Re: Cookie Monsters

Resub- Thanks for looking again

Re: Cookie Monsters

Interesting, but I think it is a bit off topic. :/ I mean I always think of zombies as same-species brain eaters.. I've never seen a zombie eat a dog or something. This seems more like 'revenge'

Re: Cookie Monsters

I do really like the concept. But I have two problems. We all know there's already a cookie monster shirt on the reckoning. Second, something feels off about the cookies. They don't feel undead enough for me.

Re: Cookie Monsters

Not trying to hate or anything like that, just putting out an observation that may or may not be valid... I am a HUGE fan of zombies and the zombie subculture and to be an undead zombie no matter what species, it requires that you were once alive. This is personification at best but it is certainly not zombie in my humble opinion...

Re: Cookie Monsters

This is what happens when you don't eat the whole cookie (or you pretend to eat them by crumbling them up in your hands and kinda drop them past your mouth) ;)

Always eat the whole cookie! Better safe than zombie.

ANet wrote:Interesting, but I think it is a bit off topic. :/ I mean I always think of zombies as same-species brain eaters.. I've never seen a zombie eat a dog or something. This seems more like 'revenge'

What about the plethora of movies books and apps centering around Zombies versus ... ?

Plants v Zombies. Zombies V aliens. Zombies V Vampires. Etc.

Re: Cookie Monsters

i think it's hard to see how cookies could be zombies seeing as how they're crumbling and that's something a normal cookie and, presumably, a zombie cookie would do. If this doesn't get rejected then it should just be called a "Things Hunting Down Other Things" and call it quits. This shirt is suited for a "Revenge" contest and would GMV for one at that, but for a zombie contest it just doesn't get the job done.

Re: Cookie Monsters

I have no problem with the zombie cookies (there are plenty of derby entries with "non-alive" zombies) and think it's pretty clever. However, I worry about both the presence of a Cookie Monster shirt in the Reckoning, and potential copyright with this one. The Binge was actually a resub, as the original design was deemed too close to the real CM (see http://shirt.woot.com/Derby/Entry.aspx?id=35177). Granted, it does seem like there's sufficient parody here, so perhaps it won't be an issue.

explodedwhale wrote:meh. This feels like a desperate attempt to ride the coattails of "The Binge"...

i agree can you have zombie cookies were cookies ever alive?
just seems a desperate to get votes!!

i'm sick of all the anti ramyb comments. last derby too. if you don't like the shirt, don't vote for it. it's quite simple.

it wouldn't be so annoying if the criticism posted to ramyb shirts was also posted to other shirts displaying the same things you didn't like on this shirt. for example, there have been comments that this shirt doesn't fit the derby for this week because the cookies were never alive and, therefore, can't be zombies. so then i ask, what about "the last cupcake" which is also in the fog? not one of you complained that cupcakes weren't alive. yet as soon as you see ramyb's design you complain that cookies aren't alive. really?

snicks1899 wrote:i'm sick of all the anti ramyb comments. last derby too. if you don't like the shirt, don't vote for it. it's quite simple.

it wouldn't be so annoying if the criticism posted to ramyb shirts was also posted to other shirts displaying the same things you didn't like on this shirt. for example, there have been comments that this shirt doesn't fit the derby for this week because the cookies were never alive and, therefore, can't be zombies. so then i ask, what about "the last cupcake" which is also in the fog? not one of you complained that cupcakes weren't alive. yet as soon as you see ramyb's design you complain that cookies aren't alive. really?

it's not anti-ramyb. it's about the design. the cupcakes have a counter-part (i.e., shotgun normal cupcake atop the pyramid of zombie cupcakes) to compare them to showing that the others are, in fact, cupcakes (apart from the x's over their eyes, the drooling and the bites out of two of them). The problem I have with the cookies is crumbling cookies don't make me think zombies... I just think, cookies are crumbling. I like most of ramyb's designs for the sole fact that they're simple and cool for shirts. This one just doesn't seem to have anything to do with zombies. Maybe it's just because it's hard to make a cookie look like a zombie because crumbling cookies are a normal thing. Do you see the point here? (I know you can't tell tone over the internet, but this is whole thing would be delivered in a very non-aggressive conversational tone were it face-to-face)

snicks1899 wrote:so then i ask, what about "the last cupcake" which is also in the fog? not one of you complained that cupcakes weren't alive. yet as soon as you see ramyb's design you complain that cookies aren't alive. really?

