Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
It's funny.  Laugh.

Dilbert Readers Rat Out Some Weasels 1137

Posted by timothy
from the not-like-there's-a-shortage dept.
colinmc151 writes "Well, Dilbert's Way of the Weasel Poll Results are in, with 35,874 people voting. Weaseliest Organization was won by the Recording Industry Association of America. Weaseliest Company was won by Microsoft. The Weaseliest Individual award was won by George W. Bush. Weaseliest Profession went to Politicians. Weaseliest Country went to France. Weaseliest Behavior was 'Blaming fast food restaurants for making you fat.' Congratulations to all the deserving winners."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Dilbert Readers Rat Out Some Weasels

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 20, 2003 @09:25PM (#7266484)

    they knew the war was a fake and they stuck to their stance while UK/USA continue to evade and dodge the truth

    id say France was far from being the weasalist country, but making it the USA or UK would be un-patriotic right ?

    • Contradictory (Score:5, Insightful)

      by phorm (591458) on Monday October 20, 2003 @09:29PM (#7266533) Journal
      Indeed, how can they label Bush as a known weasel, thus indicating his "war on terrorism" is at least in great part a sham, and still bash the french?

      I'm assuming that it's a statement apart from current war-related issues, since the french were often bashed before anyhow.
      • by cperciva (102828) on Monday October 20, 2003 @09:34PM (#7266572) Homepage
        Well, the USA came in close second on the "weasely countries" list; I imagine that Jacques Chirac would have garnered more votes if many Americans had been able to recognize his name.
        • Well, the USA came in close second on the "weasely countries" list; I imagine that Jacques Chirac would have garnered more votes if many Americans had been able to recognize his name.

          This is because most Americans think "Blaque Jacques Shellac" [makeashorterlink.com] when they hear the French leader's name. Blaque Jacques doesn't have nearly enough web presence. Bugs Bunny rules!
      • it shows that this is an objective, non-biased, politically neutral survey free from outside influence.

        I tend to agree with _all_ of the results.
      • Re:Contradictory (Score:2, Flamebait)

        by de Selby (167520)
        "how can they label Bush as a known weasel, thus indicating his "war on terrorism" is at least in great part a sham, and still bash the french?"

        Simple:

        The war is a good idea, but for human rights -- not any threat Saddam may or may not have been to us. And anything Bush made up or got wrong doesn't change that.

        The French, taking an annoyingly self-gratifying position, opposed the whole war just because they opposed Bush. Around these parts, that's called asshat.
        • asshat [confusednation.com]
        • Re:Contradictory (Score:3, Insightful)

          by marko123 (131635)
          Very amusing that not many around here talk about WHY the french actually took their position.

          Namely, they have strong trade links with Iraq (so does Russia) and the middle east, and knew that the US where going to destroy the country and rebuild it with their own corporations and chosen leaders, thus winning trade.

          Australia used to have strong trade links, as well ($800mil/year wheat). I think our leader knew that even if he couldn't continue to trade with Iraq, he hoped to get better agricultural trade
          • Re:Contradictory (Score:4, Insightful)

            by xutopia (469129) on Tuesday October 21, 2003 @02:34AM (#7268193) Homepage
            "Namely, they (the French)have strong trade links with Iraq". Who didn't? Certainly not the US! I'll recall that outside of the US we have seen video recordings of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein before sitting down to discuss "business".

            Is this compromising for the US? NO! Why should it be for the French?


            • Because we kept the receipts.

              (Credit goes to the Onion for that one, IIRC. No, I don't actually believe Iraq has WMD these days. We know they tried to make/buy/steal them, but they failed.)

        • Re: Contradictory (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Black Parrot (19622)

          > The war is a good idea, but for human rights -- not any threat Saddam may or may not have been to us.

          a) are the Iraqis (in general) actually any better off now than they were under Saddam?

          b) will they be better off than they were under Saddam a year after the US occupation ends?

          c) does the same justification apply to Libera, the Congo, the USA, etc?

