I don't really know why but I really enjoyed Dilbert a lot as a teen. The easily imitable art style had something to do with it, I'm sure. I also really enjoyed the Dilbert cartoon later on....
I don't really know why but I really enjoyed Dilbert a lot as a teen. The easily imitable art style had something to do with it, I'm sure. I also really enjoyed the Dilbert cartoon later on. Although all of it's a lot less funny now that I'm a working adult. Plus...ya know...Scott Adams turned out to be a garbage-ass human being. So that kinda sours all of it for me.
Dilbert was alright, and I really identified with it as a teen and a young working adult. It represents the attitudes and ideas of a lot of people, especially young people working in STEM fields...
Exemplary
Dilbert was alright, and I really identified with it as a teen and a young working adult. It represents the attitudes and ideas of a lot of people, especially young people working in STEM fields have.
As I got older and more exposed to the reality of the reasons behind a lot of management decisions, the comics started seeming a bit sillier, short sighted, and ignorant at times.
There's definitely a type of person in most offices that strongly identifies with Dilbert. They're usually male, usually engineers or programmers or some other technical role, and they usually think they're the smartest person in the room despite any evidence to the contrary. They usually have opinions that basically boil down to "all of my bosses are idiots with no common sense, and if they let me run this company we wouldn't have to do any of this dumb stuff". They also have no real interest in learning any of the reasons behind why they're being told to do the dumb stuff.
As I've gotten more experience, I've become less and less patient with people like that, and think back to when I was a person like that at times and cringe a bit.
Reading Dilbert nowadays makes me feel many of the same emotions.
Oh no ... uh, for no reason, could you list out some of the dumb stuff you're thinking of? 😅 I kinda burned out of corporate work, in large part because what we were doing didn't make sense (e.g....
They usually have opinions that basically boil down to "all of my bosses are idiots with no common sense, and if they let me run this company we wouldn't have to do any of this dumb stuff".
Oh no ... uh, for no reason, could you list out some of the dumb stuff you're thinking of? 😅 I kinda burned out of corporate work, in large part because what we were doing didn't make sense (e.g. didn't listen to customers and built things they didn't ask for, pursued ground-up rewrites/flashy features instead of fixing bugs, management layers refused to pass bad news up the chain-of-command, etc.), and it'd be useful to understand what your take is, if you're OK to share it.
(I understand that "playing the game" is a huge part of corporate jobs, btw, so if the reasons you're thinking of boil down to appeasement of superiors, then I suppose I've already learned my lesson)
Dumb stuff like prioritizing things that make money right now versus things that may help your small slice of the pie long term. Or enabling some new AI tool that hasn't been properly vetted, or...
Dumb stuff like prioritizing things that make money right now versus things that may help your small slice of the pie long term. Or enabling some new AI tool that hasn't been properly vetted, or shifting priorities in a project last minute.
An example from my job recently is that we were evaluating new vulnerability management tools recently. The engineer in charge of evaluating them liked this very big, fancy, expensive option that would do a great job and make our life a lot easier. When we got the quote, it so massively expensive that it would have been one of the most expensive pieces of software my organization buys. The proposal predictably got shot down.
The engineer raged about it, shouting and whining about how the organization doesn't take security seriously, and how are we supposed to protect the environment with substandard tools, and how management is so short sighted.
We have a limited budget to get a lot of things achieved though, so even though that's not the decision I wanted, I still understand it and it makes sense. We have servers to buy, firewalls to license, other security software we need to pay for, developers that need to be paid and on and on and on. Yes, vulnerability management is important, but so are about a thousand other things. It's very common that engineers can't, or more likely refuse to see outside of their very limited silo and understand that their organization exists to make money or achieve some goal that isn't "create the most efficient motor of all time" or "have an impenetrable network" or whatever else it was they were hired to do.
I think it was due to the extreme level of sardonic humor. Teenagers love that stuff. I first saw Dilbert as a teenager, too, when it was still kind of radical. I'm not happy for his death, but...
I think it was due to the extreme level of sardonic humor. Teenagers love that stuff. I first saw Dilbert as a teenager, too, when it was still kind of radical.
I'm not happy for his death, but it's good that he's not around to spread Trump's poison any more.
I watched the cartoon series once when a re-run was randomly showing late night on a Freeview channel and honestly thought it was terrible. I mean as far as "shitty animated adaptations of comic...
