Google Bans BMW!
Logician
Probably the most interesting story about google banning sites in years
is in the above link. The practice of google removing or downgrading
pages is well known, but to ban BMW is a bold move!
FT reports:
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/55adaec8-9721-11da-82b7-0000779e2340.html
Barbara de Zoete
> http://www.eetimes.com/news/design/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=179100512
>
> Probably the most interesting story about google banning sites in years
> is in the above link.
Was reported here earlier by tonnie.
> The practice of google removing or downgrading
> pages is well known, but to ban BMW is a bold move!
Not really. If I wanted to know something about BMW, I would probably try
bmw.com/ in the address bar of my browser, or bmw.de if I was aware it is
a German company. Why would I go through Google?
--
______PretLetters:
| weblog | http://www.pretletters.net/weblog/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://www.pretletters.net/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://www.pretletters.net/html/vliegen.html |
John Bokma
> On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 21:54:13 +0100, Logician <sa...@logicians.com>
> wrote:
>
>> http://www.eetimes.com/news/design/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=1791005
>> 12
>>
>> Probably the most interesting story about google banning sites in
>> years is in the above link.
>
> Was reported here earlier by tonnie.
>
>> The practice of google removing or downgrading
>> pages is well known, but to ban BMW is a bold move!
>
> Not really. If I wanted to know something about BMW, I would probably
> try bmw.com/ in the address bar of my browser, or bmw.de if I was
> aware it is a German company. Why would I go through Google?
Ah, does that make it no really? I know plenty of people who do the
following:
they go to google.com
and enter bmw.com
or bmw.de
in the *search* field...
--
John Experienced Perl programmer: http://castleamber.com/
Fart Free Fox: http://johnbokma.com/firefox/find-in-page-sound.html
Barbara de Zoete
wrote:
> "Barbara de Zoete" <tras...@pretletters.net> wrote:
>
>>> The practice of google removing or downgrading
>>> pages is well known, but to ban BMW is a bold move!
>>
>> Not really. If I wanted to know something about BMW, I would probably
>> try bmw.com/ in the address bar of my browser, or bmw.de if I was
>> aware it is a German company. Why would I go through Google?
>
> Ah, does that make it no really? I know plenty of people who do the
> following:
>
> they go to google.com
> and enter bmw.com
> or bmw.de
> in the *search* field...
<g> Tells _a_lot_ about people who are interested in bmw ...
Borek
<tras...@pretletters.net> wrote:
>> Ah, does that make it no really? I know plenty of people who do the
>> following:
>>
>> they go to google.com
>> and enter bmw.com
>> or bmw.de
>> in the *search* field...
>
> <g> Tells _a_lot_ about people who are interested in bmw ...
No. It tells _a_lot_ about people... :)
Best,
Borek
--
http://www.chembuddy.com/?left=pH-calculation&right=pH-scale
http://www.chembuddy.com/?left=BATE&right=pH-calculator
John Bokma
> On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 22:06:26 +0100, John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com>
> wrote:
>> they go to google.com
>> and enter bmw.com
>> or bmw.de
>> in the *search* field...
>
> <g> Tells _a_lot_ about people who are interested in bmw ...
Not really, since that's how those people surf on the Internet in general.
(bmw was just an example), they use the google search field how you and I
use the address bar.
--
John Freelance Perl programmer: http://castleamber.com/
Firefox Fast Search: http://johnbokma.com/firefox/keymarks-explained.html
Barbara de Zoete
wrote:
> Not really, since that's how those people surf on the Internet in
> general.
> (bmw was just an example), they use the google search field how you and I
> use the address bar.
>
You know some weird people, John. <g>
John Bokma
> On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 23:01:34 +0100, John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Not really, since that's how those people surf on the Internet in
>> general.
>> (bmw was just an example), they use the google search field how you
>> and I use the address bar.