Personally, I think the designs are too different to compare.

I don't speak for everyone, but my whole thought on the matter is more involved in the "revenge" aspect and not the "they are not alive." In the cupcake design, the pun/ the joke/ the concept/ the design does not work if the cupcakes weren't animated as zombies. In this design, the pun/ the joke/ the concept/ the design works whether the cookies are zombies or not. The zombie portion of this design is actually irrelevant other than an excuse to stay "on topic." Whether people realize it or not, I think that why they target this design and not the other.

Also, a side note.... I think the whole isn't alive argument is not applicable since artist are known to give life to inanimate objects.

jb2colorado wrote:it's not anti-ramyb. it's about the design. the cupcakes have a counter-part (i.e., shotgun normal cupcake atop the pyramid of zombie cupcakes) to compare them to showing that the others are, in fact, cupcakes (apart from the x's over their eyes, the drooling and the bites out of two of them). The problem I have with the cookies is crumbling cookies don't make me think zombies... I just think, cookies are crumbling. I like most of ramyb's designs for the sole fact that they're simple and cool for shirts. This one just doesn't seem to have anything to do with zombies. Maybe it's just because it's hard to make a cookie look like a zombie because crumbling cookies are a normal thing. Do you see the point here? (I know you can't tell tone over the internet, but this is whole thing would be delivered in a very non-aggressive conversational tone were it face-to-face)

This post is ignoring all of the "cookies can't be zombies because they aren't alive" posts which are completely ridiculous because they aren't on any of the other derby entries. I can respect "I don't think these are zombies because they don't look like zombies" but I think "cookies aren't alive" is a pretty silly argument since cupcakes are also fogging.

What would it take to make these cookies look like zombies? If they were green? If they were stiff? (I see often that Ramyb designs get criticized for being too "stiff" and this is one design where Ramyb's "stiffness" is an asset) What makes a zombie a zombie, then? I think the eyes in this design make it obvious that these cookies aren't really all there (pardon the pun), so what more do we need for them to be zombies? They're mindless (or, if you will, soulless) beings. What else do we need?

rowanmikaio wrote:
What would it take to make these cookies look like zombies? If they were green? If they were stiff? (I see often that Ramyb designs get criticized for being too "stiff" and this is one design where Ramyb's "stiffness" is an asset) What makes a zombie a zombie, then? I think the eyes in this design make it obvious that these cookies aren't really all there (pardon the pun), so what more do we need for them to be zombies? They're mindless (or, if you will, soulless) beings. What else do we need?

Exactly!

snicks1899 wrote:i'm sick of all the anti ramyb comments. last derby too. if you don't like the shirt, don't vote for it. it's quite simple.

it wouldn't be so annoying if the criticism posted to ramyb shirts was also posted to other shirts displaying the same things you didn't like on this shirt. for example, there have been comments that this shirt doesn't fit the derby for this week because the cookies were never alive and, therefore, can't be zombies. so then i ask, what about "the last cupcake" which is also in the fog? not one of you complained that cupcakes weren't alive. yet as soon as you see ramyb's design you complain that cookies aren't alive. really?

I agree. Haters hate. The same group of people use the same tired arguments...too many colors...off topic...stolen ideas...same characters...blah, blah, blah.

Great idea RamyB!!! The other Cookie Monster shirt on the Reckoning sells so well, I'm sure you'll have no problem raking in tons of money for at least a couple months with this one!

Re: Cookie Monsters

To a dergree I think it's a funny shirt. That said however, I'm not really "feelin' it" from the cookies as zombies. It's been said already, but I have to agree, this seems more like a "revenge" shirt, than zombie shirt.

I might have missed this in the thread, but has anyone mentioned the possibility of other muppets as zombies making for a better take on the shirt? I know that the premise of the joke hinges on the cookies coming after Cookie Monster, but maybe that is the whole reason why I just am not digging on the design as much as I might want to.

That, and who ever heard of good ol' CM not finishing the whole cookie? ;-)

DoublEE wrote:The same group of people use the same tired arguments...too many colors...off topic...stolen ideas...same characters...blah, blah, blah.

I know. It's like some people just insist on having standards. Sirius GPP.

