Can anyone find this tattoo pic?

On Feb 8, 6:04 pm, "Curt" <curtja...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Comparing classroom instruction to a Usenet discussion doesn't work
> very well, imo.

And we know your opinion doesn't count for anything.

Are you really saying what you do in real life counts, but what you
say on Usenet doesn't?

Please, make my year!

Kavin

Kavin Taylor wrote:
[...]

> And we know your opinion doesn't count for
> anything.

Opinion! :oD

> Are you really saying what you do in real life
> counts, but what you say on Usenet doesn't?

I believe you have a certain amount of difficulty with context,
comprehension, and more.

> Please, make my year!

Happy New Year!

> Kavin

--
Curt

On Feb 9, 6:07 am, "Curt" <curtja...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I believe you have a certain amount of difficulty with context,
> comprehension, and more.

I know you are still dancing around the fact that "let's talk tattoos"
does not mean a discussion of dermal punches.

Well, except in the inexact world of Curt James.

And you left out your usual 'imo'

And you should still be dead.

Kavin

Kavin Taylor wrote:
> "Curt" wrote:
>
> > I believe
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

See below, Kav.

> > you have a certain amount of difficulty
> > with context, comprehension, and more.
>
> I know you are still dancing

Dancing can indeed be a lot of fun, however, that activity is not
applicable here, imo. In fact, things have been explained to you
despite your apparent discontent.

I believe the phrase I'm searching for is something like "Too bad, so
sad!"

> around the fact that "let's talk tattoos" does
> not mean a discussion of dermal punches.
>
> Well, except in the inexact

Hmm. Inexact, you say? Like when you said my ears were pierced? Or
when you said that I said let's talk ABOUT tattoos? Because, yes, both
were what I'd call inexact. Pot, kettle, what? ;o)

> world of Curt James.

A wonderful place, I'm telling you!

> And you left out your usual 'imo'

Were you looking forward to those three letters specifically or do you
simply not recognize "I believe" as an imo equivalent?

Is a preemptive "D'OH!" in order?

> And you should still be dead.

Tut tut, Kavvy.

> Kavin

--
Curt

On Feb 9, 10:29 pm, "Curt" <curtja...@gmail.com> wrote:


> Hmm. Inexact, you say? Like when you said my ears were pierced?

Funny, would the average (yes, average) person even know about dermal
punching? No. So the nice girl who engaged you in conversation (who
then told her co-workers how creepy you were) would have just assumed
your ear-lobes (if we are being specific) had been pierced and then
stretched. And when you said "No, I had them punched after I had
fucked up the healing at a smaller gauge" she did not assume you meant
anything about a tattoo.

But again, in your world it might be the same thing. I'm sure when
someone says, "I like your tattoo," your response is "I got them
punched at 0 gauge."

Same thing, isn't it. It's all body art.

When the principal calls for the music teacher, do you show up.
You're both part of the Arts Department, aren't you? (Then again,
with your ego, you probably would)

Teacher of the year.

Kavin

Kavin Taylor wrote:
> "Curt" wrote:
>
> > Hmm. Inexact, you say? Like when you said my ears were pierced?
>
> Funny, would the average (yes, average) person even know about dermal
> punching?

Are you average? Because my comment was re *you*r inexactitude wrt my
ears. You seem to have some complaint re my using "talk tattoos" as an
entry to speaking of bodyart in general by way of mentioning the Taco
Bell exchange. With that in mind, "the average (yes, average) person"
and their knowledge of "dermal punching" really in inapplicable.

Imo. ;o)

Again, you begin the discussion or complaint by barking about my
mention of tattoo and then speaking of an ear compliment I received.
Something like, "Wahh, Curtie, you said tattoo and that has NOTHING to
do with your earlobes!" Then in the seeming next breath, why you
decide that you can be broad yourself by referring to my lobes being
pierced while the were instead dermal punched.

Hey, have it both ways. I don't mind.

Still, I'll feel free to point out your contradiction all the same,
thanks.

> No. So the nice girl who engaged you in conversation (who
> then told her co-workers how creepy you were)

Have you ever had an original thought, Kavin? :o) Doubtful.

> would have just assumed your ear-lobes (if we are being specific) had been pierced and then
> stretched.

She's a teenager at a Taco Bell. More likely she'd think "pierced and
then *gauged*." HAW!

> And when you said "No, I had them punched after I had
> fucked up the healing at a smaller gauge" she did not assume you meant
> anything about a tattoo.

It was a brief exchange initiated by the clerk. Basically, a
compliment followed by a thank you. Done.

But, hey, as always, you go ahead and entertain your little
fantasies.

> But again, in your world it might be the same thing. I'm sure when
> someone says, "I like your tattoo," your response is "I got them
> punched at 0 gauge."

I had them punched at 2 gauge, actually.

> Same thing, isn't it. It's all body art.

Cool.

> When the principal calls for the music teacher, do you show up.
> You're both part of the Arts Department, aren't you? (Then again,
> with your ego, you probably would)

Cooler.

> Teacher of the year.

Coolest.

> Kavin

Keep up the good work, Kavvy!

--
Curt

On Feb 12, 8:26 pm, "Curt" <curtja...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Kavin Taylor wrote:
> > "Curt" wrote:
> <snip> my comment was re *you*r inexactitude wrt my
> ears.

First, what does "you*r" mean? I don't recall a misspelling.


>You seem to have some complaint re my using "talk tattoos" as an
> entry to speaking of body art in general

Because most people would say "let's talk about body art" if they
wanted to talk about tattoos, piercings, scarification, branding,
binding, etc.? Do you really want people to believe it is reasonable
to say "Let's talk of tattoos" and then launch into a diatribe about
foot binding?

