what RAB is all about
anonsoc
I decided to take matters into my own hands. I couldn't stand by and watch
all of my posts get turned into the world record of trolling without my
having a great part in it, so I've decided to take matters into my own
hands.
I hope you guys enjoy the world you've made for yourself. The more shit I
hear, the more posts I will crank out.
Nina Baltes
> I hope you guys enjoy the world you've made for yourself. The more shit I
> hear, the more posts I will crank out.
*yawn*
You are pathetic. One click and nobody will see any of your posts. Troll
away, if it makes you feel better about yourself.
Nina
--
C'est les microbes qui auront le dernier mot.
Louis Pasteur
http://www.chaotropic.net
anonsoc
life ones you don't have. Nice talking to you again Stupid Bitch.
"Nina Baltes" <chaot...@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ad1ea4c6...@news.individual.de...
Dr. Slick
>
> > I hope you guys enjoy the world you've made for yourself. The more shit I
> > hear, the more posts I will crank out.
>
And we encourage you, Anon.
You've been the coolest person here so far to me, so i don't
know what the beef is with these other people.
Post on, brother!
> *yawn*
> You are pathetic. One click and nobody will see any of your posts. Troll
> away, if it makes you feel better about yourself.
>
> Nina
Who's calling who a troll, troll?
One click and YOU ALONE will not see any of his posts. Go ahead and
"plonk" me in your killfile too, while you're at it, it would make
things more reasonable and tasteful here for me.
Do us BOTH a favor and DO IT.
Slick
Nina Baltes
> One click and YOU ALONE will not see any of his posts.
No, really? Anything that exceeds binary logic truly escapes you.
> Go ahead and
> "plonk" me in your killfile too, while you're at it, it would make
> things more reasonable and tasteful here for me.
The only way to achieve that is to plonk everyone here but your troll
buddy anonsoc.
anonsoc
"Nina Baltes" <chaot...@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ad345632...@news.individual.de...
Dr. Slick
>
> > Go ahead and
> > "plonk" me in your killfile too, while you're at it, it would make
> > things more reasonable and tasteful here for me.
>
> The only way to achieve that is to plonk everyone here but your troll
> buddy anonsoc.
>
I'm using Google, so you will have to use yours.
And everyone else i can deal with fine, but i find your
stitty-wench attitude particularly disturbing, so do us
both a favor, and plonk away!
S.
Nina Baltes
> I'm using Google,
figures.
> And everyone else i can deal with fine, but i find your
> stitty-wench attitude particularly disturbing, so do us
> both a favor, and plonk away!
My killfile is empty. No moron has ever lasted long enough in rab
to make it in there.
Dr. Slick
>
> > And everyone else i can deal with fine, but i find your
> > stitty-wench attitude particularly disturbing, so do us
> > both a favor, and plonk away!
>
> My killfile is empty. No moron has ever lasted long enough in rab
> to make it in there.
>
> Nina
Then i guess we will have to suffer through each other, as i know
you lack the willpower to ignore me.
And speaking of morons...how the hell are you gonna put yourself
on your own killfile?
hahaha!
Anon, really pissed you off, didn't he!
hehehe!
S.
Nina Baltes
> Then i guess we will have to suffer through each other, as i know
> you lack the willpower to ignore me.
Actually, I respond to prevent others from mistaking your shitty
scratchings for tattoo art. And since you can't deny the flaws I pointed
out, well, it's quite fun to watch you resort to insults instead.
> Anon, really pissed you off, didn't he!
You haven't seen me "pissed off".
anonsoc
Yeah that's why you killfiled and talked trash the entire time, because you
were entirely happy with the whole situation.
"Nina Baltes" <chaot...@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ad4f6e4a...@news.individual.de...
Nina Baltes
> > You haven't seen me "pissed off".
>
> Yeah that's why you killfiled and talked trash the entire time, because you
> were entirely happy with the whole situation.
I did not killfile anyone, and never have. You don't seem to know
the meaning of the word. I said I ignored you, meaning I didn't
respond. And that's what I'll be going back to right after this
post.
"The entire time"? Get your facts straight. Your perception of time
seems to be altered. Carpe diem, eh?
EOD!
Dr. Slick
> Dr. Slick wrote...
>
> > Then i guess we will have to suffer through each other, as i know
> > you lack the willpower to ignore me.
>
> Actually, I respond to prevent others from mistaking your shitty
> scratchings for tattoo art. And since you can't deny the flaws I pointed
> out, well, it's quite fun to watch you resort to insults instead.
>
"Shitty scratchings" is an insult too.
:)
I don't notice the "flaws" you pointed out, but there is no
accounting for taste, you know?
A lot of people like me love Pink Floyd, but a lot of people hate
them too. So what. You just happen to be someone who hates me,
that's ok, i don't really hate you as much.
Do you wanna stop insulting each other, so that we could interact
like normal human beings? Or do you wanna continue being
neanderthals,
grunting away our precious time and energy?
I'm willing to call some sort of truce at this point.
> > Anon, really pissed you off, didn't he!
>
> You haven't seen me "pissed off".
>
> Nina
OH My! SCARY!
Let's hope i never do, eh?
Slick
RAY PEARSON
"Dr. Slick" <radi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1d15af91.04033...@posting.google.com...
>
> "Shitty scratchings" is an insult too.
>
> :)
>
nah it isn't, can't insult with the truth. My blind dog can
tattoo better than that shit you call best. Just a quick
stop in to drop another pile of shit on your parade.
Dr. Slick
> anonsoc wrote:
> > > You haven't seen me "pissed off".