No resubmissions

bpr2 wrote:No resubmissions

This isn't a resub from another derby he just posted it to this derby more than once.

Johndis5 wrote:I know. It's like some people just insist on having standards. Sirius GPP.

Standards...personal agendas...blind hate...whatever.

DoublEE wrote:Standards...personal agendas...blind hate...whatever.

It's almost like you are trolling! HAH!

chumpmagic wrote:
I don't speak for everyone, but my whole thought on the matter is more involved in the "revenge" aspect and not the "they are not alive." In the cupcake design, the pun/ the joke/ the concept/ the design does not work if the cupcakes weren't animated as zombies. In this design, the pun/ the joke/ the concept/ the design works whether the cookies are zombies or not.

bluejester wrote:
I might have missed this in the thread, but has anyone mentioned the possibility of other muppets as zombies making for a better take on the shirt? I know that the premise of the joke hinges on the cookies coming after Cookie Monster, but maybe that is the whole reason why I just am not digging on the design as much as I might want to.

I agree with the above posters. It's not the "cookies aren't alive" issue....it's that the "zombies" aren't going after their same species, like the cupcakes, people, fruit, etc are. If he wanted to have zombie cookies going after other cookies....then at least the off topic debate wouldn't have been brought.

Just my $0.02

Re: Cookie Monsters

Love the idea, screw all the rest of the comments. This shirt idea is great and the cookies do look like zombies. To the guy saying that the one species eating the other is wrong, just look at the vast amount of zombie dogs in various movies. Who cares if the cookies were never alive, the personification of food items is always a favorite of mine.

The only problem I have is don't liek black shirts although I think it looks good for the design. You got my vote!

Re: Cookie Monsters

I like it! I don't usually say that about Ramy's designs, but this is well done and funny.

krouth wrote:I like it! I don't usually say that about Ramy's designs, but this is well done and funny.

Yeah I have noticed all the nit-picking that no other artists have to deal with. "It's off center", "cookies aren't zombies", "those gummi bears look like bunnies", seriously stop being an old lady and actually say something worthwile.

qwasdfz wrote:Yeah I have noticed all the nit-picking that no other artists have to deal with. "It's off center", "cookies aren't zombies", "those gummi bears look like bunnies", seriously stop being an old lady and actually say something worthwile.

Other artists are original :D

snicks1899 wrote:i'm sick of all the anti ramyb comments. last derby too. if you don't like the shirt, don't vote for it. it's quite simple.

it wouldn't be so annoying if the criticism posted to ramyb shirts was also posted to other shirts displaying the same things you didn't like on this shirt. for example, there have been comments that this shirt doesn't fit the derby for this week because the cookies were never alive and, therefore, can't be zombies. so then i ask, what about "the last cupcake" which is also in the fog? not one of you complained that cupcakes weren't alive. yet as soon as you see ramyb's design you complain that cookies aren't alive. really?

A) the comments section is for both praise and critique. If you don't like that, then just vote and don't read.

B) Have you not been reading? The same complaints are on the cupcake page...

C) I voted for neither because I want to see zombies in a zombie derby, not MORE anthro food shirts.

thewayisshut wrote:A) the comments section is for both praise and critique. If you don't like that, then just vote and don't read.

B) Have you not been reading? The same complaints are on the cupcake page...

C) I voted for neither because I want to see zombies in a zombie derby, not MORE anthro food shirts.

a- i'm fine with critique. i just think that some of the comments are ridiculous and unfairly targeting ramyb shirts and not applying the same 'logic' to other shirts in the derby. is posting my thoughts not allowed?
b- i have been reading and checking the pages, thanks. there are no posts on the last cupcake page (as of right now) that talk about how the cupcakes can't be dead because they weren't alive in the first place.
c- good job

qwasdfz wrote:Yeah I have noticed all the nit-picking that no other artists have to deal with. "It's off center", "cookies aren't zombies", "those gummi bears look like bunnies", seriously stop being an old lady and actually say something worthwile.

agreed.

qwasdfz wrote:Yeah I have noticed all the nit-picking that no other artists have to deal with. "It's off center", "cookies aren't zombies", "those gummi bears look like bunnies", seriously stop being an old lady and actually say something worthwile.

