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?
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:
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.
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’t 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’s 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?