Funny paper review

I came across this website. It is citing some real examples of funny, hilarious paper reviews. This is always done during scientific conferences peer-review process. Other researchers in the same research field are invited to review and evaluate the quality of papers submitted to conferences. They choose to accept or reject the publication of the paper. 
In this website, there is a list of funny comments on submitted papers, read and judge by yourself:

• There is no experimental demonstration of your theorem.
• My name only appears in the Acknowledgements section where I could have signed this paper.
• You shoudl let a native english speaker reads the paper to checking the ortographe and gramar of the paper.
• Your contribution is so trivial that somebody must have published this somewhere already.
• I may have accepted your paper, but I had better things to do so I didn't read it.
• I had a headache just by looking at the data structures of your linear-time optimal algorithm. No doubt an exhaustive algorithm would be more efficient in practice.
• Reject: Figure 3 is unclear.
• Your research agenda is so outdated that your results are on a Wikipedia page already.
• Being 37% better than a complete moron does not make you a genius.
• This article does not deserve the paper and ink used to print it.
• In the future, don't waste your time writing articles manually. Use a generator such as http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/ to ensure they are gramatically correct, if not instructive.
• I can't believe the authors took the time to present, analyze and prove an algorithm for this middle-school problem.
• Honnestly, I really wonder whether this article is a joke or not. Anyway, I can assure you it gave me a good laugh and put me in a good mood for the rest of the day.
• The used notations are unclear and confusing. Since clear writing leads to clear thinking, I doubt that the authors really understood their own article.
• The only merit of this paper is to demonstrate all what you have to not do when writing an article.
• The practical effectiveness of the algorithm may be somewhat overstated since the experimental results prove its inability to fulfill its goals.
• Strengths: What are the major reasons to accept the paper? [Be brief.] I did not find strengths; I stopped reading the paper on page 12, so I may have missed something.
  
• This paper is original, well written and fully matches the topic, but its subject is so boring that I strongly recommend its rejection.
• Some Monthy Python sketches are far more logical than this paper.
• This paper needs a major rewrite to fix the English, make it more concise, explain clearly what exactly is the performance evaluation methodology, and how it is different from the obvious. (this one was seen for real as I was PC member...)