That was fast.

RIP Akitsu Maru.

Akitsu Maru leaking intel to the Army?

Sounds about right for IJA.

Sasuga Kempetai

So Ooyodo's acting as ONI for Hisamura's base?

I'm pretty sure that the Army's salty about getting one of their skilled Majors as part of the Navy that they had to somehow insert this Akitsu Maru

ezekill said:

So Ooyodo's acting as ONI for Hisamura's base?

I'm pretty sure that the Army's salty about getting one of their skilled Majors as part of the Navy that they had to somehow insert this Akitsu Maru

I've always imagined Ooyodo to be the most fitting for a naval intelligence agent out of all shipgirls currently implemented in the game.

Look like its Munmu-san's dramatic interpretation of Phase 2 map reset.

The jig is up!

So, how exactly does she report the friendly abyssals? Especially the apple peel munching Wo-Class.

WhiteCrow said:

I've always imagined Ooyodo to be the most fitting for a naval intelligence agent out of all shipgirls currently implemented in the game.

If I remember correctly, crew members aboard both Mamiya and Irako also moonlight as intelligence officers, due to their job of moving around a lot and making contact with all the ships in the fleet. What better disguise for a spy-hunter than a janitor or cook?

AdventZero said:

If I remember correctly, crew members aboard both Mamiya and Irako also moonlight as intelligence officers, due to their job of moving around a lot and making contact with all the ships in the fleet. What better disguise for a spy-hunter than a janitor or cook?

"I'm just the ship's cook."

Mamiya in Under Siege 4.

AdventZero said:

If I remember correctly, crew members aboard both Mamiya and Irako also moonlight as intelligence officers, due to their job of moving around a lot and making contact with all the ships in the fleet. What better disguise for a spy-hunter than a janitor or cook?

"What's your name?"

"Cook's assistant Loganov, sir."

(Also: Ooyodo is too close. Someone with the training Akitsu Maru presumably has should never be held at gunpoint within arm's reach. It often doesn't end well for the person who initially had the gun.)

zgryphon said:

"What's your name?"

"Cook's assistant Loganov, sir."

(Also: Ooyodo is too close. Someone with the training Akitsu Maru presumably has should never be held at gunpoint within arm's reach. It often doesn't end well for the person who initially had the gun.)

I'd like to assume that she isn't, with how they're standing and that Akitsu Maru seems to be drawn a bit larger than Ooyodo is the perspective we're getting might make the two of them appear to be positioned closer than they actually are.

Garrus said:

So, how exactly does she report the friendly abyssals? Especially the apple peel munching Wo-Class.

Maybe she hasn't met them yet. If she's merely attached to the base rather than being one of Natsuki's shipgirls (who as far as we can tell seem to be 100% loyal to him personally, due to being charmed by his gallantry and insistence on treating shipgirls as fellow human beings), then it makes sense he'd try to keep his "fraternization" with those Abyssals a secret from an outsider like her, so that she doesn't flip out and try to report him to her actual superiors (which would necessiate nasty solutions like claiming she was lost in battle against an Abyssal force).

Commentary translation bump for this post and the preceding one, since the first and fourth pages' commentaries have been translated.

OK, did it myself, but I'm not confident about the result.

MarqFJA87 said:

OK, did it myself, but I'm not confident about the result.

捕捉　is an obvious typo: 補足　(sounds the same, so a likely typo when scrolling through kanji conversions for kana input).

You seem to be just looking up dictionary (JP -> EN) definitions of the words and smushing them up together without regard for context or verb conjugations. Don't do that. That will lead to things like "city-sect", "dying is good" and "you're not human".

Remember, a bad translation is worse than no translation.

I'll advise looking up a Japanese dictionary (which usually have more extensive explanations as they can't just use a 1~3 word equivalent in another language), or at least go through example sentences if you're using a JP -> EN source. Context is important. Like 捕捉, for example, which isn't used to mean "to understand something" in the general sense, but more like to figuratively catch or grasp something (the word　literally means "to catch" or "to capture"). 参考 does mean "to refer to", but it is used in the sense of "to use something as reference", and not "to make a reference to".

陸 here is used as shorthand for 陸軍, "army".

NNescio said:

You seem to be just looking up dictionary (JP -> EN) definitions of the words and smushing them up together without regard for context or verb conjugations. Don't do that. That will lead to things like "city-sect", "dying is good" and "you're not human".

SOMEONE SET UP US THE BOMB

@NNescio said:

捕捉　is an obvious typo: 補足　(sounds the same, so a likely typo when scrolling through kanji conversions for kana input).

