I'd call fresh as it happened three years ago.
She is 12 years younger than me and had a habit of breaking up with me
each month and then leaving multiple messages on my answering machine
asking me to come over sometimes immediately following the dumping
process. Our relationship was a train wreck or at least a roller
coaster. I'd say it was equal parts hella fun and hell. I will also say
that I was pathetic in my seeming need to be with her. Things were a
disaster for both of us. She was the one to leave, so, yeah, there's
jilt number three.
But, sharpen your pencil, Biographer Mine, we haven't discussed the
ones who initiated talk of weddings to me. Jilted, yes, but also the
jilter. Is that a word? Maybe I should Google.
And have I mentioned my first grade proposal? I asked a classmate to
marry me. She said yes. Sadly, we mutually broke it off as we couldn't
decide whose grandmother we'd live with. Not sure about her uncle
status, but you're the biographer, newly-appointed PR man, and poor
excuse for a terrier, Kavin. I'm sure you'll dig something up. More
than likely it'll be incorrect.
> [snip] CJ.
heh
You like the CJ? Or is that another failed attempt at getting my goat.
Baaaaaad try. 8^) See:
http://groups.msn.com/CJsHarleyDavidsonTributeV2/
It's been around for several years.
--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/
dino
...nothing useful as usual
I don't even know why I bothered arguing with you in the first place.
Not gonna waste anymore time as I have better things to do with my
life than argue over small easily mis-construed phrases the way you
do and seem to derive so much enjoyment out of. Makes me wonder
what's missing in your life?
d.
--
Here lies an Atheist
All dressed up
And no place to go.
-- Tombstone Epitaph
David Gartner
Curt James wrote:
> Pssst, hey, Davey, you got something against the nick DRLG that you'd
> swap out those letters for the full name? Funny.
what's funny is you changing "David Gartner" to "DRLG." that's fucking
hilarious.
david
David Gartner
Curt James wrote:
> dino wrote:
>
> re statistical likelihood of divorce
>
> > You still don't know what you are talking about
> > so shut up about marriage.
>
> At a scant number of years into your Forever&Ever, I suspect those
> words apply equally to you. Perhaps even more than they apply to me.
> But, hey, please report back in ten years on how well your marriage
is
> doing, 'kay?
i'm still astounded by the depths to which you'll sink.
you are a horrible person with an ugly, black heart.
*LISH* has more warmth than you.
david
Curt James
> Curt James came up with the following:
>
> ...nothing useful as usual
Nothing useful, eh? I assume, therefore, that you spend your time on
useless pursuits as the norm. Cool. Whatever works, I say.
> I don't even know why I bothered arguing
Was all THAT an argument? I don't think so, d.
> with you in the first place.
But if it *was* an argument, you probably bothered because your
marriage is failing. HAR! Oh, get a grip.
> Not gonna waste anymore time
So I'm to assume that dino left the keyboard and someone else composed
this wonderful post? If that's not the case then... CLUE ALERT: YOU
WASTED MORE TIME, PAL!
> as I have better things to do with my
> life than
Oh, I'll just bet.
> argue over small easily mis-construed
> phrases the way you do and seem to
> derive so much enjoyment out of.
You get me! This absolutely is fun for me. But, hey, you go right ahead
being so veddy, veddy serious.
> Makes me wonder what's missing in your
> life?
Missing, missing. Hmmm. Perhaps a normal (and boring) sense of humor?
--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/
Curt James
> i'm still astounded by the depths to wh
(yawn)
> you are a horrible person with an ugly,
> black heart.
You're hilarious.
Who did I just call overwrought? I take it back. YOU are overwrought.
> *LISH* has more warmth than you.
That should leave a mark.
--
Curt James
> what's funny is you changing [snip]
Who cares what you call yourself?
> to "DRLG." that's fucking hilarious.
Cool. Laughter's the best medicine.
--
i'll teach you to turn away.
RP> "i'll teach you to turn away." <cr...@got.net> wrote in message
>> & visit your dermatologist at least yearly for a cancer check.
i miss don herbert.
lish "& help's not short when you're digging
cr...@got.net your grave. i'll help you dig it." -mm
Ray Pearson
> Ray Pearson <tat...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> RP> "i'll teach you to turn away." <cr...@got.net> wrote in message
> >> & visit your dermatologist at least yearly for a cancer check.
> RP> Liquid nitrogen is your friend
>
> i miss don herbert.
>
i'll teach you to turn away.
RP> "i'll teach you to turn away." <cr...@got.net> wrote in message
>> i miss don herbert.
not quite - i learned something from him BECAUSE OF myself.
lish "when she speaks,
cr...@got.net i'm reminded i am nothing." -jc
Kavin
"Curt James" <curt...@gmail.com> wrote
> Kavin wrote:
>
> re marriage and me
>
>> He's basing it all on his parents' loving marriage. You know the
>> type -- the child is raised by a 'loving' grandmother and uncle.
>
> You loooove talking about me.
> marry me. She said yes. Sadly, we mutually broke it off as we
> couldn't
> decide whose grandmother we'd live with. Not sure about her uncle
> status,
Or is that another failed attempt at getting my goat.
