Re: How you can remove articles from GoogleGroups' archive
Roy Schestowitz
> http://www.google.com/googlegroups/help.html#9
Whether that actually has an effect or not, I am not sure. I tried using that
form ( http://services.google.com:8882/urlconsole/controller ) to remove
pages from Google cache. The response suggested that 5 days (at most) need
be allowed for everything (magic?) to take effect. 2 weeks later there is
still no change...
More oddly, one can only point Google to robots.txt, which already exists.
It's seems just about as futile as submitting a site. I expected a request
for the Webmaster to implant some code in the site for ownership
verification; But no!
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | "All your archives are (sic) belong to Google"
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
3:50pm up 1 day 13:17, 3 users, load average: 0.38, 0.47, 0.61
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
Borek
<newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
> Whether that actually has an effect or not, I am not sure. I tried using
> that
> form ( http://services.google.com:8882/urlconsole/controller ) to remove
> pages from Google cache. The response suggested that 5 days (at most)
> need
> be allowed for everything (magic?) to take effect. 2 weeks later there is
> still no change...
It worked for me few months ago, although it took more then 5 days.
Can't remember how long.
> More oddly, one can only point Google to robots.txt, which already
> exists.
> It's seems just about as futile as submitting a site. I expected a
> request
> for the Webmaster to implant some code in the site for ownership
> verification; But no!
That's not so stupid. Usually only webmaster can modify robots.txt
so that's an easy way of confirming that your request is a valid one.
If you want to remove some pages - just add them to robots.txt.
Besides, it makes sure Google crawlers will not index same pages
immediately after they were removed :)
Best,
Borek
--
http://www.chembuddy.com
http://www.chembuddy.com/?left=EBAS&right=equation-balancing-stoichiometry
http://www.chembuddy.com/?left=BATE&right=basic_acid_titration_equilibria
http://www.chembuddy.com/?left=CASC&right=concentration_and_solution_calculator
Big Bill
wrote:
>Roy,
>
>I do not know about removing cached copies from Google cache. But in my
>experience, it worked and I could remove every single post I wrote on
>Usenet groups.
>
>Just give it a try.
How far back could you go with this? Are you suggesting I could remove
all the last decade's posts I've personally made?
BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ s...@kruse.demon.co.uk
The buffalo have gone
Big Bill
wrote:
>Most certainly.
>I removed posts I wrote in 1999 and 2000.
>It works.
>Go to http://groups.google.com/groups/msgs_remove and follow the
>instructions.
>
>Also, let us know about the result.
Who are you replying to? We have no way of knowing.
Big Bill
wrote:
>Big Bill, I was relying to you. If you posted on groups archived by
>Google (Google Groups, or Usenet Groups) you can remove your messages.
>Go to http://groups.google.com/groups/msgs_remove and follow the
>instructions. I erased most of the messages I posted under my real
>identity.
That's interesting. There's usually some copies floating around
somewhere though.
Big Bill
wrote:
>"There's usually some copies floating around"
>
>--> I cannot tell you for sure. But if you remove your messages from
>Google, it kills a big big part of the problem. Give it a try. And tell
>us about your result.
I'm not looking to. Someone was trying to hide from me a while ago. I
have all their posts on my hard drive and I know at least one other
who does too. But they're probably still kicking around the web
somewhere.
Borek
>> "There's usually some copies floating around"
>>
>> --> I cannot tell you for sure. But if you remove your messages from
>> Google, it kills a big big part of the problem. Give it a try. And tell
>> us about your result.
>
> I'm not looking to. Someone was trying to hide from me a while ago. I
> have all their posts on my hard drive and I know at least one other
> who does too. But they're probably still kicking around the web
> somewhere.
Try to search "for long phrases with Google - especially if
there are tpyos in them" :)
Roy Schestowitz
> On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 01:44:17 +0100, Big Bill <kr...@cityscape.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> "There's usually some copies floating around"
>>>
>>> --> I cannot tell you for sure. But if you remove your messages from
>>> Google, it kills a big big part of the problem. Give it a try. And tell
>>> us about your result.
I tried to remove Dave's post, which ended up as the number 1 result for my
surname in a Google Groups search. The context is missing (I called him
something, so he projected it back to receive attention). As a standalone
post this looks bad, especially to prospective employers or peers in
academia.
That post removal tool from Google does not accept the URL's. I gave up after
5-10 minutes. I don't even know how threads are handled in removal, but
there you go...
>> I'm not looking to. Someone was trying to hide from me a while ago. I
>> have all their posts on my hard drive and I know at least one other
>> who does too. But they're probably still kicking around the web
>> somewhere.
The search would be endless unless you are looking at just a few mentionings
of your name. If necessary, Webmasters can be contacted as well and have
UseNet mirrors/individual posts removed.
> Try to search "for long phrases with Google - especially if
> there are tpyos in them" :)
>
> Best,
> Borek
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: 85% of plant life in in the oceans
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
3:00pm up 3 days 12:27, 5 users, load average: 0.95, 0.82, 0.68
Carol W
<newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>__/ [Borek] on Saturday 03 December 2005 09:39 \__
>
>> On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 01:44:17 +0100, Big Bill <kr...@cityscape.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>> "There's usually some copies floating around"
>>>>
>>>> --> I cannot tell you for sure. But if you remove your messages from
>>>> Google, it kills a big big part of the problem. Give it a try. And tell
>>>> us about your result.
>
>
>I tried to remove Dave's post
I think, but not 100% positive, you can only remove the posts you made
- not other people's.
To have other people's posts removed from the archives I think you
will have to personally contact Google and give a really good reason
for another person's posts to be removed - and I don't know if someone
posting a negativism in response to a negativism will be enough of a
reason - given Usenet's history of flames shared between participants
for less (and, let's be realistic, you sort of expected Dave to post
something in response to the negativism).
Carol
Carol
John Bokma
> __/ [Borek] on Saturday 03 December 2005 09:39 \__
>
>> On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 01:44:17 +0100, Big Bill <kr...@cityscape.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> "There's usually some copies floating around"
>>>>
>>>> --> I cannot tell you for sure. But if you remove your messages
>>>> from Google, it kills a big big part of the problem. Give it a try.
>>>> And tell us about your result.
