huh? wuzzuh? posted by quonsar at 4:53 PM on January 14, 2004
At least they let him play without covering them up with giant white patches. I never did understand why LeBron had to do that. posted by Ufez Jones at 5:03 PM on January 14, 2004
"you look at the picture and you'll say, 'Holy cow, look at the bellybutton.'" posted by smackfu at 5:14 PM on January 14, 2004
i resent that perceived objection posted by clavdivs at 5:14 PM on January 14, 2004
At least they let him play without covering them up with giant white patches. I never did understand why LeBron had to do that.
Did he actually do that every time he played? posted by The God Complex at 5:20 PM on January 14, 2004
I can't verify every time, TGC, but all of his HS televised games were that way. And I've never seen a pic of him in a HS uniform without them. posted by Ufez Jones at 5:38 PM on January 14, 2004
Truth may be ugly, but edited it becomes a lie. posted by rushmc at 5:46 PM on January 14, 2004
What's wrong with belly buttons? posted by Lafe at 6:11 PM on January 14, 2004
belly buttons = Satan posted by tirade at 6:12 PM on January 14, 2004
I went to BYU, and this would not surprise me at all. Facial hair was great for mormon men up until the 50's/60's, so lots of icons (Brigham Young, Karl Maeser, and many, many more) have beards in their portraits and the occasional sculpture you find. There was, at one point, discussion of whether to remove the beard from one of Maeser's likenesses on campus when this became taboo under dress and grooming standards. And curiously, Brother Brigham's most prominent likeness is facial hair free.
Good school, I had some really positive experiences there (choral music program was second to none in the US while I was there, I think, and the CS program is pretty good), but sometimes it's a really, really weird place. posted by weston at 6:42 PM on January 14, 2004
Why can't I make fun of Mormons? This whole thread is begging us to mock Mormons, but my anti-Mormom posts keep getting removed, suspiciously, under the cover of night. posted by xmutex at 6:42 PM on January 14, 2004
Only main-stream Christian doctrine can be mocked here, unless a minority is being mocked. posted by Mick at 6:51 PM on January 14, 2004
x: Matt obviously liked my post better. ;-P posted by mischief at 7:46 PM on January 14, 2004
The article was wrong. They didn't speak to the person actually in charge of the media guide, they spoke with his boss. The person actually in charge of the media guide was on the radio this evening an none of the photos were retouched to remove tattoos. Some of the photos are older, before the new tattoos, but if you look in the media guide, you see him with plenty of his tattoos showing.
Like the guy in charge of it said, maybe in Duff's time they did that, but they certainly haven't in the past 5 years or so. posted by Plunge at 7:47 PM on January 14, 2004
Thanks, Plunge, for the update.
Guess that settles that. posted by silusGROK at 8:17 PM on January 14, 2004
All right -- but they woulda done it, I tells ya! posted by namespan at 8:44 PM on January 14, 2004
Hmmm. I'm pleasantly surprised.
Though I'd be disappointed if my facial hair stopped having the attention-drawing and free parking effects it gets me know. posted by weston at 8:54 PM on January 14, 2004
..gets me know
argh. gets me now. posted by weston at 8:55 PM on January 14, 2004
Truth may be ugly, but edited it becomes a lie.
That's a pretty good line, rush. Is it yours or did you get it from somewhere? posted by ashbury at 9:12 PM on January 14, 2004
I find it pleasant to hear of some place that shares my view of tattoos. Human bodies are beautiful, ink doesn't add to it, it only subtracts. So I'm out of fashion? Lucky me! I'm not in the trap! posted by Goofyy at 3:12 AM on January 15, 2004
Goofyy: What trap aren't you in? posted by Orb at 5:14 AM on January 15, 2004
Are you people happy now?!
;-P
posted by mischief at 4:38 PM on January 14, 2004