Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;AussieCollector, post: 3236074, member: 81093&quot;]Thanks for the discussion thread [USER=112]@GDJMSP[/USER] </p><p><br /></p><p>My unscientific view would be that the definition of Artificial Toning is defined by the intent, much like crime.</p><p><br /></p><p>Apologies for the extreme analogy, but if I were to intentionally ram my car into another car and kill the other occupant, that would be murder. If I lose control of my car, and accidentally kill the occupant, I will not face charges. Even if the accident occurs because I&#039;m reckless, it&#039;s still not murder. It then becomes a question of whether it&#039;s manslaughter. </p><p><br /></p><p>But... regardless of the definition, the result is the same. Much like coins. </p><p><br /></p><p>Therefore, given the above, is there any point differentiating between AT and NT? If the only difference is intent, and the affect is the same, what does it matter?</p><p><br /></p><p>And for this reason I&#039;d also go as far to say that paying a premium for toning is a bad idea, as:</p><p>1. You have no idea as to whether it&#039;s AT or NT, and</p><p>2. It&#039;s in fashion, and the fashion will fade.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in