I watched the cartoon series once when a re-run was randomly showing late night on a Freeview channel and honestly thought it was terrible.
I mean as far as "shitty animated adaptations of comic series" goes, it's nowhere near as bad as Ctrl+Alt+Del: The Animated Series, but there is a very good reason it pretty much got dropped after a single season.
I torrented and watched the cartoon last year. I'll give it some points for perfectly capturing what I always imagined an animated Dilbert would look like (I never knew the TV show existed prior...
I torrented and watched the cartoon last year. I'll give it some points for perfectly capturing what I always imagined an animated Dilbert would look like (I never knew the TV show existed prior to stumbling across the torrent for it), but that's about where the sidewalk runs out. Having not read Dilbert since I stopped reading physical newspapers, I used to have decently fond memories of it, but looking at it now it's not very funny to me, even ignoring Adams' politics. I think /u/papasquat was correct in their assessment of the target demographic: it's a bit of a litmus test for how green you are and how well you can tolerate the corporate world. Can you appreciate the process and logic, even when it leads to sub-optimal outcomes? If so, you've probably outgrown Dilbert.
Like the comic, the show only has a few jokes which it recycles like plastic (which is to say the jokes get downcycled, with each iteration being progressively less funny), and the second season (yes, there's 2, and it's also not worth watching) is just more of the first. There's no overarching theme or plot, no character development or introspection...in a way, it seems immune to Flanderization since its characters are already 1D archetypes.
I've seen it described as trash TV for men, and I can't say I disagree.
The only one I really remember was when they invented a fake coworker so they could have an empty cubicle to hide/relax in. But then this fake coworker (Todd) somehow got promoted over them and...
The only one I really remember was when they invented a fake coworker so they could have an empty cubicle to hide/relax in.
But then this fake coworker (Todd) somehow got promoted over them and people started doing random things because it was part of Todd's plan. The whole thing became a metaphor for religion.
I feel bad writing this, because I really liked his stuff in the 90s. Sadly, he went right wing and red pill level misogynist about the time H Clinton ran for president. He became a very ugly person.
I feel bad writing this, because I really liked his stuff in the 90s.
Sadly, he went right wing and red pill level misogynist about the time H Clinton ran for president.
I guess..... we'll try to celebrate the good times we had together in the 90s when his humour was different and when we had more in common. I guess many people out grew Adams' humour, but at least...
I guess..... we'll try to celebrate the good times we had together in the 90s when his humour was different and when we had more in common. I guess many people out grew Adams' humour, but at least we can mourn the memories and our collective youth a bit.
Behind the Bastards podcast did a very funny two parter on Scott Adams that I would recommend checking out on your next boring car ride. Dilbert had some funny workplace comics over the years, but...
Behind the Bastards podcast did a very funny two parter on Scott Adams that I would recommend checking out on your next boring car ride.
Dilbert had some funny workplace comics over the years, but I can't say that I have seen any of them in a number of years.
Shame he went the way he did, but my favorite bits, from the good old days were: The phb has become so dense that he has collapsed in on himself, forming a black hole. Unfortunately, his ideas,...
Shame he went the way he did, but my favorite bits, from the good old days were:
The phb has become so dense that he has collapsed in on himself, forming a black hole. Unfortunately, his ideas, lacking substance, can still escape. Can you program it in b?
The one where Dogbert's product is so user-unfriendly that the box is made of poison ivy.
The one where the boss asks for something, and Dilbert says it's impossible. Then the boss says, "Can you do it in three months?" And Dilbert says, "I can fail at any speed you want."
The one that sticks in my mind is when PHB is quizzing Dilbert about why Dilbert hasn’t filled in the anonymous employee survey. Because this happens to me. Every. Year.
The one that sticks in my mind is when PHB is quizzing Dilbert about why Dilbert hasn’t filled in the anonymous employee survey.
Yeah, they can see who completed it, but not the contents. That's outsourced to a third party to keep personal details away from managers. For data, only department-type groupings are visible....
Yeah, they can see who completed it, but not the contents. That's outsourced to a third party to keep personal details away from managers. For data, only department-type groupings are visible. Multiple types of possible groupings, some as small as three people. But, you know, it would take a curious manager at least a couple of hours playing with different grouping slicers to figure out who was who.
All our work computers have root SSL certificates and SSL busting proxies installed. It's trivial to see what was submitted to https sites for them. I pointed this out to the survey company who...
