, , ,

In some of my posts you will learn neat things. Things about authors you hadn’t heard of, or movies you may not have seen. Historical trivia and analysis of medieval heroes, or perhaps theories on how to read by some of the best authors in the English language.

In this post, you will laugh at some more dumb spam comments.

On my post on Chapter 3 of C.S. Lewis’ An Experiment in Criticism:

I don’t even understand how I ended up here, but I assumed this publish was great. I do not recognise who you might be however certainly you are going to a famous blogger if you aren’t already. Cheers!

Isn’t that great? This spambot doesn’t even pretend to have read the post, or even to have sentience. It just jumps straight to the empty and irrelevant flattery. This is perhaps the most honest one I’ve received yet.

On my posting of Frank Sidgwick’s “A Christmas Legend”:

This web site is really a stroll-through for all the info you wanted about this and didn’t know who to ask. Glimpse right here, and also you’ll undoubtedly uncover it.

This one’s mostly amusing because of the “stroll-through.” I may have to use that phrase. Superlative slang of spambots, Samuel Johnson! An unthinking computer program just enhanced my diction!

On my review of Peter Beagle’s The Last Unicorn:

Moving and effective! Youve certainly got a way of reaching individuals that I havent seen quite frequently. If most people wrote about this subject with the eloquence that you just did, Im sure men and women would do much more than just read, theyd act. Fantastic stuff here. Please keep it up.

Now I know that review was pretty good — it received some very kind comments and contains a few nice turns of phrase. But apparently, it’s also the key to real change and peace in the world. Get the news out, people! Maybe if the leaders of Iran, North Korea, etcetera only read this review of mine, the power of unicorns magnified to the power of David would cause them to repent of their dastardly ways!

*sideways glance*

Nah, the spambot’s unfamiliarity with apostrophes invalidates its argument. Besides, apparently I’m only good at reaching individuals that it doesn’t see frequently.