SEO lies was Re: Looking For Links
Jezsta Web Productions
news:1155194129....@q16g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...
>
> Jezsta Web Productions wrote:
>
> <snip>
Hmm, Fred you are an expert you should know about proper posting. What are
you quoting to? You have done it many times in this thread. Losing all forms
of professionalism(that's right you say you aren't), etiquette, and shown
your true colors.:-)
Did everyone see Jez's thing for Fred showing his true colors. LOL.
"Not really wishing to paraphrase Cyndi Lauper, but, I think we can all
see your true colours shining through!
Is it time for your rest yet?
http://www.hitfix.co.uk/blog/index.php/archives/2006/08/10/men-in-white-coats/ "
Made me laugh!
> Here, I did the most logical thing to do. I went back to the beginning.
> I went to http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/index.jsp to check
> domain information.
It would be logical thing to do, but logic is also that the owner can change
the register.
>I ran www.canadawilds.com/ first ( this was going
> to grow to become a Canadian wilderness vacation search engine down the
> road a couple of years from now, it would have been something really
> special ) and I did www.canada-bear-hunting.com ( well, you know how
> much I love being in the bush and stuff, I enjoy the bear hunts alot, I
> don't hunt myself but like to bait bears and drag the wounded ones
> outa' the bush at night, that is fun! ), both don't seem to have my
> name on either of them. I assume the rest will be the same.
Fred you aren't much of an Expert if you don't know a person can actually
check the history of the domain. You changed it on the 10th. When I posted
this link
http://whois.domaintools.com/canadawilds.com at the time I posted all those
domains they were in your name. Which is why I posted the link to the
domaintools.com. If anyone had a chance to look they would have seen.
If you look at the link now you will see that there are 4 records in the
history for canadawilds. You can not see the history as you have to become a
paid member to have full use of the tools. Which I feel are good and for I
think $15.95 it is a good investment.
You changed the name in the history on the tenth. I have taken screen shots
for those of you who don't want to join domaintools. I did not lie against
Fred. I was being truthful. But Fred doesn't stop building this huge hole he
has for himself. They can be seen here at http://jezsta.com/seo-lies.htm .
I only list the 2 domains that he is listed above. If you want proof for the
other I will be glad to show it.
>Please
> check them for me, sorta' do a little secretarial work as a consolation
> prize for playing it out as hard as I can. I play to win.
Well you lost this one Fred. I can search history, IP blacklist, everything.
>No such thing
> as a good silver place. I am not the type to fall apart at challenges,
You don't fall a part Fred?? You have been a mess in this thread.
> especially those directed at my honour. Folks in my neck of the woods
> don't raise kids to be the sissy type. Doesn't help for the survival
> skills needed to be the outdoorsy kind. lot of men here work in the
> gold mines and forestry industries, pretty rowdy crowds on a Sudbury
> Saturday Night ( by Stompin ' Tom Connors ).
Your honor and integrity is tarnished once more with your lies and deceit.
> Anyway, I lost these two web sites because of a terrible terrible
> dispute with the web site owners which can never be rectified. it
> wasn't about money or anything like that, it was a conflict of wills
> let's say.
Boy you can go on with your lies and deceit.
> I wish I could have it all back and do it again but I have
> to move on to other stuff. Find some other stuff. Promote myself more
> so as to get some more stuff to work on. You can check the other web
> sites yourself if you want, they are all belonging to persons other
> than me. This whole package was gonna' be a Canadian tourism machine to
> reckon' with. Just was starting to develop it.
I checked them all. They all have history records keep with your name on
them Fred.
> So, the domains are clearly not mine. Please get yourself a new domain
> lookup tool.
I don't need one, the one I use is fine works just fine.
> Does this suffice for you and your squad of fame seeking bandits? The
> domains that you have been using against me are not mine. I started a
> project and it was shut down after four months.
Not for me because now you continue to lie. You can no longer be trusted for
anything. You are not ethical enough to even wipe off Sam's boots. (Sam I
know you will like this and see it as good humor)
>It was no secret then
> and it is not a secret now. I can't develop those projects any further
> in their unique and collective directions that I was heading.
> Evolution. It is beyond my control to continue in its web site
> promotion and developmental plan. Is this enough to shut you up and
> leave me alone?
The secret is out that you are not as ethical as you say you are. That is
all I was setting out to do. Battle one that likes to go into battle for
ethics. This was for all those SEO's who really are ethical. Bill, I think
my be the only true ethical one here maybe at times.
> You have attempted to discredit me with various types of assaults both
> almost sensible and some down right fabricated.
Nope they were true Fred. Nice try. I can get history on all types of sites
even the one that got blacklisted by spamhaus that you owned.
>You have perpetuated
> your assaults against my integrity and my honour across various places
> on the Internet
Various places who in the heck are you trying to kid. Only here.
> and you have done so visciously and relentlessly.
To bring out truth.
>I have defended my honour every step of the way along your endless
> defamation of my ethics and character assassinations.
> It is with my integrity and dignity in tact, like a shining knight in a
> very dark world,
You did not keep any dignity or ethics with the way you acted in this
thread. And you are still a liar.
>I deem you unworthy of being in the business of SEO,
Sorry, Fred but as everyone can see that you are the liar. A good SEO knows
how to gain the proper tools and do research.
> you and all your conspirators and whoever the hell else is on your side
> can kiss my Canadian ass. pfft.
Wow, what kind of dignity is that?
Stacey
--
Crafts - Directory - Your Online Crafting Source
http://www.ecraftsonline.net/
A New Focus In Web Marketing - Search Engine Optimization
http://jezsta.com
canadafred
Jezsta Web Productions wrote:
you are an asshole
canadafred
Jezsta Web Productions wrote:
> http://www.hitfix.co.uk/blog/index.php/archives/2006/08/10/men-in-white-coats/ "
Domain name:
hitfix.co.uk
Registrant:
Jeremy Day
So who you draggin' into this now?
Big Bill
wrote:
That's Jez, of Jez and Stacey. Jez is a guy not a girl, which maybe
you didn't get because I guess you didn't realise that Jez is a boy's
name here and is an abbreviation of Jeremy (my next-door neighbour is
called Jez, for instance, by coincidence - mind you, he is a girl,
though, and a big one at that), and he lives up the road, more or
less, from me here in the UK.
BB
--
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/marilyn-monroe-pictures.htm
http://www.kruse.co.uk/seo-maintenance.htm
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/artis-orbis/amici-della-luna-glass.html
canadafred
Big Bill wrote:
Thanks for clearing that up. That's usually what experienced SEOs do
around here, clear things up. Not pretty sometimes, but in good spirit.
canadafred
Jezsta Web Productions wrote:
<repeated from another thread in case you missed it>
To the conspirators:
Well you lil' shit-for-brains are in for a surprise.
You want to judge me, let you now be judged.
http://canadian-web-site-promotion.blogspot.com/2006/08/fact-fabricat...
Remember you three SEO sunsabitches' wannabees, the Stacey - Jeremy -
David you buncha' SEO arsewipes in training, whenever one of you opens
your mouth, you all open your mouth.
Write the apology letters! You take your public whippings from your
peers. Then, maybe after a long long time, then maybe if you behave
yourselves long else I may change my judgement of you from being of the
most vile rotten cheating blackmailing shitty kind of SEO to being a
reforming one.
You wanna' publicly humiliate me, you are
going to publicly apologize. How far will my stance be to fight you go
is
entirely within your control. How long you want to cripple your budding
young careers in this industry depends entirely on your collective
stubbornness.
canadafred
Jezsta Web Productions wrote:
> Fred you aren't much of an Expert if you don't know a person can actually
> check the history of the domain. You changed it on the 10th. When I posted
> this link
> http://whois.domaintools.com/canadawilds.com at the time I posted all those
> domains they were in your name. Which is why I posted the link to the
> domaintools.com. If anyone had a chance to look they would have seen.
there have never been any errors in any logs nor are there any errors
in any logs now
A Basic Rule When Extortioning Expert SEOs
Never rely on only one piece of data to hold against the expert SEO;
particularly when the attack is derived from a "hunch".
These have never been, nor will they ever be my Internet properties.
Were some of these domains supposed to be mine, yes. Did I lose those
two domains that were supposed to be my reward for my efforts at
managing a new web site promotion until it reached a dominating
Internet presence in the Canadian tourism industry, yes. Was I crushed
by the loss but figured out another honest and ethical plan and decided
to wipe himself off and go for it again another way, yes. Did I get
drunk, yes. Am I on a better path today, yes. Is my life a complicated
mess and looks almost impossible to continue every second, yes.
