[gratuituous, unhelpful sarcasm liberally snipped here...]

> The
> rotten prankster <male>, in his twisted little mind, tries to imagine what
> kind of person would be "not amused" by the image. Because of his low class
> standing, <male> is clearly aware that "not amused" is a euphemism that
> (sexist) men use when the searing hatred that often emanates from jealous
> individuals. He knows that Mr. Richards also referred the individual beaming
> this hatred as his 'partner', a euphemism for wife... What kind of wife
> would be jealous of a cute little cartoon doll figure? Why, a morbidly obese
> one, of course. This kind of accurate and witty humor is exactly what is
> wrong with the world today.

[...and ditto here.]

I'll leave 'witty' to the discretion of the reader, but I'm afraid
that I think it's a bit much to call this remark 'accurate'. In what
sense is it 'accurate' to imply that only one who weighs 350lb would
object to this image?

In general terms, the nasty tactic of insulting a woman's (presumed?)
appearance, rather than responding to the substance of her position
itself, is seen all too often when gender issues like these are
discussed. I don't think it's a nice habit.

To make a slightly distasteful joke in an unguarded moment on IRC is
hardly a crime, but I don't think this particular remark deserves to
be held up as a paragon of insight, free thinking, accuracy, etc.,
either.