Scott Adams, of "Dilbert" fame, threatens legal action over tweet mocking him

I hadn’t read before about his trying to make money over the Garlic Festival shooting (the link was in the article);

Adams added that in such a situation, he wouldn’t expect a witness to charge for sharing their story. The witness would “set their price at zero,” which means his company wouldn’t benefit financially. But if a witness chose to charge for an interview, a news organization would have the option “to not pay if it doesn’t feel right.”

In other words, he was generously only taking a cut for himself if any money was changing hands. He wouldn’t charge if there was no money to take from the shooting witness. How noble! And if a news organization didn’t like the idea of giving him a cut instead of paying the shooting witness directly, they were free to not use the story.

What an ass.


Oh man, Achewood, how could I forget about you?


GoComics has a separate section for his older comic strips, from before he was such an obvious prick

Of course he’s still alive so potentially he benefits now from people reading the old stuff


My mentor has been telling me to visit the Keys for the longest; because one day relatively soon, they won’t be above sea level anymore.

We met in '99, and he was saying it back then.


Um, no. I was complimenting your excellent phrasing. Now I wish I hadn’t.


I love the Keys, but alas, he’s absolutely right.

Some developer built two luxury homes on Little Conch Key just a few years ago. Bear in mind, this is really just an island made from construction detritus when they built the railroad. They already get waves rolling into the swimming pools.


If one could measure success by the fact that he still has people talking about him, and that he hasn’t yet tweeted something completely irredeemably awful, then perhaps he could be said to have some measure of success yet.

I didn’t realize he was still doing written blog entries. Dilbert dot com used to have blog entries, and then it had links to his podcasts, but now it’s just down to the strips – no doubt at the behest of the syndicate.

ETA: Of course he has comments disabled on his blog.


He usually is, it’s utterly maddening sometimes.


Living on the west coast, we are expected to understand two things at the same time

  • There are earthquakes here, including offshore, and nothing below 100 feet elevation is safe

  • There are lots of roads and buildings below 100 feet, and you can buy them and live there

The whole idea that the “smart people” have got it all taken care of is absurd


My apologies then. Its hard to miss what someone is saying when they use one word…

I took it to mean you thought he was a winner.


“Throughout all modern history, when we humans see a problem coming from far away, we have a 100% success rate in solving it.”

I guess nobody ever told him about survivorship bias…


What the actual, not-at-all-feasible-in-reality fuck. Are they talking 100 feet underground, or 100 feet below sea level?

Either idea is problematic as fuck, regardless which one is meant.

I think @smulder means “below 100 ft elevation.”


I think @smulder was pointing out that even though people on the west coast know it’s dangerous to live between sea level and 100ft above sea level, they are still buying there and doing it.


All this time I was assuming Adams viewed himself as Dilbert.

Oh well, stopped paying attention to Dilbert years ago. is much better.


Jake Tapper, apparently:

I have no clue who Tapper is, and I don’t like Adams… but I too would be pretty pissed if someone called me the Louis Farrakhan of anything.


You still could, you’d just need a snorkel.


Right. And beyond that, the idea that “rich people won’t buy things that will eventually lose their value” is just… wrong. The idea that rich people always make smart real estate decisions… well, anyone who believes that, I have some property on 666 5th ave to sell them.

As a larger issue, the idea that the market/financial institutions indicate the seriousness of a problem with their response isn’t right either - it indicates the immediacy of the problem, more than anything. They tend not to respond to things if they figure they can cash out and make it someone else’s problem first.


That’s ok - what’s the net for if not for misunderstandings and arguments?