The person, be it gentleman or lady, who has not pleasure in a good novel, must be intolerably stupid.

The person, be it gentleman or lady, who has not pleasure in a good novel must be intolerably stupid

Stupid, stupid, stupid!

it is really impossible to appreciate what is meant by the Tao without becoming, in a rather special sense, stupid.

When the modern scholar cites from a classic text, the quotation seems to burn a hole in his own drab page.

A stupid lie is one that can never make itself believed.

It is quite bizarre that scholars trying to prove a point discredit their own case by using a proven forgery without any comment.

Well, that's not easy to answer when the question is so stupidly put...

This is the case with many learned persons; they have read themselves stupid.

Although I firmly believe that there is no such thing as a stupid question, there can indeed be stupid answers. 42 is an example. Not only is this a poor ripoff of Doug Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide, but it isn't even a prime number. Everyone surely knows that numerical answers to profound questions are always prime. (The correct answer is 37.)

Such an accusation is as stupid as it is absurd.

The book, as it stands, seems to me to be one of the most frightful muddles I have ever read, with scarcely a sound proposition in it beginning with page 45 [Hayek provided historical background up to page 45; after that came his theoretical model], and yet it remains a book of some interest, which is likely to leave its mark on the mind of the reader. It is an extraordinary example of how, starting with a mistake, a remorseless logician can end up in bedlam.

Sometimes I say things so profound that people that it’s stupid.

And sometimes I say things so stupid that people thinks it’s profound.

Stupidity is doomed,
therefore, to cringe
at every syllable
of wisdom.