> >
> > Yeah that's why you killfiled and talked trash the entire time, because you
> > were entirely happy with the whole situation.
>
> I did not killfile anyone, and never have. You don't seem to know
> the meaning of the word. I said I ignored you, meaning I didn't
> respond. And that's what I'll be going back to right after this
> post.
>
Jesus, i'd LOVE it if you would ignore me too, Nina!
God, i should hope to be so lucky!
S.
Nina Baltes
> I don't notice the "flaws" you pointed out, but there is no
> accounting for taste, you know?
It's no matter of taste. Here, let me point them yout to you:
http://www.chaotropic.net/pics/angels.jpg
1) These 'scribblings' look like what I do on a piece of paper when I'm
on the phone, but not like proper shading. One could argue that it's
done for effect, but since it doesn't add to effect, and since 1)a shows
that in this tattoo, it's either black or 'scribblings', it's looks like
you *can't do* grey shading to achieve gradual lightening and
plasticity. There are some very very light shades in the faces and
bodies, but not nearly enough.
2) Don't you see the bumps in that line? The wing on the other side is
similar, and I'm not talking about the wing rim going from broad to
narrow to broad, but about the inconsistencies in the lines themselves.
Additionally, the wings don't seem to have feathers, but shingles.
3) He's not kissing her face, but the air.
4) looks like colon, period. That's where using stark outlines gets you
with delicate structures like clouds, or whatever it's supposed to be. I
don't assume they're sitting in a cave decorated with colon loops.
5) there is no shading at all between the arms, which makes them look
flat.
Mind you, these are just a few details I picked out. And you can spare
yourself any "you're not an artist" stuff, because seeing how you never
went to art school yourself, you're as self-taught as I am. One painting
class in college doesn't set you apart far enough.
> You just happen to be someone who hates me,
As usual, you give yourself too much credit.
I think your tattoo work sucks, and you think too highly of yourself,
that's about it. And "anger and rage"? You're the one who's using
capital letters all the time.
> Do you wanna stop insulting each other, so that we could interact
> like normal human beings? Or do you wanna continue being
> neanderthals,
> grunting away our precious time and energy?
You set the standard in your very first response.
> I'm willing to call some sort of truce at this point.
How generous. That's more than you grant the guys over in other
newsgroups, I gather.
anonsoc
Stupid Bitch. lol
"Nina Baltes" <chaot...@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:c4f863$2inpb4$1...@ID-2735.news.uni-berlin.de...
anonsoc
and grammar than anything else. Your critque of the tattoo in question,
while wrong, was more that you've said about body art than in the entirity
of your last 20 posts.news:MPG.1ad5e2a38...@news.individual.de...
RAY PEARSON
> Dr. Slick wrote...
>
> > I don't notice the "flaws" you pointed out, but
there is no
> > accounting for taste, you know?
>
> It's no matter of taste. Here, let me point them yout to
you:
>
> http://www.chaotropic.net/pics/angels.jpg
>
>
DAMMIT i wish you had placed a warning before this link, I
had to go toss my cookies, that shit is worse than the
"portrait"
Dr. Slick
Go back to insurance where you belong.
And maybe if you didn't eat so much candy, you
would be so pudgy, eh?
You can't do anything about being an old-fart, though.
Sorry.
Slick
Dr. Slick
> Dr. Slick wrote...
>
> > I don't notice the "flaws" you pointed out, but there is no
> > accounting for taste, you know?
>
> It's no matter of taste. Here, let me point them yout to you:
>
Of course it's a matter of taste, always.
>
> > You just happen to be someone who hates me,
>
> As usual, you give yourself too much credit.
> I think your tattoo work sucks, and you think too highly of yourself,
> that's about it. And "anger and rage"? You're the one who's using
> capital letters all the time.
>
Even if i DID do work that you liked, you would still type shitty
things about me, so your objectivity is WAY out the window!
> > Do you wanna stop insulting each other, so that we could interact
> > like normal human beings? Or do you wanna continue being
> > neanderthals,
> > grunting away our precious time and energy?
>
> You set the standard in your very first response.
>
Me? I just posted my little ad, that's all. Your disrespectful
"critique" was just asking for a disrespectful response.
I don't mind RESPECTFUL critiques, and i even welcome them.
Even with Erik, when you mentioned his fingernails on his
praying hands could have been better, you could have used a bit more
tact.
But maybe this is asking for too much on the always-too-blunt
newgroups. Oh well.
> > I'm willing to call some sort of truce at this point.
>
> How generous. That's more than you grant the guys over in other
> newsgroups, I gather.
>
> Nina
It is. But i'm realizing that when you get into a flame war
with someone, it's really only because both parties are passionate
about the topic at hand, and this a beautiful thing, actually.
Slick
RAY PEARSON
>>
> Go back to insurance where you belong.
>
> And maybe if you didn't eat so much candy, you
> would be so pudgy, eh?
>
> You can't do anything about being an old-fart, though.
>
> Sorry.
>
really lame there little man, try again, if it is worthy
maybe i'll waste my time replying, or then again maybe not.
--
Insuring the body modification industry since
1991 contact me for your shop insurance needs
Richard Hunter
coughed and sputtered, and managed to choke out these words:
<Snip>
> Go back to insurance where you belong.
what's with all the insurance "insults"? is there something
wrong with being an insurance salesman?
no, really. explain it to me, slack.
david
--
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/derbarbier/
(ebay sales)
http://shops.half.com/derbarbier
ten tod labolgcbs ta reibrabred
Richard Hunter
coughed and sputtered, and managed to choke out these words:
>Nina Baltes <chaot...@gmx.de> wrote in message news:<MPG.1ad5e2a38...@news.individual.de>...