          I do pity the Iraqis who suffered under Saddam and his cronies, but I fear we've done them a great harm under a false pretext. After they've suffered

    • This just in:

      The polls are based on.. the public! Therefore, it's non scientific and is only valid as a estimate of what the general populous (that goes to dilbert site) think.

      So calm down, boy. It's just opinions.

    • No, France didn't "stick to their guns" becuase they knew they were "right" (debatable), they did it because Chirac is still in TotalFinaElf's back pocket.

      Insinuate all you want about Halliburton, but George Bush isn't the one holding on to his presidency to postpone some corruption trials.
  • ACLU is Weasly? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by darkfnord23 (696608)
    How did the ACLU end up more weasly than the GOP? Shows who reads dilbert I guess. Matt
    • If you add Fox News and Republicans together, you come out in #3 (ahead of the Democrats)...
    • by Farley Mullet (604326) on Monday October 20, 2003 @09:49PM (#7266719)

      Another respondant noted that if you add Fox News and the Republicans together, you'd end up in the #3 spot. However, if you add the votes for the Republican-controlled White House and Congress together with the votes for the GOP, you get an astounding 11190 votes, fully 3240 more votes than the RIAA.

    • NAMBLA (Score:3, Interesting)

      by LenE (29922)
      And trying to derail the California recall that was prescribed by the state constitution. They are supposed to be non-partisan, but aren't.

      ACLU has unfortunately become a whole den of weasels.

      -- Len
    • agreed. Probably the most controversial (controversial insofar as it perpetrates the myth that the ACLU is 'Weasly') point brought up is that the ACLU doesn't protect the free exercise of religion. Luckily, it is also the easiest to disspell.

      1) Freedom of Religion Bill [aclu.org] supported by the ACLU to protect the exercise of religion by individuals.
      2) ACLU helps Falwell in VA [aclu.org] I'm sure you'll never hear about that on FOX news or Christian press. The ACLU helped the Rev. establish a church with all the rights
  • by Eberlin (570874) on Monday October 20, 2003 @09:28PM (#7266520) Homepage
    Weasels in local zoos began protesting after slanderous survey compared them to the likes of Microsoft, GW-Bush, and the RIAA.

    One outraged animal was quoted as saying "enough's enough, man! We've been portrayed negatively throughout history but this is pretty low."
  • At last... (Score:2, Funny)

    by lurker412 (706164)
    ...election results that I can finally feel good about. I live in California and I had been wondering why I always thought democracy was a good idea.
  • But then I'm neither a republican or democrat. I find it interesting that Dubya won his category. I had no idea public opinion of him was so low.
    • 35,000 Internet users isn't exactly public opinion. That's 4 orders of magnitude less than the population of the US.

      Bush's job approval rating is currently 52% [pollingreport.com].
      • But then again one can approve of something while still thinking it to be among the weaseliest of all. In the case of Dubya, he might be a weasel, but a weasel doing his job well.

        Maybe. I'm neutral.

      • by Sevn (12012) on Monday October 20, 2003 @09:39PM (#7266627) Homepage Journal
        Well lets see, if 35,000 internet users isn't significant, then I guess the 921 likely voters with the Zogby International America Poll that gave him a 49 percent approval rating, or the 900 registered voters in the Fox poll that gave him a 52 percent approval rating, or the 1000 people in the ABC News and Washington Post polls that gave him a 53 percent approval rating matter even less? Funny you should pick the Fox numbers. That's very telling. Feel stupid yet?
        • That is of course silly. Sample size doesn't have much to do with scientific poll accuracy. In an open internet poll, you can easily get hordes of "voters" who want to express their opinion, and their opinion is usually fairly homogenious compared to the population as a whole. Zogby and other pollsters CHOOSE the people to ask.
          • And I completely agree with you. The point that was attempted to be made was this:

            35,000 Internet users isn't exactly public opinion. That's 4 orders of magnitude less than the population of the US.

