Take that, Patti!

(via Blame It On The Voices, ZanyPickle)

On the class act side, you have Scott Adams’ letter to Purna Duggirala, the creator of Pointy Haired Dilbert  (now called Chandoo.org). Below is the letter Mr. Adams’ sent Mr Duggirala:

Hi Chandoo,

I’ve been following your success for some time via my Google Alerts  (it
sends me all Internet references to Dilbert). When you were small I was
ignoring your use of Dilbert and “pointy-haired” in your name, but now I
think we have to have this discussion.

Obviously there’s a trademark issue with any commercial use of the
name Dilbert, as it is an obvious trade on the goodwill I created in the
trademark. And even the pointy-haired part seems a bit unfair.

I have to have this sort of conversation to prevent “dilbert” from
slipping into the public domain. I’m sure you understand.

So with that in mind, can you suggest a solution? I like what you’re
doing, and wouldn’t want to impede your momentum, but a name change is due.

Scott Adams

Nice, right? Let’s talk, figure this out. No need to get lawyers involved. Class act.

Then on the asshole side you have his pro-Intelligent Design posts on the Dilbert Blog such as this one:

I take the practical approach - that something is intelligent if it
unambiguously performs tasks that require intelligence. Writing Moby
Dick required intelligence. The Big Bang wrote Moby Dick. Therefore, the
Big Bang is intelligent, and you and I are created by that same
intelligence. Therefore, we are created by an intelligent entity.

I don't see how an atheist can think otherwise.

Now, I find Dilbert to be a pretty funny comic strip and I commend his handling of the trademark issue but I do not condone his belief of Intelligent Design. Do they cancel each other out? Does being blind to the science behind evolution mean I can’t enjoy your work or thing you are a decent person? I am undecided at this point.

(via J-Walk Blog, Chandoo.org, Pharyngula)

In the UK  the person accused of libel has the burden of proof on them. That means Simon was considered guilty until he could prove himself innocent. Simon had spent $200,000 defending himself and that was before they went to trial. Obviously many people choose to retract the comments or settle out of court rather than go to court. Add to that the fact that the UK allows what is referred to as libel tourism. Someone in Saudi Arabia can sue an American in the British courts as long as the comments were available in the UK (such as on the Internet). This has become such a problem that many US states now have laws of their own saying that they will not enforce UK libel laws.

The Libel Reform Campaign is seeking to change libel laws in the UK. They have the support of many of the leading candidates in the upcoming British election as well as prominent associations of science, politics and journalism. I have signed their petition and I urge anyone who has ever written anything on the internet (which is everyone) to read it and do the same.