Well, that explains why I couldn't figure out how to properly integrate that into the sentence. Thanks.

You seem to be just looking up dictionary (JP -> EN) definitions of the words and smushing them up together without regard for context or verb conjugations. Don't do that. That will lead to things like "city-sect", "dying is good" and "you're not human".

I do use both a JP->EN dictionary and Google Translate in pretty much all of my translations, but to supplement my own amateur knowledge of Japanese. And I do take context and verb conjugations into consideration, so please can it with the baseless accusations. You're making mountains out of molehills. You want truly bad translations, I can dig up a few from elsewhere.

Remember, a bad translation is worse than no translation.

That depends on how bad the translation actually is. Some "bad" translations still manage to both get across the gist of the text and be generally readable, in which it is definitely preferable to no translation.

I'll advise looking up a Japanese dictionary (which usually have more extensive explanations as they can't just use a 1~3 word equivalent in another language), or at least go through example sentences if you're using a JP -> EN source.

For all that I'm pissed off at your condescending attitude towards me and jumping to unfounded assumptions about my translation methodology, I will take this piece of advice into consideration.

Context is important. Like 捕捉, for example, which isn't used to mean "to understand something" in the general sense, but more like to figuratively catch or grasp something (the word　literally means "to catch" or "to capture").

I took the "understand" meaning from here; it seemed pretty reasonable, considering what the subsequent sentences translated to.

参考 does mean "to refer to", but it is used in the sense of "to use something as reference", and not "to make a reference to".

<double checks> ... This is what I get for glossing over the noun sense of those kanji in my haste.

陸 here is used as shorthand for 陸軍, "army".

Yeah, in hindsight, that should've been very obvious to me. It's just like how 陸自 is the abbreviation of the JGSDF's full name (日本陸上自衛隊).

MarqFJA87 said:

That depends on how bad the translation actually is. Some "bad" translations still manage to both get across the gist of the text and be generally readable, in which it is definitely preferable to no translation.

I'm fairly certain "bad" translation in this sense refers to mistranslation and not bad English. Bad English can be fixed by proofreaders, but a mistranslation in convincing English often goes unnoticed unless a random translator felt something is off (usually in terms of plot consistency) and decides to read the underlying JP text. It doesn't help that check_translation is often underutilized.

So no, a "bad" translation in the sense of mistranslation is the worst kind of translation you can get from a translation viewpoint.

MarqFJA87 said:

I took the "understand" meaning from here; it seemed pretty reasonable, considering what the subsequent sentences translated to.

Notice that it's not under 捕捉する, but under 捕捉しがたい. It's not used to mean comprehending something unless it's in that form (though 理解しがたい seems to be more prevalent).

Even then, ーしがたい means "difficult to (do something)" so even under the assumption that 捕捉 meant comprehension, the translation of
一応捕捉として
would be
"As a comprehension,"
rather than
"Just in case you didn't get it," (As a non-comprehension?)

If you need to substitute a JP noun with an EN verb for it to make sense, then it should raise some red flag (exception: you're trying to make the sentence sound more natural).

---

Regardless though, you should get used to referring to JP dictionary. I used to rely entirely on rikaikun as well, but eventually switched over as I find it confusing due to the multiple meanings an English word could have.

Plus, the weblio's thesaurus serves as a good TL;DR when the word has too many definitions.

MarqFJA87 said:
For all that I'm pissed off at your condescending attitude towards me and jumping to unfounded assumptions about my translation methodology, I will take this piece of advice into consideration.

Condescending?

MarqFJA87 said:

I do use both a JP->EN dictionary and Google Translate in pretty much all of my translations, but to supplement my own amateur knowledge of Japanese. And I do take context and verb conjugations into consideration, so please can it with the baseless accusations.

Baseless, moi? Baseless?

...

If you're going to resort to attacks on my character, then I'm afraid I'd have to defend myself. I try to be diplomatic, but it won't be pretty.

For this post, post #3245055, you didn't understand the meaning of the words 捕捉 (granted, it was a typo, but still), 預かり and 参考. They don't mean what you think they mean, and you just grabbed JP -> EN definitions without care for the context the words are used in (that is, how they should be used in sentences).

You slightly misinterpreted とか (it is used to express uncertainty here, not the "and sort" sense) and 見知っている (it means something slightly different when conjugated to this form, as opposed to bare 見知る). Reasonable mistakes to make.

(But when combined with all the others...)