>
>
> I tried to remove Dave's post,
You can't, which is a good thing (not based on the contents, but in
general).
> which ended up as the number 1 result
> for my surname in a Google Groups search.
Yup, sucks. I mean:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=bokma
- john bokma al jazeera programmer?
- As for Bokma's "hack attempts" on your web server,....
- Ping Mr scary Seo Expert John Bokma
I mean, the terrorist and criminals keep emailing me requests for quotes
:-D. (some want to pay me in drugs, women, camels [1], (or a
combination) and even diamonds).
> The context is missing (I
> called him something, so he projected it back to receive attention).
> As a standalone post this looks bad, especially to prospective
> employers or peers in academia.
I always called Usenet similar to a pub. I wouldn't take an employer
serious who asks me during an interview about my "Al Jazeera"
activities. I mean, I can't work with someone with zero clue :-D.
> That post removal tool from Google does not accept the URL's. I gave
> up after 5-10 minutes. I don't even know how threads are handled in
> removal, but there you go...
If you're the author, can prove it, it can be removed. I have seen
people doing it (which is now and then sad, because their activities are
archived in other places, moreover, the missing message makes clear
something fishy happened).
> The search would be endless unless you are looking at just a few
> mentionings of your name. If necessary, Webmasters can be contacted as
> well and have UseNet mirrors/individual posts removed.
In short: if you don't want to be archived, don't post on Usenet :-D.
--
John Perl SEO tools: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
or have them custom made
Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/
David
<newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>>>> --> I cannot tell you for sure. But if you remove your messages from
>>>> Google, it kills a big big part of the problem. Give it a try. And tell
>>>> us about your result.
>
>
>I tried to remove Dave's post, which ended up as the number 1 result for my
>surname in a Google Groups search.
Yeah, number one for Roy Schestowitz in google groups without even
trying :-D
>The context is missing (I called him
>something, so he projected it back to receive attention).
Err no Roy not for attention, but for action from you since you called
me a pathological liar in another thread I was trying help you on and
you refused to backup the statement with facts or take it back. If you
can't back it up and refuse to apologise you are a liar who throws mud
then hides.
Sorry Roy Schestowitz, but that's how it works when you are a liar on
Usenet!
If you don't want your lies mentioned can I suggest not mentioning
what you did in the hope I forget about it. If you mention it even as
subtle as above I'll respond again and again until you do the
honourable thing.
>As a standalone
>post this looks bad, especially to prospective employers or peers in
>academia.
Had you backed it up or retracted the statement there would have been
no need for me to change the subject line to attract your attention.
I'm sorry if someone searching for employment history about you finds
this, consider it a lesson for having no honour. I know I wouldn't
employ a known liar.
>That post removal tool from Google does not accept the URL's. I gave up after
>5-10 minutes. I don't even know how threads are handled in removal, but
>there you go...
ROFLOL
Sounds a little like poetic justice for Roy Schestowitz not retracting
his lies.
Roy Schestowitz will you ever backup the statement that I've "been
proven in the past to be a pathological liar"?
If not you are nothing more than a liar yourself Roy Schestowitz.
BTW I don't care what anyone finds about me on Usenet or anywhere else
as long as it's true and one thing I don't do is lie. If you or anyone
else want to show I'm liar feel free (note: Bill is not a reliable
source of information about me :-).
David
--
Free Search Engine Optimization Tutorial
http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/
Roy Schestowitz
He is to me. Let's just put it behind, Dave. It's not worth having any
tention in newsgroup. We could both use the break.
Kind regards and merry Christmas...
Big Bill
Liar!
David
wrote:
>>BTW I don't care what anyone finds about me on Usenet or anywhere else
>>as long as it's true and one thing I don't do is lie. If you or anyone
>>else want to show I'm liar feel free (note: Bill is not a reliable
>>source of information about me :-).
>
>Liar!
>
>BB
Prove it Bill or you'll be opening up a new can of worms.
David
I couldn't agree with you more Roy, so why not put and end to this the
only two ways I'll be happy with.
1. Back up your statement I've "been proven in the past to be a
pathological liar". Examples with specific dates would be nice.
or
2. Retract the statement as groundless and apologise.
If you truly believe the statement then show some conviction and back
it up, if not retract it.
What's so unreasonable about the above, after all you bad mouthed me
when I was trying to help you make more money from Adsense!!
BTW I thought you had me killfiled :-)
Roy Schestowitz
> On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 08:04:44 +0000, Roy Schestowitz
> <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>
>>> Roy Schestowitz will you ever backup the statement that I've "been
>>> proven in the past to be a pathological liar"?
>>>
>>> If not you are nothing more than a liar yourself Roy Schestowitz.
>>>
>>> BTW I don't care what anyone finds about me on Usenet or anywhere else
>>> as long as it's true and one thing I don't do is lie. If you or anyone
>>> else want to show I'm liar feel free (note: Bill is not a reliable
>>> source of information about me :-).
>>
>>He is to me. Let's just put it behind, Dave. It's not worth having any
>>tention in newsgroup. We could both use the break.
>>
>>Kind regards and merry Christmas...
>
> I couldn't agree with you more Roy, so why not put and end to this the
> only two ways I'll be happy with.
>
> 1. Back up your statement I've "been proven in the past to be a
> pathological liar". Examples with specific dates would be nice.
>
> or
>
> 2. Retract the statement as groundless and apologise.
Option 1: it's rather subtle. Apart from cases where you hid very signifi-
cant nuggets of information, you also tweaked the truth slightly for self-
-glorification. I thought this group was intended to help one another with
statements that deliver the truth in its entirety.
> If you truly believe the statement then show some conviction and back
> it up, if not retract it.
>
> What's so unreasonable about the above, after all you bad mouthed me
> when I was trying to help you make more money from Adsense!!
Yes, I vaguely remember.
> BTW I thought you had me killfiled :-)
I never bother with filters in KNode. *smile*
> David
Roy
PS - Your choice for derogatory subject lines are a sign of immaturity. By
all means, this shows you are a 'shark character', which wouldn't appeal
to clients. Try to be more gentle on cyberspace and this includes good
'Net citizenship'. Splogs are a vile and unacceptable practice and we both
it.
