May 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

« Initial Reaction | Main | What If? »



I admit, most of these are funnier than the blurb I submitted, so this isn't a case of sour grapes about losing when I say:

Are you joking about your grand prize winner?

I'm seriously asking you this. You cannot be serious about considering that one the funniest.

First off, that's not a book blurb. That's an anecdote.

Second, it's poorly written.

Third, it's too long.

Fourth, it's not funny.

Fifth, it's not even naughty or subversive in any way, shape or form.


Kevin Allen

Lucky number 13 for me.

I personally think the first place winner won because they were able to combine the different aspects of comedy to make a quote (in this case, naughty with outragous).


Is it worse to be disqualified or not listed at all? We'll leave that question to the philosophers.

Congratulations to the winners, you are better than something like 1800 or so other entrants (including me). The top two are very funny. I'll bet SJC would have been top 5 if not for the disqualification. Although I'm not sure it would be printed on the jacket. The winners seem to be PG, maybe PG-13. Was that your target?

Michael C.

Congratulations to the winners.

After reading the winning entries and those that were disqualified but deemed worthy, I definitely have to say my sense of humor is very far askew from the selection committee's. It's kind of weird when you learn something like that. I mean, what's wrong with me? Obviously many people thought those blurbs were funny, maybe even hilarious, but only one made me even slightly smile (not rubbing the turd hard enough)whereas I recall reading numerous entries on the original post that made me laugh out loud.


Apparently I was disqualified by the fact that my entry was never posted - crap!

By the way - the grand prize winner makes no sense at all and isn't funny either.


A moist robot

With apologies to BobNL, the defective moist robot I referred to is in fact latsot. Typepad's stupid layout of placing the poster's name under the post prompted my internal moist programming to misidentify the name.

A moist robot

A moist robot by the name of BobNL was prompted by its internal moist programming to proclaim the following: "So mentioning one or more of Christianity's insanities results in disqualification? You can't sell a book if it jokes about religion?"

To which I respond this:

BobNL, you are defective, please turn yourself in for warranty replacement. Nowhere did Scott Adams say that entries were disqualified because of content. They were disqualified because of a missing name, a missing email address, or because the submitter isn't a resident of the USA. Just because an entry by a "Michael Collett" was disqualified doesn't mean it was disqualified due to content. It could have been disqualified due to a missing email address or because this person doesn't live in the USA.

rita mae

Great picks. Couldn't have done better myself. Congrats to all.

Penis - by popular demand.

Rita Mae


#2 - "Diana Wales"? Who are we kidding?


me is curi yus - wat's with the disqualified entries?


Funny stuff, but several of my absolute favs didn't make it. My wife and I both liked the one about the guy living naked in a lean-to behind the Hollywood sign best.

Guess this proves Scott and I have a very different sense of humor.


Okay, the Ann Rynd meets Hemingway suggestion just about made me pee from laughter. It is also a good example of my life, always disqualifyed...


The grand prize winner isn't even that funny. There was much funnier stuff among the others (including the disqualified).

Bill Taylor

My post was probably number 26. Sigh.

so close

The Meromorph

For the terminally ignorant -
Wales is [i]not[/i] the family name of the Prince of Wales (It's Windsor, by the way).
The Prince of Wales might be semi-formally addressed "Wales". His name might be expressed as Charles, Prince of Wales, but the name Charles Wales does not, and could not, refer to him.
Similarly Diana Wales, does not, and could not, ever refer to Diana, Proncess of Wales. SAlso, she, unlike the Prince of Wales, would never be addressed as "Wales".


Alright! Alright! Alright! Alright! Scott, I'll buy the God Damn book if you'll stop boosting it so much.

On a side note over the weekend, something you have to think, if people misinterpret you so often (hallucinate), perhaps the problem is in the broadcast, not the reception.


Hooray! Scott thinks I'm funny! Of course, despite what my resume says, my "Attention To Detail" seems to be lacking. Damn you disqualification!

The Chief

ah, yes.

25 comments that, although lacking in penis references, are funnier than most of what we've read here lately.

You would do well to learn, young jedi...


just told my mum that Scott Adams thinks I'm funny.

Simon "ask yourself, what would Jesus buy"


Man, those blurbs are good...

They're so good I almost bought the book. I did. I really had an urge.

Mmmh, maybe later.


So mentioning one or more of Christianity's insanities results in disqualification? You can't sell a book if it jokes about religion?


Secular nation my arse.


'3.)How do pronounce,"Feia"?'

It's pronounced Polishly, which is to say it's pronounced like the Spanish word for ugly (fea). That's not a joke or a slander; it's a sad fact.


SJC, I wish you weren't disqualified. That was the only quote to literally make me LOL. I'll be happy all day picturing the slap fight. BRILLIANCE.


#6 and #19 are hilarious. I don't know about some of the others though, some of them kind of sucked. One poster mentioned random selection, I have to agree with him.

The comments to this entry are closed.