<snip>
>> You set the standard in your very first response.
>>
>
> Me? I just posted my little ad, that's all.
she's not talking about that. she's talking about your very
first *response*. would you like a quote of your very first
response?
when someone called you on your spamming and shitty tattoo work,
you said, "It looks that way because it's BLEEDING, numb-fuck."
your first response [to Nina] in *this* thread was, "Who's
calling who a troll, troll?"
david
Nina Baltes
> Even if i DID do work that you liked, you would still type shitty
> things about me, so your objectivity is WAY out the window!
Actually, I do like some of the work on your site, but none of the
'realistic' looking pieces, but since your favorite style is "neo-
surrealism", I suppose that's fair enough. Like I said, if you could
recreate your "Giger's Technicolor" thing to skin, you might be a decent
tattoo artist, but I simply don't see that coming with the *tattoo* work
you've shown.
And tell you what, you would have received a whole different set of
responses if
a) you had not posted such a blatant ad, which is frowned upon in all
newsgroups but those designated for them (in case you want to argue: rab
is not one of them), and
b) if you had not claimed you were the bee's knees in the tattoo
artistry.
It may be painful for you to realize, but you brought it all upon
yourself.
> Me? I just posted my little ad, that's all.
Exactly.
I was born in Düsseldorf, what can I say (quick! look up the
connection!).
> Even with Erik, when you mentioned his fingernails on his
> praying hands could have been better, you could have used a bit more
> tact.
I was simply stating the truth. It looks as if someone pulled the
fingernails and it healed over. I like Eric, I like his work, I like his
attitude. He knows that, or does now, anyway ;). Look at the way he
reacted, and learn.
And of course, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Nina Baltes
> the tattoo
> artistry.
Actually, either just "tatto artistry" or "the tattoo *industry*". Take
your pick.
I blame my new glasses.
Dr. Slick
> Dr. Slick wrote...
>
> > I don't notice the "flaws" you pointed out, but there is no
> > accounting for taste, you know?
>
> It's no matter of taste. Here, let me point them yout to you:
>
It's always a matter of taste.
>
> > You just happen to be someone who hates me,
>
> As usual, you give yourself too much credit.
> I think your tattoo work sucks, and you think too highly of yourself,
> that's about it. And "anger and rage"? You're the one who's using
> capital letters all the time.
>
And i think you have poorly selected what to decorate your body with
for the rest of your life...oh well, you can't please everyone, why try.
You are entitled to your opinion.
> > Do you wanna stop insulting each other, so that we could interact
> > like normal human beings? Or do you wanna continue being
> > neanderthals,
> > grunting away our precious time and energy?
>
> You set the standard in your very first response.
>
Even your critique of Eric's work was very disrespectful.
> > I'm willing to call some sort of truce at this point.
>
> How generous. That's more than you grant the guys over in other
> newsgroups, I gather.
>
It is. But flame wars are just a reflection of extreme passion for
the subject at hand, which is a beautiful thing, really.
Slick
Nina Baltes
> Nina Baltes <chaot...@gmx.de> wrote in message news:<MPG.1ad5e2a38...@news.individual.de>...
> > Dr. Slick wrote...
> >
> > > I don't notice the "flaws" you pointed out, but there is no
> > > accounting for taste, you know?
> >
> > It's no matter of taste. Here, let me point them yout to you:
> >
>
> It's always a matter of taste.
>
everything twice?
Hint: Google has a delay of several hours before new posts show up.
That's why most people prefer news servers.
RAY PEARSON
extreme passion for
> the subject at hand, which is a beautiful thing, really.
>
practiced by yourself. BTW in order for you to understand
tattooing and tattoos can be a beautiful thing, but that
term cannot be applied to anything of your that we have
seen. And since what we have seen is what you term as your
BEST work, you wouldn't know beautiful work if it came up
and bit you on the ass.
BTW you STILL are a putz and I am still an insurance agent.
Lyle says your work really sucks and pink should kill you
for bringing this trash on his name.
Ray
Dr. Slick
>
> Lyle says your work really sucks and pink should kill you
> for bringing this trash on his name.
>
> Ray
Lyle Tuttle looked at my work? THE Lyle Tuttle? WOw!
Tell Lyle that some people here in CA call his work:
"Tuttle-Ups".
Slick
Dr. Slick
> Dr. Slick wrote...
>
> > Even if i DID do work that you liked, you would still type shitty
> > things about me, so your objectivity is WAY out the window!
>
> Actually, I do like some of the work on your site, but none of the
> 'realistic' looking pieces, but since your favorite style is "neo-
> surrealism", I suppose that's fair enough. Like I said, if you could
> recreate your "Giger's Technicolor" thing to skin, you might be a decent
> tattoo artist, but I simply don't see that coming with the *tattoo* work
> you've shown.
I could certainly recreate "Giger's Technicolor Daydream" onto skin,
it's just no one has ever asked for it.
I would enjoy doing more realistic work, but that's not what people
want here in the bay area, at least not the people who approach me.
In case you didn't know, the tattoo artist doesn't decide what will
done, and you end up doing all sorts of stuff. Very commercialized
form of art, really.
And you go down to L.A., and that's where the biomechanical is very
popular.
