Little did Alfred Nobel realise what he would get into when he instituted the Nobel Prize. Though it is a noble cause, Nobel has led to a lot of people in the noble profession of pedagogy to corner most of his post 'last journey' money! I do believe though, that there is enough of it to last the rest of our existences. Just learnt about the concept of 'permenancy of money' from one individual belonging to the noble profession which Nobel really seems to like.
Nobleness is not restricted to Nobel winners only. While Scott undertook the noble endeavor of taking on the not so noble corporate world by its pants, little did he realise that he had already embarked on a very very noble mission. For that effort, I do second 'Artharaja' and his theories on 'Why Scott is so noble that he deserves a Nobel?'.
Nobel was not a freak guy. He actually does not fit into both the thories of freakification as propounded by Artharaja in his previous posts. Neither did he go bananas over the atoms, neutrons, quantum physics, fundamental and not so fundamental particles. Nobel was just a noble. And in all his nobleness, Nobel created a trust which was left with noble men who he thought he could trust. Isn't that a noble cause on behalf of Nobel? This Nobel trust undergoes the noble cause of identifying psychos who know more and more of less and less and then orders them nobly to identify much more and more about much less and less. I do think it is a very noble cause.
Coming back to Scott... Doesn't he know more and more about less and less? In this wide corporate world which is filled with not so noble people, Scott identifies a noble man who everyone in the not so noble corporate would identify with. And thus began the journey of Dilbert Noble. Whether you are the noble boss or the one who suffers with a not so noble boss, you identify with the all so noble Dilbert Nobel and hence you deserve the Nobel too. If you in your not so noble capacity deserve the Nobel, why shouldn't Scott?
Thus spake the theory of Nobelification of Scott Adams.
PS: If you are the 'Oh! So noble sub-ordinate' trying to figure out what to do with the 'Not so noble' boss, read this!!!
Nobleness is not restricted to Nobel winners only. While Scott undertook the noble endeavor of taking on the not so noble corporate world by its pants, little did he realise that he had already embarked on a very very noble mission. For that effort, I do second 'Artharaja' and his theories on 'Why Scott is so noble that he deserves a Nobel?'.
Nobel was not a freak guy. He actually does not fit into both the thories of freakification as propounded by Artharaja in his previous posts. Neither did he go bananas over the atoms, neutrons, quantum physics, fundamental and not so fundamental particles. Nobel was just a noble. And in all his nobleness, Nobel created a trust which was left with noble men who he thought he could trust. Isn't that a noble cause on behalf of Nobel? This Nobel trust undergoes the noble cause of identifying psychos who know more and more of less and less and then orders them nobly to identify much more and more about much less and less. I do think it is a very noble cause.
Coming back to Scott... Doesn't he know more and more about less and less? In this wide corporate world which is filled with not so noble people, Scott identifies a noble man who everyone in the not so noble corporate would identify with. And thus began the journey of Dilbert Noble. Whether you are the noble boss or the one who suffers with a not so noble boss, you identify with the all so noble Dilbert Nobel and hence you deserve the Nobel too. If you in your not so noble capacity deserve the Nobel, why shouldn't Scott?
Thus spake the theory of Nobelification of Scott Adams.
PS: If you are the 'Oh! So noble sub-ordinate' trying to figure out what to do with the 'Not so noble' boss, read this!!!
Noble Nobel? Rings no bell!
ReplyDelete