Do I cry, yes. I cry for you and I cry for me and I cry for the art and
dignity of search engine optimization; its masters and its students.
Leave me alone will ya' I have done nothing wrong enough to any of you
to merit this.
canadafred
quality should you ever attempt to ruin my career again. Your letters
will CLEARLY indicate that you pre-judged me based on flimsy data
derived from your SEO intuitiveness skills and that your malicious
attack at my integrity was what you once thought was in the best
interest of the SEO community. Finally, you must somehow convince the
readers that you are sincere, as I reserve the right to use your
letters of apology as content to demonstrate when you get out of line,
to show the innocent your history of bad judgment in the SEO community.
This will undoubtedly stop you from ever doing this again to anyone
else in this SEO circle.
You are in check. If you have a desperation move or have devised yet
another, let it show itself now. Otherwise, capitulate.
canadafred
canadafred wrote:
<corerction>
Otherwise, capitulate, you buncha' low-life SEO punks.
</correctioon>
Jezsta Web Productions
>
> Jezsta Web Productions wrote:
>
>> Fred you aren't much of an Expert if you don't know a person can actually
>> check the history of the domain. You changed it on the 10th. When I
>> posted
>> this link
>> http://whois.domaintools.com/canadawilds.com at the time I posted all
>> those
>> domains they were in your name. Which is why I posted the link to the
>> domaintools.com. If anyone had a chance to look they would have seen.
>
> there have never been any errors in any logs nor are there any errors
> in any logs now
>
> A Basic Rule When Extortioning Expert SEOs
There is no extortion. It is the truth you owned the sites and manipulated
them with anchor text. Something you said you didn't do and was unethical.
http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/index.jsp even this has the change in
the cache as on the 10th of this month. I have that in those screen shots
also. All someone has to do is:
Scroll Down to see this link:Show underlying registry data for this record
takes you to the other part of the records. What people can't see is the
past history records unless they belong to a registered ICANN whois tool
base.
> Never rely on only one piece of data to hold against the expert SEO;
> particularly when the attack is derived from a "hunch".
Wasn't a hunch it was truth Fred, and then you preceded to build your hole
again by changing the registrant. All you had to do was say yeah they are
mine and yeah links are good. If fact you did if someone was following
through the that thread you stated something like I would rather have links
to my own sites that I can trust. I don't know if anyone caught it before
your little escapade. Now here is the thing most site owners wouldn't won't
all those links you had from the 1st page on.
Rest assured I know what slander is and that is what you are doing. I did
what I said I was going to do in my email.
Also Fred don't think that you are without trashing people here when they
haven't done anything or getting them when they are wrong. Shoot even Bill
in a way gets Dave going at times. You have done it on numerous occasions.
In fact just recently on Jul the 18th "
"I have been keeping an eye on that surprising UK competitor of yours. I
must say the quality of his content has improved significantly over the
last couple of his upgrades. He has further gained ground in his web
site's fortitude by empowering it with rather clever support content.
It appears as if he has been sharpening his pencil quietly in the
background. I must admit though, I did somewhat dislike seeing the way
he uses this A.I.S.E. Usenet group as cover for another agenda. The
manner in which he uses the anchor "alt.internet.search-engines FAQ"
from his top ranked SEO tutorial page, is definitely misleading,
inviting visitors to a completely different place other than
alt.internet.search-engines is rather distasteful for my palette. "
"It's stuff like this
http://www.internet-search-engines-faq.com/get-links.shtml that I don't
particularly care about. I don't think any of the regular SEO experts
around here would endorse link exchanges let alone link brokering
masked as link excvhanges : "
in the same thread on the 21st " Personally, I'm the type that would prefer
to tell a
person off rather than "
**So you agree a person needs to be told off?**
You wrote this in reply to one of my postings in Jun;"ROTFL Go try this
"SEO" technique for keyphrases that people actually seek. " -- Actually the
techinique is quite good at gaining smaller SERPs buy making seperate
product pages. Pick up an extra 1200 visits that month. You then lied that
same day with this: I have 1 blog, 1 GooglesGroup and 1 web site ( that I am
aware of )."
There are numerous times in this NG that you have put down other people
techiniques with no proof that it doesn't work. You have repeatedly tried to
make yourself look at the #1 SEO and tried to stated you were ethical. Right
now you are not.
Just today here you are the 1st to tell someone off: "gee you are not a
spammer, pretty friggin' close though" --Humm, but you can post numerous
advertisements in NG's. Here are but a few of what you have posted. There
are many. You are kind of do as I say don't do as I do type of guy...I said
something like this before. What gives you the right to tell off that person
when you do the same? None!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.outdoors.fishing/browse_frm/thread/53300a5623a1047a/0e6d95a34eb58006?hl=en#0e6d95a34eb58006 -
just recently
> These have never been, nor will they ever be my Internet properties.
> Were some of these domains supposed to be mine, yes.
See still trying to flip flop around. So some were yours at least you are
admitting to it.
>Did I lose those
> two domains that were supposed to be my reward for my efforts at
> managing a new web site promotion until it reached a dominating
> Internet presence in the Canadian tourism industry, yes.
So you lost 2 domains the other 8 were yours? Why was the whois data changed
on 7 of them, yes 1 is still in your name. You should have been a little
more creative and registered them privately to begin with pay the extra $5.
That way it would have been safer anyway. Especially if your competitors
looked at those. A SEO tip BTW you should always research fully competitors
websites.
>Was I crushed
> by the loss but figured out another honest and ethical plan and decided
> to wipe himself off and go for it again another way, yes. Did I get
> drunk, yes. Am I on a better path today, yes. Is my life a complicated
> mess and looks almost impossible to continue every second, yes.
What are you going on about here. What does this have to do with you stating
you don't do any manipulation of sites with links? The present tense is what
we are talking about.
Should people treat you in the internet market any different just because
you say you are an alcoholic or have anxiety attacks? Shoot everyone has
bought of depression some in a big way. I have had a hard life myself and my
husband is in Baghdad right now. Do I have some depression with him being
gone you bet I do. Do I ask anyone to treat me any different?
> Do I cry, yes. I cry for you and I cry for me and I cry for the art and
> dignity of search engine optimization; its masters and its students.
>
> Leave me alone will ya' I have done nothing wrong enough to any of you
> to merit this.
No you just state how good you are at gaining SERPs without manipulating
with links. That is false as you were doing it. In fact it appears you tell
newbie's not to gain links which their site will fail, to me that is giving
bad advice. You claim to follow Google's guidelines completely but you
failed here are those sites are closely related even when breaking them up
to French and not. You own those sites, you did change the registration,
some didn't get changed until the 11th though when they made the cache
history.
You make advertisements to NG's, which is annoying.
You constantly put some SEO's down or their techniques and say you are
battling. And you do just as much to cause verbal bashing. Just this time it
got to you are it was true. That is why you are going about this rampage to
try and get it turned around. But it won't happen it is the truth. **History
records can be researched even by Google looking into Slander. Yes, I really
did turn you in for slander and turned in those sites in the same email.**
You are not being ethical with what you are doing ATM. What was said was
only here in this NG to you what I said was the truth. I even pointed Google
to the thread here in A.I.S-E where I put the truth out here in the NG.
If I was you I would now start to worry. Your verbal bashing and use of
offensive language is uncalled for. Your slander against Jez, Dave , and me
is uncalled for. What I was doing was like any other was proving my case.
You have to tell the truth for it *not* to be defamation of character and
slander. Yes, I can play hard ball also. You have used our real names on
your blog and used slandering defamation offensive remarks. Trust me any
legal firm can retrieve the complete past history for websites also to prove
I was telling the truth.
You also brought 2 other people into this that wasn't doing anything to you
but defending themselves from your obvious offensive attacks that you put on
people regularly here. Jez and Dave. Dave was just defending himself in
that one thread with his blog. One minute you praised him the next minute
you slashed at him. Jez did absolutely nothing.
I am not going to apologize for telling the truth. You want to continue then
fine I will seek legal actions if you continue trust me. If you feel you had
been done wrong you can seek the same. You can even go to Google and tell
them about this thread and the other one, plead your case as this is the
only place I have anything in regards to me showing your a liar.
Jezsta Web Productions
news:t94od29o7rhq3a381...@4ax.com...
> On 10 Aug 2006 20:41:19 -0700, "canadafred" <canadi...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Jezsta Web Productions wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.hitfix.co.uk/blog/index.php/archives/2006/08/10/men-in-white-coats/ "
>>
>> Domain name:
>> hitfix.co.uk
>>
>> Registrant:
>> Jeremy Day
>>
>>So who you draggin' into this now?
