I usually find Dilbert so funny, but this one puzzels me.
For those of you with this year’s Dilbert Calendar it is May 28th.
Any one it consists of 3 panels
Panel 1
A lab tech tells Dilbert
"We know these random drug tests are unpleasants for employees.
Panel 2
Lab Tech) That is why we offer free cashews
Panel 3 [at home with Dilbert and Dogbert]
Dilbert to Dogbert) Suddenly I thought about Charlie Brown But I don’t know why
What does this mean?
A reference to Peanuts?
[seinfeld]
That’s a rather clever jab at interoffice politics don’t you think? It’s merely a commentary on contemporary mores. It’s a slice of life. Pun? Vorshtein?
[/seinfeld]
Agreed…it ain’t funny whatever the joke is supposed to be.
I remember this strip. It originally ran on May 27, 2000, the day Charles Schulz was to be honored by the National Cartoonists’ Society and all the comic strips paid tribute to Peanuts. Unfortunately, the honor turned out to be posthumous.
Lucy snatching the football away, perhaps? Being a loser? Speh, there’s funnier. No need to dwell on this one.
Dilbert isn’t funny. Dogbert on the other hand is hillarious 
I considered posting this very question when it showed up on May 28th, but I chickened out. I like the Charles Shultz tribute idea.
I got a rock.
You had to like “Single Task Bob” on Saturday.
Is it just me, or are the bit players much funnier than the regulars?
I always liked “Tina, the Brittle Technical Writer”. My mom is a Technical Writer.
Almost all the cartoons that day did a nod to Charles Schultz’s final strip, not knowing it would be published on the final day of his life.
Tina’s way more common than the rest of those one-shots!
I worked with Tina.
She really needed someone to buff and wax her floors.
That was definitely Chales Schultz tribute day. I remember that one when it first came out. In fact I think I still have the page with the tributes on it.
I think the answer here is that Scott Adams was making you think you were getting a “normal” Dilbert strip and then suddenly throws out a Peanuts reference - which the rest of the paper had all over it. It wasn’t meant to be funny in isolation. Although I do like simply because of the complete disconnect in the last panel.
I understand that it was a Peanuts reference and all… but what specifially in Peanuts was it referring to? It would have been funnier had it referenced a specific aspect of Peanuts.
I think smiling bandit is correct: the third panel replaced the punchline panel with a non-sequiteur (if there ever was a punchline).
Thanks for posting the question. I too was puzzled and meant to ask here - but got caught up in something else.
And now it makes sense knowing it was a tribute to Shultz
There is no “T” in Charles M. Schulz.
There’s an “R” in “Charles” too, but that didn’t stop me