GoogleAdwords
Thomas L
possibly afford to pay a dollar per click to reach high rankings when
most products/services only have a 1 in 50 conversion ratio.
Also, can anyone suggest other marketing methods to a newbie in the
affiliate business?
www.1-script.com
> how can you
> possibly afford to pay a dollar per click to reach high rankings when
> most products/services only have a 1 in 50 conversion ratio.
I'd say there is no such thing as "most products/services have x
conversion ratio". Every product and service is unique and it's impossible
to lump them all together like you just did. Believe you or not, but some
businesses can afford to pay several dollars per click, not just $1.
However, I think you are getting the whole game of keyword advertising
wrong. The outrageous price per click in most cases only applies to #1 and
#2 spots. I do not know what is the product or service you are trying to
market, but in most computer-related niches I'm familiar with you can
still pay 5 to 10 cents per click and be on the first page. There are,
obviously keywords that so many people want so badly that they jack the
price up to unbearable levels, but there is an easy solution: just drop
those keywords, spend your money elsewhere.
> Also, can anyone suggest other marketing methods to a newbie in the
> affiliate business?
AdWords is not the only one but probably the quickest way to market. If
you are just starting out, you may have to use it anyways until your other
venues catch up. You will get a lot of good info about the programs and
learn quite a few tricks from Andrew Goodman's "Winning Results with
Google AdWords" ISBN:0072257024 Amazon sells it for outrageously low price
of 16 clicks ;-)
Good luck!
--
Cheers,
Dmitri
See Site Sig Below
-------------------------------------
--
##-----------------------------------------------##
Article posted with Web Developer's USENET Archive
http://www.1-script.com/forums
Web and RSS gateway to your favorite newsgroup -
alt.internet.search-engines - 16125 messages and counting!
##-----------------------------------------------##
Roy Schestowitz
> Thomas L wrote:
>
>> how can you
>> possibly afford to pay a dollar per click to reach high rankings when
>> most products/services only have a 1 in 50 conversion ratio.
>
> I'd say there is no such thing as "most products/services have x
> conversion ratio". Every product and service is unique and it's impossible
> to lump them all together like you just did. Believe you or not, but some
> businesses can afford to pay several dollars per click, not just $1.
> However, I think you are getting the whole game of keyword advertising
> wrong. The outrageous price per click in most cases only applies to #1 and
> #2 spots. I do not know what is the product or service you are trying to
> market, but in most computer-related niches I'm familiar with you can
> still pay 5 to 10 cents per click and be on the first page. There are,
> obviously keywords that so many people want so badly that they jack the
> price up to unbearable levels, but there is an easy solution: just drop
> those keywords, spend your money elsewhere.
Exactly. Advertising doesn't work too well. I am sick and tired of all
those 'big daddies' and pathological liars who argue they can make
a living solely on advertisements. The same is more or less true when
it comes to sports. I have a friend who plays at the top leagues so
I know this for a fact. The lies are nothing more by means of keeping
up appearance. The verses of impressive arguments sure sounds good,
but there is no evidence to support it.
I'll be brutally honest and toss my cards at the table. I earn about
80 cents per 1400 visits to my site. This is not even enough to cover
Web host expenses. Is the content inadequate for profit-making (or
balancing/self-maintaining in my case as I'm non-profit)? I think not.
I see no flaw in the latest of IT, Palm, programming, etc. I am not
running a site on developing African nations, for instance.
>> Also, can anyone suggest other marketing methods to a newbie in the
>> affiliate business?
>
> AdWords is not the only one but probably the quickest way to market. If
> you are just starting out, you may have to use it anyways until your other
> venues catch up. You will get a lot of good info about the programs and
> learn quite a few tricks from Andrew Goodman's "Winning Results with
> Google AdWords" ISBN:0072257024 Amazon sells it for outrageously low price
> of 16 clicks ;-)
I thought those idiots were patenting a one-click purchase. I am glad
to have been told otherwise.
>
> Good luck!
>
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: Florida is bigger than England
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
3:00am up 52 days 15:14, 5 users, load average: 0.58, 0.78, 0.69
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
Brian Wakem
> Does google allow affiliates to advertise here and if so how can you
> possibly afford to pay a dollar per click to reach high rankings when
> most products/services only have a 1 in 50 conversion ratio.
It depends on the cost of what you are selling. We pay up to £2 per click
on Google, but we are selling a service that costs several hundred pounds.
Then add potential future transactions on top of that and it easy so see it
is worthwhile.
