Thanks to Thomas for:
0 
8 
6150 0 4570 0 4110 0 2530 0 2320 0 1610 3 1520 3 1370 1 1150 0 1050 2 950 1 760 1 740 0 680 2 650 2 620 2 610 0 621 0 560 2 54
It’s a fail on a whole different level when the sign is made by a professional sign maker…
Agreed.
It’s two bad people let obvious mistakes like this slip past them.
Hall Monitor
http://detentionslip.org
Two troo
New CARTOONS here: http://spinachflame.wordpress.com/
And even more of a fail when neither the person ordering the sign NOR the signmaker realize the mistake!
Maybe it’s just a play on the food being “too” good…?
With every post I lose more faith in humanity.
Second that.
Third that!
Fourth that! hehe
Hey, some of these people could be the president…
On a side note, I’m guessing how the proper sign has “To . go” my guess is that they thought it was an “o” instead of a “.” as well?
That doesn’t make any sense either. I cannot any logic here.
what’s up with people leaving out verbs?
Chili’s go, too?
Chili’s Too is actually the name of a type of Chili’s store. (scaled down, usually found in airports)
Not sure if this is a true FAILure or just idiotic marketing.
I Second Austerity’s comment. Chili’s Too is also found in mall food courts. This is not a fail, it’s a play on words. Take it down.
Look at the smaller sign with the painted chili. To me that looks like “to go”.
The play on words is just as stupid as the FAIL would be. It’s a FAIL, no matter which way one looks at it.
Yes, idiotic marketing is a FAIL.
I agree that Chilis Too is a proper noun, however stupid, but don’t be a dick. “Take it down.”? Lighten up.
Stop arguing for the Admin to take down the posts, he never does even IF it shouldn’t be here. It IS technically the correct name for the mini-stores, but it’s still incorrect in English! Just because a corporation spelt it wrong doesn’t make it right.
/rant
Yes, but those are not “Chili’s Too Go.” They’re just “Chili’s Too,” a smaller version. “Chili’s To Go” is simply a regular Chili’s, and you get the food to go.
It still makes no sense to me even after “Chili’s Too” is taken into consideration.
Grammar doesn’t really apply to proper names.
Here’s a vague image of one of their signs: http://cache.virtualtourist.com/1/3778469-Chilis_Too_IAH-United_States_of_America.jpg
Lemme see.
We have the drone who made the sketch. The regional drone who approved the sketch. The projects drone who contracted with the sign company. The sign company drone who had done 20 or more of these same signs. The project drone, again, who made the trip out to the site to observe the sign being installed. The driver of the boom truck who has a masters in English, laughing his culo off because of the sweetness of the moment. The store manager drone who just got another complaint because there was a large wad of schmutz on the bottom of a plate that a customer had refused. Then came the decision from the accounting drone to close the location because of some nonsense about a fall off of patronage.
I am just guessing of course.
Chili’s Too is a smaller version of Chili’s. There is one in a mall near where I used to work. “Chili’s Too Go” was their take-out window, where you could order stuff from a condensed menu, come back in five or ten minutes, and be on your way.
The only failure here is stupid commenters who think that they’re smarter than everyone else.
So what you’re saying is that “To Go” is the fail, and it’s the second sign that’s a f$ck up?
The second sign is a registered symbol in and of itself. It’s an emblem denoting the specified service offered at the location.
There’s no functional difference between the “Chili’s To-Go” service at Chili’s versus Chili’s Too so they leave the ” To+Go” emblem alone.. which makes it even more confusing but allows them to retain brand cohesion.
When you get into symbols, emblems and marketing things become stupid in a lot of cases thanks to legal wrangling and trademark registration.
So it’s a failure by the marketing department rather than by the signwriter – that’s still a fail.
Why doesn’t the second o in “Too” have the little curly tail like the other two “o”s? … The first one in Too links to the second one, but the one in Go curls like the first o … letter fail?
Though, the bottom To Go sign has a dot between the To and Go … is the second o supposed to be the dot and its a spacing fail that also happens to look like a letter?
I don’t know just throwing possible mistakes out there…
I just read what I wrote and it is REALLY confusing. Sorry.
Not so confusing. Also, the second o in too has its break to the left of center unlike the other two, which have their breaks right of center, in imitation of how a right-handed calligrapher would construct the letter. In fact, that second o looks like a mirror image of the others, minus the connector.
This is just more analysis and deconstruction, nothing to do with commenting on the rationale of the sign’s genesis.
not a fail. check the context next time. when chili’s builds a second restaurant close to an original one, they call it chili’s too. as in chili’s also.