Not really . . .
November 12, 2011 • 3:52 pm
Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
He has an accompanying shirt that reads “Don’t trad on me.”
he?
Don’t titter so!
ROFL!
Anyone ridiculous and vain enough to get such a tattoo (derived from a really dumb pop song) deserves to live with this kind of consequence.
What specific “consequence” are you making reference to here, that he’ll be immediately thought of as a moron by everyone creepin’ up on his backside?
Creep up? I’ll see that tattoo from the other side of the swimming pool! (And probably make a point of avoiding that particular swimmer for the forseeable future.)
I hope that’s not permanent tat .. ?!?
As a die-hard sport climber, I approve of that shirt.
Jay
Real jenius, there.
Aweful.
Took the word right out of my mowth.
A type is one thing, but ALL CAPS, in gothic? Unforgivable.
Unlike Roman capitals, gothic capitals were never made to be used in all caps, and they look terrible that way. :p
The unreadable font may have been his/her only lucky break.
Yeah, at first glance it looks like “I’m amsome”.
maybe he’s a cockney
Agreed – it took me a minute of thinking “cockney? WTF”
Actually, in the world of typography “gothic” applies to things like Helvetica and Arial.
That “Olde English” style lettering is technically a version of blackletter, of which there are a number of quite distinct flavors.
In the world of **calligraphy** Gothic refers to forms such as Gothic Textura Quadrata. Calligraphy scripts predate “typefaces.”
“The term Gothic was first used to describe this script in 15th-century Italy, in the midst of the Renaissance, because Renaissance Humanists believed it was barbaric. Gothic was a synonym for barbaric. Flavio Biondo, in Italia Illustrata (1531) thought it was invented by the Lombards after their invasion of Italy in the 6th century.”
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Blackletter
/pedant
German used to be printed exclusively in that kind of font until fairly recently.
Regardless of what the “world of typography” calls it, it’s known, quite properly, as Gothic. As in, of the Goths, the old Germanic tribes.
Not really…
Not “German” per se, not “exclusively”, not “that kind of font”, not “until fairly recently”.
And no, not “known” as “Gothic”, and certainly not “properly”. And nothing to do with the Goths either, who had their own script:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_alphabet
And the Goths were not “the” old Germanic tribes. The Goths were one of the many ethnic-political entities speaking a Germanic language, just like the Angles, the Saxons, the Burgundians, the Vandals, and many more.
It would take half a library to dispel all the fallacies compressed in your two sentences. Makes me wonder whether a little learning is that much better than a dumb, dyslexic typo.
Maybe the tattoo gun only does Gothic.
(That was a joke folks.)
And that looks suspiciously like a classic “jail house tat,” which means that these two probably didn’t have access to a dictionary.
Just needs some punctuation: Aw, some people don’t know how to spell.
Or a red spellcheck underline squiggle.
Some of us cultural Jews have a natural reversion to any tattoos at all. Seeing the one stamped on my mother-in-law’s arm from a concentration camp makes me dislike all tattoos.
But it is fun to see the stooopidity of some.
how can one ‘naturally’ revert to tattoos?
Reversion:
2. A turning away or in the opposite direction; a reversal.
The word you’re looking for is aversion. A natural reversion to tattoos would imply that your skin reverts to it’s original colour, or in the opposite of direction of the colour of the tattoo.
I’d prefer “aversion” here as well, but I think NewEnglandBob is technically okay using “reversion”. Check the definition he quotes; it’s valid and seems to be the meaning he is intending.
Reversion here sounds very odd to me. Like an eggcorn for both aversion and revulsion.
As intended.
Perhaps the preposition is the problem. I would have taken the meaning sooner if it had been stated “reversion before” or “reversion in the face of”. Still, aversion seems better. I have an aversion to usages of obscure and possibly confusing dictionary definitions.
I feel compelled to ask:
Has he even read the fucking thing?
🙂
Looks to me like this person deserves some understanding and sympathy. Not ridicule. Most of the comments so far remind me of school bullies having at the gays, Muslims, atheists, etc.
Well, we’re pretty sure he wasn’t born with it.
You’re part-right. He deserves ridicule for his incredibly stupid choice of tattoo. He deserves sympathy for his incredibly poor choice of tattooist.
Nah, he definitely deserves ridicule.
Wow, our first tattoo tone troll.
I bow in the direction of youthful High Self-Esteem and Self-Regard. (Most likely a middle or high schooler here in the Land of the Fee and the Home of the Craven.)
Let’s grant that this person is in fact “awesome.” While it may be true enough that “Hit ain’t braggin’ if hit’s thuh truth,” is it not better for that sentiment to issue from the mouths of others?
At a school assembly a 7th grader wore a T-shirt with the following sign:
The MAN (with arrow up)
The LEGEND (with arrow down)
He was escorted out and given a different shirt.
I am some?
Maybe it’s unfinished.
Oh wait, I meant I’m am some.
Jerry, do you have an email addy so I can send you a youtube link for consideration?
Welcome to the WEIT initiation test. 😉
Hint: a link on this site will take you to a page that will help.
I fail.
This one?
Shannon (dot) Twomey (at) us (dot) penguingroup (dot) com;
It asks for media inquiries only.
Well, at least you’re humble.
😀
Click on “Research Interests,” under “Book Links.”
Next we can work on the secret handshake.
Those zits on his back are pretty awsome too.
They look like scars from gunshot wounds to me (if so, I guess this tattoo isn’t the worst thing that ever befell this guy).
That would be “owsome”.
Awwwwww. That’s so sad, it’s awwwwwsome.
Born too loose.
As in – ‘not too tightly wrapped’?
I used to enjoy the typos and unintentionally preposterous “wisdom” on interwebz pics of church signs. Then I discovered a site where you can make reasonably convincing fakes. Took some of the fun out of ridiculing the real thing.
I don’t say this tattoo pic isn’t authentic. But I bet there are more than a few counterfeits out there too.
I so agree. The more amazing the picture, the more skeptical I am. (Not talking about this particular one, now.) Same thing with movies; the more spectacular the stunt, the more my mind says, “just CGI.”
Very discouraging, not to mention the fact that photo-documentation has been so completely compromised.