>
> And tell you what, you would have received a whole different set of
> responses if
>
> a) you had not posted such a blatant ad, which is frowned upon in all
> newsgroups but those designated for them (in case you want to argue: rab
> is not one of them), and
>
It says "bodyart" and "art" in the subject, why not? As long
as i don't abuse it.
> b) if you had not claimed you were the bee's knees in the tattoo
> artistry.
>
I don't claim this. "Best art" is just an advertising phrase.
You know, a tat artist really has to be confident in his work,
or else no one will trust him/her, so if my ad comes off as a bit
cocky for you, that's too bad.
But a lot of people do love my stuff, and people can make their
own decision of what is or isn't "best art". It's obviously
their choice, me saying it will not convince them otherwise.
I post the Jpegs and let people decide for themselves, but
i'm way past expecting to please everyone, that's impossible.
> It may be painful for you to realize, but you brought it all upon
> yourself.
>
> > Me? I just posted my little ad, that's all.
>
> Exactly.
>
Again, this is not a crime.
>
> > Even with Erik, when you mentioned his fingernails on his
> > praying hands could have been better, you could have used a bit more
> > tact.
>
> I was simply stating the truth. It looks as if someone pulled the
> fingernails and it healed over. I like Eric, I like his work, I like his
> attitude. He knows that, or does now, anyway ;). Look at the way he
> reacted, and learn.
>
Or maybe you could have been a bit more respectful to him?
Like, we all appreciate honesty, but it's not just what you say
but how you say it.
> And of course, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
>
> Nina
Oh, i love the heat!
God, this is the first reasonable discussion i have had on this NG!
Cool, your input is appreciated, Nina. And i will keep you in
mind when i do my next realistic portrait (i hope the reference photos
will be better).
S.
Dr. Slick
> "Dr. Slick" <radi...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1d15af91.04040...@posting.google.com...
> >>
> > Go back to insurance where you belong.
> >
> > And maybe if you didn't eat so much candy, you
> > would be so pudgy, eh?
> >
> > You can't do anything about being an old-fart, though.
> >
> > Sorry.
>
>
> really lame there little man, try again, if it is worthy
> maybe i'll waste my time replying, or then again maybe not.
I really touched a nerve with you, didn't I?
Excellent.
S.
Nina Baltes
> I could certainly recreate "Giger's Technicolor Daydream" onto skin,
> it's just no one has ever asked for it.
> I would enjoy doing more realistic work, but that's not what people
> want here in the bay area, at least not the people who approach me.
I doubt that the entire bay area wants small flash tattoos. Sure,
most people will get "something small that I can hide". But I know
there are others.
And if nobody has requested anything else from you, that could tell
you something.
> It says "bodyart" and "art" in the subject, why not? As long
> as i don't abuse it.
You did. There is no arguing here: ads are not wanted on rab.
If they were, every shitty piercing jewelry company in existence
would plaster its ads all over it.
> I don't claim this. "Best art" is just an advertising phrase.
Why promise something you know you can't deliver? And then what is
all the other insisting that your work is top-notch work?
The intelligent way to approach this newsgroup in order to find
customers would have been to introduce yourself, post a link to
your site and *participate*.
> You know, a tat artist really has to be confident in his work,
> or else no one will trust him/her, so if my ad comes off as a bit
> cocky for you, that's too bad.
I think you've got something fundamentally wrong here. Tattoo
artists have to be confident in their work, that much is true, but
the customers' trust goes to those who earn it by a reliable
display of high quality work, not to those who scream "LOOK AT ME"
the loudest. A good artist will also never stop questioning his own
abilities. Talking to tattoo artists about their work, I've often
heard them say "well, in this piece, I would do this and this and
this differently today". That's what earns them *my* trust.
> But a lot of people do love my stuff,
Seriously, you need to ask yourself what they've seen. If all
you've seen is little butterflies and roses, this will be the
standard you judge by. Lots of people go to a tattoo shop believing
they can only get what's on the walls or in the flash books. Some
people will choose a standard rose over a custom-designed piece.
It's all about experience.
> Or maybe you could have been a bit more respectful to him?
Heh. It was actually humorous, and Eric got it.
RAY PEARSON
>
> Excellent.
>
lamer, you really have a unique view of your world
you are still a putz,
just so you can correct some of your errors, use your
wonderful google skills and maybe you can find a pic of me.
but of course they were probably done in photo shop so they
are fake
Dr. Slick
> Dr. Slick wrote:
>
> > I could certainly recreate "Giger's Technicolor Daydream" onto skin,
> > it's just no one has ever asked for it.
>
> > I would enjoy doing more realistic work, but that's not what people
> > want here in the bay area, at least not the people who approach me.
>
> I doubt that the entire bay area wants small flash tattoos. Sure,
> most people will get "something small that I can hide". But I know
> there are others.
>
I just did a pretty big dragon that wrapped around the guys upper
arm,
and i still have one more session for a guy getting his entire butt
and
flanks covered with Maori/Native Indian style work.
But Neither of these are photo-real.
There is nothing terribly difficult with tattooing Jack Nicholson
on someone from a very well-lit reference photo. Tons of people do
this
nowadays, so it really doesn't impress me too much.
> And if nobody has requested anything else from you, that could tell
> you something.
>
That tells me no one wants that kind of work, at least the
customers
i have. Occassionally some people still want "prison style" work done
on them, you know?
That is what they consider beautiful art. You would probably call
it scratching, but some people would NEVER want a portrait on them,
realistic
to hell or not.
And once again, a bold solid tribal tat will retain it's looks
long
after the realistic portrait has blurred up.