>
> That's Jez, of Jez and Stacey. Jez is a guy not a girl, which maybe
> you didn't get because I guess you didn't realise that Jez is a boy's
> name here and is an abbreviation of Jeremy (my next-door neighbour is
> called Jez, for instance, by coincidence - mind you, he is a girl,
> though, and a big one at that), and he lives up the road, more or
> less, from me here in the UK.
I didn't drag him in it you did Fred.
canadafred
Jezsta Web Productions wrote:
don't matter, he's in now
canadafred
Jezsta Web Productions wrote:
tell it to your judges not me
I want letters of apology and I want them fuckin fast
Jezsta Web Productions
>
> Jezsta Web Productions wrote:
>
> tell it to your judges not me
I told Google if you read the posting. But you will force me to bring legal
actions if you continue.
> I want letters of apology and I want them fuckin fast
As stated in the posting you are replying to:
> I am not going to apologize for telling the truth. You want to continue
> then
> fine I will seek legal actions if you continue trust me. If you feel you
> had
> been done wrong you can seek the same. You can even go to Google and tell
> them about this thread and the other one, plead your case as this is the
> only place I have anything in regards to me showing your a liar.
You will not get an apology. This is my last reply to you Fred in regards to
this.
canadafred
canadafred wrote:
incidentally you are still in check
canadafred
Jezsta Web Productions wrote:
already foresaw that move
David
wrote:
>Leave me alone will ya' I have done nothing wrong enough to any of you
>to merit this.
What exactly have I done to you Fred?
Give specifics, examples, some proof.
Put up or shut up with your paranoid delusions.
Shit, he's another Sam and I did nothing this time (last time I was
stupid enough to help someone get good SERPs for free).
David
canadafred
David wrote:
My preparation is through.
It is you that wastes your own precious time. The only thing I can do
now is amuse myself as I follow your frantic dribblings.
Squirm, squirm like the snake that you are goldennippleearringboy.
Paul
wrote:
Fairly easy SERP to get ;)
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2005-36,GGLD:en&q=SEO+punks
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2005-36,GGLD:en&q=low%2Dlife+SEO+punks
--
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
canadafred
David wrote:
Note: Your missing co-character assassinator is quite silent at the
moment. I'm starting to be curious as to why. I am starting to think
that I may need to pursue an additional apology from him for his
distasteful cartooning representation of me. I have the right to do
that you know. Demand an apology when hurt professionally, although the
Internet arena is a most intriguing way to go about it. It is most
effectively used when you have the troublemakers all caught up in a
little corner such as the situation in which you and your
blackmailin' bunch of cyber-ego inflated spermaceti finds yourselves
in.
David
wrote:
>Squirm, squirm like the snake that you are goldennippleearringboy.
Goldennippleearringboy Dave is the correct format, remember!
David
--
Totally Duh! http://www.totallyduh.com/
David
wrote:
I've no idea what he is going on about (or maybe what he is on, hmm),
but I think it was funny all the same :-)
He is quite good at insults though, bravo old chap :-)
David
<lamewolf2004[REMOVE]@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 11 Aug 2006 05:59:35 -0700, "canadafred" <canadi...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>canadafred wrote:
>>
>><corerction>
>>Otherwise, capitulate, you buncha' low-life SEO punks.
>></correctioon>
>
>Fairly easy SERP to get ;)
>http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2005-36,GGLD:en&q=SEO+punks
>http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2005-36,GGLD:en&q=low%2Dlife+SEO+punks
ROFLOL
You want to watch yourself Paul, he'll pull you into the conspiracy
and we'll be the gang of four :-)
Hey one of my sons has a conspiracy site
http://www.conspiracy-theories-hoax.com/ Fred you should ask him to
add your conspiracy!
I'll see you at the meeting place later Paul, mums the word, hush,
hush I'll be wearing a red carnation :-)
canadafred
David wrote:
stop trying to twist the truth about yourself onto others, not a very
professional approach to humour
canadafred
David wrote:
there you go throwing more names around again like little toy soldiers
in your dreamlike trance called a humiliating defeat
Big Bill
<Jezz...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>"canadafred" <canadi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1155298382.8...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Jezsta Web Productions wrote:
>>
>>> Fred you aren't much of an Expert if you don't know a person can actually
>>> check the history of the domain. You changed it on the 10th. When I
>>> posted
>>> this link
>>> http://whois.domaintools.com/canadawilds.com at the time I posted all
>>> those
>>> domains they were in your name. Which is why I posted the link to the
>>> domaintools.com. If anyone had a chance to look they would have seen.
>>
>> there have never been any errors in any logs nor are there any errors
>> in any logs now
>>
>> A Basic Rule When Extortioning Expert SEOs
>
>There is no extortion. It is the truth you owned the sites and manipulated
>them with anchor text. Something you said you didn't do and was unethical.
>http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/index.jsp
This is just Network Solutions, Stacey. It's not about anybody,
there's no url there. So I don't know which domain you're referring
to.
> even this has the change in
>the cache as on the 10th of this month. I have that in those screen shots
>also. All someone has to do is:
>Scroll Down to see this link:Show underlying registry data for this record
>takes you to the other part of the records. What people can't see is the
>past history records unless they belong to a registered ICANN whois tool
>base.
I got one of those silver memberships but I'm still not sure
specifically what you're referring to. You want to put a screen shot
up somewhere? Then maybe I can do some of my own digging.
>> Never rely on only one piece of data to hold against the expert SEO;
>> particularly when the attack is derived from a "hunch".
>
>Wasn't a hunch it was truth Fred, and then you preceded to build your hole
>again by changing the registrant. All you had to do was say yeah they are
>mine and yeah links are good. If fact you did if someone was following
>through the that thread you stated something like I would rather have links
>to my own sites that I can trust. I don't know if anyone caught it before
>your little escapade. Now here is the thing most site owners wouldn't won't
>all those links you had from the 1st page on.
>
>Rest assured I know what slander is and that is what you are doing. I did
>what I said I was going to do in my email.
>
>Also Fred don't think that you are without trashing people here when they
>haven't done anything or getting them when they are wrong. Shoot even Bill
>in a way gets Dave going at times.
Me? SEO Dave has been taking wholly unwarranted pops at me for the
past several years. He deserves what he gets.
>No you just state how good you are at gaining SERPs without manipulating
>with links. That is false as you were doing it. In fact it appears you tell
>newbie's not to gain links which their site will fail, to me that is giving
>bad advice. You claim to follow Google's guidelines completely but you
>failed here are those sites are closely related even when breaking them up
>to French and not. You own those sites, you did change the registration,
>some didn't get changed until the 11th though when they made the cache
>history.
So you can check into the cache history? What's the point of changing
the history if anyone can see the changes?
>You make advertisements to NG's, which is annoying.
>
>You constantly put some SEO's down or their techniques and say you are
>battling. And you do just as much to cause verbal bashing. Just this time it
>got to you are it was true. That is why you are going about this rampage to
>try and get it turned around. But it won't happen it is the truth. **History
>records can be researched even by Google looking into Slander. Yes, I really
>did turn you in for slander and turned in those sites in the same email.**
>You are not being ethical with what you are doing ATM. What was said was
>only here in this NG to you what I said was the truth. I even pointed Google
>to the thread here in A.I.S-E where I put the truth out here in the NG.
Confidence thy name is Stacey...
canadafred
David wrote:
if you are so clueless then I have helped assembled some of your basic
choices for you to consider:
A Start writing the best letter of apology in your life and submit it
to me for review.
you'll be able to formulate other as well, my clock's ticking though so
you better do something intelligent soon
canadafred
Jezsta Web Productions wrote:
I noticed that your coniving little punk SEO arses have been hanging
around this thread.
I have an idea why you would want to hang out there. My new clients
have all been warned of you. I live for the moment, don't give two
sweet shits about tomorrow. The lady that posted this reference request
no longer talks to me.
This posting appears to have sparked your infuriated jealousy and
subsequent and perpetual attacks on my character and all your
extortions.
You ought to be ashamed of yourvelves!
Jezsta Web Productions
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 16:31:15 +0200, "Jezsta Web Productions"
> <Jezz...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>
>>"canadafred" <canadi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1155298382.8...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> Jezsta Web Productions wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fred you aren't much of an Expert if you don't know a person can
>>>> actually
>>>> check the history of the domain. You changed it on the 10th. When I
>>>> posted
>>>> this link
>>>> http://whois.domaintools.com/canadawilds.com at the time I posted all
>>>> those
>>>> domains they were in your name. Which is why I posted the link to the
>>>> domaintools.com. If anyone had a chance to look they would have seen.
