Kinda messed up that they chose to use a guy in a kilt for an example.

**Chas** · 10th September 13, 01:24 AM

Originally Posted by cessna152towser

Yes indeed, the press article seems to stereotype Scots as being a nationality who like to go for tattoos.
Let's keep the thread to the topic of the press article and not discuss the politics behind the potential waiting period for the tattoo.

Strange.

I have never thought of the Scots as a particularly tattooed people. In fact, if you see a man with 'Celtic' biceps tattoos here in the UK, you can almost guarantee that he comes from Essex.

**plaid preacher** · 10th September 13, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by Kilted Cole

Honestly though......if you don't have ink....you shouldn't be making rules for those who do have ink. But honestly....with all the pictures of honestly horrible tattoo's out there.......the person writing the article chose this? I mean....Really?! Kind of messed up eh?

I dunno Cole. I spent the weekend watching episodes of Bad Ink on A&E; show about a tattoo artist in Vegas who specializes in fixing up bad tattoos. Dirk said it himself, most of the business he gets for "tattoo rehabilitation" are tattoos that someone went out and got because they were drunk and they thought it was a good idea! One particular story I liked was a girl who went out for her birthday and her friend thought she should get a tattoo .. but she was to be blindfolded and the friend picked out the tattoo. You just gotta know a story like that is going to end well, don't ya? No tats -but I have nothing against them - but I think 24 hrs to sober up sounds like a good idea.

**Kilted Cole** · 10th September 13, 03:21 PM

Again....this is veering away from why this was posted, and being fixated more on the politics of the article....since there seems to be an issue staying on topic....I'm going to ask the Moderators to either close or delete this thread....Mods choice.

**piperdbh** · 10th September 13, 06:09 PM

I'm afraid there's not much of a topic to stay on. You've said all there is to say, in that an article was written and somebody made, in your opinion, a poor choice of photograph to accompany the article. I would guess that somebody searched an image cache for "tattoo" and the man in the picture was selected for reasons we don't know.

**Kilted Cole** · 10th September 13, 06:16 PM

No, the topic is why they chose to use that pic for the photo and my disgust at it.....I was hoping for less to comment on politics than what has happened. Myself guilty as well. But my thread has run it course. And as you said...there is nothing more to add to this topic and that's why I am asking the Mods to close this thread.

**SorenMacTavish** · 10th September 13, 06:34 PM

It is HIGHLY messed up that when trying to showcase "bad tattoo decisions" they focus on a guy in a kilt. That's like taking and making a huge sign that says, "Guys in kilts exclusively have bad tattoos"....poorly thought out journalism at it's finest. Of the TRILLIONS of photos out there they could have chosen, I am absolutely certain they could have found one to better emphasize their point of the "24 hour waiting period so you don't put something idiotic on your body" than a bloke in a kilt.

Bad form, just simply bad form.

**sailortats** · 11th September 13, 06:04 AM

And there is certainly no reason for having second thoughts about that tattoo. It is very well done and one that many people would be proud to have. It is one that I would certainly like to have if I considered myself part of the "Tartan Army".