You don't quite understand how として is used grammatically　（note that として is a conjugated form of たり), which would have definitely thrown up a red flag (as Vezral mentions). You also interpreted の and に　wrongly in 陸の預かりにしていません, which would have clued you in that 陸 refers to some entity instead of land. Again, reasonable mistakes by themselves, but not when combined with all the others.

You ignore the context of French Gendarmes being mentioned (which makes your interpretation of 陸の預かりにしていません completely nonsensical), as well as the greater context of Akitsumaru roleplaying as a spy and treating the Army (the General Staff, but it's clear it's referring to the Army) as a separate entity from her Military Police corps.

From this it would appear, prima facie, that you:
1) You are unfamiliar with the vocabulary used in this commentary and are looking up dictionary (JP -> EN) definitions of the words and joining them together in a coherent-sounding sentence.

2) You have poor command of the Japanese grammar and verb conjugations used here.

3) You do not grasp the overall context of the commentary, nor the context of the comic strip.

Note that I didn't draw any direct conclusions. I said "seem", and it does "seems" so. Not baseless at all, unlike your unfounded accusations.

And now we move on to post #3242943, wow, this one's a doozy. Here, you:

1)Got Funawatari's name wrong. This one's a reasonable mistake, even if WhiteCrow sorta mentioned his name on his first comment.

2) Didn't understand that ロアナプラってる is being used as an ersatz verb (note the ってる conjugation). Here, it means to act like (the denizens of) Roanapur (or "to pull a Roanapur). Again, an issue with verb conjugations.

3) Didn't understand ババみ and just assumed it means ババ (hag), ignoring the extra み at the end. To be fair, I didn't quite get the word either (though my suspicions were correct), so I went googling around for a few minutes. I only started the translation when I was dead sure. For reference, it's like バブみ　(which was what clued me on), babytalk that also means "to be mothered on", or "having a motherlike spirit", but for grandmothers instead of mothers.

4) Didn't quite understand 救いを求めた. 救いを求める　can be translated as "to find salvation", but the past form means "searched for salvation" (or more idiomatically, "went searching for salvation"), you actually haven't "found it" yet (or maybe you did, but that's not the focus of the text). Again, same issue with just looking up simple English definitions of unfamiliar vocab and not being familiar with verb conjugations.

5) Didn't understand 精を出している, which is a set expression (usually listed as one word in dicts means "to put one's best in" (figuratively you're taking your spirit out and putting it all into your work). Instead you interpreted it as two separate words, 精 and 出している. This is exactly the same kind of mistake made in "dying is good" 「死ぬがよい」, "city-sect" 「都会派」, and "you aren't human" 「この人でなし」, all happening because the translator wasn't familiar with a set expression and interpreting it literally (like, say, interpreting "raining cats and dogs" as literally raining cats and dogs). Which is why I alluded to it.

6) Misinterpreting the whole block その「布教」に精を出している困ったオジサン. You didn't understand that その「布教」に精を出している is being used as prenominal quasi-adjective (note the る ending for 出している). Instead, you interpreted the whole block as a subordinate clause, which would have require a て　conjugation (there are some others), or nominalizing ("nounify") the whole predicate with の or 事. Again, poor grasp of verb conjugations.

7) You misunderstand 困った as "troubled". Here it means "troublesome" or "troubling", or more verbosely "someone who goes off and does his own thing or say something out of turn, until others all get fed up of him". It's a set expression of sorts (困った人, 困ったちゃん, or generally when 困った　is followed by a person). This is a reasonable mistake, but again, when coupled with all the others...

8) Again, you completely misunderstood ﾀﾘﾅイ　（足りない). This is, once again, a case of unfamiliar-with-the-word-so-I-just-looked-up-a-short-English-definition-titis. It means something is lacking in the "not enough" sense (which should be obvious if you're familiar with the kanji 足).

9) You completely ignored the comic's context of Kongou being bitchy with her Admiral and just latched unto the word Roanapur and made your own stories about Balalaika and the like.

You didn't understand the passage at all, and the mistakes you made are similar to (but even worse) that in post #3245055, further supporting my earlier point.