>>
>
> You know some weird people, John. <g>
I even saw my partner doing this ;-)
--
John Skilled Perl programmer for hire: http://castleamber.com/
Fox no GO: http://johnbokma.com/firefox/removing-go-button-search-bar.html
Antipodean Bucket Farmer
tras...@pretletters.net says...
> On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 21:54:13 +0100, Logician <sa...@logicians.com> wrote:
>
> > http://www.eetimes.com/news/design/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=179100512
> >
> > Probably the most interesting story about google banning sites in years
> > is in the above link.
>
> Was reported here earlier by tonnie.
>
> > The practice of google removing or downgrading
> > pages is well known, but to ban BMW is a bold move!
>
> Not really. If I wanted to know something about BMW, I would probably try
> bmw.com/ in the address bar of my browser, or bmw.de if I was aware it is
> a German company. Why would I go through Google?
They were trying to get high rankings for regular
search terms. One article stated that they were even
aiming at, "used cars."
--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum
Logician
Barbara de Zoete wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 21:54:13 +0100, Logician <sa...@logicians.com> wrote:
>
> > http://www.eetimes.com/news/design/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=179100512
> >
> > Probably the most interesting story about google banning sites in years
> > is in the above link.
>
> Was reported here earlier by tonnie.
This story has been reported by hundreds of media outlets (more than
one), and I did not even know about "tonnie." But this story is much
bigger than you understand.
Google is taking a loy of bad press, and is being sued a lot (even by
Bush), and the company is getting a "Big Brother" image. Profits have
been hit hard and Google has lost about 20,000,000,000 USD recently.
There are also issues about blogs. Google already made headlines by
firing a Google blogger. I am sure that the blog was not official, and
the blogger will be told to stop writing so freely.
To ban BMW is a very bold move, which will hit Google hard. Who do you
think invests in Google? Answer: the same people who invest in BMW.
>
> > The practice of google removing or downgrading
> > pages is well known, but to ban BMW is a bold move!
>
> Not really. If I wanted to know something about BMW, I would probably try
> bmw.com/ in the address bar of my browser, or bmw.de if I was aware it is
> a German company. Why would I go through Google?
It is clear that BMW does NOT agree wuth your logic and NOR does
Google. The facts are that BMW tried to optimise pages to attract more
people via Google and other SE's - something you say is useless. Google
clearly thinks that affects the results. Therefore, it banned BMW
Germany. The facts dont support your logic.
In other words, Google is choosing what information is shown. Something
which Google has always denied, aside from spam/non-content sites, but
long suspected of doing.
Anyway, you write about "you," and I assume you are not even a German
speaker. Clearly, bmw.de is aimed at GERMAN SPEAKERS, and that is the
issue. Also BMW Germany pays for BMW USA etc.
Roy Schestowitz
> "Barbara de Zoete" <tras...@pretletters.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 21:54:13 +0100, Logician <sa...@logicians.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.eetimes.com/news/design/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=179100512
>>>
>>> Probably the most interesting story about google banning sites in
>>> years is in the above link.
They once banned WordPress.org, but vile content spamming and AdSense was
involved. PageRank was restored after a few days filled with apologies and
maybe a reinclusion request.
>> Was reported here earlier by tonnie.
This was explained visually here:
http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/ramping-up-on-international-webspam/
Apropos, at least they are sending a /warning/ to ricoh.du before banishment.
Puts a softer face on them.
>>> The practice of google removing or downgrading
>>> pages is well known, but to ban BMW is a bold move!
>>
>> Not really. If I wanted to know something about BMW, I would probably
>> try bmw.com/ in the address bar of my browser, or bmw.de if I was
>> aware it is a German company. Why would I go through Google?
The Firefox address bar queries google for non-URL strings and fetches the
top result.
> Ah, does that make it no really? I know plenty of people who do the
> following:
>
> they go to google.com
> and enter bmw.com
> or bmw.de
> in the *search* field...
Because Google is their homepage usually... it's equally painful to mouse the
mouse to the browser's address bar.