Whether I care about the subject lines is another matter. There are less
flattering things about me on the Internet and they are not always slipped
off one's sleeve without any justification.
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | HTML is for page layout, not for textual messages
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
4:30pm up 23:38, 18 users, load average: 1.13, 0.90, 0.62
David
<newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>__/ [David] on Sunday 11 December 2005 13:48 \__
>
>> On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 08:04:44 +0000, Roy Schestowitz
>> <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Roy Schestowitz will you ever backup the statement that I've "been
>>>> proven in the past to be a pathological liar"?
>>>>
>>>> If not you are nothing more than a liar yourself Roy Schestowitz.
>>>>
>>>> BTW I don't care what anyone finds about me on Usenet or anywhere else
>>>> as long as it's true and one thing I don't do is lie. If you or anyone
>>>> else want to show I'm liar feel free (note: Bill is not a reliable
>>>> source of information about me :-).
>>>
>>>He is to me. Let's just put it behind, Dave. It's not worth having any
>>>tention in newsgroup. We could both use the break.
>>>
>>>Kind regards and merry Christmas...
>>
>> I couldn't agree with you more Roy, so why not put and end to this the
>> only two ways I'll be happy with.
>>
>> 1. Back up your statement I've "been proven in the past to be a
>> pathological liar". Examples with specific dates would be nice.
>>
>> or
>>
>> 2. Retract the statement as groundless and apologise.
>
>
>Option 1: it's rather subtle. Apart from cases where you hid very signifi-
>cant nuggets of information, you also tweaked the truth slightly for self-
>-glorification.
Roy Schestowitz said I've "been proven in the past to be a
pathological liar" while option 1 above "it's rather subtle" is a far
cry from your original statement above. You said "proven in the past"
so where is this past proof you speak of Roy?
If it doesn't exist say so and apologise like a man instead of
cowering behind further reworded insults like the hypocritical weasel
I see you as.
lets expand on where I supposedly hid very significant nuggets of
information (examples)?
And when have I "tweaked the truth slightly for self--glorification"
(examples)?
You or anyone has the opportunity to show how bad I am in your/their
eyes, yet you do nothing but offer up empty and groundless insulting
accusations.
What about a few facts Roy Schestowitz, I'm sure you can find
something I don't pretend to be practically perfect in every way
unlike someone I won't mention again and again :-))
Seems to me you have a "do as I say not as I do" approach to web
marketing (your Usenet mirror) and consider yourself superior to
anyone who doesn't see it your way. Like the crap you believe(d) about
using public domain content for a website! and using blogs others have
deleted both of which are legal, unlike copyright infringement as we
see on your site. Which makes Roy Schestowitz a hypocrite.
>I thought this group was intended to help one another with
>statements that deliver the truth in its entirety.
You are yet to state a time when I've not done any of the above, (give
me an opportunity to defend my name at least) so far all groundless
twaddle.
Also what you have done by stating as a well known fact -
I've "been proven in the past to be a pathological liar"
without offering up anything to support the claim is exactly what you
accuse me of doing. How does accusing someone of this and then hiding
away support your view that "this group was intended to help one
another with statements that deliver the truth in its entirety"?
Where is your truth?
>
>> If you truly believe the statement then show some conviction and back
>> it up, if not retract it.
>>
>> What's so unreasonable about the above, after all you bad mouthed me
>> when I was trying to help you make more money from Adsense!!
>
>
>Yes, I vaguely remember.
Try checking your past post Roy.
>
>> BTW I thought you had me killfiled :-)
>
>
>I never bother with filters in KNode. *smile*
>
Shouldn't say you've kill filed someone then if you haven't, makes you
look stupid!
>> David
>
>
>Roy
>
>PS - Your choice for derogatory subject lines are a sign of immaturity. By
>all means, this shows you are a 'shark character', which wouldn't appeal
>to clients.
Actual the title again is to illicit a response and I intend to
continue with this approach until you either back up for statements
with facts or apologise. So drag this out by all means, it's your
reputation that's taking the beating!
Now that I know you care about the subject line I'll change it every
time I ask, just to wind you up with GoogleGroups results like this-
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=schestowitz
With a little luck this post will make top 3 for the Roy Schestowitz
type GoogleGroup SERPs :-)
Easy to stop though, back it up with facts or apologise then we'll put
it in the past, until that time this will continue.
>Try to be more gentle on cyberspace and this includes good
>'Net citizenship'.
You mean things like not insulting people who are trying to help you
Roy? You mean don't do stuff like this on Usenet-
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.internet.search-engines/msg/45de29f914ba28e2
I try to help giving advice on what I've learnt about Adsense since
around April this year and in return I get this crap-
"I am skeptic as you have been proven in the past to be a pathological
liar. No offence intended, but Bill could say a little more. That's
his job in this newsgroup, which keeps it entertaining -- a network of
partners, reciprocity, and foes "
Where is your gentle Usenet side Roy Schestowitz?
>Splogs are a vile and unacceptable practice and we both
>it.
You meant "we both know it" right?
Better explain to the viewers at home what you are talking about .
Splogs as described at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splog generally
blogs that are used to spam for SEO reasons (links etc...). I use
blogs to aid rankings, not sure I'd call them splogs though, now if
you use the description by Mark Cuban
http://blogmaverick.com/entry/1234000870054492/ some of my blog sites
would fall under the term splogs.
"Whats a splog? A splog is any blog whose creator doesn’t add any
written value. I’m sure some might argue that packaging data, such as
news feeds or the blog posts of others is added value. I dont think it
is."
I'd agree with the above and I have some like that. I don't see them
as vile/unacceptable though (if I did I wouldn't use them), just one
more tool for better rankings.
Tell me do you think you adding this
http://www.schestowitz.com/UseNet/2005/June_2005_2/msg00059.html to
your site "adds any written value"?
You didn't write it, you copied my Usenet post without permission as
many others have done for better search engine rankings. And you've
done this with many other posts
http://www.schestowitz.com/UseNet/2005/June_2005_2/author.html
profiting from others work without permission or adding anything of
value to the web.
Sounds splog like to me and very hypocritical of you Roy Schestowitz,
tsk, tsk...
>Whether I care about the subject lines is another matter. There are less
>flattering things about me on the Internet and they are not always slipped
>off one's sleeve without any justification.