            Which I promptly laid waste to. That doesn't change the fact that I'm still actually shocked that Dubya won his category for this silly poll. I didn't actually think people would vote him "weasily" with so many other better choices in my opinion.
      • This poll was posted on freerepublic.com several times. It was also posted on sites like democratunderground.com.

        It was 'attacked by both/all sides of the issue.
    • I find it interesting that Dubya won his category. I had no idea public opinion of him was so low.

      Ummmm.....depends on which "public" you're talking about. I think it's probably reasonable to say that readers of Dilbert are a self-selecting sample of the general population.

      Congratulations to all the deserving winners.

      My question is this: How on earth did that summary get past moderation? If Dilbert readers want to vote Dubya a weasel, that's fine; no way should a summary include this comment.

      ** Sla
      • Why can't people accept that Dubya *is* a weasel? It's pretty much fact, he can't even come up with a consistent lie and keeps changing his story on terrorism as it justifies some new goal.

        I'm pro-invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. They're better off under military occupation than with the dictators they had. That doesn't mean I have to think Dubya did it for the right reasons. I think they should shoot Osama, but I think Ashcroft is a dangerous McCarthy wanna-be...

        You don't have to claim either of them ar

    • > I find it interesting that Dubya won his category. I had no idea public opinion of him was so low.

      I think PO is actually split approximately evenly (+/-).

      Presumably Dilbert readers aren't a cross-section of US political demographics.

  • What about Rush? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by interociter (587446)
    How did Rush Limbaugh not make the list? I mean, he bashes Clinton for smoking weed back in college, yet at the same time, he's addicted to "Hillbilly Heroin".

  • I can't say I'm surprised to see that "George W. Bush" is listed as the weasliest individual, considering that the vast majority of hollywood and half of the politicians in the country are gunning for him, armed with mountains of faux substance... It's almost as bad as the France thing, except there's plenty of really good reasons to pity the French, and not supporting the Iraq war shouldn't even be on the list. (Say what you want about Bush killing jobs, it doesn't even compare with the French enforcing a
    • (...), it doesn't even compare with the French enforcing a 35-hour max workweek.

      And how exactly is that a problem for you?

      I mean, If you advocate that countries should have a 40 hours + work week, then do so inside you country. The french can take care of themselfes (mostly ;-)) and if they think that a 35-hour work week is a good thing overall for the country, then let them go for it, and we'll see how long they can keep their economy afloat.

      You know; in other countries people tend to choose what's

  • Missing Option (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DaveAtFraud (460127) on Monday October 20, 2003 @09:39PM (#7266636) Homepage Journal
    I e-mailed Scott with a late nomination of SCO as the weaseliest company and Darl McBride as thw weaseliest induhvidual but apparently nominations were closed for this year.

    Oh well, there's always next year. And at the rate the various cases are dragging out, the year after that, and the year after that, ...
    • Mr. Adams seems to be very observant, so one can understand him not putting Daryl McBride and SCO in an award poll for weasels.

      Besides it being terribly insulting to the weasels to have them in such a poll, SCO and it's CEO would (IMHO) be better classified as asses - as in "having the same countenance as the un-washed behind of a warthog".

      HTH. HAND.

      Soko

    • Everybody's heard of Microsoft, Dubya, France, and politicians. The tactics of the RIAA have been making mainstream press.

      SCO and Darl McBride are hardly household words in any country, and certainly not in America.

  • "A person regarded as sneaky or treacherous." From http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=weasel So.....how in the hell is Saddam Hussein less treacherous than George W. Bush, Michael Moore, Yasser Arafat, and Jacques Chirac?
    • I'm sure it's easy to define weasels only as those who you believe have had a direct impact on your life whenever you are morally equivalent or ignorant to history (or both).... There are a ton of people who think that (ahem) Israel needs to "give Palestine back to the Palestinians", and a ton of people who thought Iraq should not have been held to UN weapon restrictions unless the USA are held to the same standard.
  • That they rated our President the Weasliest Individual, but they still rated the Democrats more Weasley than the Republicans.
    • As of tomorrow, employees will only be able to access the building using individual security cards. Pictures will be taken next Wednesday and employees will receive their cards in two weeks. (This was the winning quote from Fred Dales at Microsoft Corporation in Redmond, Washington.)
    • How long is this Beta guy going to keep testing our stuff? (Programming intern, Microsoft IIS development team)
    • We recently received a memo from senior management saying: "This is to inform you that a memo will be issued t
  • I don't think that's a word. If it is, it's right up there with the non-word, company words, at my company...

    i.e.