You have to consider that tattooing as an art form is not exactly
like painting on the canvas, in the sense of longevity: you WANT
something
bold and simple to a certain degree.
It's really apples and oranges trying to compare photo-real tats
with oriental dragons or tribal tats. Many people prefer the later.
> > It says "bodyart" and "art" in the subject, why not? As long
> > as i don't abuse it.
>
> You did. There is no arguing here: ads are not wanted on rab.
> If they were, every shitty piercing jewelry company in existence
> would plaster its ads all over it.
>
So what is stopping them? You? I don't think so.
I don't think they bother, or maybe they do it only once.
I would be abusing it if i did it once a week, or something
like that.
> > I don't claim this. "Best art" is just an advertising phrase.
>
> Why promise something you know you can't deliver? And then what is
> all the other insisting that your work is top-notch work?
> The intelligent way to approach this newsgroup in order to find
> customers would have been to introduce yourself, post a link to
> your site and *participate*.
And i am _participating_, aren't I? And I admitted the
contradictions
of tattoo-aftercare, didn't I?
And NO ONE knows EVERYTHING, so why did you think I thought this?
"Best art" is a just an advertising blurb, and it's supposed to
be
a bit tongue-in-cheek, like i don't really think that...but it's
funny that my ad would claim that, eh? Hehe...it's supposed to be
kinda
funny.
But i do have loyal customers.
>
> > You know, a tat artist really has to be confident in his work,
> > or else no one will trust him/her, so if my ad comes off as a bit
> > cocky for you, that's too bad.
>
> I think you've got something fundamentally wrong here. Tattoo
> artists have to be confident in their work, that much is true, but
> the customers' trust goes to those who earn it by a reliable
> display of high quality work, not to those who scream "LOOK AT ME"
> the loudest. A good artist will also never stop questioning his own
> abilities. Talking to tattoo artists about their work, I've often
> heard them say "well, in this piece, I would do this and this and
> this differently today". That's what earns them *my* trust.
>
Ok, how about this. The next portrait i do, i will try to get
the customer to get the absolutely best reference photo they can,
not something that wasn't lit very well.
Am i confident in my abilities? Yes. Have i stopped learning?
God, i hope not. When does a person stop learning? When they are six
feet under, and even then, we aren't certain! hehehaha!
But i understand how people enjoy cutting down to size people
they think are arrogant, but then you would have the wrong target in
my case.
> > But a lot of people do love my stuff,
>
> Seriously, you need to ask yourself what they've seen. If all
> you've seen is little butterflies and roses, this will be the
> standard you judge by. Lots of people go to a tattoo shop believing
> they can only get what's on the walls or in the flash books. Some
> people will choose a standard rose over a custom-designed piece.
> It's all about experience.
>
About half of my work is at least partially custom, and it does
take significantly longer just to sketch it out. The angel-kiss was
done
from a VERY blurry photocopy, like 3rd generation copy, so that is
virtually custom. It was only later that i saw the Bouguereau
painting.
I'll post my bigger pieces soon.
> > Or maybe you could have been a bit more respectful to him?
>
> Heh. It was actually humorous, and Eric got it.
>
> Nina
But the artists who post their work are baring their souls
to a certain degree, for anyone to bash.
So even though Eric and I give each other shit (kind of a macho
ritual, esp. in the tattoo world, sort of like cyber-space rams
butting
heads), I still respect him more than anyone else here for that
reason.
Slick
Keith Alexander®
> And once again, a bold solid tribal
*** Hey.
What makes a tattoo "tribal?"
---
k e i t h a l e x a n d e r
http://www.nootrope.net
http://www.modernamerican.com
aim: nootrope9 .|.. ..|.
- - e n d t r a n s m i s s i o n - -
Nina Baltes
> There is nothing terribly difficult with tattooing Jack Nicholson
> on someone from a very well-lit reference photo. Tons of people do
> this
> nowadays, so it really doesn't impress me too much.
So let me get this right: the only reason you couldn't do a better
portrait was because you didn't have a better picture? Then why do
the piece at all?
> You have to consider that tattooing as an art form is not exactly
> like painting on the canvas, in the sense of longevity: you WANT
> something
> bold and simple to a certain degree.
Tell that to Anil Gupta.
> > > It says "bodyart" and "art" in the subject, why not? As long
> > > as i don't abuse it.
> >
> > You did. There is no arguing here: ads are not wanted on rab.
> > If they were, every shitty piercing jewelry company in existence
> > would plaster its ads all over it.
> >
>
> So what is stopping them? You? I don't think so.
Who said anything about being able to stop it?
Ads are *not* *welcome*, and you will be treated accordingly, as
you have experienced (and will continue to).
Why do you think your only 'support' came from a troll?
> I would be abusing it if i did it once a week, or something
> like that.
You're not going to change usenet customs by ignoring them.
> And i am _participating_, aren't I? And I admitted the
> contradictions
> of tattoo-aftercare, didn't I?
Your first post remotely resembling a "contribution" was an ad.
Your earlier posts to this newsgroups were mostly bare links to
your site, starting somewhere around 1999. You don't even have to
start picking nits about your one post on tattooing yellow over
orange and the one asking for a source of pencils. In case it
hasn't sunk in yet: ads are not welcome.
> "Best art" is a just an advertising blurb, and it's supposed to
> be
> a bit tongue-in-cheek, like i don't really think that...but it's
> funny that my ad would claim that, eh? Hehe...it's supposed to be
> kinda
> funny.
Your posturing here, in other newsgroups, and on craigslist speaks
a different language. Besides, I wouldn't consider it very smart
business tactics to joke around with people who don't know you,
when you want their money.