My posts have justification, you had no good reason to go off at me
like this
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.internet.search-engines/msg/45de29f914ba28e2
(in context to the thread
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.internet.search-engines/browse_thread/thread/1c07944ac6d9d73b/45de29f914ba28e2#45de29f914ba28e2)
and worse yet not back it up or retract and apologise.
So a prospective employee might see you Roy as someone who-
1. Listens to private unsubstantiated gossip (you got this from Bill)
and repeat it in a public forum potentially harming someone's
reputation without researching the facts. If it's true and you can
prove it's true I don't have a problem with you saying it.
2. When caught out publishing lies and scurrilous accusations with no
supporting facts, rather than stand up like a man and admit your
mistakes, apologise and move on, instead you hide behind the "I've
kill filed you line" (another lie apparently).
3. Upon further research the supposed whiter than white Roy
Schestowitz who champions the spammy blogs are vile and unacceptable
as is using public domain content, turns out to use similar techniques
on his site (copying copyright material from Usenet without the
authors permission).
You've done a great job wooing a prospective employer now Roy, I know
I wouldn't hire you to sweep the factory floor :-)
Stacey
news:gme0q1to3almnqq3c...@4ax.com...
<snip>
> You've done a great job wooing a prospective employer now Roy, I know
> I wouldn't hire you to sweep the factory floor :-)
I would, I hate cleaning! :-) I just would pay to much.
Stacey
Samz
>
> You've done a great job wooing a prospective employer now Roy, I know
> I wouldn't hire you to sweep the factory floor :-)
>
> David
> --
comments ect Dave? By the way the employee who works in the evening is
really extra aggressive in his spamming and really gives me a hard time.
You should give that boy a raise. The daytime employee is a pussy though
and really easy to beat. ~Love Sam
David
Sam post the URLs of a handful of the sites you think are mine and
some of the places you think I'm spamming (those that show the posters
IP are best) and hopefully some of the smart people here can tell you
it is unlikely I have anything to do with them.
Then you can STFU and get a life!
Do any of them have Adsense Ads, there's a way to tell if sites are
owned by the same person if they all have Adsense.
Oh and don't forget to list the sites you are currently link spamming
blogs and guestbooks with so they can be discounted. How many do you
link spam now Sam?
Samz
>
>
> Sam post the URLs of a handful of the sites you think are mine and
> some of the places you think I'm spamming (those that show the posters
> IP are best) and hopefully some of the smart people here can tell you
> it is unlikely I have anything to do with them.
>
> Then you can STFU and get a life!
>
http://www.adultfriendfinder.com
Are you going to tell me neither of those sites are yours? If they truly
are not yours then you should be aware there's someone going around and
going way out of his way to make himself seem just like you to me
anyway. Remember that blogspot that re-directed to chrissy and had your
blog on it as a link? He's done tons of stuff like that that points to
you and even has your sturborn personality, does tons of internal pages
to his sites like you... I could go on and on. So if it's not you then
it's somebody from this newsgroup who knows you and trying to make
himself seem like you. What's more this person is that 'Sam' that was
featured in that online interview about 6 months ago and he is without
doubt the second biggest spammer that ever was or probably will be ever
on the internet (google is the first of course). So if you really aren't
him you should be willing to join me in my fight against him. I don't
mind some spam but I do mind people that spam just for the sake of
spamming like this guy who seems to live for and enjoy the spamming
itself.
>
> Oh and don't forget to list the sites you are currently link spamming
> blogs and guestbooks with so they can be discounted. How many do you
> link spam now Sam?
>
I never made any bones about spamming myself like you have. I'm not
trying to hide myself behind a cloak of respectability like you do. I
spam and openly admit it! When google stops counting backlinks from
guestbooks, blog comments, memberlists, ect then I'll stop spamming. I
know if I owned a search engine I certainly would not index those types
of sites and so links on them would not count for anything and hence all
the spamming would cease. It's a no-brainer. As far as your veil of
respectabilty goes Dave creating thousands of internal pages at your
'own' sites is just as much spamming and doing it at somebodies
guestbook in that google indexes them all, all those totally useless
pages just there for seo purposes so don't give me all that holier than
thou bit. We just have different methods of achieving the same goal.
We're both pirates and bandits upon the high seas but at least I admit
it matey. Aye it's a cruel internet Captain!
David
>David wrote:
>>
>>
>> Sam post the URLs of a handful of the sites you think are mine and
>> some of the places you think I'm spamming (those that show the posters
>> IP are best) and hopefully some of the smart people here can tell you
>> it is unlikely I have anything to do with them.
>>
>> Then you can STFU and get a life!
>>
>http://cigoutlet.net
>http://www.adultfriendfinder.com
>
>Are you going to tell me neither of those sites are yours?
Of course they aren't mine, all you have to do is look at the code to
know that!!
Compare them to the site in the sig to see what I mean, not a table in
site.
Since when do I use meta tags like-
<meta name="Keywords" content="cigarettes, online cigarettes,
cigarette, discount cigarette, Marlboro, cigs, cigars, cuban cigars,
cheap cigar, shop, sale, sell, store, buy, order, USA, Premium Brands,
Smoking, smokes, smokers, Filter, menthol,100's, Camel, Marlboro
Lights, Winston, Bond, Chesterfield, Davidoff, Kent, L & M, Lucky
Strike, Monte Carlo, Pall Mall, Parliament, Rothmans, Virginia Slims">
Look at http://www.whois.sc/cigoutlet.net
I live in the UK, if you think this is my site and you are right that
must be false info. Make a report that it's false and if it's not
changed to real info the domain will be taken away from them (me).
Now would I tell you this if it was my site?
Same story with the adult site, why would I use tables and poor code
use with a site that's apparently in the top 50 sites according to
Alexa-
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/main?q=&url=http://www.adultfriendfinder.com
It uses session IDs, that should tell you it's not done by an informed
SEO. Has Home links using Home as the text, and they have a Japanese
version of the site, I don't even have the right fonts installed to
view it :-)
>If they truly
>are not yours then you should be aware there's someone going around and
>going way out of his way to make himself seem just like you to me
>anyway. Remember that blogspot that re-directed to chrissy and had your
>blog on it as a link?
I know of that one.