    Re-Robsutification

    Decisioned
  • by Call Me Black Cloud (616282) on Monday October 20, 2003 @10:14PM (#7266941)

    Nothing says "weasel" more than being AC. Unless your name is "Bob Smith" and your slashdot user id is "BobSmith", AC really has no benefit.

    I especially love getting a passionate response on some topic from an AC. "I feel so strongly about this topic that I'm not even going to tell you my fake name I use on slashdot."

    Yes, for true weaseliness you can't beat AC.
  • Weasel's format (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Tomorrowist (555372) on Monday October 20, 2003 @11:32PM (#7267498)

    What struck me is how the options could help determine the winner. Take the top selections for weaseliest individual, for example. GW Bush won handily over Moore, Arafat, and Chirac.

    One could make three separate comparisons. 55% of the people may find Bush more of a weasel than Moore. 47% may find Bush more of a weasel than Arafat. 50% may find Bush more of a weasel than Chirac. In general, it would be the same people calling President Bush the bigger weasel in each of those comparisons; to over generalize, we can call such people liberals. Similarly, people-we-could-overgeneralize-and-call-conservati ves would always tend to defend President Bush.

    Because there is only one big name 'conservative' (Bush) drawing all the 'liberal' votes and three big name 'liberals' (Moore, Arafat, and Chirac) drawing the 'conservative' votes, the outcome is preordained: President Bush is called the biggest weasel. Or, the bigger lesson could be that 'liberals' are more focused in their accusations of weaselality.

    Granted, I've made some generalizations here. And this is a fun poll, not a national election. But my point remains. I can't get the expression 'lies, damned lies, and statistics' out of my head.

  • Wow! (Score:4, Funny)

    by EverDense (575518) on Tuesday October 21, 2003 @12:15AM (#7267672) Homepage
    That's the first poll Dubya's ever won.
  • by xutopia (469129) on Tuesday October 21, 2003 @12:37AM (#7267771) Homepage
    Whenever someone bashes the French for being arrogant I wonder who's the real culprit.

    I guess most Americans only ever saw the video of Jacques Chirac shaking hands with Saddam Hussein and never the one of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with the Iraqi leader.

    The French like the Americans have been in bed with Saddam Hussein at some point in time. If the French are weasels because of that, what does that make Americans? Iraq is an important country geopolitically and if any country didn't at one point have ties with it they'd be stupid not to!

    The French don't owe the US for freeing them from Nazis just like the US doesn't owe the French for their helping hand during the civil war.

    I don't understand why Americans enjoy bashing the French so much! Do you feel threathened by something they have and you don't? 5 weeks of paid vacation perhaps?

  • by ch-chuck (9622) on Tuesday October 21, 2003 @06:47AM (#7268985) Homepage
    A lot of these polls, just like movie Oscars etc inevitably show how people simply vote like the media advertising tells them to - a few pop stars and influential news anchors propagate their opinions and it quickly becomes common sense opinion amongst the populist crowd seeking to be with the 'in' group. While I'm often ashamed of my fellow human's lack of critical thinking, I have to remember that the average IQ is by definition 100 and most are intellectual followers of leaders.

  • by qwertyatwork (668720) on Tuesday October 21, 2003 @07:59AM (#7269457)
    Stop reading dilbert, he is a spokesperson for the B.S.A. bsa [bsa.org] another site [kb9mci.net]

"Text processing has made it possible to right-justify any idea, even one which cannot be justified on any other grounds." -- J. Finnegan, USC.

Working...