That design was off centered. Someone even provided measurements to prove it. The gummy bears look like bunnies was just a joke, claiming that all his animals look very similar. I will admit, there is a lot of B.S. thrown ramyB's way, but awkwardly, you chose to point out the ones that were actually true...

As for the "cookies aren't zombies" argument (I have stated this before but I will say it again), that is not entirely true. However, what is true is that the cookies don't need to be zombies to sell this joke. This design would have EXACTLY THE SAME EFFECT if they were just normal angry cookies. Can you see why that is confusing to people? And people have every reason to be upset with that because it's greatly bending the rules (even breaking them in some peoples minds) for an idea that is basically guaranteed to generate votes. As I said before, the fact that the cookies are zombies is irrelevant, pointless. It just a poor excuse to stay "on-topic."

Re: Cookie Monsters

Sigh... Another cookie monster shirt??

chumpmagic wrote:That design was off centered. Someone even provided measurements to prove it. The gummy bears look like bunnies was just a joke, claiming that all his animals look very similar. I will admit, there is a lot of B.S. thrown ramyB's way, but awkwardly, you chose to point out the ones that were actually true...

As for the "cookies aren't zombies" argument (I have stated this before but I will say it again), that is not entirely true. However, what is true is that the cookies don't need to be zombies to sell this joke. This design would have EXACTLY THE SAME EFFECT if they were just normal angry cookies. Can you see why that is confusing to people? And people have every reason to be upset with that because it's greatly bending the rules (even breaking them in some peoples minds) for an idea that is basically guaranteed to generate votes. As I said before, the fact that the cookies are zombies is irrelevant, pointless. It just a poor excuse to stay "on-topic."

It is not irrelevant at all. It is, in fact, the crux of the joke. The cookies are partially eaten. If you imagine they were alive in the first place (which the design clearly implies that they were), then taking a bite out of their heads would kill them. Then they return as zombies because they are coming back from the dead.

ramyb wrote:It is not irrelevant at all. It is, in fact, the crux of the joke. The cookies are partially eaten. If you imagine they were alive in the first place (which the design clearly implies that they were), then taking a bit out of their heads would kill them. Then they return as zombies because they are coming back from the dead.

I cannot agree with several points of your scenario:

1. Killing something, but leaving a body, does NOT make it a zombie. If there was a human zombie infestation and you shoot a uninfected human in the heart, killing him, he doesn't magically become part of the Zombie Uprising. I understand that zombies are myths and as such have varying lores associated with them, but you cannot just change rules to suit your "joke".

2. If that were the case... If biting a cookie in the head and leaving the body creates a zombie, then that dispells one of the fundamental attributes of the zombie folklore. Most (if not all) zombie stories involve killing a zombie by either decapitation or severe brain trauma. I have yet to see a headless zombie.

3. Zombie folklore also dictates that zombies only feed on thier own kind or on "lesser species". Granted I have yet to see any inaminate or animal zombie flicks (as I am sure you have seen several), I am positive that the Generic Blue Beast That Feeds on Cookies should be fine in this scenario. He would just let the cookies fight it out and have his pick of the dead, lifeless cookie bodies.

ramyb wrote:It is not irrelevant at all. It is, in fact, the crux of the joke. The cookies are partially eaten. If you imagine they were alive in the first place (which the design clearly implies that they were), then taking a bite out of their heads would kill them. Then they return as zombies because they are coming back from the dead.

Well in my opinion and I assume everyone else's, "the crux of the joke" is that the cookies are attacking the cookie monster, seeking revenge. It's a story of the predator becoming the pray. Wether they are alive, anger cookies or undead, angry cookies actually plays no part in the matter. The cookies are pissed and are out to get the cookie monster with their power in numbers. Honestly, if you remove the "zombie" aspect of this design, this design remains unchanged at the core. I don't think I can say that about any other unrejected design in this derby.

And I didn't mean to even dive this deep into this argument, but I just making the point that if people feel the "cookies aren't zombie," then they are correct. The cookies could be anything the viewer wanted to be as long as they are angry, attacking cookies.

chumpmagic wrote:Well in my opinion and I assume everyone else's, "the crux of the joke" is that the cookies are attacking the cookie monster, seeking revenge. It's a story of the predator becoming the pray. Wether they are alive, anger cookies or undead, angry cookies actually plays no part in the matter. The cookies are pissed and are out to get the cookie monster with their power in numbers. Honestly, if you remove the "zombie" aspect of this design, this design remains unchanged at the core. I don't think I can say that about any other unrejected design in this derby.