All our work computers have root SSL certificates and SSL busting proxies installed. It's trivial to see what was submitted to https sites for them. I pointed this out to the survey company who were making all kinds of the same statements as you make, but none of the survey companies aggregating matters, if the company can read the responses right out of their proxies.
I'm not being sarcastic. Scott Adams is/was not the only one. I've always wondered about rich white men who are filled with hate. They can have anything they want. If they are still unhappy they...
I'm not being sarcastic.
Scott Adams is/was not the only one.
I've always wondered about rich white men who are filled with hate.
They can have anything they want.
If they are still unhappy they can afford the best of therapists or any other modality.
Hate and anger can be intoxicating. I've felt it. Few non-pharmaceutical things have ever felt as incredible to me as being both angry and utterly certain that I am correct eg : righteous anger. I...
Hate and anger can be intoxicating. I've felt it. Few non-pharmaceutical things have ever felt as incredible to me as being both angry and utterly certain that I am correct eg : righteous anger.
I think everyone at some point has hated a group of people just because they were an "other", in some regard. When you're wildly successful and rich though, you will likely never have to face it. You will seldom be in a circumstance where you have to work with someone from that group in order to succeed. You either just avoid it, or throw money at the problem until it goes away. When you have to work with, play with, or otherwise cooperate with someone who is an "other" you run the risk of remembering they're human and not all that different from you.
I think this is where it does really get into the idea that money can't buy you happiness. You could have a great therapist who you will never go back and see because they make you think about how...
I think this is where it does really get into the idea that money can't buy you happiness. You could have a great therapist who you will never go back and see because they make you think about how you might be wrong. I also think money tends to bring a lot of sycophants and "yes men" are the opposite of therapists.
Or maybe it's just that the folks willing to do whatever it takes to get that much money are assholes from the beginning. Idk. I'm not sure where to begin in that area of study and not sure I want to as a side project
At the risk of stating the obvious, getting everything you think you want, much of it handed to you, and still feeling insufficient, or unfulfilled, is not a happy place. As men they've also...
At the risk of stating the obvious, getting everything you think you want, much of it handed to you, and still feeling insufficient, or unfulfilled, is not a happy place. As men they've also likely internalized that they shouldn't admit their feelings of insecurity or unhappiness, even to themselves. Leaving them effectively trapped, unable to even acknowledge that they're trapped.
Also, a relatively easy life can make people brittle. Think rich kids.
I work with a variety of wealthy people. I am lucky enough that I get to, for the most part, pick and choose my clients, but there's always a vetting time with new folks, and one thing I've...
I work with a variety of wealthy people. I am lucky enough that I get to, for the most part, pick and choose my clients, but there's always a vetting time with new folks, and one thing I've learned repeatedly is that once people get past the "I could live comfortably off what I already have several times over" level of wealth, it is a very particular type of mindset/personality that is never satisfied, with the only thing they want being 'more'. They are also incredibly fearful of loss, with even the most insignificant hit they take causing them outsized amounts of mental anguish.
For some, this turns them into genuinely nasty, dangerous, ugly individuals. For many, it makes them more pitiful than anything else. They're usually socially isolated, surrounded by leeches, and it often just plain sucks for all involved. In my experience, this pattern holds true across racial and cultural boundaries strongly enough that it tells me there's some fundamental human pathology at play, that winds up expressing itself when inordinate amounts of money are involved.
To counterbalance that, I do also work for some folks who use their wealth to do their best to make the world a better place, and I am deeply grateful for knowing them, because they help keep me from becoming too cynical about human behavior.
That would explain some of the behavior I saw from Adams. He absolutely lost is when H Clinton ran and he got the idea in his head that me might have to pay more taxes.
They are also incredibly fearful of loss, with even the most insignificant hit they take causing them outsized amounts of mental anguish.
That would explain some of the behavior I saw from Adams. He absolutely lost is when H Clinton ran and he got the idea in his head that me might have to pay more taxes.
In this particular case, first he could not have a woman who wanted to be with him more than 8 years, and then not more than 2 years. I wouldn't be surprised if that was a regular pattern with...
They can have anything they want.
In this particular case, first he could not have a woman who wanted to be with him more than 8 years, and then not more than 2 years.
I wouldn't be surprised if that was a regular pattern with these guys.
He could have still put in the work with communication, relationship counseling, therapy etc to fix his problems with driving people away. He had the money to afford the best help.
