"Hey, Ed, I know how you love nonsensical, stupid, and impossible EULAs and Terms of Service," the reader wrote. "Well, I've got a priceless one for you, and from a sorta unlikely source. Check out this paragraph:"

"You must be 13 years of age to use the Web Site and if not of majority (18 in most states) your parents must complete your registration and supervise your use."

The reader puzzled over that one a bit. "OK, great, I'm 54. Am I out? Not to mention this is missing two words - 'at least' --that would make sense of this. Just a typo, but if this is a legal and binding agreement, seems as if no one can really use this -- what with being 13, but if not 18 ... but wait, this makes no sense."

Well, maybe it makes sense if you're 13 and living where the age of majority is 12. Otherwise your parents would have to help you, and they would need to be 13 as well, I guess, which seems a little improbable. Anyway, the reader then pointed out another paragraph:

"Content you submit is owned by you and you are responsible for all third party rights and payments. You grant us and other users the right to use and exploit your submissions."

"Honest, to the point, does the job," the reader wrote. "Expectations are set clearly. Scott Adams may have done this intentionally. Of course, he does have minions that do his Web stuff, but these terms certainly could be fodder for a good strip."

Even though I'm not 13, and would therefore be violating the sanctity of this contractual agreement by reading it, I decided to see for myself if there were other interesting provisions besides those the reader had pointed out. Indeed, there are. One I like is that if you suffer any damages or injuries, including death, due to acts or omissions by the Dilbert.com publisher, you agree that the damages you suffered are not irreparable and their liability is limited to $10. But maybe the most intriguing provision of all is this one:

"In addition, your activities on the Web Site and in connection with the Materials will not ... Disparage, tarnish or other harm, in Scott Adams' sole opinion, Scott Adams."

We've seen no-disparaging-us terms before, but I think this is the first one I've seen where the definition of disparagement is left up to the disparagee. But the reader, for one, is by no means trying to disparage Scott Adams. "I love Scott's stuff, and will visit his site no matter that I'm violating the terms. He can bill me."

I also am sure this is not Scott Adams' fault. In fact, I have a theory about who is responsible. I noticed at the top of the Dilbert.com terms page that it says it's "Beta," and the whole thing contains many grammatical mistakes and strange errors. In other words, what we have evidence of here is a remarkable combination of hasty incompetence and unthinking malevolence. So there's only one explanation for iti all -- obviously someone decided that writing the terms for Dilbert.com was a job for the Pointy-Haired Boss himself.

Want to defend Dilbert's honor? OK, then help us find a ToS or EULA that's even worse. Tell us about your nominations by posting your comment below or write Ed Foster at Foster@gripe2ed.com.