Really, I'm being generous. To me, the whole paragraph, on first impression, just looked like you took:

あきつ丸レポート 2

その男、舟渡義孝。部下の大半がロアナプラってる中、ババみに救いを求めた…。そして現在、その「布教」に精を出している困ったオジサンデース。　前⇒(im8471825)　次⇒(まだ)

舟渡少将→(；´Д`)ﾊｧﾊｧ …ﾊﾞﾊﾞﾐｶﾞﾀﾘﾅｲ!　　ｼﾊﾞｸｿﾞﾃﾒｪ…(ﾟωﾟ​*)←金剛ちゃん♪

Looked up some words:

That man, Yoshitaka Funato. Majority of subordinates Roanapuraってる中, [OLD WOMAN]みに[FOUND SALVATION]... Nowadays, that [MISSIONARY WORK]に[TAKE OUT SPIRIT]ている[TROUBLED] old man DEESU.

Rear-Admiral Funato→(；´Д`) "Hah-hah… [OLD WOMAN] [LACKING]! I'll hit ya, you sonuvabitch…!" (ﾟωﾟ​*)←Kongou-chan♪

Filling up whatever remains with a warped sense of context and prettifying to result by making up things and adding some words to make the result sound coherent (not dissimilar from how some light-novel 'translators' who use MTLs do their work. Yes, I said that.) to arrive at:

This man is Yoshitaka Funato. The majority of his subordinates are Roanapurans who found salvation with a certain old woman. Nowadays, this old man is troubled by the spirit they gained from their "missionary work" DEESU.

Rear-Admiral Funato→(；´Д`) "Hah-hah… The old woman's body is lacking." "I'll hit ya, you sonuvabitch…!" (ﾟωﾟ​*)←Kongou-chan♪

...this.

--

Now, I would like to mention that throughout all of this, I'm not disparaging your translation efforts elsewhere (but I admit I do have some doubts in mind now after seeing your work here and the post before), nor is it intended as a description of your general work practices. It's just a very apt first impression of what it appears that you're doing here for just these two posts.

You're clearly in over your head here (for these two posts). I'm sorry to say, but translating the commentaries for these two posts is out of your depth. I mean, sure, Munmu's writing style is vague (not as bad as Nasu though) and can be a bit hard to understand, but you picked your own difficulty because you aren't obliged to translate them.

MarqFJA87 said:

You're making mountains out of molehills. You want truly bad translations, I can dig up a few from elsewhere.

Ah, pulling out the old "there are worse things out there" card, are we. That doesn't work for uploads, and it doesn't work for note translations either. Even if that were valid, it is funny that you would use that argument because I can hardly think of anything that is worse than your commentary translation on the previous post. Seriously, this is worse than CATS' intro scene in Zero Wing, ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US included.

MarqFJA87 said:

I took the "understand" meaning from here; it seemed pretty reasonable, considering what the subsequent sentences translated to.

I don't see any example sentences there. Just a short phrase. And it's conjugated to an adjective.

The other example phrases and sentences mostly mean 捕捉 in the literal sense (to capture). Went through the first three pages and didn't bother looking further. Example sentences on weblio are usually bad anyway because they just use a (poor) search algorithm to trawl for hits of the word.

Use context.reverso if you want Japanese example sentences translated into English. Or ask a question on hinative or Duolingo.

[deleted]

First off, sorry for taking so long to reply. I've been down with a severe bout of allergy for several days, and then had quite a lot of stuff on my plate for the past few days after said bout of allergy passed that each day I ended up so drained I couldn't trust myself to not mess up my response. The upside is that it gave me time to make sure I'm looking at this with a cool head.

@Vezral said:

I'm fairly certain "bad" translation in this sense refers to mistranslation and not bad English. Bad English can be fixed by proofreaders, but a mistranslation in convincing English often goes unnoticed unless a random translator felt something is off (usually in terms of plot consistency) and decides to read the underlying JP text. It doesn't help that check_translation is often underutilized.

So no, a "bad" translation in the sense of mistranslation is the worst kind of translation you can get from a translation viewpoint.

In that case, we are on the same page. If you ask me, for all the mistakes I've made in my translation attempt, I did not distort the original text's meaning anywhere near as bad as when Team Vanilla turned a "so you'd go after anything that moves"-style question (fourth panel of this) into an very harsh-worded "LEAVE ME ALONE!" (fourth panel of this) in the doujinshi Koisuru Purin-Pai.

@NNescio said:

Condescending?