> But i do have loyal customers.
So do faith healers.
> Ok, how about this. The next portrait i do, i will try to get
> the customer to get the absolutely best reference photo they can,
> not something that wasn't lit very well.
I'd think that was a given.
> About half of my work is at least partially custom, and it does
> take significantly longer just to sketch it out. The angel-kiss was
> done
> from a VERY blurry photocopy, like 3rd generation copy, so that is
> virtually custom. It was only later that i saw the Bouguereau
> painting.
This explains what exactly?
> But the artists who post their work are baring their souls
> to a certain degree, for anyone to bash.
Such is the nature of usenet.
And therefore, in your case, I say "cry me a river". Anyone
behaving like you did should expect the reactions it generated.
Besides, you, of all people, look quite silly on that particular
high horse.
In Eric's case: Yes, I am blunt. What some perceive as
tactlessness, others appreciate as an honest opinion.
> So even though Eric and I give each other shit (kind of a macho
> ritual, esp. in the tattoo world, sort of like cyber-space rams
> butting heads),
Yeah, careful, you're going to run into a wall with all the
backpedalling.
I'm sure it's all 'macho ritual' in the fine arts newsgroup as
well.
Dr. Slick
> Dr. Slick wrote:
>
> > There is nothing terribly difficult with tattooing Jack Nicholson
> > on someone from a very well-lit reference photo. Tons of people do
> > this
> > nowadays, so it really doesn't impress me too much.
>
> So let me get this right: the only reason you couldn't do a better
> portrait was because you didn't have a better picture? Then why do
> the piece at all?
>
I did the best i could with the material given. But Jack Nicholson
is photographed a lot, so it might be easier to find a more dramatic
pic.
Again, i should have kept the reference photos, because you can't
really judge the likeness without it.
> > You have to consider that tattooing as an art form is not exactly
> > like painting on the canvas, in the sense of longevity: you WANT
> > something
> > bold and simple to a certain degree.
>
> Tell that to Anil Gupta.
>
She has great stuff, and i absolutely love H. R. Giger.
But look at this one:
http://www.anilgupta.com/images/SPapaHRG.jpg
Although i love the design, as the person ages and the ink
blurs a bit, this will turn to mush and the detail will be lost,
sorry. It would be nice if tats stayed the same always, but one
look at an older biker dude tells you something else.
BTW, some of the stuff on Anil's website is pretty bold and
simple too.
Some great stuff, though!
>
> Your first post remotely resembling a "contribution" was an ad.
> Your earlier posts to this newsgroups were mostly bare links to
> your site, starting somewhere around 1999. You don't even have to
> start picking nits about your one post on tattooing yellow over
> orange and the one asking for a source of pencils. In case it
> hasn't sunk in yet: ads are not welcome.
>
They are to a certain degree on other NGs. Some people
are gonna wanna know.
> > "Best art" is a just an advertising blurb, and it's supposed to
> > be
> > a bit tongue-in-cheek, like i don't really think that...but it's
> > funny that my ad would claim that, eh? Hehe...it's supposed to be
> > kinda
> > funny.
>
> Your posturing here, in other newsgroups, and on craigslist speaks
> a different language. Besides, I wouldn't consider it very smart
> business tactics to joke around with people who don't know you,
> when you want their money.
>
Well, "best art" didn't convince any of you! So why would it
for anyone else? I mean, there are many people that love my
work, so perhaps i am speaking to them, but obviously only they
can decide. I put it forth as a statement to entice you to look
closer at my work, but i don't harbor any illusions that me saying
it will convince anyone. People either love or hate my work.
Just like you showing off your tattoos never convinced me that
they are anything special.
>
> > But the artists who post their work are baring their souls
> > to a certain degree, for anyone to bash.
>
> Such is the nature of usenet.
> And therefore, in your case, I say "cry me a river". Anyone
> behaving like you did should expect the reactions it generated.
> Besides, you, of all people, look quite silly on that particular
> high horse.
And you look quite silly showing off your tats on your website
like they are great. They are not.
>
> Yeah, careful, you're going to run into a wall with all the
> backpedalling.
> I'm sure it's all 'macho ritual' in the fine arts newsgroup as
> well.
>
> Nina
No, it's more like a bunch of angry, starving rats, locked up
in a cage there!
hehehe!
Slick
Nina Baltes
> I did the best i could with the material given.
Funny. You said earlier that "it does look like the guy's mother"
Message-ID: <1d15af91.04032...@posting.google.com>
So now it's more like "it does like a bad picture of the guy's
mother". I guess that's an improvement.
It's never the material's fault. If you can't make it better either
by skill, or by telling people to bring you better material, the
resulting tattoo is *your* responsibility.
> > Tell that to Anil Gupta.
>
> She has great stuff, and i absolutely love H. R. Giger.
"She"?
What hole have you been hiding in since you started tattooing?
> sorry. It would be nice if tats stayed the same always, but one
> look at an older biker dude tells you something else.
Yes, it tells me he hasn't been using sunblock. And I'll bet that
that's a new concept to you as well.
Lines will certainly blur to a certain extent, but a finely
detailed tattoo will not "turn to mush" if some care is taken.
Blurring will be minimal, and certainly not destroy the tattoo.
[ads not welcome on rab]
> They are to a certain degree on other NGs.
They are *not* *here*, and one look at the charter would have told
you as much.
> Well, "best art" didn't convince any of you! So why would it
> for anyone else?
Why use a phrase that you know won't convince anybody?
