It's pretty rare for old posts to get new comments, but every once in a while it happens that someone makes a contribution to a something that's already settled comfortably into the content-dumpster which is the archives.

Last September I posted a brief discussion of one of the most diverting pieces of spam I'd ever recieved, a goofily genial advert for a purportedly legal substitute for, um, well...weed. I excerpted some choice passages, primarily those that managed to create a hallucinatory effect of their own by grafting loopy marketing-talk onto what I must assume is the latest in sensimilla slang.

The comment in question seemed to be addressed to a guy named "Greg" (and indeed, there might have been a Greg back in that original spam --I confess I don't remember). It was pretty ugly --ugly enough that I deleted it. Here's the expurgated version:

YOU {obscenity} SENDING THIS {obscenity} OUT AND PLUGGING MY EMAIL WITH THIS {misspelled obscenity} GO {obscene, homophobic and misogynist suggestion. Also misspelled} AND NEXT TOME YOU SEND THE {obscenity} I WILL RETURN 1000 OF THESE BACK TO YOU GREG YOU {misspelled obscenity}

Of course, it is signed merely "SPAM@AOL.COM"

Now, leaving aside the fact that this is clearly an individual who could probably use a relaxing "all-legal botanical" product like the one our spam-buddy Greg is promoting, one has to wonder how (even blinded by his towering rage) this guy mistook the Wombat File for the offending source? Even a non-native speaker? (Although, I must say, this guy seems to exhibit some all-American tendencies in his choice of verbiage.)

It's true that a Google of some of the text in the original spam does indeed pull up that page -- but surely my site doesn't look like the place where you order Aqueous Ragga Dagga(tm) or Stoney Mahoney(tm)? Does it? Somebody let me know if "wombat" has some kind of alternate-herbal-drug-lingo meaning, before the advent of Total Information Awarness means that I'm going over this odd little saga with a guy in a DEA vest.