I sometimes use the JavaScript address bar which I once created <
http://www.schestowitz.com/Data/addressbar-adv.html > and put in my portal
among all the links[1]. I uses to hide the browser's address bar as it gives
more browser space; navigation buttons likewise (keyboard accelerators/mouse
gestures are quicker).
[*] A side-effect is that it puts my domain in site's referral logs, which
often is a fair thing to do as it's rather genuine.
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Anonymity - established 2001, Google Groups
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
4:45am up 21 days 0:01, 11 users, load average: 0.62, 0.59, 0.49
http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine
Disco Octopus
> "Barbara de Zoete" <tras...@pretletters.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 21:54:13 +0100, Logician <sa...@logicians.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.eetimes.com/news/design/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=1791005
>>> 12
>>>
>>> Probably the most interesting story about google banning sites in
>>> years is in the above link.
>>
>> Was reported here earlier by tonnie.
>>
>>> The practice of google removing or downgrading
>>> pages is well known, but to ban BMW is a bold move!
>>
>> Not really. If I wanted to know something about BMW, I would probably
>> try bmw.com/ in the address bar of my browser, or bmw.de if I was
>> aware it is a German company. Why would I go through Google?
>
> Ah, does that make it no really? I know plenty of people who do the
> following:
>
> they go to google.com
> and enter bmw.com
> or bmw.de
> in the *search* field...
that is the exact way that my wife navigates to websites.... via the google
search field.
--
eat beef jerky
Barbara de Zoete
> Barbara de Zoete wrote:
>
> To ban BMW is a very bold move, which will hit Google hard. Who do you
> think invests in Google? Answer: the same people who invest in BMW.
>>
>>> The practice of google removing or downgrading
>>> pages is well known, but to ban BMW is a bold move!
>>
>> Not really. If I wanted to know something about BMW, I would probably
>> try
>> bmw.com/ in the address bar of my browser, or bmw.de if I was aware it
>> is
>> a German company. Why would I go through Google?
>
> It is clear that BMW does NOT agree wuth your logic and NOR does
> Google. The facts are that BMW tried to optimise pages to attract more
> people via Google and other SE's
They didn't optimize. They cheated (presumably) and got caught. Even in
big business you never should get caught.
Barbara de Zoete
<usene...@THE-DOMAIN-IN.SIG> wrote:
> In article <op.s4kkj2pdl8uz2z@zoete_b>,
> tras...@pretletters.net says...
>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 21:54:13 +0100, Logician <sa...@logicians.com>
>> wrote:
>>> The practice of google removing or downgrading
>>> pages is well known, but to ban BMW is a bold move!
>>
>> Not really. If I wanted to know something about BMW, I would probably
>> try
>> bmw.com/ in the address bar of my browser, or bmw.de if I was aware it
>> is
>> a German company. Why would I go through Google?
>
> They were trying to get high rankings for regular
> search terms. One article stated that they were even
> aiming at, "used cars."
So, they cheated. Shame on them :-) They should have taken care not to get
caught though.
Paul B
<tras...@pretletters.net> wrote:
<snip>
>They didn't optimize.
True.
>They cheated (presumably) and got caught.
Yes, they were using doorway pages.
> Even in big business you never should get caught.
I disagree with that statement.
Should be : Even a big business, you never do it.
plh
Paul
--
----== 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 =----
catherine yronwode
>
> On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 09:08:53 +0100, "Barbara de Zoete"
> <tras...@pretletters.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >They didn't optimize.
>
> True.
>
> >They cheated (presumably) and got caught.
>
> Yes, they were using doorway pages.
>
> > Even in big business you never should get caught.
>
> I disagree with that statement.
> Should be : Even a big business, you never do it.
I looked at the example at Matt Cutts' blog
http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/ramping-up-on-international-webspam/
(thanks, Roy, for posting the link) and to me it looked exactly like
cheating. This has nothing to do with "getting caught" or with google's
changing role as a company. As Paul said, "Even a big business, you
never do it" -- "it" in this case being to violate the terms of
inclusion in a free service that helps you get seen by the public.