--
Brian Wakem
Email: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/b.wakem/myemail.png
www.1-script.com
> I'll be brutally honest and toss my cards at the table. I earn about
> 80 cents per 1400 visits to my site. This is not even enough to cover
> Web host expenses. Is the content inadequate for profit-making (or
> balancing/self-maintaining in my case as I'm non-profit)? I think not.
> I see no flaw in the latest of IT, Palm, programming, etc. I am not
> running a site on developing African nations, for instance.
$0.80 for 1400 visits? That's $0.57 CPM. Roy, you need help. Let me know
if you want it.
--
Cheers,
Dmitri
See Site Sig Below
-------------------------------------
--
##-----------------------------------------------##
Article posted with Web Developer's USENET Archive
http://www.1-script.com/forums
Web and RSS gateway to your favorite newsgroup -
alt.internet.search-engines - 16150 messages and counting!
##-----------------------------------------------##
Roy Schestowitz
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>
>> I'll be brutally honest and toss my cards at the table. I earn about
>> 80 cents per 1400 visits to my site. This is not even enough to cover
>> Web host expenses. Is the content inadequate for profit-making (or
>> balancing/self-maintaining in my case as I'm non-profit)? I think not.
>> I see no flaw in the latest of IT, Palm, programming, etc. I am not
>> running a site on developing African nations, for instance.
>
> $0.80 for 1400 visits? That's $0.57 CPM. Roy, you need help. Let me know
> if you want it.
Some of these might be RSS requests, but I have not done the maths to come
up with precise figures. Since only parts of the sites contain adverts, I
only get around 500 impressions per day. So, it's not as terrible as it
initially sounded.
I am aware that I mention some figures above. Due to my ad programme
agreements, I am not saying anything about who is behind it, neither am I
allowed to. You can judge for yourselves though. The figures make it clear
why I am not allowed to discuss this either.
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: penguins are the greatest birds
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
1:40pm up 53 days 1:54, 4 users, load average: 0.80, 0.26, 0.34
www.1-script.com
>> $0.80 for 1400 visits? That's $0.57 CPM. Roy, you need help. Let
>> me know
>> if you want it.
> I am aware that I mention some figures above. Due to my ad programme
> agreements, I am not saying anything about who is behind it, neither am
> I
> allowed to. You can judge for yourselves though. The figures make it
> clear
> why I am not allowed to discuss this either.
Hi Roy,
I know the rules so I'm not saying you need to publish any numbers here.
Besides, my own estimate is a bit off 'cause I do not know how many
pageviews *your* visit represents, and we'd need pages to come up with a
CPM value. It’s actually worse 'cause some visits represent multiple page
views ;-) I just wanted to make it a point that it's way way low right now.
Drop me an e-mail if you want to discuss optimization of your ads.
--
Cheers,
Dmitri
See Site Sig Below
-------------------------------------
--
##-----------------------------------------------##
Article posted with Web Developer's USENET Archive
http://www.1-script.com/forums
Web and RSS gateway to your favorite newsgroup -
alt.internet.search-engines - 16152 messages and counting!
##-----------------------------------------------##
Roy Schestowitz
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>>> $0.80 for 1400 visits? That's $0.57 CPM. Roy, you need help. Let
>>> me know
>>> if you want it.
>
>
>> I am aware that I mention some figures above. Due to my ad programme
>> agreements, I am not saying anything about who is behind it, neither am
>> I
>> allowed to. You can judge for yourselves though. The figures make it
>> clear
>> why I am not allowed to discuss this either.
> Hi Roy,
>
> I know the rules so I'm not saying you need to publish any numbers here.
> Besides, my own estimate is a bit off 'cause I do not know how many
> pageviews *your* visit represents, and we'd need pages to come up with a
> CPM value. It’s actually worse 'cause some visits represent multiple page
> views ;-) I just wanted to make it a point that it's way way low right
> now.
>
> Drop me an e-mail if you want to discuss optimization of your ads.
I'm not truly bothered about it since these 'margins', if I may call them
margins -- that is where I have to fund Web hosting for my sites -- are
affordable, even for a student.
Speaking of affordability, I have just registered Iuron with
Sourceforge.net. I chose the BSD licence for reasons which I believe to be
valid. I already have 2 projects on sf.net and one on freshmeat.net. If you
are willing to join in and help, let me know. I have the advantage of
Sourceforge and Freshmeat familiarity and orientation, I think.
When I come to think of it, I ought to consider the implications of a BSD
licensing (this can still be changed later), which may prevent re-use of
GPL'd project, of which there are plenty. So much code is available and
'splicing' them together can hopefully lead to achievement. I can think of
plenty of missing bits and resources (databases) though...
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Windows XP: Dude, where's my RAM?