And I didn't mean to even dive this deep into this argument, but I just making the point that if people feel the "cookies aren't zombie," then they are correct. The cookies could be anything the viewer wanted to be as long as they are angry, attacking cookies.

why isn't there anything like this about the unicorn eating a rainbow...clearly rainbows are not alive...unicorns aren't real...if they were both alive they would be different spiecies...and yet ramy gets all the hate

Rudolpho wrote:why isn't there anything like this about the unicorn eating a rainbow...clearly rainbows are not alive...unicorns aren't real...if they were both alive they would be different spiecies...and yet ramy gets all the hate

Maybe I am not communicating my point well, but my argument has nothing to do with your "rebuttal." But since you brought it up, the unicorn does not suffer from the points I have brought up here... That is why the comment is here and not in the unicorn thread.

Rudolpho wrote:why isn't there anything like this about the unicorn eating a rainbow...clearly rainbows are not alive...unicorns aren't real...if they were both alive they would be different spiecies...and yet ramy gets all the hate

I agree about the unicorn shirt on the not the same species issue.

The difference is, sometimes any given artist can miss the theme of the derby while Ramy consistently and blatantly does it with nearly every design he submits. Then he indignantly defends his creations.

On a side note, if he'd just man up and say that he doesn't care about the theme or originality, or the art in general and just admit that he cranks out uninspired, unfinished, unoriginal crap to make as much money as he can, I'd respect that. Instead he puts up this ridiculous front that he is some kind of artist doing what he likes because he likes it. He is a grown man and apparently a scientist too. What adult would actually wear his childish drivel on their chest?

mhrodrig wrote:I cannot agree with several points of your scenario:

1. Killing something, but leaving a body, does NOT make it a zombie. If there was a human zombie infestation and you shoot a uninfected human in the heart, killing him, he doesn't magically become part of the Zombie Uprising. I understand that zombies are myths and as such have varying lores associated with them, but you cannot just change rules to suit your "joke".

2. If that were the case... If biting a cookie in the head and leaving the body creates a zombie, then that dispells one of the fundamental attributes of the zombie folklore. Most (if not all) zombie stories involve killing a zombie by either decapitation or severe brain trauma. I have yet to see a headless zombie.

3. Zombie folklore also dictates that zombies only feed on thier own kind or on "lesser species". Granted I have yet to see any inaminate or animal zombie flicks (as I am sure you have seen several), I am positive that the Generic Blue Beast That Feeds on Cookies should be fine in this scenario. He would just let the cookies fight it out and have his pick of the dead, lifeless cookie bodies.

Yeah...um...no.
You've never seen anything from Romero have you? Nor any spaghetti Zombie flicks for that matter.

Rudolpho wrote:why isn't there anything like this about the unicorn eating a rainbow...clearly rainbows are not alive...unicorns aren't real...if they were both alive they would be different spiecies...and yet ramy gets all the hate

Can't you see? Rainbows are clearly a lesser being than unicorns.

Re: Cookie Monsters

I sorta feel like those cookies aren't zombies at all. They seem like just general monsters and that is why the shirt is a play on the "cookie monster".

On a side note: Can people stop making cookie monster shirts? Yes, yes the binge is a profitable shirt and getting paid is preferable but do we need another cookie monster shirt?

snicks1899 wrote:i'm sick of all the anti ramyb comments. last derby too. if you don't like the shirt, don't vote for it. it's quite simple.

Like any election, you get what people vote for. And it blows my mind that people are voting for this, or ramyb's green DNA design... especially when his coffee zombie shirt is eminently more wearable, more on-topic, and less use-someone-else's-characters-ish.

So I guess I can't blame ramyb for giving people what they want. I just shake my head in dismay that this is what people want.

Re: Cookie Monsters

WHY IS HE AFRAID OF SOMETHING HE CAN JUST EAT??????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



stupiddesignisstupid.

Rudolpho wrote:why isn't there anything like this about the unicorn eating a rainbow...clearly rainbows are not alive...unicorns aren't real...if they were both alive they would be different spiecies...and yet ramy gets all the hate

Because it's not ramyb's entry. Simple as that.