>>>
>>> there have never been any errors in any logs nor are there any errors
>>> in any logs now
>>>
>>> A Basic Rule When Extortioning Expert SEOs
>>
>>There is no extortion. It is the truth you owned the sites and manipulated
>>them with anchor text. Something you said you didn't do and was unethical.
>>http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/index.jsp
>
> This is just Network Solutions, Stacey. It's not about anybody,
> there's no url there. So I don't know which domain you're referring
> to.
The one that is mentioned above with the domain tools and all of them I
mentioned before hand if you want to look.
>
>> even this has the change in
>>the cache as on the 10th of this month. I have that in those screen shots
>>also. All someone has to do is:
>>Scroll Down to see this link:Show underlying registry data for this record
>>takes you to the other part of the records. What people can't see is the
>>past history records unless they belong to a registered ICANN whois tool
>>base.
>
> I got one of those silver memberships but I'm still not sure
> specifically what you're referring to. You want to put a screen shot
> up somewhere? Then maybe I can do some of my own digging.
Yeah I have a screen shot, http://jezsta.com/seo-lies.htm . You want screen
shots of the whole list of sites I listed. Can put them up if you ned to see
them.
<snip>
Shoot even Bill
>>in a way gets Dave going at times.
>
> Me? SEO Dave has been taking wholly unwarranted pops at me for the
> past several years. He deserves what he gets.
Oh, so what you are saying is that if someone makes unwarranted pops they
deserve what they get? Well good, because you will notice a piece from
Fred's blog on that page I gave you with the screen shots of where Fred
posted something with me and my on the 5th I brought out the truth. I feel
Fred got what he deserved.
>>No you just state how good you are at gaining SERPs without manipulating
>>with links. That is false as you were doing it. In fact it appears you
>>tell
>>newbie's not to gain links which their site will fail, to me that is
>>giving
>>bad advice. You claim to follow Google's guidelines completely but you
>>failed here are those sites are closely related even when breaking them up
>>to French and not. You own those sites, you did change the registration,
>>some didn't get changed until the 11th though when they made the cache
>>history.
>
> So you can check into the cache history? What's the point of changing
> the history if anyone can see the changes?
The history of the domain, transfers, ip changes, change in hosting etc.
When you purchase a previously owned website you would want to see how the
site was if it was blacklisted by spamhaus or anything else.
I don't know the point of changing history if anyone can see the changes. To
me it was very idiotic of a person to do it and lie about it. But like I
said above a person needs to know all about the site. The same way you can
see who previously own a house, car or any type of property.
So what are you going to do if you find out I am telling the truth about the
domain histories? Keep it to yourself to keep defending Fred for he knows
not what he does for him being unwell, or be a man and state I am telling
the truth?
>>You make advertisements to NG's, which is annoying.
>>
>>You constantly put some SEO's down or their techniques and say you are
>>battling. And you do just as much to cause verbal bashing. Just this time
>>it
>>got to you are it was true. That is why you are going about this rampage
>>to
>>try and get it turned around. But it won't happen it is the truth.
>>**History
>>records can be researched even by Google looking into Slander. Yes, I
>>really
>>did turn you in for slander and turned in those sites in the same email.**
>>You are not being ethical with what you are doing ATM. What was said was
>>only here in this NG to you what I said was the truth. I even pointed
>>Google
>>to the thread here in A.I.S-E where I put the truth out here in the NG.
>
> Confidence thy name is Stacey...
I have total confidence Bill, checked into a lot of things.
Even know a few cases where someone tried to sue someone for writing a
cartoon joke. Remember Larry Flynt's whiskey joke on Jerry Falwell, Larry
won. If fact Larry won a lot of cases for some of the truth telling he did
against people.
Stacey
canadafred
Jezsta Web Productions wrote:
cowards die many times before their deaths
the valiant taste death but only once
William Shakespeare in Julius Caesar
Jezsta Web Productions
news:isapd2l5tlqn0f96q...@4ax.com...
> On 11 Aug 2006 08:54:29 -0700, "canadafred" <canadi...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Squirm, squirm like the snake that you are goldennippleearringboy.
>
> Goldennippleearringboy Dave is the correct format, remember!
I am thinking DJPB(Damian) moved to Canada. Nah, bleachboy wasn't this bad.
John Bokma
> Yeah I have a screen shot, http://jezsta.com/seo-lies.htm . You want
> screen shots of the whole list of sites I listed. Can put them up if
> you ned to see them.
Haven't followed much of it, but note that an *update* to a WHOIS record
(or more) can happen for various reasons.
Maybe you can add some text under each screenschot so I have an idea
what's this about?
--
John Experienced Perl programmer: http://castleamber.com/
Fart Free Fox: http://johnbokma.com/firefox/find-in-page-sound.html
Big Bill
<Jezz...@jezsta.com> wrote:
I never said you weren't telling the truth.
Big Bill
wrote:
>
>Jezsta Web Productions wrote:
>
>I noticed that your coniving little punk SEO arses have been hanging
>around this thread.
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.internet.search-engines/browse_frm/thread/0cfe78b44d659536/84b20f7315a15ae7#84b20f7315a15ae7
>
>I have an idea why you would want to hang out there.
Possibly because there is here - you do realise this is the GG version
of AISE?
Paul
wrote:
>cowards die many times before their deaths
>the valiant taste death but only once
What would happen then if there were siamese twins and one was a
coward and one was valiant. How would they die ?
Jezsta Web Productions
news:mbppd2pbf1iti99ih...@4ax.com...
> On 11 Aug 2006 11:49:27 -0700, "canadafred" <canadi...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>cowards die many times before their deaths
>>the valiant taste death but only once
>
> What would happen then if there were siamese twins and one was a
> coward and one was valiant. How would they die ?
Be careful Paul, I don't want to see you dragged into this. :-)
Stacey
Jezsta Web Productions
news:Xns981C964D7B...@130.133.1.4...
> "Jezsta Web Productions" <Jezz...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>
>> Yeah I have a screen shot, http://jezsta.com/seo-lies.htm . You want
>> screen shots of the whole list of sites I listed. Can put them up if
>
> Haven't followed much of it, but note that an *update* to a WHOIS record
> (or more) can happen for various reasons.
Right which I had stated here earlier - to Bill when he asked:
> So you can check into the cache history? What's the point of changing
> the history if anyone can see the changes?
I wrote:
"The history of the domain , transfers, ip changes, change in hosting etc.
When you purchase a previously owned website you would want to see how the
site was if it was blacklisted by spamhaus or anything else."
There is more but these are the main reasons.
> Maybe you can add some text under each screenshot so I have an idea
> what's this about?
Sure (I added al text), get you caught up a little - I posted some domains
that were in Fred's name a couple of days ago to prove a point about links
and ethics. Fred denied owning them then changed the registry and after he
did that stated that I had lied and he wasn't the owner. The date of most of
them has a new history date of the 10th.
Anyway go to the page again as I added a little more to it also to help a
person understand it. I know before I just had the screenshots.:-)
Now to get past history you have to be a member of a registered ICANN
database (that I know of). I tried all of them and couldn't get the past
history before, so I joined domiantools about 5 months ago. I have been
purchasing previously owned domains and wanted to check history. I have also
started checking history to make sure that if I give someone a link that
domain's past has a good history also.
Stacey
canadafred
biggest liar
canadafred
about truth
canadafred
Big Bill wrote:
> Possibly because there is here - you do realise this is the GG version
> of AISE?
I use it
Big Bill
wrote:
>she's got the screenshots to prove it too, that Fred Joly, he's the
>biggest liar
I'm thinking that for you a tactical retreat might be the best option
around this time, Fred.
Big Bill
>"Jezsta Web Productions" <Jezz...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>
>> Yeah I have a screen shot, http://jezsta.com/seo-lies.htm . You want
>> screen shots of the whole list of sites I listed. Can put them up if
>> you ned to see them.
>
>Haven't followed much of it, but note that an *update* to a WHOIS record
>(or more) can happen for various reasons.
>
>Maybe you can add some text under each screenschot so I have an idea
>what's this about?
Especially for those dumb-dumbs like me know need such stuff
explaining? You might consider keeping it on as a resource for noobs
too, although obscuring the names involved might be appropriate.
canadafred
> > be a man and state I am telling the truth
you are telling the truth
Jezsta Web Productions
> On 11 Aug 2006 19:46:33 GMT, John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote:
>
>>"Jezsta Web Productions" <Jezz...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah I have a screen shot, http://jezsta.com/seo-lies.htm . You want
>>> screen shots of the whole list of sites I listed. Can put them up if
>>> you ned to see them.
>>
>>Haven't followed much of it, but note that an *update* to a WHOIS record
>>(or more) can happen for various reasons.