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
2:30pm up 53 days 2:44, 4 users, load average: 0.62, 0.51, 0.38
David
<newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>> I know the rules so I'm not saying you need to publish any numbers here.
>> Besides, my own estimate is a bit off 'cause I do not know how many
>> pageviews *your* visit represents, and we'd need pages to come up with a
>> CPM value. It’s actually worse 'cause some visits represent multiple page
>> views ;-) I just wanted to make it a point that it's way way low right
>> now.
>>
>> Drop me an e-mail if you want to discuss optimization of your ads.
>
>I'm not truly bothered about it since these 'margins', if I may call them
>margins -- that is where I have to fund Web hosting for my sites -- are
>affordable, even for a student.
If you get 500 page impressions a day realistically the most you could
make from Adsense is a few dollars a day, $5+ a day if your content is
highish cost keywords and you ugly up your site a bit.
David
--
Free Search Engine Optimization Tutorial
http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/
Roy Schestowitz
For bandwidth savings, right? As opposed as avoidance of distracting content
in favour of deceiving ads that appear as if they were content...
Roy
PS - A second wave of DoS attacks has begun to hit this morning. Bummer!
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder"
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
3:10pm up 53 days 3:24, 4 users, load average: 0.18, 0.34, 0.37
www.1-script.com
> If you get 500 page impressions a day realistically the most you could
> make from Adsense is a few dollars a day, $5+ a day if your content is
> highish cost keywords and you ugly up your site a bit.
Thing is: Roy needs to get his priorities straight. He either wants to be
able to cover his hosting expenses and, potentially, support his future
projects or not. If he does, a lot can be done with 500 page views per
day. In my mind, there is nothing that stands between Roy and his ability
to afford a dedicated server and have some spare money to buy books needed
for his projects and then some. It's all in his head. But then, again, he
is not much different from the rest of us in this sense ;-)
--
Cheers,
Dmitri
See Site Sig Below
-------------------------------------
--
##-----------------------------------------------##
Article posted with Web Developer's USENET Archive
http://www.1-script.com/forums
Web and RSS gateway to your favorite newsgroup -
alt.internet.search-engines - 16157 messages and counting!
##-----------------------------------------------##
David
<newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>>>> Drop me an e-mail if you want to discuss optimization of your ads.
>>>
>>>I'm not truly bothered about it since these 'margins', if I may call them
>>>margins -- that is where I have to fund Web hosting for my sites -- are
>>>affordable, even for a student.
>>
>> If you get 500 page impressions a day realistically the most you could
>> make from Adsense is a few dollars a day, $5+ a day if your content is
>> highish cost keywords and you ugly up your site a bit.
>
>For bandwidth savings, right? As opposed as avoidance of distracting content
>in favour of deceiving ads that appear as if they were content...
I give you some helpful information that could help you decide if it's
worth the effort of putting more time into Adsense and you come out
with the above crap!
What has bandwidth savings got to do with any of this?
Who said anything about "deceiving ads that appear as if they were
content.."?
As it happens "ugly up your site a bit" refers to using contrasting ad
units that can not be mistaken for content (you want visitors to see
them and click, avoid ad blindness). Oh wait, the ad units you use now
blend in with your sites content, so doesn't that mean you are using
"deceiving ads that appear as if they were content"?
Why did you turn a helpful post into a negative?
You really need to lighten up, you take things wayyyyy to seriously.
>Roy
>
>PS - A second wave of DoS attacks has begun to hit this morning. Bummer!
Why do I feel no sympathy.
David
>David wrote:
>
>> If you get 500 page impressions a day realistically the most you could
>> make from Adsense is a few dollars a day, $5+ a day if your content is
>> highish cost keywords and you ugly up your site a bit.
>
>
>Thing is: Roy needs to get his priorities straight. He either wants to be
>able to cover his hosting expenses and, potentially, support his future
>projects or not. If he does, a lot can be done with 500 page views per
>day. In my mind, there is nothing that stands between Roy and his ability
>to afford a dedicated server and have some spare money to buy books needed
>for his projects and then some.
Absolutely a few dollars a day from Adsense is realistic for his site
(could make more IMO), $3 a day is over $1,000 a year which easily
covers an inexpensive unmanaged dedicated server.
>It's all in his head. But then, again, he
>is not much different from the rest of us in this sense ;-)
LOL
I used to use Adsense a lot like Roy has and it doesn't make you much
money. I fell into the belief it's the Adsense program at fault, so
not worth the trouble of putting time into it. By luck I made a design
that put the ad unit in the right place and I saw the potential and
did the research.
His loss I suppose.