The tone of your comments thus far does come across as such to me, yes. Maybe you don't realize it, but all the "non-verbal signals" I've been getting from you basically amount to "either score an 8.5 out of 10 on your first attempt at Japanese-to-English translation, or don't even bother trying in the first place, no ifs, ands or buts". It doesn't help that while I don't remember us ever interacting, I do recognize your name simply because I noticed you were involved in a lot of the translation being done around here over the past couple of years that I've been on this site, which puts you in a position akin to "authority on matters of translation". I've had some really bad experiences with authority figures in my life abusing their authority in really horrible ways (my fucking biological father is one of those, damn him to the deepest pits of hell), and that makes me automatically skeptical of any other authority figures I come across... and probably prone to false positives when it comes to perceiving abuses of their authority.

Baseless, moi? Baseless?

You're the one who opened up this whole argument regarding my translation attempt (which is also the first time we've ever interacted ever, AFAIK) by grossly exaggerating my request for proofing my work as if I was somehow aware that my translation was that flawed, when it should be quite obvious from the way I phrased my request that I believed I only had some relatively minor kinks to iron out at worst. And you didn't even bother with giving even the briefest of actual explanations about what mistakes I've committed in post #3242943, and only doing so with a handful of mistakes that I've done in this post; certainly not enough explanation to justify your accusation that I've been "smushing" dictionary translations of words willy-nilly without thinking of the grammar or context.

Had you said something to the effect of "I would list all the mistakes you've done, but it would be long and I worry it might be too much of a shock for you", it would've been a different story.

If you're going to resort to attacks on my character, then I'm afraid I'd have to defend myself. I try to be diplomatic, but it won't be pretty.

Nah, I don't mind. I'd actually rather that you'd have done so from the beginning; it's the absence of this that's the main reason why I've been pissed off while writing my previous responses: it gave me the impression that you didn't think I was worth the time to properly explain just how badly I screwed up whatever it is that I screwed up.

For this post, post #3245055, you didn't understand the meaning of the words 捕捉 (granted, it was a typo, but still), 預かり and 参考. They don't mean what you think they mean, and you just grabbed JP -> EN definitions without care for the context the words are used in (that is, how they should be used in sentences).

You slightly misinterpreted とか (it is used to express uncertainty here, not the "and sort" sense) and 見知っている (it means something slightly different when conjugated to this form, as opposed to bare 見知る). Reasonable mistakes to make.

(But when combined with all the others...)

You don't quite understand how として is used grammatically　（note that として is a conjugated form of たり), which would have definitely thrown up a red flag (as Vezral mentions). You also interpreted の and に　wrongly in 陸の預かりにしていません, which would have clued you in that 陸 refers to some entity instead of land. Again, reasonable mistakes by themselves, but not when combined with all the others.

You ignore the context of French Gendarmes being mentioned (which makes your interpretation of 陸の預かりにしていません completely nonsensical), as well as the greater context of Akitsumaru roleplaying as a spy and treating the Army (the General Staff, but it's clear it's referring to the Army) as a separate entity from her Military Police corps.

From this it would appear, prima facie, that you:
1) You are unfamiliar with the vocabulary used in this commentary and are looking up dictionary (JP -> EN) definitions of the words and joining them together in a coherent-sounding sentence.

2) You have poor command of the Japanese grammar and verb conjugations used here.

3) You do not grasp the overall context of the commentary, nor the context of the comic strip.

Note that I didn't draw any direct conclusions. I said "seem", and it does "seems" so. Not baseless at all, unlike your unfounded accusations.

Believe it or not, I've been in arguments with people in the past that used "seem" and such words not as they're meant to be used, but rather as a roundabout way of saying "I totally believe that you did X, but I don't want to say that straight to your face because it's not 'politically correct' so I'm jumping through hoops to maintain the veneer of civility so that I don't lose the argument". I appear to have misinterpreted your use of "seem(s)" as being so in my anger at what I had perceived as condescension from you towards me.

And now we move on to post #3242943, wow, this one's a doozy. Here, you:

1)Got Funawatari's name wrong. This one's a reasonable mistake, even if WhiteCrow sorta mentioned his name on his first comment.

2) Didn't understand that ロアナプラってる is being used as an ersatz verb (note the ってる conjugation). Here, it means to act like (the denizens of) Roanapur (or "to pull a Roanapur). Again, an issue with verb conjugations.

3) Didn't understand ババみ and just assumed it means ババ (hag), ignoring the extra み at the end. To be fair, I didn't quite get the word either (though my suspicions were correct), so I went googling around for a few minutes. I only started the translation when I was dead sure. For reference, it's like バブみ　(which was what clued me on), babytalk that also means "to be mothered on", or "having a motherlike spirit", but for grandmothers instead of mothers.