Ramy gets the most attention because he's the most prolific rule bender (or breaker) and trash design producer. There are a lot of juicers in baseball, but we focus criticism on Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire because they're the most prominent.

In spite of what the artist claims, the crux of the joke is NOT that the cookies have returned from the dead (thus being zombies and on-theme). The crux of the joke is that the cookies are attacking their natural predator. Not to mention that the cookies don't appear to be zombies at all, save for the empty soulless eyes that ALL of Ramy's anthros have. Cookies crumble when they're "alive." Maybe it's just that he picked a poor confection to make the joke with, because I think it's extremely difficult to make a cookie appear zombie like. This is probably another reason people aren't leveling the same criticism against "The Last Cupcake," because that shirt does a good job of showing that the cupcakes are undead, as it were.

DoublEE wrote:Standards...personal agendas...blind hate...whatever.

You can't call it "blind hate" when people offer legitimate criticism, even if you disagree with it. And what "personal agenda" would any of his critics possibly have? Do you think he bullied us in grade school and we've been out to get him ever since?

DoublEE wrote:This could be the single most unfounded and paranoid post I've ever seen. Congratulations.

I hate getting into this topic of the Ramy debate, but if you knew anything about Ramy's history on other sites and artistic events, you would know that this isn't as paranoid and unfounded as it sounds. I'm not sayin' he does it here, I'm just sayin' it wouldn't be a shock if he did.

Re: Cookie Monsters

I feel like I've seen this before. Weird.

Re: Cookie Monsters

I love it, I hope it prints!

palookaboy wrote:
In spite of what the artist claims, the crux of the joke is NOT that the cookies have returned from the dead (thus being zombies and on-theme). The crux of the joke is that the cookies are attacking their natural predator.

Afterall, you should know better than the artist himself...

palookaboy wrote:, the crux of the joke is NOT that the cookies have returned from the dead

and that's where we disagree. because to me that is very much a part of the joke. and to me, i think the cookies look like zombies. again, it's fine. we just have different interpretations.

Re: Cookie Monsters

Yes, they do look like zombies in my opinion. But this isn't the kind of shirt i wanted for a zombie-themed derby, to be honest. I feel that, whilst technically being on topic, it rather misses the point

petitefilou wrote:Yes, they do look like zombies in my opinion. But this isn't the kind of shirt i wanted for a zombie-themed derby, to be honest. I feel that, whilst technically being on topic, it rather misses the point

This seems to be the case with most of this designer's designs. He finds a way to make it technically on topic, and that's it.

Never a yooge fan of the artist I did, however, used to be a "hater" hater. Then I got tired of wondering what so inspired the haterade. Using my mad internet detective skills, I quickly discovered that there was much much more than jealousy at play here. In fact I now believe that most "haters" are not even jealous at all. Sure, people go out of their way to criticize this artist. However there are issues here that go way beyond artistic critiques.

DoublEE wrote:Afterall, you should know better than the artist himself...

Consumer interpretation > Artist intent.

If Ramy really thinks the crux of his joke is the zombie aspect, he doesn't get his own joke.

palookaboy wrote:Consumer interpretation > Artist intent.

If Ramy really thinks the crux of his joke is the zombie aspect, he doesn't get his own joke.

Boy, for a guy who claims, "I hate getting into this topic of the Ramy debate" you just keep going. It's over dude. Enjoy the fog. They be plenty of future derbies for your RamyB hate.

Well, despite all the negative comments I happen to think this shirt is awesome. The cookies are definitely zombie worthy and I will certainly be hoping this shirt gets 3rd place in the derby so I can buy it tomorrow.

Johndis5 wrote:I agree about the unicorn shirt on the not the same species issue.

The difference is, sometimes any given artist can miss the theme of the derby while Ramy consistently and blatantly does it with nearly every design he submits. Then he indignantly defends his creations.

On a side note, if he'd just man up and say that he doesn't care about the theme or originality, or the art in general and just admit that he cranks out uninspired, unfinished, unoriginal crap to make as much money as he can, I'd respect that. Instead he puts up this ridiculous front that he is some kind of artist doing what he likes because he likes it. He is a grown man and apparently a scientist too. What adult would actually wear his childish drivel on their chest?

I would....and since I am 27 years old and have 10 years worth of higher education including a doctoral degree it kind of negates your whole "what adult would actually wear his childish drivel" comment.