C> you
C> decide that you can be broad yourself by referring to my lobes
being
C> pierced while the were instead dermal punched.

Angry, huh? "They" has a y at the end.

And no, piercing and dermal punch is not being broad. Again, a hole
in your ear is "pierced" to most people. You can tell them you had it
punched. But no, tattoo is not pierced.

But it is the way Curt argues, isn't it?

KT> > No. So the nice girl who engaged you in conversation (who
KT> > then told her co-workers how creepy you were)
>
C> Have you ever had an original thought, Kavin? :o) Doubtful.

Non-original doesn't mean it isn't true. Thanks for the hint. So
people calling you creepy affects you? Hits too close to home?


KT> > would have just assumed your ear-lobes (if we are being
specific) had been pierced and then
KT> > stretched.
>
C> She's a teenager at a Taco Bell. More likely she'd think "pierced
and
C> then *gauged*." HAW!

Oh, but in your world those are the same aren't they? So you have no
argument. I am right.

> > And when you said "No, I had them punched after I had
> > fucked up the healing at a smaller gauge" she did not assume you meant
> > anything about a tattoo.
>
> It was a brief exchange initiated by the clerk. Basically, a
> compliment followed by a thank you. Done.

So why bring it up at all?

You just keep proving why you should not be teaching. And dead.

Kavin

On Feb 12, 8:26 pm, "Curt" <curtja...@gmail.com> wrote:

> why you
> decide that you can be broad yourself by referring to my lobes being
> pierced while the were instead dermal punched.


Why? WHY?

>From Curt James.com:

Lobes: These are my favorite piercings.

(editor: please notice the word "piercing")


They were originally 2 gauge bullets with O-rings. They were dermal
punched to get rid of some scar tissue from three previous cbrs that
didn't heal properly. I bled like a stuck pig!


And now, your point is what?

Fall on your sword.


Kavin

Kavin Taylor wrote:
[...]

> >From Curt James.com:

www.curtjames.com

I mean, hey, as long as you're mentioning the Web page thingy.

> Lobes: These are my favorite piercings.
>
> (editor:

Editor? Who, me? Or are you talking to your imaginary friend?

> please notice the word "piercing")
>
> They were originally 2 gauge bullets with
> O-rings. They were dermal punched to get
> rid of some scar tissue from three previous
> cbrs that didn't heal properly. I bled like a
> stuck pig!

Thanks for reading, Kavin! :o)

But, you might mention to that aforementioned editor that you don't
seem to be able to note when you've deleted text. Meh. It's cool. As
long as you're picking nits recently, how about an [...] next
time? ;o)

Regardless, I did bleed like that stuck pig. (Actually, although I
grew up on a farm, I've never seen a pig bleed. Otoh, the saying has
to come from somewhere.)

> And now, your point is what?

That we're *finally* having a discussion re bodyart? Welcome aboard.

> Fall on your sword.

Hardly.

> Kavin

--
Curt

On Feb 13, 6:08 pm, "Curt" <curtja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Kavin Taylor wrote:
>>
> But, you might mention to that aforementioned editor that you don't
> seem to be able to note when you've deleted text.

Excuse me? No, that was a strict copy and past from your site. And
the editorial note is mine. You really are desperate, aren't you.




>Meh. It's cool. As
> long as you're picking nits recently, how about an [...] next
> time?

Because that is incorrect! It would be [. . . ] -- notice the
spacing. And the ellipsis is used to show there is something missing
between the texts. The is NOTHING missing. What followed was not
pertinent to the point being made.

You slept through that journalism course, didn't you?


Keep trying.


Kavin

Kavin Taylor wrote:
> "Curt" wrote:
[...]

> > But, you might mention to that aforementioned
> > editor that you don't seem to be able to note
> > when you've deleted text.
>
> Excuse me?

It's almost too easy.

There's just no excuse for you, Kavvy. ;o)

(ba dump bump)

Well, other than a target for a volleyball, perhaps.

> "No, that was a strict copy and past

Copy and past? Hey, I thought things were leaning to the specific and
exact. What is copy and pAst, Kavin? Your pAst fantasies?

> from your site. And the editorial note is mine.

HA! An editorial note from Kavin Taylor. It just means so much.

> You really are desperate, aren't you.

Hey, maybe desperate for you to put a smile on your face. Otoh, the
universe should be in balance, right? So, you be grumpy and I'll be
happy. You enjoy your typos and, uh, wait, I'll enjoy your typos?
Damn. That's not balanced, is it?

> > Meh. It's cool.

I guess I'll just agree with myself. Meh. It's cool. :oD

> > As long as you're picking nits recently, how
> > about an [...] next time?
>
> Because that is incorrect!

Just as you are incorrect.

> It would be [. . . ]

I love Netmeister.

http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html

Specifically, http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote2.html#ss2.7

"[...]"

Gee.

> <snip> notice

Notice? That?

> the spacing.

And the missing question mark, of course. Or was that a directive? If
so, then the question mark that you left out earlier in your response.
Who's desperate? I mean, hey, as long as picking nits is the subject.

> And the ellipsis is used to show there is
> something missing between the texts. The
> is NOTHING missing. What followed was not
> pertinent to the point being made.

You don't have a point. Except, what, that I should be dead? Ha! Yeah,
there's an intelligent argument. Gooooooo Kavin!

> You slept through that journalism course,
> didn't you?

You clicked on the first available link. That's why your research
always falls short.

> Keep trying.

Like, I said, it's almost too easy.

> Kavin

And, so, what have you learned, Kavin?

I've learned that this is going to be a fun snow day. :o)

--
Curt