Anonymous ID: eaf113 Dec. 20, 2025, 12:12 a.m. No.24005471   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>5474 >>5477

>be me

>birthday coming

>wifeanon wants to know "my plans"

>IDK, maybe casino?

>plans change, do something productive

>"maybe tomorrow"

>next day decide bonfire moar fun

>wake up to wifeanon being cranky

>"When are we ACTUALLY going to the casino?"

>MFW hypothetical birthday plans turn into chore

Anonymous ID: eaf113 Dec. 20, 2025, 12:27 a.m. No.24005507   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>5518

>>24005469

>only yourself. only your view

That's my view.

People with tats are NPC until proven otherwise.

I'm sure there's some fine ones out there, but simply non complying with the mind virus to get one is enough to prove existence of a brian.

Anonymous ID: eaf113 Dec. 20, 2025, 12:34 a.m. No.24005519   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>5526 >>5596 >>5644

>>24005501

>Styles change, you're getting old and crotchety.

You're being defensive.

Just anon's opinion.

Not saying anon wouldn't hire someone with a tat, but would probably give preference to someone without one, especially for a job requiring brians or public exposure.

Tards got tats. The principle of FAFO doesn't sleep.

Anonymous ID: eaf113 Dec. 20, 2025, 1:22 a.m. No.24005644   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>5682

>>24005596

>>24005519 (You)

>KEK. Your opinion is that I'm being defensive because I said you're getting old and crotchety?

No sauce to what you said.

Anon's opinion is as good as yours.

Opinion still stands that tat tards deserve to be judged as NPCs.