Roy Schestowitz
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 15:14:27 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
> <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> Drop me an e-mail if you want to discuss optimization of your ads.
>>>>
>>>>I'm not truly bothered about it since these 'margins', if I may call
>>>>them margins -- that is where I have to fund Web hosting for my sites --
>>>>are affordable, even for a student.
>>>
>>> If you get 500 page impressions a day realistically the most you could
>>> make from Adsense is a few dollars a day, $5+ a day if your content is
>>> highish cost keywords and you ugly up your site a bit.
>>
>>For bandwidth savings, right? As opposed as avoidance of distracting
>>content in favour of deceiving ads that appear as if they were content...
>
> I give you some helpful information that could help you decide if it's
> worth the effort of putting more time into Adsense and you come out
> with the above crap!
No, you got me all wrong... a misinterpretation.
> What has bandwidth savings got to do with any of this?
I thought you meant to say "strip off some graphics, then pay less for
hosting".
> Who said anything about "deceiving ads that appear as if they were
> content.."?
>
> As it happens "ugly up your site a bit" refers to using contrasting ad
> units that can not be mistaken for content (you want visitors to see
> them and click, avoid ad blindness). Oh wait, the ad units you use now
> blend in with your sites content, so doesn't that mean you are using
> "deceiving ads that appear as if they were content"?
I now understand.
> Why did you turn a helpful post into a negative?
>
> You really need to lighten up, you take things wayyyyy to seriously.
>
>>Roy
>>
>>PS - A second wave of DoS attacks has begun to hit this morning. Bummer!
>
> Why do I feel no sympathy.
>
> David
Because you have no feelings.
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
4:00pm up 53 days 4:14, 4 users, load average: 0.54, 0.46, 0.43
Roy Schestowitz
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 14:21:33 GMT, info_at_1-sc...@foo.com
> (www.1-script.com) wrote:
>
>>David wrote:
>>
>>> If you get 500 page impressions a day realistically the most you could
>>> make from Adsense is a few dollars a day, $5+ a day if your content is
>>> highish cost keywords and you ugly up your site a bit.
>>
>>
>>Thing is: Roy needs to get his priorities straight. He either wants to be
>>able to cover his hosting expenses and, potentially, support his future
>>projects or not. If he does, a lot can be done with 500 page views per
>>day. In my mind, there is nothing that stands between Roy and his ability
>>to afford a dedicated server and have some spare money to buy books needed
>>for his projects and then some.
>
> Absolutely a few dollars a day from Adsense is realistic for his site
> (could make more IMO), $3 a day is over $1,000 a year which easily
> covers an inexpensive unmanaged dedicated server.
I am not sure it is a wise use of time. I am referring to ad content
optimisation a la:
http://www.jackenhack.com/blog/archives/2005/10/11/add-targeted-ads-from-chitika-in-wordpress/
>>It's all in his head. But then, again, he
>>is not much different from the rest of us in this sense ;-)
>
> LOL
>
> I used to use Adsense a lot like Roy has and it doesn't make you much
> money. I fell into the belief it's the Adsense program at fault, so
> not worth the trouble of putting time into it. By luck I made a design
> that put the ad unit in the right place and I saw the potential and
> did the research.
>
> His loss I suppose.
>
> David
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.
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: Brazil spans 47.8% of S. America
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
4:05pm up 53 days 4:19, 4 users, load average: 0.02, 0.25, 0.35
David
<newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>I am skeptic as you have been proven in the past to be a pathological liar.
WHAT!!
When have I "been proven in the past to be a pathological liar"?
Back this up with facts instead of throwing around insults.
>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.
>
>Roy
I filtered Bills posts a while back, because he's an idiot so I don't
see his crap. Anyone reading his posts must have more free time than
sense. Just having to scroll through all the stuff he repost's is
enough reason to filter him out let alone his complete
misunderstanding of near enough everything!!
I absolutely loath narrow minded people like you, some idiot like Bill
says something and you believe them without confirming it!
So back up your accusation or be a man and apologise.
Big Bill
Surely this is largely dependant upon the keywords? Isn't methosolimia
(sp?) about $50 a pop? I've seen estimates of what can be expected as
a reasonable ctr vary from 1.5% to 20/30% depending who you ask.
BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ s...@kruse.demon.co.uk
Elvis does my SEO
Big Bill
<newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
Tsk! You forgot conceit!
Big Bill
I could?
>That's his job in
>this newsgroup,
It is?
> which keeps it entertaining
It does?
-- a network of partners, reciprocity, and foes.
Oh, that. Yeah, that.
