> Well, he kind of does. If he has that much background I would expect him to know better than to give such a poor example when he's trying to make fun of a de

> Well, he kind of does. If he has that much background I would expect him to know better than to give such a poor example when he's trying to make fun of a definition as "dilbert-esque." Tongue-in-cheek is a fun style and I totally get that, but if you're taking unfair hyperbolic pot-shots I think it should be at your own expense, not other people's. But that's just me.