Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
This determination is consistent with cases from other courts that have emphasized the distinction between the product and the process of tattooing and have held that the physical process of tattooing is conduct subject to Spence’s “sufficiently imbued” test. See, e.g., Hold Fast Tattoo, 580 F.Supp.2d at 660 (analyzing tattooing under Spence’s framework based on the premise that “[t]he act of tattooing is one step removed from the actual expressive conduct”); Yurkew, 495 F.Supp. at 1253-54 (regardless of “whether ... the image conveyed by the tattoo[ ] is an art form or amounts to art,” “the process of tattooing is undeniably conduct” that is subject to the Spence test). These courts then held that tattooing fails the Spence test. See, e.g., Hold Fast Tattoo, 580 F.Supp.2d at 660 ; Yurkew, 495 F.Supp. at 1253-54 (holding that
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that statements that merely convey an impression or understanding of a fact do not constitute a promise
B. holding that the failure to carry out an oral promise to convey land standing by itself is not fraud
C. holding that possession of a weapon is not in an of itself a crime
D. holding that the act of tattooing  itself is not intended to convey a particularized message
E. holding that the act is not retroactive
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.