My Review Sucks!

Recently I got back a bizarre review. The paper was accepted, but... Here are some sentences from the review (with my C++ style comments):

--
1) No conclusion is given. // ???
2) Each word should be enough comprehensible even in its first appearance in the paper.
// The next time I'll give a link to Webster's!
3) "The first protocol works .. but has 2 messages" in the introduction is not easy to follow. What is "messages" in this phrase?
// Protocols have messages. No, really!
4) Some expression like a=(a_0, ..,a_{n-1}) in introduction are not immediately understandable. (One needs to wait until sect.2 whose precise definition is given.) (Or this notation is common in this topic.)
// In THIS topic, we use this notation to denote vectors!
--
The reviewer's confidence was "medium"!

A paper on efficient cryptographic protocol was submitted and subsequently accepted. The main result of the paper was that the protocol was efficient. The full review: "It will be better to evaluate the proposed scheme quantitatively"

Full review: "The paper propeses (sic) a . The paper is well written and organized. "

(the paper was accepted, but this review sucked anyway)

This happened long time ago with a paper that I got rejected (it was later accepted in another venue).

It had scores from 3 reviewers: the first gave bad scores and recommended reject, and the second and third gave good scores and recommended accept.

- The first reviewer misunderstood the whole thing and argued for rejection -- won't complain, at least he argued.
- The full second review was: "Interesting idea."
- The full third review was: " " -- yes, the comments were fully empty!

I got the following one sentence (and not even a full one...) review.

"The model looks somewhat uninteresting...."

(1) Is this a postitive review? It implies that the model is at least (1-somwhat)-interesting!
(2) To ponder: is this better than a long review which nit-picks on small problems but really the reviewer is just not too interested? At least this is honest.

"The main technique of the work is in a style of facts on top of facts on top
of facts to hope to generate valid statements, a quite typical style for some
years of ZK areas. Unfortunately, in the realm of NP, deriving a statement in
this way can be quite dangerous. Here, polynomial is just too imprecise for
facts derivation if the work is about for real application use which is in
the interest of Eurocrypt like conference.... Practical knowledge often will help even "pure" theoretic work."

Directly quoting from the review :

"They employ ElGamal encryption extensively, but I did not believe
ElGamal is secure for practical parameters."

Google thinks otherwise -- too bad no time to check!

The submission was sent to a Bioinformatics conference and received the following comment: "This paper requires too much knowledge of Bioinformatics" .....

The paper received the following single suggestion: "This paper requires a bit more effort to be published" ..... go figure ....