>>
>>Maybe you can add some text under each screenschot so I have an idea
>>what's this about?
>
> Especially for those dumb-dumbs like me know need such stuff
> explaining? You might consider keeping it on as a resource for noobs
> too, although obscuring the names involved might be appropriate.
Good idea Bill. Thanks. I did add some alt text.
The page will come down probably next week. I have no links to it and will
have to get it removed from the index. Or make a page about SEO lies.
But making a page about domains and checking history and stuff is a good
idea. I will use my own sites of course.:-)
Stacey
Paul
Thanks Stacey.
It was a valid question from a 3rd persons view. Think of me as
Switzerland in WWII
plh
Paul
>Stacey
canadafred
Stacey, I'm a little confused. These things are just a little too
elaborate for me sometimes and I have atendency to get lost frequently.
Here's my question:
If I were the owner of the domain www.aubergecartier.com and it's
supporting web sites, what would be the problem with that again?
Thank you for taking a moment to clarify that for me.
--
Ethical
Following the stated rules of right and wrong in a competition.
SEO
The process of optimizing webpages and web sites to perform well in the
organic rankings on the major search engines. Search engine optimizers
choose targeted keyphrases related to a website and ensure that the
site ranks well when those keyphrases are queried on the major search
engines.
Expert
A person with a high degree of skill in or knowledge of a certain
subject.
Advocate
Someone who speaks or writes in support of something he believes in.
Ethical SEO Expert and Search Engine Optimization Ethics Advocate
http://www.rezultz-web-site-promotion.com/
Jezsta Web Productions
> Jezsta Web Productions wrote:
>
> Thank you for taking a moment to clarify that for me.
Sorry, Fred I will no longer discuss anything with you as you can find the
answer within the A.I.S-E.
Paul
wrote:
>Expert
>A person with a high degree of skill in or knowledge of a certain
>subject.
To be an expert you have to know both black and white hat to the
highest degree.
David
wrote:
>
>David wrote:
>
>if you are so clueless then I have helped assembled some of your basic
>choices for you to consider:
What are you talking about Fred, you quote nothing making it
impossible to follow you!
>A Start writing the best letter of apology in your life and submit it
>to me for review.
Probability of that occurring is around zero. So assume it's not in
the post and never will be since I haven't done anything to you to
apologise for.
>you'll be able to formulate other as well, my clock's ticking though so
>you better do something intelligent soon
Formulate other what!
Can't manage intelligent, will witty do?
Is that your biological clock ticking?
David
--
What’s This Pic Game http://www.totallyduh.com/tag/whats-this-pic/
David
wrote:
>
>David wrote:
>
>there you go throwing more names around again like little toy soldiers
>in your dreamlike trance called a humiliating defeat
What post are you referring to?
Please learn to quote correctly!
Jezsta Web Productions
A shell for the first one and wheat for the 2nd.:-)
Stacey
--
Crafts - Directory - Your Online Crafting Source
http://www.ecraftsonline.net/
A New Focus In Web Marketing - Search Engine Optimization
http://jezsta.com
David
wrote:
>
>David wrote:
>
>stop trying to twist the truth about yourself onto others, not a very
>professional approach to humour
Yawn
There's a big problem with your quoting, as you can see it says I
wrote the above. That makes me look like a nutter and I don't like
that as it's my job to do that all on my own :-)
So please quote correctly Fred.
David
Big Bill
wrote:
>Jezsta Web Productions wrote:
>
>Stacey, I'm a little confused. These things are just a little too
>elaborate for me sometimes and I have atendency to get lost frequently.
Fred, I think getting lost and staying that way for a good long while
is your best option right now. Go fish.
David
<Jezz...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>"David" <seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:ie1qd2t9fk24tsqdc...@4ax.com...
>> On 11 Aug 2006 10:01:07 -0700, "canadafred" <canadi...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>David wrote:
>
>> -
>> What's This Pic Game http://www.totallyduh.com/tag/whats-this-pic/
>
>A shell for the first one and wheat for the 2nd.:-)
>
>Stacey
You got one right, but not even close on the other one :-)
No one will guess the other one, it's way too unusual ('interesting'
story behind it as well) when I have ten comments (guesses) on the
blog I'll be posting it on the blog with the full image.
David
John Bokma
> "John Bokma" <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns981C964D7B...@130.133.1.4...
>> "Jezsta Web Productions" <Jezz...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah I have a screen shot, http://jezsta.com/seo-lies.htm . You want
>>> screen shots of the whole list of sites I listed. Can put them up if
>>> you need to see them.
>>
>> Haven't followed much of it, but note that an *update* to a WHOIS
>> record (or more) can happen for various reasons.
As an example, mine says:
Record last updated on 07-Oct-2005.
Record last updated on 05-Dec-2005.
I guess to reflect the payments I made. My HP hasn't still fixed the
address, so I will bother him again.
[..]
> Now to get past history you have to be a member of a registered ICANN
> database (that I know of). I tried all of them and couldn't get the
> past history before, so I joined domiantools about 5 months ago. I
> have been purchasing previously owned domains and wanted to check
> history. I have also started checking history to make sure that if I
> give someone a link that domain's past has a good history also.
I understand, and a good point. Thanks for adding extra info, will read
later.
--
John Freelance Perl programmer: http://castleamber.com/
Creating a customized Command Prompt shortcut:
http://johnbokma.com/windows/command-prompt-shortcut.html
canadafred
David wrote:
very good questions
canadafred
I Play
canadafred rules
John Bokma
> The page will come down probably next week. I have no links to it and
> will have to get it removed from the index. Or make a page about SEO
> lies.
>
> But making a page about domains and checking history and stuff is a
> good idea. I will use my own sites of course.:-)
You might consider redirecting the seo-lies URL to it, or at least provide
alternative content on that one :-)
--
John Freelance Perl programmer: http://castleamber.com/
A better start menu with Quick Launch:
http://johnbokma.com/windows/quick-launch.html
John Bokma
> On 11 Aug 2006 14:50:38 -0700, "canadafred" <canadi...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Expert
>>A person with a high degree of skill in or knowledge of a certain
>>subject.
>
> To be an expert you have to know both black and white hat to the
> highest degree.
And don't be tempted by the dark side :-D
John Bokma
> Is that your biological clock ticking?
No, the second coming of Adam and the Ants :-D.
Car Car Car ... Trouble
dum dum dum dum
--
John
Net::Google and Perl: http://johnbokma.com/perl/net-google.html
Big Bill
wrote:
>
>David wrote:
>
>very good questions
Fred, stop posting. Go to Daniweb.
Paul
>Paul <lamewolf2004[REMOVE]@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11 Aug 2006 14:50:38 -0700, "canadafred" <canadi...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Expert
>>>A person with a high degree of skill in or knowledge of a certain
>>>subject.
>>
>> To be an expert you have to know both black and white hat to the
>> highest degree.
>
>And don't be tempted by the dark side :-D
Thats why I never will claim to be an expert :)
canadafred
canadafred
Big Bill wrote:
> On 11 Aug 2006 17:17:29 -0700, "canadafred" <canadi...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >David wrote:
> >
> >very good questions
>
> Fred, stop posting. Go to Daniweb.
good idea
--
Fred listens
http://www.rezultz-web-site-promotion.com/
Jezsta Web Productions
> "Jezsta Web Productions" <Jezz...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>
>> The page will come down probably next week. I have no links to it and
>> will have to get it removed from the index. Or make a page about SEO
>> lies.
>>
>> But making a page about domains and checking history and stuff is a
>> good idea. I will use my own sites of course.:-)
>
> You might consider redirecting the seo-lies URL to it, or at least provide
> alternative content on that one :-)
Yeah, I could. It isn't indexed yet. I could leave it up and tell the whole
sordid story. Heck, I might even make a movie for lifetime TV. I would call
it Bitch Quest for Ed.:-)
I will have to figure it out later. I might need to keep it for a little
while for my defense.:-) Who knows what tomorrow brings, but another day.
Jezsta Web Productions
> "Jezsta Web Productions" <Jezz...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>
>> "John Bokma" <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns981C964D7B...@130.133.1.4...
>>> "Jezsta Web Productions" <Jezz...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yeah I have a screen shot, http://jezsta.com/seo-lies.htm . You want
>>>> screen shots of the whole list of sites I listed. Can put them up if
>>>> you need to see them.
>>>
>>> Haven't followed much of it, but note that an *update* to a WHOIS
>>> record (or more) can happen for various reasons.
>
> As an example, mine says:
>
> Record last updated on 07-Oct-2005.
> Record last updated on 05-Dec-2005.
