3 ms·
> In return, I'd like you to consider the limits of your knowledge on the topic as well. I don't think I understand much about tattooing at all. > I'd say he'
by lolc 7y ago
> In return, I'd like you to consider the limits of your knowledge on the topic as well.
I don't think I understand much about tattooing at all.
> I'd say he's more than qualified to write an op-ed on this topic.
Why are we dwelling on that? I assumed we are in agreement about it.
> This is also not a scientific topic, so if you're looking for facts, then yes it's not the right article.
It could have been. It started out interesting enough. I'm deploring the wasted opportunity.
> On the other hand, I think you've pointed out your chief objection clearly: People should not write about topics they don't have nice things to say about. I think this is the implicit position people take, and I appreciate you being explicit about it.
Wait. Please rein in your presumptions. I asked why and nothing more. Had the author argued their position then that could have been interesting. Sadly the article was just a collection of general observations mixed with the distaste of the author. There wasn't much to object to except for the unsubstantiated opinions sprinkled about.
I don't even disagree much with the author!
> I don't think it's obvious to a lot of them how it's going to look later, even really nice, expensive pieces. And that's what he's noting there.
In a useless way: "for there is only one thing more pitiful than a tattoo on young skin, and that is a tattoo on old skin."
Such was the depth of the article!
- ciphershot 7y ago>> So the author doesn't like tattoos but decided to write an article anyway? Why? >> Wait. Please rein in your presumptions. I asked why and nothing more. Unless your writing tends to be very tangential, or you are only using conjunctions for stylistic purposes, it's hard for me to read this and not take the position that you are asking for some kind of justification. Specifically: "You do Z, but you do X, why?" In my very limited world, this construct implies there is a disconnect (or more rather, some connection that needs clarification) between the two. The implication is that Z and X held together create a tension in your world that needs resolution. Perhaps that can be considered presumptuous, but if that is considered presumption then I don't think I'll be able to correctly interpret your position without a lot more syntactic clarification. No harm done, and I'm sure we find much more agreement elsewhere. Besides, this is hardly the best thing I've read all year; I just found it funny and somewhat interesting, and I thought I found some negative pattern in the comments that would stifle otherwise interesting conversation. But perhaps the poster and I just have poor taste of cheeky humor and this doesn't belong here! That's possible too. Cheers.
- lolc 7y ago> it's hard for me to read this and not take the position that you are asking for some kind of justification. [...] The implication is that Z and X held together create a tension in your world that needs resolution. The article failed me. I wanted to know what the author's reasons are. But I was left hanging with only witty comments for the rest of the article. It turned out I was not justified in reading the whole. I feel I was tricked into reading dross.
- ciphershot 7y agoI see. In that case we'll chalk it up to his "self-expression." Maybe the only difference between him and his subject matter is the medium on which the ink is laid! Lol.