>He's done tons of stuff like that that points to
>you and even has your sturborn personality, does tons of internal pages
>to his sites like you... I could go on and on.
Is there anything else that makes it look like it's me other than
similarities (the blog made it look like me, rest is circumstantial
right?). For example find some of the sites you think are mine
actually linking to a site that I own according to the Whois info (add
a domain of mine to http://www.whois.sc/ and you get a PO Box of mine,
I always use that).
>So if it's not you then
>it's somebody from this newsgroup who knows you and trying to make
>himself seem like you. What's more this person is that 'Sam' that was
>featured in that online interview about 6 months ago and he is without
>doubt the second biggest spammer that ever was or probably will be ever
>on the internet (google is the first of course).
I didn't check the two sites above close, but I'm not convinced they
are owned by one person. If they are making two complaints about the
wrong address will help you.
>So if you really aren't
>him you should be willing to join me in my fight against him.
I'd rather be putting my time into making more money if you don't
mind. How exactly do you fight them? At best you can match the spam
they do, you'd be better off putting your time into adding new sites
to what you own. I regret wasting my time trying to go for SERPs like
phone sex that I had no interest in just to piss you off and I never
put 100% into them, so never did well.
>I don't
>mind some spam but I do mind people that spam just for the sake of
>spamming like this guy who seems to live for and enjoy the spamming
>itself.
You aren't that much different from what I've seen Sam. Look at all
the free blogs and stuff you've link spammed for, lots of it you
didn't need to do well.
>> Oh and don't forget to list the sites you are currently link spamming
>> blogs and guestbooks with so they can be discounted. How many do you
>> link spam now Sam?
>>
>I never made any bones about spamming myself like you have.
You make it sound like you are being persecuted by evil spammers and
you are the good spammer. There's no such thing as a good spammer.
>I'm not
>trying to hide myself behind a cloak of respectability like you do. I
>spam and openly admit it!
I used to spam and I openly admit it. Difference is I moved on to
bigger and better things that take less of my time every month to make
more money. Is it two years since I spammed last?
>When google stops counting backlinks from
>guestbooks, blog comments, memberlists, ect then I'll stop spamming.
Why not do what I did and find a better way. You'll sleep better
knowing it's highly unlikely your sites are going to be banned
sometime in the next 12 months or so. Your main site looks like it's
banned right now BTW.
>I
>know if I owned a search engine I certainly would not index those types
>of sites and so links on them would not count for anything and hence all
>the spamming would cease. It's a no-brainer. As far as your veil of
>respectabilty goes Dave creating thousands of internal pages at your
>'own' sites is just as much spamming and doing it at somebodies
>guestbook in that google indexes them all, all those totally useless
>pages just there for seo purposes so don't give me all that holier than
>thou bit.
If you knew anything about SEO or followed my posts here you'd know
all those pages do not pull in masses of traffic. Half don't even get
indexed because they don't have enough links and aren't targeting
SERPs. In hindsight I would have been better going with far less pages
per book (more text per page) and will change them one day to probably
20-50KB per page.
But creating a large site is not the same as link spamming on other
peoples sites. You hurt the sites you spam from, I don't (I used to
and other than getting a site banned don't have regrets). But, if you
want to think it's the same feel free, I really don't care.
>We just have different methods of achieving the same goal.
>We're both pirates and bandits upon the high seas but at least I admit
>it matey. Aye it's a cruel internet Captain!
Have I ever said I'm whiter than white? No, I'll use techniques others
consider grey/blackhat, but since I got hit with a ban on an important
site I avoid anything I think is way too risky. I build sites to make
money, not friends or as an altruistic gift to the world. Some of my
sites are quite good, others are very low quality, but they all serve
a role in making money.
Samz
>
> Same story with the adult site, why would I use tables and poor code
> use with a site that's apparently in the top 50 sites according to
> Alexa-
>
the code on those sites and all the other commercial sites he does is
bad and not like yours but just figured you didn't care about those
commercial sites as much as your classic lit and seo site. This guy
mainly uses free hosted sites and signs up for everything that breathes
and walks from free hosted websites to free subdomains, free blogs ect.
He definiteley wants to pass himself off as you though, at least to me
he does, but then again I am the only one taking him on in our private
spam war. My philosophy about him has always been to 'spam the spammer'
and see how likes it when the shoe is on the other foot and he doesn't
like it one bit that much I can tell you. We're like Holmes and
Moriority locked in mortal combat. I've cost him many many good high pr
backlinks and major losses in his online business's that much I can tell
you. I can also tell you the internet would be a much better place if he
were no longer around it. If I was ever able to get rid of him you and
everyone else would notice the difference that I can assure you of. You
have no idea of the damage he has caused in searching the internet and
the internet is nothing without 'search' of which is is single handedly
destroying every day a bit at a time even as I write this.
>
> I'd rather be putting my time into making more money if you don't
> mind. How exactly do you fight them? At best you can match the spam
> they do, you'd be better off putting your time into adding new sites
> to what you own. I regret wasting my time trying to go for SERPs like
> phone sex that I had no interest in just to piss you off and I never
> put 100% into them, so never did well.
>
like Ahab in Moby Dick as far as he's concerned. To me he's the white
whale. The worst part is he's reading this right now and has to be
someone in this newsgroup who's been around the past few years. Someone
who apparently doesn't like you and is trying to make himself seem like
you I might add once again. For that reason alone you should join me in
the fight! There are organizations like spam cop who claim to fight spam
but they do nothing. So far I'm the only one who has hurt him in any
real way but I'm only one person fighting against a large orginization
that he runs. He has to have lots of people working for him helping him
to post. He's at too many places to have done it all alone and what I've
done to him is amazing in itself considering the numbers I've been
fighting against. If spam cop really wanted to end spam all they have to
do is concentrate on this guy who is respondsible for 90% of all the
spam we see on the internet. 90% of the spam on the net is all coming
from this one guy as bizarre as that sounds it's true! I can give you
tons more of his links if you want to check out what I'm talking about.
All you have to do is check out his backlinks, it's unbelievable! That
cigoulet.net site is a good example, the adultfriendfinder.com site he
has masked very well but most he doesn't bother masking so it's easy to
see his descructive work.