>
> I guess to reflect the payments I made. My HP hasn't still fixed the
> address, so I will bother him again.
Probably.
> [..]
>
>> Now to get past history you have to be a member of a registered ICANN
>> database (that I know of). I tried all of them and couldn't get the
>> past history before, so I joined domiantools about 5 months ago. I
>> have been purchasing previously owned domains and wanted to check
>> history. I have also started checking history to make sure that if I
>> give someone a link that domain's past has a good history also.
>
> I understand, and a good point. Thanks for adding extra info, will read
> later.
http://whois.domaintools.com/johnbokma.com for this I can view all the stuff
as a member can see. I will email you the stuff as you have a lot for your
site.
Paul
wrote:
>these trick or treaters don't intimidate me
I never have claimed to be an expert. Fact.
David
>David <seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>> Is that your biological clock ticking?
>
>No, the second coming of Adam and the Ants :-D.
>
>Car Car Car ... Trouble
>dum dum dum dum
LOL
A 1, a 2, a 1 2 3 4.
Stand in me dinner, whoo....ooohh me pudding or me pie, tra, la, la,
la, la hey...
:-))
John Bokma
> http://whois.domaintools.com/johnbokma.com for this I can view all the
> stuff as a member can see. I will email you the stuff as you have a
> lot for your site.
Thanks!
I normally use SenderBase, I have made a keymark in Firefox:
whois
http://www.senderbase.org/search/panels/Whois?searchString=%s&rawWhois=1
so I can type whois castleamber.com and Firefox replaces %s with
castleamber.com (see: http://johnbokma.com/firefox/keymarks-
explained.html)
I have added domaintools as dt now (thanks), so I can type
:-D
--
John Perl programmer: http://johnbokma.com/perl/perlprogrammer.html
TextPad+TortoiseSVN:http://johnbokma.com/textpad/textpad-subversion.html
John Bokma
> On 12 Aug 2006 00:22:40 GMT, John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote:
>
>>David <seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Is that your biological clock ticking?
>>
>>No, the second coming of Adam and the Ants :-D.
>>
>>Car Car Car ... Trouble
>>dum dum dum dum
>
> LOL
>
> A 1, a 2, a 1 2 3 4.
>
> Stand in me dinner, whoo....ooohh me pudding or me pie, tra, la, la,
> la, la hey...
I read somewhere in aise cuban heels, which is mentioned in a song by Adam
and the Ants (Car trouble part I), and this was a reference to it, (Car
trouble part II).
(In case my sanity is doubted :-) )
Big Bill
wrote:
>these trick or treaters don't intimidate me
Maybe but you've bought this entirely on yourself and we're all sick
of it now. Go to Daniweb and stay there.
Big Bill
<Jezz...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>"John Bokma" <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns981CC487E1...@130.133.1.4...
>> "Jezsta Web Productions" <Jezz...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The page will come down probably next week. I have no links to it and
>>> will have to get it removed from the index. Or make a page about SEO
>>> lies.
>>>
>>> But making a page about domains and checking history and stuff is a
>>> good idea. I will use my own sites of course.:-)
>>
>> You might consider redirecting the seo-lies URL to it, or at least provide
>> alternative content on that one :-)
>
>
>Yeah, I could. It isn't indexed yet. I could leave it up and tell the whole
>sordid story. Heck, I might even make a movie for lifetime TV. I would call
>it Bitch Quest for Ed.:-)
>I will have to figure it out later. I might need to keep it for a little
>while for my defense.:-) Who knows what tomorrow brings, but another day.
>
>Stacey
Probably best it you leave it up till things have blown over, at least
until it gets into The Wayback Machine. then store it somewhere.
Big Bill
<Jezz...@jezsta.com> wrote:
You got a silver or a gold, Stacey?
Big Bill
>David <seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 12 Aug 2006 00:22:40 GMT, John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote:
>>
>>>David <seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Is that your biological clock ticking?
>>>
>>>No, the second coming of Adam and the Ants :-D.
>>>
>>>Car Car Car ... Trouble
>>>dum dum dum dum
>>
>> LOL
>>
>> A 1, a 2, a 1 2 3 4.
>>
>> Stand in me dinner, whoo....ooohh me pudding or me pie, tra, la, la,
>> la, la hey...
>
>I read somewhere in aise cuban heels, which is mentioned in a song by Adam
>and the Ants (Car trouble part I), and this was a reference to it, (Car
>trouble part II).
>
>(In case my sanity is doubted :-) )
You aren't going fishing are you?
BB :-)
Borek
wrote:
>> Yeah I have a screen shot, http://jezsta.com/seo-lies.htm . You want
>> screen shots of the whole list of sites I listed. Can put them up if
>> you ned to see them.
>
> Haven't followed much of it, but note that an *update* to a WHOIS record
> (or more) can happen for various reasons.
Exactly my doubt. Besides, it is even not update to the record, but to the
whole database. IIRC this data is usually not more then few days old, as
most databases are maintained in (more or less) real time. I have just
whoised chembuddy: "Last update of whois database: Sat, 12 Aug 2006
03:50:53 EDT". Nothing has changed with this record since February.
Best,
Borek
--
http://www.chembuddy.com
http://www.ph-meter.info/pH-measurements-indicators
http://www.terapia-kregoslupa.waw.pl
Borek
<Jezz...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>> Haven't followed much of it, but note that an *update* to a WHOIS record
>> (or more) can happen for various reasons.
> Sure (I added al text), get you caught up a little - I posted some
> domains
> that were in Fred's name a couple of days ago to prove a point about
> links
> and ethics. Fred denied owning them then changed the registry and after
> he
> did that stated that I had lied and he wasn't the owner. The date of
> most of
> them has a new history date of the 10th.
Right now whois message for canadawilds reads:
Updated Date: 24-Feb-2006
Creation Date: 24-Feb-2006
Expiration Date: 24-Feb-2007
Last update of whois database: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 03:55:27 EDT
As you see update data has changed, but I doubt it means more changes to
the canadawilds record. It is rather last date when some information in
the whole database was updated.
canadafred
John A. wrote:
thanks for noticing that some can fight to the death with class
canadafred
canadafred wrote:
I woke up this morning to see this shit still flying over these goddam
domains, squabbling over clerical entries, proving I am a liar with all
your might and I am the owner of them
you slimy sunsabitches
jealous that Fred may get a job
to much hate to hope for another's success
you slimy bastards
you fucked with the wrong guy
MY CLOCK IS TICKING, SEND THE LETTERS OF APOLOGY YOU BLACKMAILING
ASSHOLES!!
Jezsta Web Productions
news:op.td5u4dqj26l578@borek...
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 22:28:37 +0200, Jezsta Web Productions
> <Jezz...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>
>>> Haven't followed much of it, but note that an *update* to a WHOIS record
>>> (or more) can happen for various reasons.
>
>> Sure (I added al text), get you caught up a little - I posted some
>> domains
>> that were in Fred's name a couple of days ago to prove a point about
>> links
>> and ethics. Fred denied owning them then changed the registry and after
>> he
>> did that stated that I had lied and he wasn't the owner. The date of
>> most of
>> them has a new history date of the 10th.
>
> Right now whois message for canadawilds reads:
>
> Updated Date: 24-Feb-2006
> Creation Date: 24-Feb-2006
> Expiration Date: 24-Feb-2007
>
> Last update of whois database: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 03:55:27 EDT
>
> As you see update data has changed, but I doubt it means more changes to
> the canadawilds record. It is rather last date when some information in
> the whole database was updated.
Right the last change being on the 10th. I can see the history of the
changes made which was a change of registrant. They are in my screen shots
on that page.
Stacey
Jezsta Web Productions
news:k01rd21ghdvhslsvh...@4ax.com...<snip>
>>http://whois.domaintools.com/johnbokma.com for this I can view all the
>>stuff
>>as a member can see. I will email you the stuff as you have a lot for your
>>site.
>>
>>Stacey
>
> You got a silver or a gold, Stacey?
Whatever was the cheapest so probably the silver.:-) Did you see it Bill,
the past histories of registrants?
Jezsta Web Productions
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 21:46:33 +0200, John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> Yeah I have a screen shot, http://jezsta.com/seo-lies.htm . You want
>>> screen shots of the whole list of sites I listed. Can put them up if
>>> you ned to see them.
>>
>> Haven't followed much of it, but note that an *update* to a WHOIS record
>> (or more) can happen for various reasons.
>
> Exactly my doubt. Besides, it is even not update to the record, but to the
> whole database. IIRC this data is usually not more then few days old, as
> most databases are maintained in (more or less) real time. I have just
> whoised chembuddy: "Last update of whois database: Sat, 12 Aug 2006
> 03:50:53 EDT". Nothing has changed with this record since February.
