The phrasing of Dilbert's comment in the second panel makes it fairly clear that he DID read the "changes". There is not reason for him to explain why they are bad ideas, unless the guy is a project supervisor(or worse a PHB). If the guy insists, then let him make the request through "channels". With luck, maybe it will get misdirected to Wally.
If the guy is a buyer, then Dilbert probably should have been a bit more polite, but Dilbert is an engineer and their job doesn't require "polite", just that designs work and work correctly, without flaws.
#EStz and #RxF - you may be right that Dilbert is wrong and should listen, but he clearly read the critique and dismissed the suggestions, based on his sound reasons. Which he didn't want to waste time going over, and he again gave a reason for that. A perfectly reasonable chap in my very humble opinion.
I quite agree. The reasons why your perfectly rational comment gets thumbs-down (-1 at this moment, but presumably more to come) are: (1) It is courteous, and (2) This strip is posited on Dilbert's infallibility (at least on technical matters). So we are supposed to think (a) all the suggestions are bad, and (b) the other chap is such a fool that Dilbert is right to treat him in that way. Which might be right, but three frames don't give Scott Adams time to set it up. [Next week, "Pedants' Half Hour" will be brought to you from the Apostrophe Section of the Encyclopaedia Britannica.]