Huevos grandes
This afternoon, I had the distinct displeasure of witnessing two amazing acts of sheerest nerve, and not in the good Knievelesque sort of way either.
First, one of our more unhinged customers was trying to explain her way out of some sort of error on the last request she sent us, pointing out to our beleaguered phone person that she’d never had such a problem in all of thirty years, and by “thirty years” she apparently meant “90 days.” (I keep fairly good records.)
Earlier in the day, I posted this comment regarding some orange shoes:
I looked at that BCBGirls sandal and thought “Maybe it’s a tad loud for Lynn.” My apologies.
A few minutes ago, I dropped into the Dashboard to see if anything was going on, and there was a comment in the spam queue. It read like this:
I looked at that BCBGirls sandal and thought “Maybe it’s a tad loud for Lynn.” My apologies.
Sorry, forgot to add great post! Can’t wait to see your next post!
The sorry sack of Siberian sheepdip had copied my comment and slapped my name on it, although underneath the name was a different URL.
You’ve got to get up pretty early in the morning to get something past me. (And given my druthers, I’d sleep ’til 10:30.)
jen »
10 July 2009 · 9:22 pm
you come up with the best stuff.
CGHill »
10 July 2009 · 9:59 pm
After X number of years doing this, where X > any standard of reasonableness, I can get blogfodder out of almost anything. And from the looks of things around here, apparently I have.
fillyjonk »
11 July 2009 · 8:39 am
There’s gotta be a version of “build a better mousetrap” for the whole spam-comment situation. (Or maybe, rather, “Build something idiot-proof and nature will build a better idiot.”)
CGHill »
11 July 2009 · 9:24 am
I can’t really complain about the spam filter I have: it’s been about 99.5 percent accurate since its installation last year, and it does learn from its mistakes. Better yet, its errors have been on the side of caution: if it has any doubt, it doesn’t approve the message. (It stopped one of mine once, feeling its content-to-link ratio was too low.)