What the Notre Dame game cost me
Many of you saw my post prior to the Notre Dame game regarding the bet I made that Michigan would win the game. For those that didn't: I'm in a band and we were on tour and playing in the Chicagoland area the week before the game. My friend and I, who is also in a band and is a Notre Dame fan, agreed that the loser of the bet would get the winner's band's logo tattooed on him.
To be honest, I was so incredibly bummed after the game, but it really didn't have anything to do with the tattoo. I don't think I've ever seen a more glaring example of the phrase "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory" than this particular game. I know, I know, Big 10 goals all still in-tact, etc. etc. etc., but that one seriously stung.
Anyway, true to my word, I went to get the tatt this week. His band's logo is a roughed-up looking circle around a fairly generic capital W, and I found a way to work it into my sleeve (an full arm of tattoos, for those who aren't familiar). It's only about an inch and a half tall, so it isn't like I'm rocking a cow brand or anything. Many on the original thread seemed to think this was one of those things that would "SOOO not ever happen", so here is the evidence, albeit a bit bloody as I took this immediately after it was finished:
I really needed something to ease the sting of the lost game and, to a lesser extent, the lost bet. So while I was at it, I treated myself to this gem of a tattoo, which now resides on the back side of my upper arm and leaves my sleeve nearly completed except for background/filler material:
Anyway, there is the conclusion of my "cool story". The logo tatt will serve as a lifelong reminder of the ever-present war between head ("this bet is a bad idea!") and heart ("my team will come through for me!"). The mario tatt will serve as a lifelong reminder that anyone who grabs a floating red leaf before it hits the ground can immediately sprout furry ears and a tail. Go Blue, beat the Boilers.
October 2nd, 2012 at 7:15 PM ^
October 2nd, 2012 at 7:32 PM ^
Oh, Don. I like that I don't need to call you an asshole because you always tell everyone yourself.
My wife took a case all the way to the US Supreme Court this year, and won. She has a tattoo. And I don't mean a little butterfly on her ankle, I mean full on tramp stamp, tribal, chinese symbol, the whole kit and kaboodle. How can that possibly happen, Don? Her IQ so low she not know how to lawyer good?
October 2nd, 2012 at 7:49 PM ^
Man, that butterfly is a hell of a lawyer.
October 2nd, 2012 at 8:43 PM ^
he was trying to make a funny. The stereotype is not that there is a DIRECT correlation between # of tattoos and IQ, it is that there is an INVERSE correlation between # of tattoos and IQ.
or maybe he was just trying to be an asshole.
either way, I LOLERGAGGLZE!
October 2nd, 2012 at 9:52 PM ^
Mind sharing the Reports number?
October 2nd, 2012 at 11:44 PM ^
I just googled it, since my wife is busy with the baby. I think 10-1018 is it, or that's a different number. Anyway, the case was Filarsky v. Delia.
October 3rd, 2012 at 1:05 AM ^
This is not, strictly speaking, evidence of intelligence.
October 3rd, 2012 at 1:11 AM ^
October 4th, 2012 at 6:57 PM ^
i wish i had your faith in the meritocracy. but good on her at any rate. sounds like a catch.
October 4th, 2012 at 7:23 PM ^
You do realize that you can be cynical without actually insulting people, right?
Are you insinuating what my wife got to where she is based on something other than merit? Because if you are, we have beef. Why don't you call it a day on this thread and go back to dressing up your dog.
October 4th, 2012 at 9:31 PM ^
i didn't mean you to take the bit about your wife in that post as sarcastic. i meant to insinuate that, despite your ignoring the initial joke and repeating that her accomplishment is evidence of merit, i can't see how it is. that's why the rest of the post (after the first sentence) is nothing but positive. the thought process was: some other person randomly took offense at the first post, which might not have been funny, but wasn't supposed to be offensive, so maybe i should clarify what i meant. but it doesn't work if you ignore contrastive words like "but" and "at any rate" in order to read something in that's not there.
anyway, since you're so busy being defensive, i give up. your wife apparently lives in LA, and she's a lawyer, and she married you, and she has a tramp stamp for some reason, so she's probably a terrible person. now that i have pointlessly insulted somebody i don't have an opinion about, you can be mad about what someone said on the internet without being wrong about what was said. thumbs up. downvote away. i'll go cry.
oh, hey, football's on. i'll try to remember to be upset about this later when i don't have anything better to do, like if the power goes out while my wife's asleep and i forget how to read, play cards, or sleep.
October 4th, 2012 at 12:52 AM ^
Seriously... you have to politicize someone's acoomplishment?
Douche.
If you wanted to trivialize the judicial system without insulting a Michigan man's wife, you would have said something like, "wow, yet another, in a long line of 9-0 overturns, for the 9th circuit court."
October 4th, 2012 at 9:35 PM ^
but mostly i have no idea what you're talking about. i didn't insult his wife. in fact, i have every confidence that his wife--unlike you, who i gather isn't exactly the electric lime of the crayola world--would be able to read what i wrote and recognize that i didn't say a single thing about her.
also, since i just googled the 9th circuit court after writing the above, i have absolutely no idea how what you suggested would "politicize" her accomplishment less, since the recent record of the 9th circuit court is supposed to be a feature of the politics of its judges. what i did: insult the abilities of the SCOTUS justices. what you wanted me to do: bring up the alleged political slant of the 9th circuit. why would the latter politicize anything less? that really makes no sense.
edit: i have now said mean things about her. i totally meant them and was not mocking her husband for being defensive about nothing. boo that guy's wife. boo. i really have opinions about these denizens of the internet. i am not at all just wasting time until this commercial is over. none of this is trolling in any way. it totally deserves to be on the board to be read by everyone and every downvote is a complete injustice. if one of the mods deletes it, that's a total travesty. 100% worst thing ever. oops, commercial ended, gtg.
October 2nd, 2012 at 4:22 PM ^
It was me that posted:
Nothing is ever going to not happen as much as this.
Props to you, I really didn't think you'd go through with it.
October 2nd, 2012 at 5:51 PM ^
"The mario tatt will serve as a lifelong reminder that anyone who grabs a floating red leaf before it hits the ground can immediately sprout furry ears and a tail"
is beautifully put.
October 2nd, 2012 at 6:54 PM ^
double post woops
October 2nd, 2012 at 6:48 PM ^
Dude, that mario tattoo is so awesome, great artwork and very well done! Now you just need to get duck hunt on you somewhere
October 2nd, 2012 at 7:14 PM ^
October 2nd, 2012 at 7:16 PM ^
I admire your principles and your fandom. And taste in tatoos- that Mario one is excellent.
October 2nd, 2012 at 8:00 PM ^
October 2nd, 2012 at 9:55 PM ^
At least you didn't pull an Aaron Rogers.
October 3rd, 2012 at 12:01 AM ^
So, is the tat a W or an M?
October 3rd, 2012 at 1:07 AM ^
he totally should've gotten it put on upside down.
...although that might suggest he's a fan of whatever team the guy getting squashed on Jerel Worthy's arm plays for.