> >>
By the way my main site, meaning the chrissy site, hasn't been banned
nor have any of them. This same exact thing happened to me at this same
exact time last year and even the year before to some degree and it's
just the 'fall algo' and the sites will all return full strength by the
spring and start to do better when the 'winter algo' starts by the end
of this month or begining of next month. As bad as I do in the fall
that's how good I do in the spring. I had 7-8 sites on page one in the
spring and sometimes all 10 sites both in google and yahoo so it all
averages out in the end and I get an seo vacation in the fall. My sites
are mostly simple single page or just a handful of internal page sites
and that might be the reason why they do badly in the fall, not sure and
give up trying to figure it out. I'm not about to do what you do making
a zillion internal pages. If I had to do that I'd give up seo first, not
worth it. As much as I hate constantly posting having to make a zillion
pages would be even worse. I'd rather clean toilets forever over that.
People here have the algo theories all wrong, there are basically 4
algos that change as the seasons of the year change. The best names for
them are the seaons of the year, not florida or jagger, what rubbish! I
know of no one who has had all of page one of their serp for even a day
let alone for days other then me so I would say I'm in a position to
talk and say I'm right about this. And if you think it's because I have
an easy serp you're wrong. If classic literature had been my serp it
would have been the same thing with that serp and your site would be on
page 3 somewhere right now. But part of the key to my success has been
that I only have one serp that all of my energy goes into.
> Have I ever said I'm whiter than white? No, I'll use techniques others
> consider grey/blackhat, but since I got hit with a ban on an important
> site I avoid anything I think is way too risky. I build sites to make
> money, not friends or as an altruistic gift to the world. Some of my
> sites are quite good, others are very low quality, but they all serve
> a role in making money.
>
> David
> --
You have a way of saying things that puts people down when you don't
agree with them. You can't see it but you do do that and I'm not the
only one here to say that about you. It's hard to see ourselves the way
we are so I imagine you don't see that in yourself but you do do that
and right now you're doing that very thing to Roy as a perfect example
of what I mean. It's fine to criticize others if it's done with a
certain amount of tack and finesse and I guess that's what you lack.
By the way getting back to the 'ban' you mentioned about chrissy I still
don't believe in 'the google ban' or that sites get penalized for
naughty things they do. I believe that google works on a system of
rewards only and there is no punishment for wrong doing. Do right and
you succeed, do wrong and you don't succeed. But you don't get punished
and your sites don't go directly to jail without passing go. A lack of
success is not a punishment unless you're an over-achiever.
Stacey
<snip>
>I know of no one who has had all of page one of their serp for even a day
> let alone for days other then me
That is because some people don't need it. You create *sites* for that one
SERP where as some people create a site(1) to gain a top position.
Stacey
Stacey
Oh I could tell off hand this isn't Dave's. Without looking at the code. The
title is to long and the way the pages are designed plus it has a links
page.
> http://www.adultfriendfinder.com
David versteht nicht Deutsches oder kann es sprechen.
Stacey
David
<Remove-th...@staceyssimplestuff.com> wrote:
>"Samz" <s...@mails.com> wrote in message news:43A242...@mails.com...
>
>>>
>> http://cigoutlet.net
>
>Oh I could tell off hand this isn't Dave's. Without looking at the code. The
>title is to long and the way the pages are designed plus it has a links
>page.
Kind of insulting someone would think I'd do SEO that bad ;-)
>
>> http://www.adultfriendfinder.com
>
>David versteht nicht Deutsches oder kann es sprechen.
I understand a little (emphasis on little) German.
That is something about me not speaking German.
I also know-
Was ist das
Das its de kirche
and
Meine Mutter und meine Vatter ist (that's as far as I get)
That's about my limit and probably wrong :-))
My French is even worse!!
>Stacey
Stacey
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 14:24:48 +0100, "Stacey"
> <Remove-th...@staceyssimplestuff.com> wrote:
>
>>"Samz" <s...@mails.com> wrote in message news:43A242...@mails.com...
>>
>>>>
>>> http://cigoutlet.net
>>
>>Oh I could tell off hand this isn't Dave's. Without looking at the code.
>>The
>>title is to long and the way the pages are designed plus it has a links
>>page.
>
> Kind of insulting someone would think I'd do SEO that bad ;-)
Yeah.
>
>>
>>> http://www.adultfriendfinder.com
>>
>>David versteht nicht Deutsches oder kann es sprechen.
>
> I understand a little (emphasis on little) German.
>
> That is something about me not speaking German.
It says "David doesn't understand German or speak it.":-) I didn't know you
understood a little.:-)
> I also know-
>
> Was ist das
Yep, what is that?
> Das its de kirche
Die ist die Kirche.:-) That is the church. Or That is the cherry. :-) The
only way you know is how it is pronounced.
>
> and
>
> Meine Mutter und meine Vatter ist (that's as far as I get)
Mein Vatter. The Mother one is correct.
> That's about my limit and probably wrong :-))
Yep, but not bad. You got what you needed to say accross.
> My French is even worse!!
So is mine!
Stacey
inv...@example.com
David wrote:
>
>Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>
>>As a standalone post this looks bad, especially to prospective
>>employers or peers in academia.
>
>I'm sorry if someone searching for employment history about you finds
>this, consider it a lesson for having no honour. I know I wouldn't
>employ a known liar.
What a fine example of the Christmas Spirit.
So you think that it's OK to hurt a person's employment prospects
because you had an argument with him on a newsgroup? And then you
dare to mention honor?
Note to all prospective employers of Roy Schestowitz and to
Roy Schestowitz's peers in academia:
"Usenet being what it is, if you participate in newsgroups
at all over a period if time you have the possibility of
attracting your own personal lunatic, who considers any
disagreement a personal affront, and considers it their
duty and obligation to "expose" the person they fixate on.
It's kind of pathetic, but they can't quite seem to figure
out why no one else sees their actions as heroic."