He could have still put in the work with communication, relationship counseling, therapy etc to fix his problems with driving people away.
This assumes the emotional awareness to acknowledge he's driving people away rather than "them" being the problem. As an example there's a (true story) guy who makes a video saying his wife...
This assumes the emotional awareness to acknowledge he's driving people away rather than "them" being the problem.
As an example there's a (true story) guy who makes a video saying his wife disappeared in the middle of the night with "the kid" and "all the stuff, even stuff I bought" and the people in his comments asking "why was she so scared of you she had to do that?" Guy does not appreciate that line of questioning. He's not going to go to a therapist to fix himself, he's going to go drink at the bar and bitch about his psycho ex who stole his TV.
Idk why his marriages broke up, maybe his exes both sucked and he didn't deal with those emotions, idk. But unless his cancer caused him to hit a "rock bottom" I doubt he thought there was anything wrong with him.
Couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy. The only version of Dilbert I ever enjoyed was the TV show and that was mostly Larry Charles’ work, not Scott Adams. I never quite understood the appeal of...
Couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy.
The only version of Dilbert I ever enjoyed was the TV show and that was mostly Larry Charles’ work, not Scott Adams. I never quite understood the appeal of the comics.
Dilbert comics were a big part of my childhood. Me and my cousin had one of Dilbert's comic books -- the larger one. We read it over and over and repeated the lines all day long. We had other...
Dilbert comics were a big part of my childhood. Me and my cousin had one of Dilbert's comic books -- the larger one. We read it over and over and repeated the lines all day long. We had other books too, and we also watched the cartoon. It was awesome. Thanks for that, Scott Adams!
I don't really know why but I really enjoyed Dilbert a lot as a teen. The easily imitable art style had something to do with it, I'm sure. I also really enjoyed the Dilbert cartoon later on. Although all of it's a lot less funny now that I'm a working adult. Plus...ya know...Scott Adams turned out to be a garbage-ass human being. So that kinda sours all of it for me.
Dilbert was alright, and I really identified with it as a teen and a young working adult. It represents the attitudes and ideas of a lot of people, especially young people working in STEM fields have.
As I got older and more exposed to the reality of the reasons behind a lot of management decisions, the comics started seeming a bit sillier, short sighted, and ignorant at times.
There's definitely a type of person in most offices that strongly identifies with Dilbert. They're usually male, usually engineers or programmers or some other technical role, and they usually think they're the smartest person in the room despite any evidence to the contrary. They usually have opinions that basically boil down to "all of my bosses are idiots with no common sense, and if they let me run this company we wouldn't have to do any of this dumb stuff". They also have no real interest in learning any of the reasons behind why they're being told to do the dumb stuff.
As I've gotten more experience, I've become less and less patient with people like that, and think back to when I was a person like that at times and cringe a bit.
Reading Dilbert nowadays makes me feel many of the same emotions.
Oh no ... uh, for no reason, could you list out some of the dumb stuff you're thinking of? 😅 I kinda burned out of corporate work, in large part because what we were doing didn't make sense (e.g. didn't listen to customers and built things they didn't ask for, pursued ground-up rewrites/flashy features instead of fixing bugs, management layers refused to pass bad news up the chain-of-command, etc.), and it'd be useful to understand what your take is, if you're OK to share it.
(I understand that "playing the game" is a huge part of corporate jobs, btw, so if the reasons you're thinking of boil down to appeasement of superiors, then I suppose I've already learned my lesson)
Dumb stuff like prioritizing things that make money right now versus things that may help your small slice of the pie long term. Or enabling some new AI tool that hasn't been properly vetted, or shifting priorities in a project last minute.
An example from my job recently is that we were evaluating new vulnerability management tools recently. The engineer in charge of evaluating them liked this very big, fancy, expensive option that would do a great job and make our life a lot easier. When we got the quote, it so massively expensive that it would have been one of the most expensive pieces of software my organization buys. The proposal predictably got shot down.
The engineer raged about it, shouting and whining about how the organization doesn't take security seriously, and how are we supposed to protect the environment with substandard tools, and how management is so short sighted.
We have a limited budget to get a lot of things achieved though, so even though that's not the decision I wanted, I still understand it and it makes sense. We have servers to buy, firewalls to license, other security software we need to pay for, developers that need to be paid and on and on and on. Yes, vulnerability management is important, but so are about a thousand other things. It's very common that engineers can't, or more likely refuse to see outside of their very limited silo and understand that their organization exists to make money or achieve some goal that isn't "create the most efficient motor of all time" or "have an impenetrable network" or whatever else it was they were hired to do.
