|
Post by jayson on Sept 17, 2007 23:07:20 GMT -5
they removed it because he is banging michelle mccool
|
|
Underfaker666
Main Eventer
Joined on: Nov 23, 2004 11:42:48 GMT -5
Posts: 3,540
|
Post by Underfaker666 on Sept 17, 2007 23:10:14 GMT -5
then why not photoshop his kids names out? if taker does decide to get it removed thats going to be 10 times more painful then when he got it put on. especially on the neck. Not to mention, even with it having it removed, it will scar up were it was, and you will still be able to faintly see it. if thats the case wouldn't it be better off to have it cut off and sewn carefully by a doctor then the normally removal process?
|
|
|
Post by DgenerationX092 on Sept 17, 2007 23:51:04 GMT -5
It is probably to make him seem less human, and more of a monster. Because having a tattoo of someone's name on you would in a way make you look weaker, because it shows you have feelings. BULLcrap! no more excuses guys just accept the fact that he and sara are done! hes had that tatoo since before he came back as deadman, we know wrestlings fake, and hes had it for his whole deadman run so theres no reason why they would remove it to add to his character. 1. A pic of undertaker, sharmell, and Mccool comes out. - People are skeptic as to if its really her 2. Another pic, of the same day proves Mccool was in the first picture. 3. The picture of Undertaker in a jewerly store with a blonde woman surfaces. Most likley Mccool. 4. The story here last month of undertaker at an airport, arm in arm, with mccool. 5. "Sara" is photoshopped off of undertakers neck. all in the span of less than a year. if that doesnt prove anything then you guys are truley intellectually- disabled.
|
|
|
Post by Creative Has Nothing for Me on Sept 17, 2007 23:56:05 GMT -5
the moral of the story is getting chick's names tattooed on yourself is f**cking intellectually- disabled.
|
|
|
Post by cjc123 on Sept 18, 2007 0:08:38 GMT -5
It is probably to make him seem less human, and more of a monster. Because having a tattoo of someone's name on you would in a way make you look weaker, because it shows you have feelings. BULL ****! no more excuses guys just accept the fact that he and sara are done! hes had that tatoo since before he came back as deadman, we know wrestlings fake, and hes had it for his whole deadman run so theres no reason why they would remove it to add to his character. 1. A pic of undertaker, sharmell, and Mccool comes out. - People are skeptic as to if its really her 2. Another pic, of the same day proves Mccool was in the first picture. 3. The picture of Undertaker in a jewerly store with a blonde woman surfaces. Most likley Mccool. 4. The story here last month of undertaker at an airport, arm in arm, with mccool. 5. "Sara" is photoshopped off of undertakers neck. all in the span of less than a year. if that doesnt prove anything then you guys are truley intellectually- disabled. Not too mention on Affliction.com him and Michelle are modeling T-shirts in a pic.
|
|
|
Post by drippy on Sept 18, 2007 1:03:19 GMT -5
This is exactly why is lame to get someones name tattoo'd on your body. I have "Robert Stack" tattooed across my buttocks.
|
|
|
Post by Patrick Bateman (original) on Sept 18, 2007 1:15:39 GMT -5
It is probably to make him seem less human, and more of a monster. Because having a tattoo of someone's name on you would in a way make you look weaker, because it shows you have feelings. BULL ****! no more excuses guys just accept the fact that he and sara are done! hes had that tatoo since before he came back as deadman, we know wrestlings fake, and hes had it for his whole deadman run so theres no reason why they would remove it to add to his character. 1. A pic of undertaker, sharmell, and Mccool comes out. - People are skeptic as to if its really her 2. Another pic, of the same day proves Mccool was in the first picture. 3. The picture of Undertaker in a jewerly store with a blonde woman surfaces. Most likley Mccool. 4. The story here last month of undertaker at an airport, arm in arm, with mccool. 5. "Sara" is photoshopped off of undertakers neck. all in the span of less than a year. if that doesnt prove anything then you guys are truley intellectually- disabled. I gotta agree. Something is up. They wouldn't just start photoshopping his pics for no reason. They have never done it before.
|
|
|
Post by Controversial Maverick PUNK on Sept 18, 2007 1:44:09 GMT -5
BULL ****! no more excuses guys just accept the fact that he and sara are done! hes had that tatoo since before he came back as deadman, we know wrestlings fake, and hes had it for his whole deadman run so theres no reason why they would remove it to add to his character. 1. A pic of undertaker, sharmell, and Mccool comes out. - People are skeptic as to if its really her 2. Another pic, of the same day proves Mccool was in the first picture. 3. The picture of Undertaker in a jewerly store with a blonde woman surfaces. Most likley Mccool. 4. The story here last month of undertaker at an airport, arm in arm, with mccool. 5. "Sara" is photoshopped off of undertakers neck. all in the span of less than a year. if that doesnt prove anything then you guys are truley intellectually- disabled. Not too mention on Affliction.com him and Michelle are modeling T-shirts in a pic. Where can I find that pic?... I've looked on there, but I can't see it...
|
|
|
Post by toneboat923 on Sept 18, 2007 6:36:44 GMT -5
that tatoo i think takes away form his character
|
|
|
Post by darren on Sept 18, 2007 7:08:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by carly1988 on Sept 18, 2007 7:17:22 GMT -5
If he and Sara break up it wont be removed. He'll just at on to it and turn it into something like Satan....all you have to do is change the R to a T and add the N
|
|
|
Post by ecwbeatwcw01 on Sept 18, 2007 8:52:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by muffin2xtreme on Sept 18, 2007 9:14:16 GMT -5
they done it with punk in a book i got once his pepsi one like they do with figs i say they don't have rights to advertise and it was there last night it is just wwe being gay
|
|
|
Post by taker1 on Sept 18, 2007 9:24:00 GMT -5
she isn't the best, but she isn't ugly.
|
|
Lebowski
Superstar
Joined on: Nov 9, 2008 15:05:32 GMT -5
Posts: 765
|
Post by Lebowski on Sept 18, 2007 9:25:18 GMT -5
they done it with punk in a book i got once his pepsi one like they do with figs i say they don't have rights to advertise and it was there last night it is just wwe being gay Since when is SARA copyrighted by anyone?
|
|
|
Post by Sexy White Chocolate on Sept 18, 2007 9:49:49 GMT -5
I think he looks better without it. Hopefully hell get it covered up with something. He could put something like a bat or a crow perhaps even a gothic looking cross to cover it
|
|
Danny
Main Eventer
Joined on: Oct 2, 2006 13:46:27 GMT -5
Posts: 3,718
|
Post by Danny on Sept 18, 2007 10:12:48 GMT -5
yup, it's still there.
|
|
|
Post by Chip on Sept 18, 2007 10:25:39 GMT -5
ya know when someone mentioned it i didnt notice it on him sunday nite. usually it stands out but i didnt see it. ah well. and really who cares if he's with sara or michelle...maybe he's with them both...why? because he is the F-ing Undertaker. Who is better than him? if he wants to skewer sara & michelle i say good for him
|
|
|
Post by Controversial Maverick PUNK on Sept 18, 2007 11:06:11 GMT -5
she isn't the best, but she isn't ugly. She looks like a bloke... Decent body though...
|
|
|
Post by Focalin on Sept 18, 2007 11:19:04 GMT -5
Why doesn't he just get "skin" tattoo'd over it? To like erase it, as apposed to getting it removed?
|
|