you can go back and read the posts if you like...
it certainly highlighted something you were unaware of and objected to - yet when presented with evidence you decide to go off on a tangent and argue over claims that aren't being made
at first Tosno states:
The silver lining of tattoos for me, it was a big clue which girls have mental issues and managed to avoid 99% of them for a stress free life.
I quite dislike tattoos, I find them to be quite tacky most of the time. However I'd love to know how you've determined that girls who get tattoos have mental health issues?
He didn't actually say that - he said it was a 'big clue' that they had...
then we've got my post in reply to the comment about tattooed women in general being 'especially gorgeous' + picture of a random tattooed woman
I mention the tattoos let you know
1) it won't take many dates to get her to put out
2) that is a good thing as you won't want to date her for long - she's likely a bit unstable
it is just a random picture of a woman with tattoos, of course I don't know for certain that that one specific woman in the picture has mental issues, I'm just making a similar comment to Tosno - (actually it could have been phrased better - I should have written 'more likely to be' rather than just 'likely')
you claim
What a broken way to look at things. As I've said, I think tattoos are tacky. Her ones in particular are ultra tacky. I think they really do look quite bad. However the tattoos let you know that she likes tattoos and that's about it.
when actually it is a potential red flag:
nope, it also lets you know she is more likely to put out and more likely to have 'issues'... as already pointed out
[...]
"Psychiatric disorders, such as antisocial personality disorder, drug or alcohol abuse and borderline personality disorder, are frequently associated with tattoos. Finding a tattoo on physical examination should alert the physician to the possibility of an underlying psychiatric condition. "
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=28672670&postcount=95
You then want to go off on a tangent and start nit picking over whether I know for sure it tells you something specifically about her... then some confused post where you're under the impression I've implied a causal link... none of which is the case. Just like you've misrepresented what Tosno said you've done the same thing again.
That isn't what you said. Initially your post was pretty much correlation = causation.
Now you've back-pedaled to "she's LIKELY to be like that".
'she's likely a bit unstable' was the initial post
Sure it was a controversial comment to make and has seemingly prompted a bit of butthurt from some posters, though your responses seem more confused rather than anything - you seem to want to argue over the unstable comment even after having been presented with evidence so instead try to argue over claims that aren't even there.
so just to clarify again no I don't know for sure that the specific girl in the photo has 'issues' and nor have I claimed to and no I don't make any claims of a causal link - that is just something you've made up yourself
(she probably is a bit mental though - it isn't like she's got one or two discrete ones, she's got a huge heart with pins in across her chest - quite likely some 'issues' going on there
)