Google's rules are clear -- what you show the SE and what you show the
public should be the same. Anything else is bait-and-switch. BMW is
guilty of bait-and-switch and got taken out of google's database.
Simple. Clean. Fair. Bravo for google.
cat yronwode
davidof
> Apropos, at least they are sending a /warning/ to ricoh.du before banishment.
> Puts a softer face on them.
Ricoh.de was banned by the time Matt's blog entry was published.
----------------------
http://www.abcseo.com/
davidof
>>On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 09:08:53 +0100, "Barbara de Zoete"
>><tras...@pretletters.net> wrote:
>>>They cheated (presumably) and got caught.
Yes in Matts example I saw gebrauchtwagen (used car) about 40 times,
these were clearly pages not aimed at end users and didn't even reflect
the content of the page they were jumping too.
> Simple. Clean. Fair. Bravo for google.
They didn't ban Microsoft last year when they did even worse than BMW
though did they?
----------------------
http://www.abcseo.com/
Roy Schestowitz
> catherine yronwode wrote:
>>>On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 09:08:53 +0100, "Barbara de Zoete"
>>><tras...@pretletters.net> wrote:
>
>>>>They cheated (presumably) and got caught.
>
> Yes in Matts example I saw gebrauchtwagen (used car) about 40 times,
> these were clearly pages not aimed at end users and didn't even reflect
> the content of the page they were jumping too.
Yes, I saw that... the JavaScript re-direct bit cannot be defended, let alone
the organic content.
>> Simple. Clean. Fair. Bravo for google.
>
> They didn't ban Microsoft last year when they did even worse than BMW
> though did they?
>
> ----------------------
> http://www.abcseo.com/
Can you please elaborate or give link(s)?
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie"
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
9:55am up 21 days 5:11, 12 users, load average: 0.90, 0.56, 0.38
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
Roy Schestowitz
I had read about ricoh.de being banned before I stumbled upon Matt's item. I
didn't think that the media (CNET, I think) would be ahead of the insider...
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie"
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
davidof
Roy Schestowitz
>
> Here is some information:-
> http://tinyurl.com/ah6gm
>
*gasp*
<quote>
Microsoft have a whole bunch of imo low quality doorway pages that redirect
and have stuffed keywords randomly into unrelated paragraphs. Either a. they
have Googles permission or b. They are extracting the urine (taking the
p***).
Their pages break at least 2 of googles guidelines (doorway pages with
redirects, stuffed keywords ...).
Do a search for "Broadcast automation India", "Hosting management Australia"
or "Education software Asia". Right at the top (at least from my german ip)
You will find pages such as
www.microsoft.com/asia/solutionMarketPlace/portal/broadcast-automation-india.htm
Check out that page with javascript turned off :shock:
At the top of each page they have as graphic text (to help with keyword
density no doubt) the following...
"This site has been designed to help our visitors finding directly the
information, product or service they searching in our websites"
That translates into english to... "This page is a doorway page specifically
designed for search engines"
</quote>
I sometimes wonder how Microsoft managed to dominate "http", which gets them
plenty of accidental referrals. I never attempted to find the answer, but I
am rather upset whenever I accidently redirect Firefox users to
microsoft.com.
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Computers are useless. They only solve problems"
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
12:05pm up 21 days 7:21, 11 users, load average: 0.14, 0.66, 0.67
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
Paul B
<c...@luckymojo.com> wrote:
>Paul B wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 09:08:53 +0100, "Barbara de Zoete"
>> <tras...@pretletters.net> wrote:
>>
<snip>
>cat yronwode
Cat, any news on the hippy site yet ?
I did look today and is still a landing page. :(
Mike Redrobe
> "Barbara de Zoete" <tras...@pretletters.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 22:06:26 +0100, John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com>
>> wrote:
>
>>> they go to google.com
>>> and enter bmw.com
>>> or bmw.de
>>> in the *search* field...
