While I'm thinking about it, if any of you are dog owners or are ever around them, please don't give dogs any Snickers... chocolate is really bad for dogs. Rush him to the animal hospital bad if he eats more than a little.
What I saw on Cute Overload was a couple pictures of a guy who loves his dog, and vice versa.
It seems wildly inappropriate for the "haters" to use that site to slam Scott (or anyone else).
Comments there should have been in regard to the pictures and in keeping with the theme of that site.
Blog comments here, loving or hating are appropriate and invited.
That provides communication between opposing views and opinions, with the possibility of understanding the opinions of those that disagree with me. Or as i refer to them, people who are wrong.
[And I thought I was your toughest critic. ..."Unfortunately, Scott Adams is a loathsome sexist so I shanÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t be buying his book any time soon. Also, Dilbert was last funny in 1998."]
Go back and look at some of the comments regarding Scotts decision to endorse Romney sometime. Pretty sure he was called worse at that time. And its possible that some earlier blogs of his riled folks up even more.
Did you see what some dude/dudette handled as "Grouchy Pants" said about you on the CO blog? In case you missed it, I present it here in all its unglory:
"Unfortunately, Scott Adams is a loathsome sexist so I shanâ€™t be buying his book any time soon. Also, Dilbert was last funny in 1998."
One sees a disgruntled feminist (or wanabee metrosexual guy) who is obviously somewhat long in the tooth, since s/he last appreciated Dilbert fourteen years ago.
Loathsome? A tad harsh, IMHO. Sexist? Obviously, she (I'm assuming here, because the writing style sounds like a Seven-Sisters graduate who has never removed that corncob of anti-obsequiousness from her derriere) has never read your blog, but instead has left it to her militant sisters to catagorize you out of context.
Unusual as I find it to be defending Scott, particularly because he certainly doesn't need it, I can only conclude that snot-nosed snobs like Ms. GP are among the easily-manipulated nattering classes who substitute peer slander for reasoned examination of primary sources. LRC, indeed!
Right. Got it. New book. Now can you get back to blogging about world events, your latest idea to save the world and other stuff I can poke holes in without repeating myself from past blogs?
More seriously, its not that I mind how accessible you've made yourself. I liked the first pic (not so much the second), appreciate the video and would have liked to attend the question session (didnt find out about it in time). But I also like poking holes in your blogs and for the past week the best Ive been able to do here is poke holes in other comments.
[I've been guest blogging at TIME.com this week. I added a link to the Cute Overload post above. Thanks for reminding me :-) -- Scott]