> Baaaaaad try. 8^)
My attempt did not fail.
Isn't deflection a neat thing? It says so much.
Kavin
Curt James
> "Curt James" <curt...@gmail.com> wrote
[snip]
> >> He's basing it all on his parents'
> >> loving marriage. You know the
> >> type -- the child is raised by a
> >> 'loving' grandmother and uncle.
And what of children raised by their grandmother and uncle? Choose your
words carefully and beware of those pesky blanket statements.
re Kavin's use of CJ (which I like, actually)
[snip]
> > Or is that another failed attempt at
> > getting my goat. Baaaaaad try. 8^)
>
> My attempt did not fail.
What'd I say, Kavin? Something like:
"You're my biographer, PR man, and poor excuse for a terrier. I'm sure
you'll dig something up. More than likely it'll be incorrect."
And incorrect you were, are, and ever shall be. Oops, there's one of
those blanket statements I warned you about. Meh.
> Isn't deflection a neat thing?
So far as a noun goes, it doesn't suck.
> It says so much.
That's nice.
--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/
Kavin
"Curt James" <curt...@gmail.com> wrote
> Kavin wrote:
KT>> >> He's basing it all on his parents'
KT>> >> loving marriage. You know the
KT>> >> type -- the child is raised by a
KT>> >> 'loving' grandmother and uncle.
>
> And what of children raised by their grandmother and uncle? Choose
> your
> words carefully and beware of those pesky blanket statements.
It wasn't a blanket statement, and you know it.
I did choose my words carefully the first time, and you know it.
Hurtful? Probably. Especially on Mother's Day.
Kavin
Curt James
[snip]
> KT>> >> type -- the child is raised by a
> KT>> >> 'loving' grandmother and uncle.
> It wasn't a blanket statement, and you
> know it.
The word type speaks to individuals and not just me.
> I did choose my words carefully the first
> time, and you know it.
Uh uh. I *don't* know it. I suspect you're not hitting keys randomly,
but you're also not being what I would describe as clear or direct.
> Hurtful? Probably. Especially on Mother's Day.
What was supposed to be hurtful? You got nuthin'.
Perhaps you should stick with name-calling because the whole
psychological delving thing is obviously not your strong suit.
--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/
Kavin
"Curt James" <curt...@gmail.com> wrote
> Kavin wrote:
> [snip]
>> KT>> >> type -- the child is raised by a
>> KT>> >> 'loving' grandmother and uncle.
cj> The word type speaks to individuals and not just me.
No, you would have done better to key " . . . speaks 'of' individuals
and not just me."
>
KT>> I did choose my words carefully the first
KT>> time, and you know it.
>
CJ> Uh uh. I *don't* know it.
Yes, you do or else you would not have typed ' . . . and not just me.'
CJ>. I suspect you're not hitting keys randomly,
CJ> but you're also not being what I would describe as clear or
direct.
Clear enough for you to understand it and be upset.
KT>> Hurtful? Probably. Especially on Mother's Day.
CJ> What was supposed to be hurtful? You got nuthin'.
I got a momma that loves me. What you got?
CJ> the whole
CJ> psychological delving thing is obviously not your strong suit.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Ha.
That's a mighty big elephant you've got in your living room.
Kavin
Curt James
> cj> The word type speaks to individuals
>
> No, you would have done better to key
> " . . . speaks 'of' individuals and not
> just me."
BZZZT.
So you can scratch psychological delving off your list and now writing,
too. Speaks to, Kavin, may be used for more than Dick speaks to Jane.
See:
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20011006/fob4.asp
http://www.worldpress.org/Europe/1751.cfm
http://www.globalnonviolence.org/nv_speaks_to_power.htm
http://www.detnews.com/specialreports/2001/hoffa/index.htm
http://www.straight.com/content.cfm?id=7185
It seems that you have nothing to say about children raised by their
grandparents, but were simply taking an ineffective jab at me.
My grandmother raised me. I received all the protection, guidance and
unconditional love from a person who was able and willing to offer
those things.
So make all the mama jokes you'd like, Kavin. Water off a duck's back.
Substitute "big elephant" (I did tell you to scratch writing off your
list, right?) or 800-pound gorilla as necessary. Regardless of your
choice of wildlife, again, you're wrong.
> I got a momma that loves me.
Sweet.
> What you got?
You by the nose. ;-)
--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/
Kavin
"Curt James" <curt...@gmail.com> wrote
> So make all the mama jokes you'd like, Kavin. Water off a duck's
> back.
Interesting choice, Curt.
Please see: http://english1010.com/water_off_a_ducks_back.htm
Would the duck have written another word?
Kavin
Curt James
> Please see: http://english1010.com/water_off_a_ducks_back.htm
Someone perhaps even uglier than you once said, "I don't click your
links."
And I didn't.
I mean, come on, must I really say *I'll do the Googlin' 'round here,
Baba Looey!*?
http://www.theimaginaryworld.com/pre637.jpg
> Would the duck have written another word?
Um, in /your/ imaginary world, Kavin, do ducks type much?
But, hey, since we're spending so much quality time together, and
without benefit of reading about your duck, I'll say, yeah, my duck
would say, "You're quacked!"
--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/