>>
>> <g> Tells _a_lot_ about people who are interested in bmw ...
>
> Not really, since that's how those people surf on the Internet in
> general. (bmw was just an example), they use the google search field
> how you and I use the address bar.
Many many people do this, and it nearly always works well -
Most websites are (obviously?!) top of their SERP for their URL
--
Mike
Barbara de Zoete
[ people feeding url through google to find page ]
> Many many people do this, and it nearly always works well -
> Most websites are (obviously?!) top of their SERP for their URL
Works well? Please define.
As far as I can tell, if one puts an url in the address bar of the browser
and hits [Enter], one is taken directly to the site one wanted to find. If
one puts the url of a site in google and hits enter, it takes another
click (or what ever) on the link to the site one wanted to find. That is
extra time, bandwidth, energy and more.
Besides, you write 'it nearly always works'. Well, putting the url in the
address bar does always work[1].
I just don't get it. <rethorical>Why do people always find a way to do it
just a little bit more difficult than is strictly necessary</rethorical>.
[1] That is, if you have the correct url; but that goes for feeding to
google too.
Mike Redrobe
> On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 13:51:26 +0100, Mike Redrobe <mi...@redrobe.net>
> wrote:
> [ people feeding url through google to find page ]
>
>> Many many people do this, and it nearly always works well -
>> Most websites are (obviously?!) top of their SERP for their URL
>
> Works well? Please define.
The google method is more forgiving of their mistakes,
and they can use the same text box for plain english searches.
They also get to see a preview of the site content, and often
a list of other suppliers/ competitors too...
try B&Q.com as an example - it works in googles search box,
but not in the address bar.
You and I may know that's not a valid domain, but one method
works for the end user, the other doesn't.
--
Mike
Big Bill
I sense a little public relations in the air. Censored in China,
Absent from Azerbaijhan, but Big Bad to Beamers. That'll show'em!
BB
--
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/art-prints-sitemap.htm
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/brian-baker-collection/index.html
kr...@crystal-liaison.com Gifty! Shiny! BB!
John Bokma
> Because Google is their homepage usually... it's equally painful to
> mouse the mouse to the browser's address bar.
Ctrl+L (Firefox)
--
John
Sig-o-matic says:
OMG, lolzzz (c)... brb
John Bokma
> John Bokma wrote:
:
>> they go to google.com
>> and enter bmw.com
>> or bmw.de
>> in the *search* field...
>
> that is the exact way that my wife navigates to websites.... via the
> google search field.
Even my partner does it now and then :-D (And she's the one who unpacked
the laser printer and connected it :-)
John Bokma
[Google]
> never do it" -- "it" in this case being to violate the terms of
> inclusion in a free service that helps you get seen by the public.
The question is, is it actually a free service? I rather see it as a
mutual service.
John Bokma
> As far as I can tell, if one puts an url in the address bar of the
> browser and hits [Enter], one is taken directly to the site one
> wanted to find.
One has to switch in that case from the Google search field to the address
bar, either Ctrl+L (which they probably don't know) or two mouse actions
(move + click).
> If one puts the url of a site in google and hits
> enter, it takes another click (or what ever) on the link to the site
> one wanted to find.
Yup, which is fine with them :-D.
> That is extra time, bandwidth, energy and more.
Don't forget that Firefox does something similar, if it can't find the
domain the "normal" way (in the address bar) it uses Google's "I feel
lucky" method.
Brian Henderson
>Not really, since that's how those people surf on the Internet in general.
>(bmw was just an example), they use the google search field how you and I
>use the address bar.
It just proves that most people are idiots and have little
comprehension of how things work online.
Spike
Google make deja news into a giant.
spike
http://thevandalnextdoordeaththreatsandmore.asar-intl.com/
"Brian Henderson" <BrianL.H...@NOSPAM.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:dsdiu11l7tcjk0lhv...@4ax.com...
