fun with spam

don’t blame me

Umm . . . sorry. Don’t really know what to tell you. Maybe, get a different/better phone?  Exercise a little patience and check out the page when you are on a computer/laptop?


two random points

Point one: if you have about 5 minutes to waste (and I mean completely waste), then hop on over and give this a read. While the 5 minutes I lost will never be returned, and while I wish I spent that 5 minutes doing something else; I have to say that this article made me laugh, which nearly makes up for the loss and the wish.

Point two: on my way to write this post, I stumbled upon a spam comment that I could not resist sharing:

The comment was attached to this post, which was a follow-up to this post. I’m struggling to see how this comment has anything to do with my post. Nice try, though.

maybe a new contender

for the ‘best piece of processed digital meat ever’ award. I found the following comment in my spam folder this morning and I could not help but share. (This one came from someone called, Andres Middleton). Happy reading:

On November 18 2009 Over the last few weeks I have been going through and updating all my on my website and it still looks to me that present indications are that Jesus will return 2030-2040 AD. I know that late date does not please the 2012-2019 second coming of Jesus crowd but they simply are wrong so that is their problem.


more processed digital meat

I typically just delete the spam comments when they appear in the spam folder.  On one other occasion, I lifted the comment straight from the spam folder and gave it to you for your enjoyment.  This morning, I found two new comments and I simply could not pass up the opportunity to share.  I share them for two reasons: 1) they’re just plain funny, and 2) they show just how far spammers are trying to go in order to sound legitimate.

The first one comes from a chap called, ‘can’t get over my ex’, who comments on this post:

This is one of the most authoritative post I ever encountered today, I’m speaking about this section of your post “… yielded this result:I almost didn&#8217t want to admit this one, but results are results. �I guess the only …” it makes me to feel more knowledgable after understanding it.

Okay, first of all, Mr Can’t: when you rip something out of its original context in order to make a point; you wind up sounding pretty lame (which is really a nice way of saying ‘you sound like an idiot’).  More to the point, there is nothing ‘authoritative’ about the section of the post you quoted, and I certainly don’t see how you can feel ‘more knowledgeable after understanding it.’  It was a passing shot at Dan Brown and by extension Jack Kinsella; there was nothing didactic about anything I said in that comment.  While I appreciate the attempted encouragement, it’s just lacking in real substance–you know, just like spam.

The second comes from a chap called, ‘help me get over my ex’, who comments on this post:

Some readers just don’t get it, like my neighbor who couldn’t figure the objective substance of this line on your article “… one too is a bit long:This revelation of the mystery is the real content of Paul&#8217s gospel (Rom 16.26),…” this is it, you just crushed it down pal.

(I think this dude and the first one ought to form a support group so that they can deal with their ‘ex’ problems in a helpful way).  Mr Help, I couldn’t agree with you more: some readers just don’t get it.  However, and I hate to be this rude, you’re included in your own criticism when it comes to your feedback about my post.  I would love to claim that the line you (started to) quote is my own making, but alas I dare not insult Ridderbos by suggesting that my intelligence is comparable to his.  So while I agree that the ‘objective substance’ of what Ridderbos says is somewhat complex, I cannot agree with the conclusion that it was mine or that I crushed anything.  More to the point: what the crap are you talking about?