Reading 'Does the post above mine seem specious?' doesn't seem strange to me... made sense, nothing odd about syntax. Regards, -- poster known for a lot of long and obscure words in his novels here
Hmm. If I take 'specious' to be obs : presenting a pleasing appearance : pleasing in form or look : SHOWY superficially beautiful or attractive but not so in reality : deceptively beautiful apparently right or proper : superficially fair, just, or correct but not so in reality : appearing well at first view : PLAUSIBLE existing to our senses : actually known or experienced — see SPECIOUS PRESENT then I'd be looking at post #19 to see if it gave me some especially strong initial impression of beauty or propriety or persuasiveness that would then disappoint on further scrutiny. But I don't think I even noticed the first part, any first impression so especially favorable as to risk later disappointment. So maybe all I'm saying is that my answer to 'does the post seem specious?' is, I guess, no. But Kris also drew attention to specific details involving the timestamp, which made me wonder if I was missing something in the question. Those timestamp details do sound odd, but not odd in a way that ever made me first think extra-highly of the post and then be disappointed by it. I guess Kris maybe meant 'specious' in sense 3, taking 'apparently right or proper' as 'apparently a normal post by a human PriusChat member' but then on further scrutiny appearing to be something posted by a bot or spammer. Am I getting warmer?