-Richard Ward
Roy Schestowitz good Roy Schestowitz smart Roy Schestowitz great Roy
Schestowitz relable Roy Schestowitz honest Roy Schestowitz handsome
Roy Schestowitz nice Roy Schestowitz hardworking Roy Schestowitz great
Roy Schestowitz educated Roy Schestowitz productive Roy Schestowitz
bunnies Roy Schestowitz kittens Roy Schestowitz kisses babies Roy
Schestowitz helpful Roy Schestowitz honorable Roy Schestowitz
Roy Schestowitz good Roy Schestowitz smart Roy Schestowitz great Roy
Schestowitz relable Roy Schestowitz honest Roy Schestowitz handsome
Roy Schestowitz nice Roy Schestowitz hardworking Roy Schestowitz great
Roy Schestowitz educated Roy Schestowitz productive Roy Schestowitz
bunnies Roy Schestowitz kittens Roy Schestowitz kisses babies Roy
Schestowitz helpful Roy Schestowitz honorable Roy Schestowitz highly
recommended Roy Schestowitz
Borek
> Roy Schestowitz good Roy Schestowitz smart Roy Schestowitz great Roy
> Schestowitz relable Roy Schestowitz honest Roy Schestowitz handsome
> Roy Schestowitz nice Roy Schestowitz hardworking Roy Schestowitz great
> Roy Schestowitz educated Roy Schestowitz productive Roy Schestowitz
> bunnies Roy Schestowitz kittens Roy Schestowitz kisses babies Roy
> Schestowitz helpful Roy Schestowitz honorable Roy Schestowitz
> Roy Schestowitz good Roy Schestowitz smart Roy Schestowitz great Roy
> Schestowitz relable Roy Schestowitz honest Roy Schestowitz handsome
> Roy Schestowitz nice Roy Schestowitz hardworking Roy Schestowitz great
> Roy Schestowitz educated Roy Schestowitz productive Roy Schestowitz
> bunnies Roy Schestowitz kittens Roy Schestowitz kisses babies Roy
> Schestowitz helpful Roy Schestowitz honorable Roy Schestowitz highly
> recommended Roy Schestowitz
Amen
For me the most embarassing thing in the other thread was not that it
emerged (it happens), but that in SEO group so many people answered
quoting large parts of the message and not changing subject. Dave repeated
"Roy Schestowitz" in his posts many times, but it was easy to understand -
that was his plan. But others? Do you all dislike Roy Schestowitz?
David
>David wrote:
>>
>>Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>>
>>>As a standalone post this looks bad, especially to prospective
>>>employers or peers in academia.
>>
>>I'm sorry if someone searching for employment history about you finds
>>this, consider it a lesson for having no honour. I know I wouldn't
>>employ a known liar.
Hmm, I wonder who inv...@example.com is?
LOL
>What a fine example of the Christmas Spirit.
And where is Roy Schestowitz Christmas spirit when he called me a
pathological liar and then refused to give the proof or retract?
Since he has done the above I conclude he must be a liar himself,
making up the accusation that I'm a proven pathological liar. The
difference is I gave evidence, Roy Schestowitz threw out the
accusation and ducked for cover and refuses to do the honourable thing
prove it or retract it (do either I put it in the past, end of
story)!!
>So you think that it's OK to hurt a person's employment prospects
>because you had an argument with him on a newsgroup? And then you
>dare to mention honor?
I think it's acceptable to defend your name and until Roy Schestowitz
either backs up his claim that I'm a proven pathological liar or
retracts and apologises I'll keep making these posts.
>Note to all prospective employers of Roy Schestowitz and to
>Roy Schestowitz's peers in academia:
>
> "Usenet being what it is, if you participate in newsgroups
> at all over a period if time you have the possibility of
> attracting your own personal lunatic, who considers any
> disagreement a personal affront, and considers it their
> duty and obligation to "expose" the person they fixate on.
> It's kind of pathetic, but they can't quite seem to figure
> out why no one else sees their actions as heroic."
> -Richard Ward
That is absolutely correct, I've had a couple of those who fixated
their attention on me for no good reason for quite some time. However
that does not detract from the behaviour of Roy Schestowitz-
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.internet.search-engines/msg/45de29f914ba28e2
Roy Schestowitz quote from a thread I was trying to give him advice on
how to make more money from his site-
"I am skeptic as you have been proven in the past to be a pathological
liar. No offence intended, but Bill could say a little more. That's
his job in this newsgroup, which keeps it entertaining -- a network of
partners, reciprocity, and foes."
Now if Roy Schestowitz statement is true that's fair enough, but if it
is as he says above it shouldn't be too hard to supply proof.
I'll say again prove it and I'll shut up, retract it and apologise and
I'll shut up. This is not unreasonable of someone who has been accused
of-
"been proven in the past to be a pathological liar."
BTW I really appreciated the "No offence intended". Did you honestly
think that would make it alright?
I was offended then as I am now, I take pride in not lying and you say
crap like that!
Roy Schestowitz you are a liar and lack honour. No offence intended.
>Roy Schestowitz good liar Roy Schestowitz smart liar Roy Schestowitz great liar Roy
>Schestowitz relable liar Roy Schestowitz dishonest Roy Schestowitz handsome liar
>Roy Schestowitz nice liar Roy Schestowitz hardworking liar Roy Schestowitz great liar
>Roy Schestowitz educated liar Roy Schestowitz productive liar Roy Schestowitz
>hurts bunnies Roy Schestowitz eats kittens Roy Schestowitz kisses liars Roy
>Schestowitz unhelpful Roy Schestowitz dishonorable Roy Schestowitz
>Roy Schestowitz good liar Roy Schestowitz smart liar Roy Schestowitz great liar Roy
>Schestowitz relable liar Roy Schestowitz dishonest Roy Schestowitz handsome liar
>Roy Schestowitz nice liar Roy Schestowitz hardworking liar Roy Schestowitz great liar
>Roy Schestowitz educated liar Roy Schestowitz productive liar Roy Schestowitz
>hurts bunnies Roy Schestowitz eats kittens Roy Schestowitz kisses liars Roy
>Schestowitz unhelpful Roy Schestowitz dishonorable Roy Schestowitz highly
>recommended liar Roy Schestowitz
Nice touch.