John Bokma
Does that make them idiots? I don't think so. They just are good at other
things "we" are idiots at :-D.
--
John Freelance Perl programmer: http://castleamber.com/
Quick Bookmarks: http://johnbokma.com/firefox/quick-launch-bookmarks.html
Roy Schestowitz
> Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>
>> Because Google is their homepage usually... it's equally painful to
>> mouse the mouse to the browser's address bar.
>
> Ctrl+L (Firefox)
Try to tell this to people whose inclination is to use Google's homepage as
an address bar...
"What's control? I'm not controlling Al? That's bull!"
ALT+D applies to a greater poportion of users worldwise, but Netscape (going
back to 4 at the least) have chosen to go with CTRL+L. It's a conflict in
terms of keybinding conventions. Not to mention duplicable teriminology that
contributes to further user confusion, e.g. Bookmarks-Favourites,
Directory-Folder...
Roy
PS - Matt Cutts has just published an item to say that BMW and Ricoh
(Deutschland) have been succesfully reincluded.
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: Falsity implies anything
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
6:20am up 22 days 1:36, 11 users, load average: 1.23, 1.41, 1.25
Borek
wrote:
>>> Not really, since that's how those people surf on the Internet in
>>> general. (bmw was just an example), they use the google search field
>>> how you and I use the address bar.
>>
>> It just proves that most people are idiots and have little
>> comprehension of how things work online.
>
> Does that make them idiots? I don't think so. They just are good at other
> things "we" are idiots at :-D.
Optimist.
Best,
Borek
--
http://www.chembuddy.com/?left=pH-calculation&right=pH-scale
http://www.chembuddy.com/?left=BATE&right=pH-calculator
John Bokma
> __/ [John Bokma] on Tuesday 07 February 2006 18:32 \__
>
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Because Google is their homepage usually... it's equally painful to
>>> mouse the mouse to the browser's address bar.
>>
>> Ctrl+L (Firefox)
>
> Try to tell this to people whose inclination is to use Google's
> homepage as an address bar...
>
> "What's control? I'm not controlling Al? That's bull!"
>
> ALT+D applies to a greater poportion of users worldwise, but Netscape
> (going back to 4 at the least)
Didn't know about Alt+D. Most of the time I know the key presses
automatically, but can't recall which combination I use :-D
> have chosen to go with CTRL+L. It's a
> conflict in terms of keybinding conventions. Not to mention duplicable
> teriminology that contributes to further user confusion, e.g.
> Bookmarks-Favourites, Directory-Folder...
Yup, personally I think favorite and folder are better names.
--
John Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/
Perl RSS feed builder: http://johnbokma.com/perl/rss-web-feed-builder.html
John Bokma
> On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 02:53:53 +0100, John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>> Not really, since that's how those people surf on the Internet in
>>>> general. (bmw was just an example), they use the google search
>>>> field how you and I use the address bar.
>>>
>>> It just proves that most people are idiots and have little
>>> comprehension of how things work online.
>>
>> Does that make them idiots? I don't think so. They just are good at
>> other things "we" are idiots at :-D.
>
> Optimist.
Nah, my partner uses the address bar now and then like that, but I
wouldn't call her an idiot. She's very handy with the computer, and if she
wanted to she could become a programmer :-D.
--
John Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/
Textpad quick reference card (pdf): http://johnbokma.com/textpad/
Scotius
>http://www.eetimes.com/news/design/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=179100512
>
>Probably the most interesting story about google banning sites in years
>is in the above link. The practice of google removing or downgrading
>pages is well known, but to ban BMW is a bold move!
It's a Euro-company, so it's fine with me if they were to ban
it altogether.
>
>FT reports:
>http://news.ft.com/cms/s/55adaec8-9721-11da-82b7-0000779e2340.html
Borek
> It's a Euro-company, so it's fine with me if they were to ban
> it altogether.