I take it you've stopped believing that you do "best art", i.e.
top-notch tattoo work then?
> I mean, there are many people that love my
> work,
"Millions of flies can't be wrong!"
> People either love or hate my work.
And you don't wonder why?
> Just like you showing off your tattoos never convinced me that
> they are anything special.
> And you look quite silly showing off your tats on your website
> like they are great. They are not.
Now, I could try and do this like you and say "but...but... plenty
of other people love them!!!!!!1111", but I'll rather trust my own
judgment, which tells me that you are in no position to competently
judge tattoo work.
Funny how you always come back to my tattoos when you run out of
arguments. But that's what I've seen you do in all the other
newsgroups, so this is no surprise. When your work is challenged,
you alway look for faults in other people's work instead of your
own. Quite like blaming bad pictures for bad tattoos.
Curt
<snip>
> I did the best i could with the material given.
Have you ever advised a client to get better reference material?
I originally wanted my calf band to be an ankle band with smaller
images. The artist, Jeff Noss, advised me to put the art around my
calf instead and to have the images much larger than I'd planned.
Now I'm extremely happy with my tattoo and the artist doesn't have to
offer any lame excuse about having done the best he could with the
material given.
> Again, i should have kept the reference photos, because you can't
>really judge<snip>
Who can't judge? RABbits? P'shaw!
--
Curt
http://www.geocities.com/curt_james/calvin.html
http://iam.bmezine.com/?curt
http://www.curtjames.com/
Dr. Slick
>>
> So now it's more like "it does like a bad picture of the guy's
> mother". I guess that's an improvement.
>
> It's never the material's fault. If you can't make it better either
> by skill, or by telling people to bring you better material, the
> resulting tattoo is *your* responsibility.
>
I'm proud of it, otherwise i wouldn't put it up.
I'm just saying it wasn't a dramatic a portrait as some
of the hollywood things you have shown me, but that
doesn't make it a nice tat.
>
> "She"?
>
> What hole have you been hiding in since you started tattooing?
>
We are getting back to the petty insults again, eh? hehe.
I'm not a tattoo groupie like you, sorry, and i don't worship
other artists, only myself... :)
> > sorry. It would be nice if tats stayed the same always, but one
> > look at an older biker dude tells you something else.
>
> Yes, it tells me he hasn't been using sunblock. And I'll bet that
> that's a new concept to you as well.
>
hardly. The sunblock will prevent the FADING, but will
NOT prevent the blurring.
> Lines will certainly blur to a certain extent, but a finely
> detailed tattoo will not "turn to mush" if some care is taken.
> Blurring will be minimal, and certainly not destroy the tattoo.
>
That's a great piece that will turn to mush very soon, but
oh well, beauty fades....
AFAIK, you can't really prevent the ink from moving under
the skin.
> [ads not welcome on rab]
> > They are to a certain degree on other NGs.
>
> They are *not* *here*, and one look at the charter would have told
> you as much.
>
Well, aren't you getting bossy today? heheheha!
> > Well, "best art" didn't convince any of you! So why would it
> > for anyone else?
>
> Why use a phrase that you know won't convince anybody?
> I take it you've stopped believing that you do "best art", i.e.
> top-notch tattoo work then?
>
I'm the best in the world, Nina! hehehehe!
>
> > People either love or hate my work.
>
> And you don't wonder why?
>
No i do not wonder, not anymore. That would be a waste of
my time, to wonder why people like you have such bad taste.
>
> Funny how you always come back to my tattoos when you run out of
> arguments. But that's what I've seen you do in all the other
> newsgroups, so this is no surprise. When your work is challenged,
> you alway look for faults in other people's work instead of your
> own. Quite like blaming bad pictures for bad tattoos.
>
You seem to be quite interested in me, Nina. Why don't you
dig a little deeper, so you can find the really juicy stuff!
Feeds my insecure ego, ahhh.....
Slick
Dr. Slick
> radi...@aol.com (Dr. Slick) wrote:
> <snip>
> > I did the best i could with the material given.
> <snip>
>
> Have you ever advised a client to get better reference material?
>
certainly. But I'm proud of how this tat turned out,
otherwise i wouldn't put it up, eh? I really should have
saved the original pics.
Slick
RAY PEARSON
> I'm just saying it wasn't a dramatic a portrait as
some
> of the hollywood things you have shown me, but that
> doesn't make it a nice tat.
>
Finally you got SOMETHING right. It isn't a "Nice TATTOO"
you are still a putz
and I'm still an insurance guy
RAY PEARSON
will
> NOT prevent the blurring.
>
wrong again
>
>
>
> That's a great piece that will turn to mush very soon,
but
> oh well, beauty fades....
wrong again
>
> AFAIK, you can't really prevent the ink from moving
under
> the skin.
perhaps you and your scratching buddies can't. but
any other tattooist will even a modicum of skill can
>>
>
> Well, aren't you getting bossy today? heheheha!
no she's not that is just a rule that is in the charter, but
apparently you can't read.
>>
> I'm the best in the world, Nina! hehehehe!
sorry I had to go throw up
> Feeds my insecure ego, ahhh.....
you are still a putz and I'm still an insurance man
RAY PEARSON
> otherwise i wouldn't put it up, eh? I really should have
> saved the original pics.
again you prove you have no taste or class. It truly is a
sad thing when you can be proud of a cartoon
Richard Hunter
coughed and sputtered, and managed to choke out these words:
<snip>
> I'm not a tattoo groupie like you,
<80 lines of crap>
YM, "tat."
david
Nina Baltes
> I'm not a tattoo groupie like you, sorry, and i don't worship
> other artists, only myself... :)
You mean you have no idea what's going on and who's doing what in the
tattoo world at all. Figures.