Correct Borek, you need to see the screenshots I made to see that a change
of registrant was done or join. You have to view the date of the change. *
indicates a significant change in the whois records
2006
2006-08-11
2006-08-10 *
2006-08-09 *
2006-08-08
2006-08-07
Stacey
Jezsta Web Productions
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 03:15:08 +0200, "Jezsta Web Productions"
> <Jezz...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>
>>"John Bokma" <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote in message
>>news:Xns981CC487E1...@130.133.1.4...
>>> "Jezsta Web Productions" <Jezz...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The page will come down probably next week. I have no links to it and
>>>> will have to get it removed from the index. Or make a page about SEO
>>>> lies.
>>>>
>>>> But making a page about domains and checking history and stuff is a
>>>> good idea. I will use my own sites of course.:-)
>>>
>>> You might consider redirecting the seo-lies URL to it, or at least
>>> provide
>>> alternative content on that one :-)
>>
>>
>>Yeah, I could. It isn't indexed yet. I could leave it up and tell the
>>whole
>>sordid story. Heck, I might even make a movie for lifetime TV. I would
>>call
>>it Bitch Quest for Ed.:-)
>>I will have to figure it out later. I might need to keep it for a little
>>while for my defense.:-) Who knows what tomorrow brings, but another day.
>>
>>Stacey
>
> Probably best it you leave it up till things have blown over, at least
> until it gets into The Wayback Machine. then store it somewhere.
That is what I thought Bill. For a little while. Then change it a little for
that idea. It will be a good educational page for others about researching
domains.
Borek
<Jezz...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>> Last update of whois database: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 03:55:27 EDT
>>
>> As you see update data has changed, but I doubt it means more changes to
>> the canadawilds record. It is rather last date when some information in
>> the whole database was updated.
>
> Right the last change being on the 10th. I can see the history of the
> changes made which was a change of registrant. They are in my screen
> shots on that page.
OK, but that's what is visible on the first screenshots (those at the
beginning of the page, domain-history.domaintools ones). I am not
questioning their validity, however I don't think you can check domain
history without acessing paid services which you try to suggest (unless I
am misreading you; that will be not for the first time :)
Date that is circled in red on the networksolutions screenshot has IMHO
nothing to do with the date of the whois domain record change. It is just
a general info about whole database, not about this particular record. I
think some of the other information you have posted has the same flaw -
internic.net link points to typical whois database output which now
contains information "Last change Agust 12th".
Big Bill
<Jezz...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>"Big Bill" <kr...@cityscape.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:k01rd21ghdvhslsvh...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 03:18:54 +0200, "Jezsta Web Productions"
>> <Jezz...@jezsta.com> wrote:
><snip>
>
>>>http://whois.domaintools.com/johnbokma.com for this I can view all the
>>>stuff
>>>as a member can see. I will email you the stuff as you have a lot for your
>>>site.
>>>
>>>Stacey
>>
>> You got a silver or a gold, Stacey?
>
>Whatever was the cheapest so probably the silver.:-) Did you see it Bill,
>the past histories of registrants?
>
>Stacey
Yeah but I just dipped in. I'm going to have a proper go later because
I'm sitting here thinking it's going to pour any minute but I want to
go to the gym. I dunno what to do.
Big Bill
wrote:
>
>John A. wrote:
>
>thanks for noticing that some can fight to the death with class
Fred, any day now you won't have an internet account any more. You
want that? Go away!
Jezsta Web Productions
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 13:21:23 +0200, Jezsta Web Productions
> <Jezz...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>
>>> Last update of whois database: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 03:55:27 EDT
>>>
>>> As you see update data has changed, but I doubt it means more changes to
>>> the canadawilds record. It is rather last date when some information in
>>> the whole database was updated.
>>
>> Right the last change being on the 10th. I can see the history of the
>> changes made which was a change of registrant. They are in my screen
>> shots on that page.
>
> OK, but that's what is visible on the first screenshots (those at the
> beginning of the page, domain-history.domaintools ones). I am not
> questioning their validity, however I don't think you can check domain
> history without acessing paid services which you try to suggest (unless I
> am misreading you; that will be not for the first time :)
Yes, you have to be a member which I did state here several times. I stated
it was about $15.95, shoot if anyone wants to see it I will pay for the
$15.95 for this month. Only a couple of people, don't a 100 people jumping
to get the freebie. :-)You can get a preview on some things on a free
membership.
> Date that is circled in red on the networksolutions screenshot has IMHO
> nothing to do with the date of the whois domain record change. It is just
> a general info about whole database, not about this particular record. I
> think some of the other information you have posted has the same flaw -
> internic.net link points to typical whois database output which now
> contains information "Last change Agust 12th".
You see you came into this late. At the time it did, because that was the
new cached date and a major change that is in the history records. As I know
there was a change in the data base records for a registrant change. The
records in the past history will show it. So, it isn't flawed. Just the
data changes, but again to see the major change which I posted.
* indicates a significant change in the whois records
2006-08-10 *
2006-08-09 *
If it doesn't have the little star by it then it isn't a major change. This
plus other dates without the star is what you see. A major change was the
registrant change. Changes in IP, hosting etc is not a major change. The
reason for this last change on the 12th is the NAMEIT CORPORATION's data
base went down. So there will be a new cache once it comes back up.
Stacey
Big Bill
<Jezz...@jezsta.com> wrote:
Um, so you never got any further than this then? You never got to a
page that says, "the old registrant before this date was so and so and
the new one from this moment on is blah-de-blah, you never got that
deep into the records?
I didn't go to the gym, by the way, I went to sleep AGAIN DAMN IT!!! I
just woke up and it's blowing a gale out there now. But I'm improving
over all health-wise so things are looking up for me.
Jezsta Web Productions
>>You see you came into this late. At the time it did, because that was the
>>new cached date and a major change that is in the history records. As I
>>know
>>there was a change in the data base records for a registrant change. The
>>records in the past history will show it. So, it isn't flawed. Just the
>>data changes, but again to see the major change which I posted.
>>* indicates a significant change in the whois records
>> 2006-08-10 *
>> 2006-08-09 *
>
> Um, so you never got any further than this then? You never got to a
> page that says, "the old registrant before this date was so and so and
> the new one from this moment on is blah-de-blah, you never got that
> deep into the records?
I went to the begining Bill of the history that was shown. Those dates are
the dates in question of when this was happening.
> I didn't go to the gym, by the way, I went to sleep AGAIN DAMN IT!!! I
> just woke up and it's blowing a gale out there now. But I'm improving
> over all health-wise so things are looking up for me.
Oh, good to hear Bill.
Big Bill
<Jezz...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>"Big Bill" <kr...@cityscape.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:64ord2t7ampa4mgq5...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 14:19:58 +0200, "Jezsta Web Productions"
>> <Jezz...@jezsta.com> wrote:
><snip>
>
>>>You see you came into this late. At the time it did, because that was the
>>>new cached date and a major change that is in the history records. As I
>>>know
>>>there was a change in the data base records for a registrant change. The
>>>records in the past history will show it. So, it isn't flawed. Just the
>>>data changes, but again to see the major change which I posted.
>>>* indicates a significant change in the whois records
>>> 2006-08-10 *
>>> 2006-08-09 *
>>
>> Um, so you never got any further than this then? You never got to a
>> page that says, "the old registrant before this date was so and so and
>> the new one from this moment on is blah-de-blah, you never got that
>> deep into the records?
>
>I went to the begining Bill of the history that was shown. Those dates are
>the dates in question of when this was happening.
That doesn't answer my question Stacey. If someone does a whois lookup
on a certain date then Domaintools counts that as a significant change
and puts a * next to the date. Then if you click on the date you get a
page that says (in there somewhere) "a whois lookup was performed on
this date". I've been checking this with my own records Watson(while
adjusting my deerstalker). So on the basis of what you've been telling
us, (plays violin) it may well have been that someone (smokes
meerschaum) was just doing whois lookups around those times (injects
laudanum, falls into coma).
BB
>
>> I didn't go to the gym, by the way, I went to sleep AGAIN DAMN IT!!! I
>> just woke up and it's blowing a gale out there now. But I'm improving
>> over all health-wise so things are looking up for me.
>
>Oh, good to hear Bill.
>
--
Jezsta Web Productions
>>> Um, so you never got any further than this then? You never got to a
>>> page that says, "the old registrant before this date was so and so and
>>> the new one from this moment on is blah-de-blah, you never got that
>>> deep into the records?
>>
>>I went to the begining Bill of the history that was shown. Those dates are
>>the dates in question of when this was happening.