You are forgetting the obvious: there will be no America if not for the
fact that we have discovered you in 15th century.
Paul B
<m.bor...@delete.chembuddy.these.com.parts> wrote:
>On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 14:23:42 +0100, Scotius <wolv...@mnsi.net> wrote:
>You are forgetting the obvious: there will be no America if not for the fact that we have discovered you in 15th century.
>
>Best,
>Borek
Borek,
You are well away from the thruth on that. "America" as it is known
today was "discovered" long before the white-eye came. 16000 years at
least.
plh
Paul
--
http://www.FirstPeople.us/
Free "Native American" Clipart, Wallpaper Pictures, Legends, Wisdom, Artwork for sale. Safe Surf Rated
Stacey
news:a6tru15l6pto363s1...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 15:05:40 +0100, Borek
> <m.bor...@delete.chembuddy.these.com.parts> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 14:23:42 +0100, Scotius <wolv...@mnsi.net> wrote:
>
>
>>You are forgetting the obvious: there will be no America if not for the
>>fact that we have discovered you in 15th century.
>>
>>Best,
>>Borek
>
> Borek,
> You are well away from the thruth on that. "America" as it is known
> today was "discovered" long before the white-eye came. 16000 years at
> least.
Yeah, and Columbus wasn't even white really.:-) The Vikings also stepped
foot on America. I didn't Know Poland was Spanish though. I am trying to
figure out the "we" in Borek's Posting. :-)
Stacey
--
Rustic Lodge Decor- http://crookedcreekcountry.com
Flowers- http://allgiftshop.net/occasion-gifts/gift-baskets-flowers.htm
Home Decor- http://eleganthomedecorandgifts.com/home-decor/
Borek
>> You are forgetting the obvious: there will be no America if not for the
>> fact that we have discovered you in 15th century.
> You are well away from the thruth on that. "America" as it is known
> today was "discovered" long before the white-eye came. 16000 years at
> least.
If not earlier - I think I have read about possible earlier wave of
migration.
But I didn't referred to the America in terms of empty continent. What I
meant was - todays America was created by Europeans (white-eye as you
called them) that settled in America. If not for the European 'invasion'
American continent will be probably still full of buffalos and Indians as
native inhabitants were not inclined to build a technologically advanced
country/community.
Note I am not telling this is better - this is worse, I am just stating
facts.
I think I got provoked by troll.
Borek
<Remove-th...@staceyssimplestuff.com> wrote:
> Yeah, and Columbus wasn't even white really.:-) The Vikings also stepped
> foot on America. I didn't Know Poland was Spanish though. I am trying to
> figure out the "we" in Borek's Posting. :-)
We, Europeans.
Stacey
news:op.s4td840c26l578@borek...
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 16:17:37 +0100, Stacey
> <Remove-th...@staceyssimplestuff.com> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, and Columbus wasn't even white really.:-) The Vikings also stepped
>> foot on America. I didn't Know Poland was Spanish though. I am trying to
>> figure out the "we" in Borek's Posting. :-)
>
> We, Europeans.
Well Paul chopped that part.:-)
Paul B
<Remove-th...@staceyssimplestuff.com> wrote:
>"Paul B" <lamewo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:a6tru15l6pto363s1...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 15:05:40 +0100, Borek
>> <m.bor...@delete.chembuddy.these.com.parts> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 14:23:42 +0100, Scotius <wolv...@mnsi.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You are forgetting the obvious: there will be no America if not for the
>>>fact that we have discovered you in 15th century.
>>>
>>>Best,
>>>Borek
>>
>> Borek,
>> You are well away from the thruth on that. "America" as it is known
>> today was "discovered" long before the white-eye came. 16000 years at
>> least.
>
>Yeah, and Columbus wasn't even white really.:-)
yep :)
>The Vikings also stepped foot on America.
yep. 400 years before CC
>I didn't Know Poland was Spanish though. I am trying to figure out the "we" in Borek's Posting. :-)
Could be referring to being part of Europe :)
>Stacey
Stacey
<snip>
> Note I am not telling this is better - this is worse, I am just stating
> facts.