> hardly. The sunblock will prevent the FADING, but will
> NOT prevent the blurring.
Again, you don't know what you're talking about.
Do you know how fading and blurring happen, on the microscopical level?
> AFAIK, you can't really prevent the ink from moving under
> the skin.
Do you even know why ink stays put in the first place?
Boy, have you got some reading to do.
For starters:
Sperry K.
Tattoos and tattooing. Part I: History and methodology.
Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 1991 Dec;12(4):313-9.
Sperry K.
Tattoos and tattooing. Part II: Gross pathology, histopathology, medical
complications, and applications.
Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 1992 Mar;13(1):7-17. Review.
> > > People either love or hate my work.
> >
> > And you don't wonder why?
> >
>
> No i do not wonder, not anymore. That would be a waste of
> my time, to wonder why people like you have such bad taste.
Hee! I wonder what yould happen if your brain decided to drop the self-
delusional protection.
> You seem to be quite interested in me, Nina. Why don't you
> dig a little deeper, so you can find the really juicy stuff!
You mean like I did in
http://www.chaotropic.net/pics/temp/sektion.jpg ?
Nothing I haven't seen before. I don't mind a little blood and guts.
RAY PEARSON
>
> Do you even know why ink stays put in the first place?
>
I DO I DO call on me teacher!!!
R
Nina Baltes
Now now Raymond, let the slow kids get their chance in class, too.
RAY PEARSON
>
> Now now Raymond, let the slow kids get their chance in
class, too.
>
what's really funny about this is that I got my first and
CLEAREST explanation of the physiology of a tattoo from a 5
page article in an Outlaw Biker mag from about 1992
It is very clear and concise
R
Dr. Slick
> Dr. Slick wrote...
>
> > I'm not a tattoo groupie like you, sorry, and i don't worship
> > other artists, only myself... :)
>
> You mean you have no idea what's going on and who's doing what in the
> tattoo world at all. Figures.
>
There are so many tattoo artists out there, some of them are very
talented, and yet no one knows about them.
But i don't spend my time worshipping other artists, like
tattoo groupies like yourself.
>
> You mean like I did in
> http://www.chaotropic.net/pics/temp/sektion.jpg ?
>
> Nothing I haven't seen before. I don't mind a little blood and guts.
>
that link is blocked.
Slick
Keith Alexander®
>> You mean like I did in
>> http://www.chaotropic.net/pics/temp/sektion.jpg ?
> that link is blocked.
*** No it's not.
You're just too retarded to c&p.
Richard Hunter
<snip>
>> http://www.chaotropic.net/pics/temp/sektion.jpg ?
>
> that link is blocked.
no it's not. maybe^H^H^H^H^H you're just a moron.
david
Nina Baltes
> There are so many tattoo artists out there, some of them are very
> talented, and yet no one knows about them.
> But i don't spend my time worshipping other artists, like
> tattoo groupies like yourself.
It's hardly 'worship' to notice the same names in tattoo magazines over
and over again.
You seem to have a general problem with keeping knowledge up to date.
> > You mean like I did in
> > http://www.chaotropic.net/pics/temp/sektion.jpg ?
> >
> > Nothing I haven't seen before. I don't mind a little blood and guts.
> >
>
> that link is blocked.
No, it's not.
Dr. Slick
> > > You mean like I did in
> > > http://www.chaotropic.net/pics/temp/sektion.jpg ?
> > >
> > > Nothing I haven't seen before. I don't mind a little blood and guts.
> > >
> >
> > that link is blocked.
>
> No, it's not.
>
"Not authorized server", or "Your Norton's must be on"
or something like that.
S.
RAY PEARSON
>
> "Not authorized server", or "Your Norton's must be on"
> or something like that.
you do not know anything about any topic you speak about do
you. must be sad to be so freaking stupid. you apparently
will always be a worthless putz
r
--
Insuring the body modification industry since
1991 contact me for your shop insurance needs
Nina Baltes
> "Not authorized server", or "Your Norton's must be on"
> or something like that.
I have a .htaccess file that makes pictures not show up when you're
trying to embed them in a non-authorized page What you're seeing is
a replacement picture. They do show up when there's no referrer,
and they show up when the link is copy-pasted into IE, Mozilla and
Opera browsers. I can access the pictures from my own and various
other machines, everyone in a web-based forum I frequent can see
them, other people on rab can see them.
You may have some obscure piece of internet "security" software
running, or your machine may be configured wrong. Hence the
choppiness in your lines.
Whoops, different machine.
So I just moved the lovely picture of the two of us to an
unprotected directory because, lowest common denominator and stuff.
http://www.chaotropic.net/temp/sektion.jpg
RAY PEARSON
>
> http://www.chaotropic.net/temp/sektion.jpg
>
> Nina
>
mmm mmm mmm Ribs
Dr. Slick
>
> So I just moved the lovely picture of the two of us to an
> unprotected directory because, lowest common denominator and stuff.
>
> http://www.chaotropic.net/temp/sektion.jpg
>
Whao! Lovely.
Slick
Judith Cookson
>
> Ok, how about this. The next portrait i do, i will try to get
> the customer to get the absolutely best reference photo they can,
> not something that wasn't lit very well.
even a featureless blur of a reference photo couldn't explain away the
crap job you did.
--
Judith Cookson
jcookson @ illuminati online