>
> That doesn't answer my question Stacey. If someone does a whois lookup
> on a certain date then Domaintools counts that as a significant change
> and puts a * next to the date.
I don't think so Bill. It isn't a signification change. Sorry, I have looked
several times and my own sites. It does NOT mark as it being a significant
change. I check numerous times. A whois lookup can not be a significant
change to me, it isn't logical. But change in server status, chnage in
hosting, change in server status of the registry can. I have actually
clicked on those dates and went further, several times. Doesn't work that
way that I have seen.
>Then if you click on the date you get a
> page that says (in there somewhere) "a whois lookup was performed on
> this date".
I followed each date. Really? Where? Screen shot please. In there somewhere
isn't showing anything. I don't see it. Anyway, check out this domain
shotglasschess.com with the tool. This domain use to belong to Jen's ex.
Follow those ones with the stars. You will be able to see the date of the
registrant change. Shoot, I know why the changes where made also in the
registrant and when it happened so the dates match up with what they have
recorded when he sold the business. Anyway, registrants are recorded and the
time they were also the owner.
>I've been checking this with my own records Watson(while
> adjusting my deerstalker). So on the basis of what you've been telling
> us, (plays violin) it may well have been that someone (smokes
> meerschaum) was just doing whois lookups around those times (injects
> laudanum, falls into coma).
>
> BB
I don't think so Bill.:-)
Stacey
Big Bill
<Jezz...@jezsta.com> wrote:
Yeah, you seem to be right after I went more into it. I found where
the last two are for Johain someone and before that they were all Fred
Joly. So there was change there. Go have a look at kruse.co.uk though
in domaintools. Note in passing that Alexa relates me to both John and
Borek. Eeeew! Use your silver membership and look at all those
significant changes. One of them was a declaration of ownership, but
all this year's are just domain lookups as far as I can see.
BB
Jezsta Web Productions
<snip>
>>
>
> Yeah, you seem to be right after I went more into it. I found where
> the last two are for Johain someone and before that they were all Fred
> Joly. So there was change there. Go have a look at kruse.co.uk though
> in domaintools. Note in passing that Alexa relates me to both John and
> Borek. Eeeew! Use your silver membership and look at all those
> significant changes. One of them was a declaration of ownership, but
> all this year's are just domain lookups as far as I can see.
Ok, what it is getting there is that your registry made that change Nominet
UK . Someone searched Nominet UK's whois on your domain. Then Nominet UK
put in that info on your whois record. When the bots of domain tools went by
it seen the recorded entry change and recached it. So yes it is a
significant change to the bots as your record had something different on it.
Does that make sense. Not all registries do that. Pretty good that yours
does.
If you read that email I sent it would explain this better. As it states
they just make archives of what is public not make the changes.
You have both John and Borek probably because of links.:-) Hey you are lucky
you have 2 DMOZ listings, who did you pay?
John Bokma
> On 12 Aug 2006 04:17:25 GMT, John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote:
[..]
>>(In case my sanity is doubted :-) )
>
> You aren't going fishing are you?
I never ever liked fishing. One of the major "problems" I have is that I
can't sit still, gazing at water for hours, a thing required for some
forms of fishing. Maybe fly fishing would bore me less, but still I don't
like to hurt animals for pleasure.
If I need a break I rather go walking, looking for animals, taking
pictures :-)
--
John isa Perl programmer: http://johnbokma.com/perl/perlprogrammer.html
Fox G Bar: http://johnbokma.com/firefox/google-toolbar-customizing.html
David
wrote:
>(injects
>laudanum, falls into coma).
I'm after the laudanum SERP (just for fun), about 70th so far, new
site/page.
Do you watch Deadwood bill?
David
--
PageRank, how to use it http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/pagerank.html
David
>If I need a break I rather go walking, looking for animals, taking
>pictures :-)
That's what I do to unwind, take the wife and kids on the beach or
something for a long walk (want to go now, but it's wet and getting a
bit late for it). We've started taking photos, a few here
http://www.3d-images.ws/ to encourage the kids to take more notice of
what's around them.
I like this one
http://www.3d-images.ws/picture-distant-clouds-through-grass.html we
got covered in flying ants that day and I got bit under the left eye
(soft skin) when one landed in my eye (bit me as I pulled it out)
stung quite a lot as well, then I whipped myself in the same eye with
a cloth as I was wafting them a way a few minutes later!
Standard type of walk otherwise :-)
Not a lot of interesting animals to photo were we are though and I
think we need a better digital camera as action shots are impossible
with it :-(
David
--
What’s This Pic Game http://www.totallyduh.com/tag/whats-this-pic/
http://www.morearnings.com/2006/07/17/seo-consultant-ranking/
canadafred
canadafred wrote:
this I give you, I did alter the logs in the nameservice to no avail
because you sunsbiches backed me into a corner and I tried to clean it
up. I lied to you fuckwads in the heat of my panic to divert the
imminent disaster to my career from your ongoing scrutiny.
hat I needed right now.
http://canadian-web-site-promotion.blogspot.com/2006/08/secretive-search-engine-optimizer.html
now that client is gone from me. I sure as hell hope it isn't one of
you evil shitheads that has her now. You arses want to mess up new
American weary of Internet bullshit customers that I give hope to, go
ahead. But you keep your slimy blackmailin' bastard fingers off of my
Canadian customers.
that still doesn't make me ever the owner of those 10 domains which is
the base of your accusations regarding my ethics and that I am a liar
--
Fred Joly
http://www.rezultz-web-site-promotion.com/
John Bokma
> On 12 Aug 2006 17:43:43 GMT, John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote:
>
>>If I need a break I rather go walking, looking for animals, taking
>>pictures :-)
>
> That's what I do to unwind, take the wife and kids on the beach or
> something for a long walk (want to go now, but it's wet and getting a
> bit late for it). We've started taking photos, a few here
> http://www.3d-images.ws/ to encourage the kids to take more notice of
> what's around them.
Nice pictures, and indeed letting kids take pictures is a great way to
learn them a lot, and have a lot of fun as well.
>
> I like this one
> http://www.3d-images.ws/picture-distant-clouds-through-grass.html we
> got covered in flying ants that day and I got bit under the left eye
> (soft skin) when one landed in my eye (bit me as I pulled it out)
> stung quite a lot as well, then I whipped myself in the same eye with
> a cloth as I was wafting them a way a few minutes later!
Very nice :-)
> Standard type of walk otherwise :-)
>
> Not a lot of interesting animals to photo were we are though and I
> think we need a better digital camera as action shots are impossible
> with it :-(
I have currently a Sony DSC-S600 and I am quite happy with it, although it
lacks some features. A customer promised me ages ago an A620 (Canon), and
it ended up back in the states. He promised me to send it again, so who
knows :-)
The A620 has better macro etc.
As for interesting animals, butterflies are interesting :-) And others you
often have to know how to find them. The UK has even scorpions...
--
John Freelance Perl programmer: http://castleamber.com/
Quick Bookmarks:http://johnbokma.com/firefox/quick-launch-bookmarks.html
Big Bill
<seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 14:42:30 GMT, Big Bill <kr...@cityscape.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>(injects
>>laudanum, falls into coma).
>
>I'm after the laudanum SERP (just for fun), about 70th so far, new
>site/page.
>
>Do you watch Deadwood bill?
>
>David
Some.
BB
Big Bill
<Jezz...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>"Big Bill" <kr...@cityscape.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:801sd2tvgqihbqh86...@4ax.com...
><snip>
>
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, you seem to be right after I went more into it. I found where
>> the last two are for Johain someone and before that they were all Fred
>> Joly. So there was change there. Go have a look at kruse.co.uk though
>> in domaintools. Note in passing that Alexa relates me to both John and
>> Borek. Eeeew! Use your silver membership and look at all those
>> significant changes. One of them was a declaration of ownership, but
>> all this year's are just domain lookups as far as I can see.
>
>Ok, what it is getting there is that your registry made that change Nominet
>UK . Someone searched Nominet UK's whois on your domain. Then Nominet UK
>put in that info on your whois record. When the bots of domain tools went by
>it seen the recorded entry change and recached it. So yes it is a
>significant change to the bots as your record had something different on it.
>Does that make sense. Not all registries do that. Pretty good that yours
>does.
>
>If you read that email I sent it would explain this better. As it states
>they just make archives of what is public not make the changes.
>
>You have both John and Borek probably because of links.:-) Hey you are lucky
>you have 2 DMOZ listings, who did you pay?
I don't believe either of them are for SEO, they're for my old book
sites that aren't here any more. I suppose I should advise DMOZ of
this, then get a link from the SEO category. To be in seo is to never
rest.