>
> I think I got provoked by troll.
Well they migrated in the America's before the European Invasion , I think
most of the Europeans migrated after the 1700's. The trolls, if I am not
mistaken came across the Billy Goat's gruff....long since been destroyed by
the great world flood. They somehow remained without being destroyed and
their race wiped out as we all know. :-)
Stacey
<snip>
>
> Could be referring to being part of Europe :)
Yep, found that out.:-)
Paul B
No I didn't. Borek didn't mention anything about Europe. :o
Paul B
<m.bor...@delete.chembuddy.these.com.parts> wrote:
>On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 15:32:55 +0100, Paul B <lamewo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> You are forgetting the obvious: there will be no America if not for the
>>> fact that we have discovered you in 15th century.
>
>> You are well away from the thruth on that. "America" as it is known
>> today was "discovered" long before the white-eye came. 16000 years at
>> least.
>
>If not earlier - I think I have read about possible earlier wave of
>migration.
Yes, look for pre-clovis and Solutrean. A touchy subject with some.
>But I didn't referred to the America in terms of empty continent. What I
>meant was - todays America was created by Europeans (white-eye as you
>called them) that settled in America. If not for the European 'invasion'
>American continent will be probably still full of buffalos and Indians as
>native inhabitants were not inclined to build a technologically advanced
>country/community.
>
>Note I am not telling this is better - this is worse, I am just stating
>facts.
>
>I think I got provoked by troll.
no worries. there have been a few in here lately :(
>Best,
>Borek
Stacey
>>Well Paul chopped that part.:-)
>>
> No I didn't. Borek didn't mention anything about Europe. :o
Yeah, Borek didn't but the other guy did say Euro Company. I seen this after
my reply went. That is what I get reading yours first.:-)
Stacey
Paul B
No worries. I did the same as well.
plh
Paul
Paul B
So did I after posting my reply. Doh.
catherine yronwode
>
> Cat, any news on the hippy site yet ?
> I did look today and is still a landing page. :(
> plh
> Paul
We finally got it straightened out. The site was an old one -- the only
one of ours for which my husband was not the tech contact, and the guy
who WAS the tech contact failed to notify us of the expiration (possibly
out of spite, since we don;t use his services anymore), so it went to
one of those domain-grabber outfits.
A sheepish $150.00 later and a few more days of waiting, and it will be
ours again. The whole experience has been a pain, but not the worst
thing that ever happened to us. And thanks again for actually cliking on
it and alerting me to the problem.
I'll post the URL again when it returns to full functionality. Right now
it is just a "future home" thingee.
cat yronwode
Paul B
<c...@luckymojo.com> wrote:
>Paul B wrote:
>
>>
>> Cat, any news on the hippy site yet ?
>> I did look today and is still a landing page. :(
>> plh
>> Paul
Hi Cat
>We finally got it straightened out. The site was an old one -- the only
>one of ours for which my husband was not the tech contact, and the guy
>who WAS the tech contact failed to notify us of the expiration (possibly
>out of spite, since we don;t use his services anymore), so it went to
>one of those domain-grabber outfits.
I am so pleased that you managed to get it all sorted, although it did
cost to do so.
>A sheepish $150.00 later and a few more days of waiting, and it will be
>ours again. The whole experience has been a pain, but not the worst
>thing that ever happened to us. And thanks again for actually cliking on
>it and alerting me to the problem.
Being a bit of an old hippy myself, I couldn't resist ;)
>I'll post the URL again when it returns to full functionality. Right now
>it is just a "future home" thingee.
I look forward to seeing it.
>cat yronwode
Take care
plh
Paul
--
Buffalo clipart
http://www.firstpeople.us/FP-Html-Clipart/buffalo-clipart.html
Child friendly Canadian / American Indian web site.