Clearly a parody

So Scott Adams shouldn't be too irritated at this amusing depiction of his mental state.

More like this

Here's a good interview with Brian Flemming, the documentarian behind The God Who Wasn't There, who also irritated a lot of prissy reactionaries who have too-tight pants with his blasphemy challenge on youtube. Simon Owens: Do you think the "blasphemy project" is an effective way for atheists to…
We went round and round on this well over a year ago. Scott Adams, of Dilbert fame, wrote a shallow and ignorant argument that sort of shilly-shallied over a pro-creationist argument; I pointed out how stupid his reasoning was. The response was insane; criticize Adams, and his horde of Dilbert fans…
Light blogging today, I'm afraid. My high speed Internet access was on the fritz last night, leaving odds and ends. Truly annoying. (On the other hand, maybe it's the FSM's way of telling me to slow down a bit.) Patch Adams, the famous doctor who advocates humor in medicine and has been known to…
John Quiggin: Phillip Adams and Peter Dixon have prepared a reply (over the fold) to the opinion piece by Robson and Davidson in the Australian which offered a range of incoherent criticisms of proposals to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Disgracefully, but not at all surprisingly, the Oz has…

Heh. I had to save it to view the whole thing, but I was able to.

Also, I'll be attending an "ID vs. Evolution" debate at the local community college and I wanted to completely tear the ID people up and down. Just hit them with questions they obviously won't be able to answer.

So far, I have these two:

Since intelligent design does in fact support evolution, which do you think is more likely allopatric or sympatric speciation?

Given that ID expresses a belief in intelligent agency during the evolutionary process, how does it account for things like harlequin type icthyosis (also known as harlequin fetus), autoimmune disorders, and a vitamin c pseudogene in humans and apes that is "broken" in the same location.

I'd like 3 to 5, and that's all I can think of.

Thanks!

this is about as funny as the low octane "dildobert" parodies that occasionally pop up on myspace kiddie sites (I have a 14 yo gdaughter). I fail to see how slagging a cartoonist that writes a three panel strip about moronicity in corporate amerika promotes science education.

s.

And I fail to see how your comment promotes world peace.

it doesn't mr. reynardine....I'm just suggesting that calling someone a dickhead because he holds religious beliefs is a good way to get a fuck you response from the putative dickhead (the generic method of discourse here), and general dismissal of the entire discussion from the majority who don't care...

s.

I'm just suggesting that calling someone a dickhead because he holds religious beliefs is a good way to get a fuck you response from the putative dickhead

Holds religious beliefs? Another Dilberthead here said Adams was an atheist. Can't you guys make up your minds?

By George Cauldron (not verified) on 06 Feb 2007 #permalink

er.. well, it's funnier than the Scott Adams' article started the mess, but that's a low bar to clear.

Thank you for your efforts, BronzeDog, but I'm afraid it's too stiff. Don't give up parodying cartoonists, but don't think you're done with art when your work is only that good.

Yeah, I realize it's not quite another Christians & Crusades (which is about religious nuttery), but figured I might as well, since it's been almost a whole year since the first Image Dogtoring. May try another if I'm feeling more inspired.

ROTFLMFAO!!!!

Scott Adams is a total doo-doo head!!!

By Great White Wonder (not verified) on 06 Feb 2007 #permalink

yo bronze, the point didn't sail over my head. my point is this whole damn blog is, in essence, no religion vs. religion using a discussion model on the amoeba vs. carnivorous plant level. I could care less about adams. I just hope my gdaughter doesn't decide that scientists are jerks an decide to become a pro skateboarder.

s.

You mean we weren't playing dueling non sequiturs?

I just hope my gdaughter doesn't decide that scientists are jerks an decide to become a pro skateboarder.

Why? Pro skateboarders get paid more.

By Great White Wonder (not verified) on 06 Feb 2007 #permalink

I fail to see how slagging a cartoonist that writes a three panel strip about moronicity in corporate amerika promotes science education.

This isn't filed under science education, dipshit, so you're attacking a strawman. and he's not being slagged for writing about moronicity in corporate amerika, so the fact that he does so isn't relevant.

I'm just suggesting that calling someone a dickhead because he holds religious beliefs

What the HELL are you talking about? Not only isn't that what you suggested in your first post, but no one has done anything of the sort, dickhead.

By truth machine (not verified) on 06 Feb 2007 #permalink

yo bronze, the point didn't sail over my head. my point is this whole damn blog is, in essence, no religion vs. religion using a discussion model on the amoeba vs. carnivorous plant level.

There seem to be a lot of points that are your point. I thought it was something about how Adams shouldn't be slagged because he writes about moronicity in corporate amerika. Oh, but now you say "I could care less about adams".

I just hope my gdaughter doesn't decide that scientists are jerks an decide to become a pro skateboarder.

You should be more concerned that your gdaughter decides that you're a jerk, because you obviously are one.

By truth machine (not verified) on 06 Feb 2007 #permalink

And I fail to see how your comment promotes world peace.

Read more closely. He said he's promoting whirled peas.

By George Cauldron (not verified) on 06 Feb 2007 #permalink

I thought the punchline was done quite well - in exactly the same style Adams uses. Thanks for the larf.

I just hope my gdaughter doesn't decide that scientists are jerks an decide to become a pro skateboarder.

You should be more concerned that your gdaughter decides that you're a jerk, because you obviously are one.

My past experience with truth machine render this a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. That said, the pot has a point.

llewelly,
Too stiff? You mean like the Dilbert cartoons themselves?

Good point.

That's just whore-able. Whore-able, I tells ya.

For all their sins, the Chick tracts have a much richer graphic style than Scott Adams's work. That offers more material for the altered text to play against, so the text doesn't have to work as hard, and it's easier to make a perfect parody.

It's harder to hit perfection — but darn, this one was pretty good.

my point is this whole damn blog is, in essence, no religion vs. religion using a discussion model on the amoeba vs. carnivorous plant level. I could care less about adams. I just hope my gdaughter doesn't decide that scientists are jerks an decide to become a pro skateboarder.

Is this parody? That might be one of the most insane groupings of words I've read in a few weeks.

Scott has replied in the comments section of The Bronze Blog...

Too stiff? You mean like the Dilbert cartoons themselves?

Adams has confessed that he couldn't draw when he started, IIRC. In any case he has managed to become a success in spite of that.

Now it turns out he also doesn't have a sense of humor in his private sphere. The man must be a genius.

By Torbjörn Larsson (not verified) on 07 Feb 2007 #permalink

"Scott has replied in the comments section of The Bronze Blog..."

Or at least someone claiming to be him.

By TheBlackCat (not verified) on 07 Feb 2007 #permalink

Too stiff? You mean like the Dilbert cartoons themselves?

Adams has confessed that he couldn't draw when he started, IIRC. In any case he has managed to become a success in spite of that.

Now it turns out he also doesn't have a sense of humor in his private sphere. The man must be a genius.

By Torbjörn Larsson (not verified) on 07 Feb 2007 #permalink