Needless to say, we have a few questions about this gentleman, so we've asked to be put in touch with him. We will report back with any and all responses.
I'm sure Red Sox tattoos would be much more tasteful than those garish MFY things. Boston is the Athens of America, y'know!
Frankly, after seeing those NYY tats, I am afraid to google "red sox tattoo".
All the regulars on JOS could make a spring training pact to get a RS 2012 World Champions tattoo, if such should come to pass--think of the positive energy we'd be directing Fenwayward all next season!But tasteful, natch.
This is as good evidence as any as to why I don't understand why people get tattoos. Do these people really want to live that way for the rest of their lives?Sorry, John, but I am not signing on to THAT pact. No one is putting any needles into me, even for the Sox!
I understand why people get tattoos - and obviously most people don't go quite this far - but I've decided to stay tat-free for my entire life. Friends and acquaintances are often surprised that I don't have a single tattoo. Tattoos have become so common, it's hard to believe they were once the province of outlaws and rebels, especially for women.
To each his or her own, but nope, I can't see marking my body permanently with anything. It took me forever to get my ears pierced! And at least I can change my earrings if I want or not wear any at all.Just an old fuddy duddy I suppose.
All the regulars on JOS could make a spring training pact to get a RS 2012 World Champions tattoo, if such should come to passIf we were REAL fans, who friggin believed, we'd get the tattoos on Truck Day.
Some Red Sox tattoos(Nice touch with the McDonald's logo...!)So, Amy, you are saying you wouldn't like this on your leg? :>)
LOL! Nope, no way. At 80, I probably won't even remember who those two are and what they are doing.
I used to tease Allan that I would get an NY tattoo. Whew, I dodged a bullet there! :)* * * *Amy, since I have no tattoos and have decided never to get any, obviously I do agree as far as permanently marking my own body. I like my skin ink-free.But I don't have a strong aversion to anyone else doing so, I don't find it weird or gross or anything. Although these NYY tattoos take weird and gross to new depths.
So, Amy, you are saying you wouldn't like this on your leg? :>)!!!!!
At 80, I probably won't even remember who those two are and what they are doing.LOLEven funnier than the tat :)
Exactly my point, Laura---if you had, now you'd be stuck with that forever (or have to undergo an expensive and painful procedure to get it removed). We all change our interests, styles, likes and dislikes---how does someone know now what they will want on their body 20 or even 5 years later?I don't find most tattoos distasteful especially when they are small and discreet. But yikes---marking up your WHOLE back?? That's a turnoff for me.But like I said, to each his or her own. Just don't impose it on me. (And please don't do it if you are my child or partner!)
If I had wanted to get an NY tattoo (which would have been small), I'm sure the procedure to have it removed would not have been such a big deal. The whole "what if you don't like it anymore" only works if you don't like tattoos. I think these folks should be more concerned with their bodies changing than their tastes changing. What starts out on hard muscle will look quite different on soft flab!
I think these folks should be more concerned with their bodies changing than their tastes changing. What starts out on hard muscle will look quite different on soft flab!LOL! Yes, for sure. Or when their skin is all wrinkled...
I've got a small star on my forearm that I got in 1990 in LA and have had touched up over the years in Honolulu and Seaton UK. If my students ask me about it I tell them that all their teachers with at least 25 years service get them as a mark of honor & prestige, but some of their teachers may be a little shy about showing them off, especially since there is no requirement as to where on the teacher's body the star goes."Ask your older teachers to show you their service star tattoo," I end by advising my inquiring students. "Don't let them claim they don't have one!"But, yeah, Allan is right--frigging Truck Day.
Ha, John, I love that. I wouldn't mind having a small peace symbol on my ankle. We have a friend with this in red, which would be great. I'm not doing either, but those would be my choices.
Why does a Yankees player have number 42? That's a retired number, guys!
Why does a Yankees player have number 42? That's a retired number, guys!Mariano Rivera wears 42. (How does a Red Sox fan not know that?)Anyone who wore 42 before it was retired was allowed to continue to wear it.
I think Rivera is the only player left using 42, isn't he?I am sure Jackie Robinson would be pleased to know that one of the greatest pitchers of all time will be the last to wear his number.
I think Rivera is the only player left using 42, isn't he?Yes, he'll be the last active player to wear that number. Jackie Robinson's number was retired in 1997!At the time #42 was retired, Mo said he chose 42 specifically to honour Robinson, although I never saw any reference to that again.
It's weird that this came up in this thread - last night Allan sent me this Jayson Stark column in praise of Mo.
I'm pretty sure Conor's comment was a joke. ... Anyway, Rivera actually wears 42 in honour of Mo Vaughn.
Is the guy at bottom of the first Yankees tattoo supposed to be Jeter? Because it looks more like Mark Buehrle.
I'm pretty sure Conor's comment was a jokeLeave it to me not to get it.
Neither did I.
One time I wrote to Baseball Almanac because they had a uniform number wrong. I told them how a certain guy couldn't have worn a certain number after a certain point since it got retired. The guy writes back and says, Well Rivera wears 42 and it's been retired so sometimes players can wear retired numbers. At which point I tried to explain to him the whole situation. And he still didn't get it. And he worked for Baseball Almanac.
Ok first the yankees must lose every season from now just because of these douche bags with tats.Also, it has been discovered that especially in very colorful tattoos the ink being used is poorly regulated and contains a plethora of chemicals intended to both give the color and preserve it once under the skin. Carcinogenic chemicals at that. It seems to me with this new fad and a lot of the other evangelical crap happening that people have this sense that life is shortening. Why else would people scar their bodies with this stuff as if it were not permanent. The rangers guy can just tattoo over the year easily. The yankees guy has a bunch of roses intertwined in his back vomit. Are roses a yankees thing?
It seems to me with this new fad and a lot of the other evangelical crap happening that people have this sense that life is shortening. Yeah. This "new fad" (what decade is this again?) is because people think their lives are going to end soon. I guess that's also why people smoke cigarettes and eat foods laced with chemicals.Or maybe they're just doing what they want, and not thinking about potential consequences beyond that (including our opinions of their choices).
Post a Comment