Stuck in the denial stage
Left here by someone last night:
Yooo..
I kno it has nothing to do with what you wrote, but have you ever heard of [they get no linkage from me]. They seems to promise free ringtones
PS. Dont be an ass, this is NOT spam ;)
Sure it isn’t.
I’d give you guys the IP to ban, but I figure the arrogant little crapweasel has more of them.
fillyjonk »
17 April 2009 · 7:18 pm
So Rene Magritte has been reincarnated as a spammer?
“Ceci n’est pas un spam”
(I don’t know what the Academie Francaise is insisting Francophones use in place of the Imperialist English word spam. Nor do I know if spam would be masculine or feminine)
CGHill »
17 April 2009 · 7:22 pm
Un spam, it appears.
fillyjonk »
17 April 2009 · 7:38 pm
Ha! Awesome.
I suppose spam is so terrible that they choose not to sully a real French food-name with its connotation. (I wonder what the French equivalent of spam would be? Really bad greasy pate?)
Suzette »
17 April 2009 · 7:55 pm
I rather enjoy the challenge of comments like that one. I alter a few words in the message and the change the link then let it stand. Doesn’t have much overall effect on the universe but it keeps me amused.
Wooo..
I kno it has nothing to do with proper spelling, but have you ever heard of [replace with devestatingly clever pun here]. They seems to promise free dingbones
PS. Be an ass, this is spam ( Y )
unimpressed »
17 April 2009 · 7:56 pm
What some consider to be “good” pate makes my stomach roil in remembrance of the one time I tried it. To me, pate tastes like what I imagine dog run sweepings (shovelings?) would taste; the mere thought of “bad” pate scares me and terrifies my taste buds and stomach.
unimpressed »
17 April 2009 · 7:59 pm
Forgot this part: My tastes must be completely unrefined as caviar at any price-point are horrible.
I can’t be accused of disliking them prior to trying them as I -did- try them. Pate once and several varieties of caviar. Never again.
Tatyana »
17 April 2009 · 9:04 pm
Tz-tz-tz. Caviar is horrible? Pate is dog sweepings? Poor man. How sad must be your life – on cole slaw and potato salad.
I can’t even imagine what would you say about duck confit and escargot in season! Oh no, please don’t attempt to try them. Poetry is lost on you.
Lisa Paul »
17 April 2009 · 9:15 pm
Hmmm. This seems to be a new variation on “disguised SPAM” (or “bad pate” for the International Set.) I seem to get the Positive Reinforcement crowd with messages such as:
“Great Post! I’ll keep reading. Go here for inexpensive viagra (substitute Xanax, porn, free ringtones).”
Maybe I attract the “Bad Pate-ers”, who are trying the sweet approach, and you are getting the hardball, high-fat tactics of the true Spammers.
McGehee »
17 April 2009 · 10:48 pm
Patty La Boeuf, Shia’s kid sister?
McGehee »
17 April 2009 · 10:48 pm
Oh wait — Spam® is pork, not beef.
unimpressed »
18 April 2009 · 1:39 am
I’ve tried several varieties of domestic roe as well as several types of imported–due to recommendations from others. Without exception, they all had the taste and consistency of “fish oil and sand”. I’m not particularly fond of fish (the scaled kind–shellfish is another matter entirely) in general and fish by-products even less so this probably had something to do with it.
I’ve tried liver from practically every animal, both two- (chicken, duck, goose) and four-legged (beef, pork, mutton), served in this country. It’s been prepared by my mother, by both grandmothers, my mother-in-law and by military cooks in chow halls (figured since they screw everything else up, they might screw up and actually make it edible. I was wrong, it was even worse. It was well-used combat boot leather “aged” for weeks in the muddy field and tenderized by many many miles of marching in hot weather and seasoned by sweat and blister-water). Trust me, I have given it more than the “old college try”. Liver is a TERRIBLE thing to do to an onion.
If you’ll read what I wrote, you’ll see where I admitted the possibility, even the probability, of my lack of refinement in taste in this area.
I’ve NEVER claimed to be a poet, even in my dreams and I’m not responsible for what occurs in your nightmares.
My life is in no way “sad” because of my food preferences and those preferences are far from being as limited as you suggest.
You’ll also notice that I prefaced all of that as “my opinion”. Eat all the pate and caviar you want. I wouldn’t dream of depriving you of it or in arm-wrestling you for it. Take my share home in a doggie bag for a midnight snack with my blessing. I’ll even bag it up for you.
Tatyana »
18 April 2009 · 8:26 am
*unimpressed: you seem to think
- I accuse you of not being a poet
- I have nightmares because you don’t like caviar
- I aspire to deprive you of …something
- I need your blessing for my midnight snacks
Let me assure you – all of the above has no relation to reality whatsoever.
Look: you admitted of having unrefined tastes in food. I agree. And that’s a pity. That’s all I am saying.
CGHill »
18 April 2009 · 9:50 am
Were this an episode of Blogdom’s Got Talent, this would be the spot where the obvious loser comes in and spouts off an epic poem about cole slaw and potato salad.
Or “Sonnets from the Portuguese Water Dog”, maybe.
unimpressed »
18 April 2009 · 11:31 am
Tatyana: Reading for comprehension (in this language, anyway) isn’t your long suit, is it?
*You stated that poetry is lost on me. I agreed -and- denied any desire to ever be a poet. No point of contention.
*You claim I said you have nightmares because of my not liking caviar. I said that your nightmares are not my responsibility-this includes whether or not you have them as well as their content. No point of contention.
*You claim that I think you are depriving me of something. I said that I wouldn’t dream of depriving you of the aforementioned items. My having to do without caviar and pate is a -blessing-, not a deprivation. No point of contention.
*You claim I said you need my blessing for midnight snacks. I said that you can have my share–with my permission, and even assistance in getting it off my plate and into the doggie back for you to take home so you could have it AS a midnight snack, if you so desire. No point of contention.
The unreality you see is not of my manufacture. You are a yellow journalist. You took everything completely out of context and then twisted it so you’d have something to argue about. On each and every point, you “understood” the opposite of what I stated thereby negating your argument before it even started.
Tatyana »
18 April 2009 · 10:13 pm
Wow.. Sorry I wasted my pity on you. *unimpressed. I should pitied people who have to come in close contact with someone with no sense of humor and a chip on the shoulder the size of a whole pot of potato salad.
Chill, man. I have absolutely no interest in you, or your diet, or arguing your silly points.
CGHill »
18 April 2009 · 11:30 pm
Steering things back to Magritte for a moment, I must quote this gem from Lileks:
Heavy truth, indeed.
Tatyana »
19 April 2009 · 7:10 am
Chaz: cryptic.
Sister Wolf »
3 May 2009 · 4:06 am
Yay! I love comment threads where Tatyana attacks out of the blue! You go, girl.
CGHill »
3 May 2009 · 8:47 pm
And as long as we’re grumbling about unrefined tastes, let’s try this on for size:
On the upside, none of the five had a speck of cereal.