4) Didn't quite understand 救いを求めた. 救いを求める　can be translated as "to find salvation", but the past form means "searched for salvation" (or more idiomatically, "went searching for salvation"), you actually haven't "found it" yet (or maybe you did, but that's not the focus of the text). Again, same issue with just looking up simple English definitions of unfamiliar vocab and not being familiar with verb conjugations.

5) Didn't understand 精を出している, which is a set expression (usually listed as one word in dicts means "to put one's best in" (figuratively you're taking your spirit out and putting it all into your work). Instead you interpreted it as two separate words, 精 and 出している. This is exactly the same kind of mistake made in "dying is good" 「死ぬがよい」, "city-sect" 「都会派」, and "you aren't human" 「この人でなし」, all happening because the translator wasn't familiar with a set expression and interpreting it literally (like, say, interpreting "raining cats and dogs" as literally raining cats and dogs). Which is why I alluded to it.

6) Misinterpreting the whole block その「布教」に精を出している困ったオジサン. You didn't understand that その「布教」に精を出している is being used as prenominal quasi-adjective (note the る ending for 出している). Instead, you interpreted the whole block as a subordinate clause, which would have require a て　conjugation (there are some others), or nominalizing ("nounify") the whole predicate with の or 事. Again, poor grasp of verb conjugations.

7) You misunderstand 困った as "troubled". Here it means "troublesome" or "troubling", or more verbosely "someone who goes off and does his own thing or say something out of turn, until others all get fed up of him". It's a set expression of sorts (困った人, 困ったちゃん, or generally when 困った　is followed by a person). This is a reasonable mistake, but again, when coupled with all the others...

8) Again, you completely misunderstood ﾀﾘﾅイ　（足りない). This is, once again, a case of unfamiliar-with-the-word-so-I-just-looked-up-a-short-English-definition-titis. It means something is lacking in the "not enough" sense (which should be obvious if you're familiar with the kanji 足).

9) You completely ignored the comic's context of Kongou being bitchy with her Admiral and just latched unto the word Roanapur and made your own stories about Balalaika and the like.

You didn't understand the passage at all, and the mistakes you made are similar to (but even worse) that in post #3245055, further supporting my earlier point.

Really, I'm being generous. To me, the whole paragraph, on first impression, just looked like you took:

Looked up some words:

Filling up whatever remains with a warped sense of context and prettifying to result by making up things and adding some words to make the result sound coherent (not dissimilar from how some light-novel 'translators' who use MTLs do their work. Yes, I said that.) to arrive at:

...this.

I'd like to note that the last bit -- the took-looked up-arrive at sequence -- is an oversimplification of what actually happened on my end, but... that's about my only issue with it.

Now, I would like to mention that throughout all of this, I'm not disparaging your translation efforts elsewhere (but I admit I do have some doubts in mind now after seeing your work here and the post before), nor is it intended as a description of your general work practices. It's just a very apt first impression of what it appears that you're doing here for just these two posts.

You're clearly in over your head here (for these two posts). I'm sorry to say, but translating the commentaries for these two posts is out of your depth. I mean, sure, Munmu's writing style is vague (not as bad as Nasu though) and can be a bit hard to understand, but you picked your own difficulty because you aren't obliged to translate them.

Yeah, in hindsight, I really had been out of my depth. Even when I worked my ass through this pool, I had to consult RedHen for one thing or the other almost every page - for some of the same things that I had trouble with in this post (e.g. として), ironically enough. I really erred when I decided to not trouble him this time out of embarrassment at effectively using him as a crutch, without actually considering that my choice of first translation target to practice my independent skills on may be too big a bite for me to chew.

Ah, pulling out the old "there are worse things out there" card, are we. That doesn't work for uploads, and it doesn't work for note translations either. Even if that were valid, it is funny that you would use that argument because I can hardly think of anything that is worse than your commentary translation on the previous post. Seriously, this is worse than CATS' intro scene in Zero Wing, ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US included.

See my response to Verzal for what I deem to be far worse than what I've done here.

@Verzal & @NNescio: ... So, anything to say about my last comment here?

MarqFJA87 said:

@Verzal & @NNescio: ... So, anything to say about my last comment here?

Second link is wrong (it points to the same place as the first). Also might be a good idea to throw up an NSFW warning in case anybody else clicks it out of curiosity.

I did manage to find the EN version you are referring to, 'though I only skimmed through ~15 pages around the part you contested because I'm... uh... not that interested in the doujin. To keep it short (and based on the pages I read), I didn't (and don't) quite agree with your assessment, but I didn't want to press the issue further.