Big Bill
<m.bor...@delete.chembuddy.these.com.parts> wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 18:10:47 +0100, <inv...@example.com> wrote:
>
>> Roy Schestowitz good Roy Schestowitz smart Roy Schestowitz great Roy
>> Schestowitz relable Roy Schestowitz honest Roy Schestowitz handsome
>> Roy Schestowitz nice Roy Schestowitz hardworking Roy Schestowitz great
>> Roy Schestowitz educated Roy Schestowitz productive Roy Schestowitz
>> bunnies Roy Schestowitz kittens Roy Schestowitz kisses babies Roy
>> Schestowitz helpful Roy Schestowitz honorable Roy Schestowitz
>> Roy Schestowitz good Roy Schestowitz smart Roy Schestowitz great Roy
>> Schestowitz relable Roy Schestowitz honest Roy Schestowitz handsome
>> Roy Schestowitz nice Roy Schestowitz hardworking Roy Schestowitz great
>> Roy Schestowitz educated Roy Schestowitz productive Roy Schestowitz
>> bunnies Roy Schestowitz kittens Roy Schestowitz kisses babies Roy
>> Schestowitz helpful Roy Schestowitz honorable Roy Schestowitz highly
>> recommended Roy Schestowitz
>
>Amen
>
>For me the most embarassing thing in the other thread was not that it
>emerged (it happens), but that in SEO group so many people answered
>quoting large parts of the message and not changing subject. Dave repeated
>"Roy Schestowitz" in his posts many times, but it was easy to understand -
>that was his plan. But others? Do you all dislike Roy Schestowitz?
>
>Best,
>Borek
We hate *all* people with foreign names, er, Borek...tee-hee...
Stacey
> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 17:10:47 +0000, inv...@example.com wrote:
>
>>David wrote:
>>>
>>>Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>As a standalone post this looks bad, especially to prospective
>>>>employers or peers in academia.
>>>
>>>I'm sorry if someone searching for employment history about you finds
>>>this, consider it a lesson for having no honour. I know I wouldn't
>>>employ a known liar.
>
> Hmm, I wonder who inv...@example.com is?
>
> LOL
It is way to easy to figure it out.:-) It isn't Roy, although the name is
short like Roy.
Stacey
Stacey
news:op.s1xvt4hg26l578@borek...<snip>
> For me the most embarassing thing in the other thread was not that it
> emerged (it happens), but that in SEO group so many people answered
> quoting large parts of the message and not changing subject. Dave repeated
> "Roy Schestowitz" in his posts many times, but it was easy to understand -
> that was his plan. But others? Do you all dislike Roy Schestowitz?
Hmm, does it matter if the subject wasn't changed. I don't think it shows
whether or not I dislike Roy. OK I changed a few subject lines now. I
normally don't change them and find it annoying when someone does
constantly. I did *not* quote large parts of the messages BTW though. So, I
am trying to figure out what others you are specifying, and quite frankly it
doesn't matter either for that because there are some people who don't snip
postings either and probably never will.:-)
Stacey
Big Bill
You mean short like Sam? He normally says it's him though. Mind, that
was my first thought. And he doesn't say "which" him. Not that I get
confused with all this. O no!
Borek
>>> Hmm, I wonder who inv...@example.com is?
>>
>> It is way to easy to figure it out.:-) It isn't Roy, although the name
>> is short like Roy.
>
> You mean short like Sam?
No, seems it ends with y like Roy (although it is not Roy).
Stacey
> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 22:03:04 +0100, Big Bill <kr...@cityscape.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>>> Hmm, I wonder who inv...@example.com is?
>>>
>>> It is way to easy to figure it out.:-) It isn't Roy, although the name
>>> is short like Roy.
>>
>> You mean short like Sam?
>
> No, seems it ends with y like Roy (although it is not Roy).
Borek, you are pretty smart.:-)
Stacey
Big Bill
Me stoopid then.
Paul
wrote:
>Me stoopid then.
>
>BB
Amen ;)
----== 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 =----
Big Bill
wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 03:51:28 GMT, Big Bill <kr...@cityscape.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>Me stoopid then.
>>
>>BB
>
>
>Amen ;)
You filled them forms in yet?
Borek
wrote:
>>> You mean short like Sam?
>>
>> No, seems it ends with y like Roy (although it is not Roy).
>
> Borek, you are pretty smart.:-)
Years of training ;)
Paul
wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 22:00:07 -0600, Paul <webm...@houstoncrafts.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 03:51:28 GMT, Big Bill <kr...@cityscape.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Me stoopid then.
>>>
>>>BB
>>
>>
>>Amen ;)
>
>You filled them forms in yet?
>
>BB
The disabilty forms ? Yes.
Still waiting to hear though. They declined me because I got the form
to them a day or two too late. They sent some more forms asking why it
took so long.
I filled them in, but I think it arrived too late as well (sent it off
on a sat evening (missed last post) and would have been in the post
box till monday. It had to be there by tuesday :(
I did write a note at the end of the form telling them that I may have
missed the last post for saturday and that it may get to them a bit
late, so don't penalize me.
I've still not heard a thing and it has been weeks now.
Thats 2 christmas's that i've had to cancel now :/
plh
Paul
Big Bill
<m.bor...@delete.chembuddy.these.com.parts> wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 01:39:55 +0100, Stacey <sta...@staceyssimplestuff.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>> You mean short like Sam?
>>>
>>> No, seems it ends with y like Roy (although it is not Roy).
>>
>> Borek, you are pretty smart.:-)
>
>Years of training ;)
>
>Best,
>Borek
Years of Training? Damn, I thought they said drinking...maybe this is
why I still stumble over even my own name some days...
Borek
>>>>> You mean short like Sam?
>>>>
>>>> No, seems it ends with y like Roy (although it is not Roy).
>>>
>>> Borek, you are pretty smart.:-)
>>
>> Years of training ;)
>
> Years of Training? Damn, I thought they said drinking...maybe this is
> why I still stumble over even my own name some days...
I never said years of abstinency :)
Big Bill
<m.bor...@delete.chembuddy.these.com.parts> wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:00:32 +0100, Big Bill <kr...@cityscape.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>>>> You mean short like Sam?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, seems it ends with y like Roy (although it is not Roy).
>>>>
>>>> Borek, you are pretty smart.:-)
>>>
>>> Years of training ;)
>>
>> Years of Training? Damn, I thought they said drinking...maybe this is
>> why I still stumble over even my own name some days...
>
>I never said years of abstinency :)
>
>Best,
>Borek
Another three months and I'll have done a two-year stretch. Sniff...