Footie fallout

July 15, 2014 • 4:29 am

I suspect we’ll have a bit more of this stuff as the excitement of the World Cup tapers off. Elite Daily put up two more items related to The Chomper:

A Pac-Man game with his likeness was, somehow, created. Even well-respected companies couldn’t resists getting in on the fun, going out of their way to taunt the Liverpool star on social media.

Screen shot 2014-07-14 at 1.57.59 PM

And another one (why do people do this to themselves? Don’t they realize that in 20 years this will be not only stupid, but meaningless).

Over the weekend, one English fan posted a photo of his new, and dumb, ink; a tattoo that immortalizes the Suarez bitemark.


I wonder if the misspelling is deliberate.

h/t: Daniel

21 thoughts on “Footie fallout

      1. There’s going to be another?!

        Object to, no. Disinterested in, yes.

        I get that it’s your blog, and that you post whatever you want. But, you do provide a place to comment about your posts.

        Lighten-up, I’m just giving you a hard time. 😉

        1. “Disinterested” means “neutral” or “objective” not “uninterested.”

          And I don’t need a hard time from readers, thanks, nor advice about whether I should “lighten up: Further, I do not really about whether or not you like the footie posts. I still suggest that you go elsewhere.

          As I’ve always said, it’s not appropriate, if you don’t like a post, to simply say, “I don’t like this.” What’s the point? It’s just rude.

  1. Yes “ere” is deliberate misspelling referring to the ear he chewed last time out. Not being a soccer follower I don’t remember the victim’s name..

  2. If the tattooed person is English the spelling would be deliberate. It is spelled how it would be pronounced. It’s a common piece of graffiti here. Sometimes was is also misspelled to ‘woz’, which is something I can’t explain.

    1. Yes, “x woz ere”. I suppose it is an extension of “Kilroy was here” but with the humorous misspelling.

    2. It is easy to explain –
      a/ ‘woz’ was originally a sort of phonetic spelling from someone who did not write well,
      or maybe –
      b/ it is a deliberate humourous spelling like the British form of Kilroy, – ‘wot no…’

      I favour the latter.

      ere or ‘ere for here surely needs no explanation but here it is – aphesis…

  3. Very droll, reminds me of the time when we had a chocolate bar called Marathon.
    Then suddenly it became Marathon Internationally known as Snickers. Not good, I thought.
    Now its Snickers.

    Still I like the poster.

  4. Of course, he’s got the deliberate mis-spelling wrong. Instead of routinely having added an apostrophe where none was needed, the tattooer has left one out. It should be “‘ere”.


  5. If one already has >1 tatoos in non-promiscuous places, then adding another is just noise to the owner.

    One tatoo can be poignant. In fact, in today’s world, one can stand out a lot more by only have one tatoo (chemical formula, DNA, Darwin’s finch, Feynman diagram) simply because 2sigma (>95%) of tatoo owners have >1.

    1. If we judge tattoo ownership by who pays the credit card bill, then I’m guessing there’s a significant percentage of tattoo owners with zero tattoos on their own bodies.

  6. Funny ad. I like the tattoo personally, but understand it will be meaningless before long.

    I agree with Kevin above…I’ve seen some really cool tats with science as the theme. Hydrogen atom symbol, Voyager’s golden record, A. afarensis…

  7. My parents are vacationing in Europe and have spent the last two days in Germany. They were pleasantly surprised by the celebration, including some great fireworks.

  8. I can vouch for the deliberate mispelling. I have written many a time ‘MorsGotha woz eya’ in random places in my youth.

    Getting a Tattoo of that? No.

Leave a Reply