Dilbert

Check out the Dilbert cartoon in your Sunday paper .... should we be
offended ? amused ? both? neither ?

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 18:07:41 GMT, "Larry L" wrote:

Check out the Dilbert cartoon in your Sunday paper .... should we be
offended ? amused ? both? neither ?

I guess I was a little disappointed.
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com

Larry L wrote:
Check out the Dilbert cartoon in your Sunday paper .... should we be
offended ? amused ? both? neither ?

It's blasphemy! These cartoonists are going too far! We should march to
Scott Adams' estate and burn down his house. I declare a fatwa! :-)

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

rw wrote:
Larry L wrote:
Check out the Dilbert cartoon in your Sunday paper .... should we be
offended ? amused ? both? neither ?

It's blasphemy! These cartoonists are going too far! We should march to
Scott Adams' estate and burn down his house. I declare a fatwa! :-)

Scott Adams is a dweeby nerd, or perhaps a nerdy dweeb,
in either case he's not worth the time it takes to give
his cartoons a second thought. Take your first thought
and go with it. When I read Sunday's cartoon my first
thought was "What an ignorant idiot."

--
Ken Fortenberry

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
rw wrote:

Larry L wrote:

Check out the Dilbert cartoon in your Sunday paper .... should we be
offended ? amused ? both? neither ?


It's blasphemy! These cartoonists are going too far! We should march
to Scott Adams' estate and burn down his house. I declare a fatwa! :-)


Scott Adams is a dweeby nerd, or perhaps a nerdy dweeb,
in either case he's not worth the time it takes to give
his cartoons a second thought. Take your first thought
and go with it. When I read Sunday's cartoon my first
thought was "What an ignorant idiot."


On the other hand, he has a point. I think that people who take a moral
stance against C&R fishing can have a respectable point of view, just as
I think that many honest pro-life proponents have one. We are, after
all, hurting the fish for our pleasure. That's what they object to. Even
if we don't get gratification in the actually HURTING the fish, we still
inflict it. This is troublesome to some well intentioned people.

Where I part company from the anti-C&R people are my beliefs (1) that
sport fishing (C&R and otherwise) is the strongest force for
conservation and restoration of fish and fish habitat, and (2) I,
personally, don't particularly care how much discomfort a fish on the
end of my line experiences, as long as it isn't gratuitous. It's just a
fish.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

rw wrote:
....
...... We are, after
all, hurting the fish for our pleasure. That's what they object to. Even
if we don't get gratification in the actually HURTING the fish, we still
inflict it......
....
...... I,
personally, don't particularly care how much discomfort a fish on the
end of my line experiences, as long as it isn't gratuitous. It's just a
fish.

What makes it not gratuitous? The fact that it gives us pleasure?

JR wrote:
rw wrote:

....
...... We are, after all, hurting the fish for our pleasure. That's
what they object to. Even if we don't get gratification in the
actually HURTING the fish, we still inflict it...... ....
...... I, personally, don't particularly care how much discomfort a
fish on the end of my line experiences, as long as it isn't
gratuitous. It's just a fish.


What makes it not gratuitous? The fact that it gives us pleasure?

I'm considering gratuitous discomfort to be unnecessary discomfort. A
certain amount of discomfort of the fish is necessary if we are going to
catch them. In fact, it's the same amount of discomfort (per fish) if we
release them as if we eat them, or even less if you consider getting hit
on the head or put on a stringer "discomfort."

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

Scott Adams is a dweeby nerd,

You know Scott? Cool. Did you meet him at a DA meeting?

Snoop

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:

Scott Adams is a dweeby nerd,

You know Scott? Cool. Did you meet him at a DA meeting?

Nah, I watched an interview on one of those 60 Minute
type shows. He's a genuine "pocket protector and tape
on the glasses" nerd.

What's DA ?

--
Ken Fortenberry

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

Scott Adams is a dweeby nerd,


You know Scott? Cool. Did you meet him at a DA meeting?


Nah, I watched an interview on one of those 60 Minute
type shows. He's a genuine "pocket protector and tape
on the glasses" nerd.

What's DA ?

Must be too early for you this am. DA= "Dweebs Anonymous".

Snoop