That makes a lot of sense! OK, that sense of dread I was totally not feeling has largely dissipated now. Thank you!
I think it was due to the extreme level of sardonic humor. Teenagers love that stuff. I first saw Dilbert as a teenager, too, when it was still kind of radical.
I'm not happy for his death, but it's good that he's not around to spread Trump's poison any more.
No need to find reasons, back in the day Dilbert was actually very funny. Especially Dogbert!
I watched the cartoon series once when a re-run was randomly showing late night on a Freeview channel and honestly thought it was terrible.
I mean as far as "shitty animated adaptations of comic series" goes, it's nowhere near as bad as Ctrl+Alt+Del: The Animated Series, but there is a very good reason it pretty much got dropped after a single season.
I torrented and watched the cartoon last year. I'll give it some points for perfectly capturing what I always imagined an animated Dilbert would look like (I never knew the TV show existed prior to stumbling across the torrent for it), but that's about where the sidewalk runs out. Having not read Dilbert since I stopped reading physical newspapers, I used to have decently fond memories of it, but looking at it now it's not very funny to me, even ignoring Adams' politics. I think /u/papasquat was correct in their assessment of the target demographic: it's a bit of a litmus test for how green you are and how well you can tolerate the corporate world. Can you appreciate the process and logic, even when it leads to sub-optimal outcomes? If so, you've probably outgrown Dilbert.
Like the comic, the show only has a few jokes which it recycles like plastic (which is to say the jokes get downcycled, with each iteration being progressively less funny), and the second season (yes, there's 2, and it's also not worth watching) is just more of the first. There's no overarching theme or plot, no character development or introspection...in a way, it seems immune to Flanderization since its characters are already 1D archetypes.
I've seen it described as trash TV for men, and I can't say I disagree.
The only one I really remember was when they invented a fake coworker so they could have an empty cubicle to hide/relax in.
But then this fake coworker (Todd) somehow got promoted over them and people started doing random things because it was part of Todd's plan. The whole thing became a metaphor for religion.
I thought it was funny
I could sharply exhale through my nose at Dilbert from time to time back in the day. Can’t separate the art from the raging arsehole though.
I feel bad writing this, because I really liked his stuff in the 90s.
Sadly, he went right wing and red pill level misogynist about the time H Clinton ran for president.
He became a very ugly person.
He was shitty before that. Here's one of his sockpuppet accounts from 2010: https://old.reddit.com/u/plannedchaos
Except he was talking about that person as a sock poppet account so... Big self-own there.
That one caught my eye and gave me a good chuckle too.
Envisioning a grown ass man with this level of cognitive dissonance is jarring.
I guess..... we'll try to celebrate the good times we had together in the 90s when his humour was different and when we had more in common. I guess many people out grew Adams' humour, but at least we can mourn the memories and our collective youth a bit.
Behind the Bastards podcast did a very funny two parter on Scott Adams that I would recommend checking out on your next boring car ride.
Dilbert had some funny workplace comics over the years, but I can't say that I have seen any of them in a number of years.
I fell a couple years behind on BtB and my next up is the two Scott Adams episodes with Matt Lieb, which made me chuckle when I saw this news.
Definitely one of my go to podcasts for road trips.
Shame he went the way he did, but my favorite bits, from the good old days were:
The phb has become so dense that he has collapsed in on himself, forming a black hole. Unfortunately, his ideas, lacking substance, can still escape. Can you program it in b?
The one where Dogbert's product is so user-unfriendly that the box is made of poison ivy.
The one where the boss asks for something, and Dilbert says it's impossible. Then the boss says, "Can you do it in three months?" And Dilbert says, "I can fail at any speed you want."
The one that sticks in my mind is when PHB is quizzing Dilbert about why Dilbert hasn’t filled in the anonymous employee survey.
Because this happens to me. Every. Year.
Yeah, they can see who completed it, but not the contents. That's outsourced to a third party to keep personal details away from managers. For data, only department-type groupings are visible. Multiple types of possible groupings, some as small as three people. But, you know, it would take a curious manager at least a couple of hours playing with different grouping slicers to figure out who was who.
