I just wanted to be the first person to say "But what will they look like when they're 80???" Because someone is required to say that for any posting that has anything to do with tattoos.
I can think of two more. First, is Social Distortion. Mike Ness is the only original member. Wikipedia lists 21 current and past members. And the other is Christian Death. There have been two different bands at the same time using the name, at least one of which contained no origial members. The original singer, recruited all new members after their first album, then later left the group himself, and they carried on without him. Then he reformed a new version that competed with the one he left. You really have to read the Wikipedia article to grasp it all, but it's equally as complicated as Asia.
What I love about your comment is that you've managed to ascribe the same rationalization to everyone that has tattoos. I have a lot of tattoos and if one were to ask me why I have them I would not say "to be unique". Nor would any of my tattooed friends. In fact the only people I've ever heard say that a desire to be unique is a reason to get tattooed are non-tattooed people who don't like tattoos. You then go continue on with what has got to be the dumbest and most-repeated type of comment by a non-tattooed person in the history of the internet. The old "What'll it look like when they're 80?" chestnut which has been posted in every single tattoo-related internet posting since the internet was developed. But people still like repeating it. "That means in 30 years 1 in 2.5 adults will have a tattoo of either a blurry tribal line or of Ernest Borgnine floating around on their flabby body". I already have 30-year-old tattoos and none of them are of Ernest Borgnine or anything tribal. Where does this nonsense come from?
I only stopped in here to see how many posts it took before some trotted out that old "Yeah, looks nice now, but just you wait 50 years!" chestnut. It took 3. Is there a reason that someone has to say that in e-v-e-r-y tattoo-related post on e-v-e-r-y website? At what point do you figure that everyone knows that tattoos fade with time? When do you figure that the knowledge has been disseminated and you can stop saying it? Are you trying to give us new information? What exactly is the reson for posting that? I'm genuinely asking. What is the reason? What is it?
R Clark - I was intrigued by your question. Who exactly is pulling the strings there and why don't they want us to know? It took me a while, but I'm persistent.
Here's what I found out:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=peta+president
And good treatment or not. This is possibly the dumbest friggin' "tradition" in history.
Wow, you were really chomping at the bit to use your super clever "globull warming" line in any way weren't you? Who cares if it makes sense, right? Take that LIEberals and DUMMYcrats!1
And the other is Christian Death. There have been two different bands at the same time using the name, at least one of which contained no origial members. The original singer, recruited all new members after their first album, then later left the group himself, and they carried on without him. Then he reformed a new version that competed with the one he left. You really have to read the Wikipedia article to grasp it all, but it's equally as complicated as Asia.
What I love about your comment is that you've managed to ascribe the same rationalization to everyone that has tattoos. I have a lot of tattoos and if one were to ask me why I have them I would not say "to be unique". Nor would any of my tattooed friends. In fact the only people I've ever heard say that a desire to be unique is a reason to get tattooed are non-tattooed people who don't like tattoos.
You then go continue on with what has got to be the dumbest and most-repeated type of comment by a non-tattooed person in the history of the internet. The old "What'll it look like when they're 80?" chestnut which has been posted in every single tattoo-related internet posting since the internet was developed. But people still like repeating it.
"That means in 30 years 1 in 2.5 adults will have a tattoo of either a blurry tribal line or of Ernest Borgnine floating around on their flabby body". I already have 30-year-old tattoos and none of them are of Ernest Borgnine or anything tribal. Where does this nonsense come from?
It took 3.
Is there a reason that someone has to say that in e-v-e-r-y tattoo-related post on e-v-e-r-y website? At what point do you figure that everyone knows that tattoos fade with time? When do you figure that the knowledge has been disseminated and you can stop saying it? Are you trying to give us new information? What exactly is the reson for posting that? I'm genuinely asking. What is the reason? What is it?
I was intrigued by your question. Who exactly is pulling the strings there and why don't they want us to know? It took me a while, but I'm persistent.
Here's what I found out:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=peta+president
And good treatment or not. This is possibly the dumbest friggin' "tradition" in history.
Wow, you were really chomping at the bit to use your super clever "globull warming" line in any way weren't you? Who cares if it makes sense, right? Take that LIEberals and DUMMYcrats!1