Inkless

It is nice to see you respect another human being, your reasoning is irrelevant..

 

You are very judgmental and into yourself.

 

I think stating if one agrees or not is at least as interesting as stating how refreshing someone finds another person or how much you respect a newbie, even if it's all utterly irrelevant

 

i like you, Asmo.

 

You could leave me out of it, thanks

 

Likewise, but you're not going to say if you agree with what deanstar said are you?

 

I didn't include you in here (although you are welcome!)

 

Respect is not nice to see?

 

I think the most relevant thing to come out of the thread for me, is how refreshing you found some sort of manners. I apreciate you saying that, it's a compliment that I take to heart! Far from irrelevant to me.

 

You know me so well.

 

I would posit it a temporary reconfiguration

 

I would just say it is a tattoo.

To be clear: cutting in someone else counts as mutilation as well

 

Great, now it's established we're all friends, let's grab each other's crotches and circle-jerk!

 

Where is my accuser? Forgotten the question? How about you deanstar, did you forget what I asked you? Listen you quacks!
John comes eating locusts and wearing skins and you say he has a demon, I come drinking and eating and you call me a glutton and a drunkard. Only god is good.

 

Doesn't address the question of whether a tattoo represents a permanent disfigurement. Point of fact none of our figures are permanent. I used to look younger.

 

For some it could be considered a temporary augmentation. Until the ink migrates beyond the boundarys of the outline and the image starts to get blurry, resembling a jaundiced sarcoma of some kind.

 

I have plenty of dermal disfigurements, none by choice though.

 

You found it necessary to quote me to make your point?

 

Me too, scars of living contemporary with massive amounts of energy. On most accounts my own squirrelly get up and go. Augmentation is a good description.

 

Then it is a matter of bad taste.