All our work computers have root SSL certificates and SSL busting proxies installed. It's trivial to see what was submitted to https sites for them. I pointed this out to the survey company who were making all kinds of the same statements as you make, but none of the survey companies aggregating matters, if the company can read the responses right out of their proxies.
I love the one where Dogbert cannot write a novel because he is too concise. I'm trying to find it.
I'm not being sarcastic.
Scott Adams is/was not the only one.
I've always wondered about rich white men who are filled with hate.
They can have anything they want.
If they are still unhappy they can afford the best of therapists or any other modality.
Given those things, why grip hard on a hate trip?
Hate and anger can be intoxicating. I've felt it. Few non-pharmaceutical things have ever felt as incredible to me as being both angry and utterly certain that I am correct eg : righteous anger.
I think everyone at some point has hated a group of people just because they were an "other", in some regard. When you're wildly successful and rich though, you will likely never have to face it. You will seldom be in a circumstance where you have to work with someone from that group in order to succeed. You either just avoid it, or throw money at the problem until it goes away. When you have to work with, play with, or otherwise cooperate with someone who is an "other" you run the risk of remembering they're human and not all that different from you.
I think this is where it does really get into the idea that money can't buy you happiness. You could have a great therapist who you will never go back and see because they make you think about how you might be wrong. I also think money tends to bring a lot of sycophants and "yes men" are the opposite of therapists.
Or maybe it's just that the folks willing to do whatever it takes to get that much money are assholes from the beginning. Idk. I'm not sure where to begin in that area of study and not sure I want to as a side project
At the risk of stating the obvious, getting everything you think you want, much of it handed to you, and still feeling insufficient, or unfulfilled, is not a happy place. As men they've also likely internalized that they shouldn't admit their feelings of insecurity or unhappiness, even to themselves. Leaving them effectively trapped, unable to even acknowledge that they're trapped.
Also, a relatively easy life can make people brittle. Think rich kids.
I work with a variety of wealthy people. I am lucky enough that I get to, for the most part, pick and choose my clients, but there's always a vetting time with new folks, and one thing I've learned repeatedly is that once people get past the "I could live comfortably off what I already have several times over" level of wealth, it is a very particular type of mindset/personality that is never satisfied, with the only thing they want being 'more'. They are also incredibly fearful of loss, with even the most insignificant hit they take causing them outsized amounts of mental anguish.
For some, this turns them into genuinely nasty, dangerous, ugly individuals. For many, it makes them more pitiful than anything else. They're usually socially isolated, surrounded by leeches, and it often just plain sucks for all involved. In my experience, this pattern holds true across racial and cultural boundaries strongly enough that it tells me there's some fundamental human pathology at play, that winds up expressing itself when inordinate amounts of money are involved.
To counterbalance that, I do also work for some folks who use their wealth to do their best to make the world a better place, and I am deeply grateful for knowing them, because they help keep me from becoming too cynical about human behavior.
That would explain some of the behavior I saw from Adams. He absolutely lost is when H Clinton ran and he got the idea in his head that me might have to pay more taxes.
In this particular case, first he could not have a woman who wanted to be with him more than 8 years, and then not more than 2 years.
I wouldn't be surprised if that was a regular pattern with these guys.
He could have still put in the work with communication, relationship counseling, therapy etc to fix his problems with driving people away.
He had the money to afford the best help.
This assumes the emotional awareness to acknowledge he's driving people away rather than "them" being the problem.
As an example there's a (true story) guy who makes a video saying his wife disappeared in the middle of the night with "the kid" and "all the stuff, even stuff I bought" and the people in his comments asking "why was she so scared of you she had to do that?" Guy does not appreciate that line of questioning. He's not going to go to a therapist to fix himself, he's going to go drink at the bar and bitch about his psycho ex who stole his TV.
Idk why his marriages broke up, maybe his exes both sucked and he didn't deal with those emotions, idk. But unless his cancer caused him to hit a "rock bottom" I doubt he thought there was anything wrong with him.
he sure got weird at the end there. Dilbert was comforting for us prisoners of Six Sigma.
Couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy.
The only version of Dilbert I ever enjoyed was the TV show and that was mostly Larry Charles’ work, not Scott Adams. I never quite understood the appeal of the comics.
Dilbert comics were a big part of my childhood. Me and my cousin had one of Dilbert's comic books -- the larger one. We read it over and over and repeated the lines all day long. We had other books too, and we also watched the cartoon. It was awesome. Thanks for that, Scott Adams!