Big Bill
<seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 16:10:41 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
><newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>
>>I am skeptic as you have been proven in the past to be a pathological liar.
>
>WHAT!!
>
>When have I "been proven in the past to be a pathological liar"?
>
>Back this up with facts instead of throwing around insults.
>
>>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.
>>
>>Roy
>
>I filtered Bills posts a while back, because he's an idiot so I don't
>see his crap.
What, none of it?
> Anyone reading his posts must have more free time than
>sense.
They must?
> Just having to scroll through all the stuff he repost's is
>enough reason to filter him out let alone his complete
>misunderstanding of near enough everything!!
It is?
>I absolutely loath narrow minded people like you, some idiot like Bill
>says something and you believe them without confirming it!
He does?
>So back up your accusation or be a man and apologise.
So there!
BB, quite enjoying invisibility, ta.
Chris Hope
He might see it if I reply to it ;)
--
Chris Hope | www.electrictoolbox.com | www.linuxcdmall.com
Big Bill
<_see.web.page_@_www.guymacon.com_> wrote:
>
>
>
>David wrote:
>
>>WHAT!!
>
>>When have I "been proven in the past to be a pathological liar"?
>
>>he's an idiot
>
>>Anyone reading his posts must have more free time than sense.
>
>>I absolutely loath narrow minded people like you
>
>I don't have the time or inclination to sort out Usenet arguments,
>but I must point out that one can either take offense when called
>names or one can be a name-caller, but one is not allowed to do
>both. Either stop calling people idiots and protest when they call
>you a pathological liar, or go ahead and call people idiots without
>protesting when they call you a pathological liar. You are not
>allowed to have it both ways.
>
>Thus sayeth Guy, secret ubergrupenfuhrer of alt.internet.search-engines.
I think that means Guy's on Roy's side...
BB
Big Bill
We'll find out if he starts ranting again. If he does then synchronise
watches till he realises he has to get yet another new identity to be
taken seriously by the noobs when he tries to come over all palatable.
Again...
BB
Guy Macon
Big Bill wrote:
>
>Guy Macon wrote:
>
>>David wrote:
>>
>>>WHAT!!
>>
>>>When have I "been proven in the past to be a pathological liar"?
>>
>>>he's an idiot
>>
>>>Anyone reading his posts must have more free time than sense.
>>
>>>I absolutely loath narrow minded people like you
>>
>>I don't have the time or inclination to sort out Usenet arguments,
>>but I must point out that one can either take offense when called
>>names or one can be a name-caller, but one is not allowed to do
>>both. Either stop calling people idiots and protest when they call
>>you a pathological liar, or go ahead and call people idiots without
>>protesting when they call you a pathological liar. You are not
>>allowed to have it both ways.
>>
>>Thus sayeth Guy, secret ubergrupenfuhrer of alt.internet.search-engines.
>
>I think that means Guy's on Roy's side...
Nope. Don't care enough to remember which posts are Roy's or who
said what. Usenet flamewars are boring.
David
<_see.web.page_@_www.guymacon.com_> wrote:
>
>
>
>David wrote:
>
>>WHAT!!
>
>>When have I "been proven in the past to be a pathological liar"?
>
>>he's an idiot
>
>>Anyone reading his posts must have more free time than sense.
>
>>I absolutely loath narrow minded people like you
>
>I don't have the time or inclination to sort out Usenet arguments,
Yet you get involved anyway. Say one thing, do another.
Interesting snipping BTW.
>but I must point out that one can either take offense when called
>names or one can be a name-caller, but one is not allowed to do
>both.
And where did this little 'rule' come from?
>Either stop calling people idiots and protest when they call
>you a pathological liar, or go ahead and call people idiots without
>protesting when they call you a pathological liar. You are not
>allowed to have it both ways.
The two aren't mutually exclusive.
By your argument I can call Roy a pervert who plays with himself in
public and since he's called me a pathological liar can't complain at
this!!
You seem to have left your logic on the sidelines with this post Guy.
>Thus sayeth Guy, secret ubergrupenfuhrer of alt.internet.search-engines.
>
If you say so?
Big Bill
Oh no they aren't!
John Bokma
> I absolutely loath narrow minded people
Nothing wrong with some self-loathing now and then :-)
> like you, some idiot like Bill
> says something and you believe them without confirming it!
I guess you rather would have people believe you now don't you?
> So back up your accusation or be a man and apologise.
Making me look cheap by mis-quoting business email is not done in my book.
It might not make you a pathological liar, but uhm, I wouldn't call it a
sound state of mind.
--
John Perl SEO tools: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
or have them custom made
Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/
John Bokma
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 16:21:47 GMT, David
>>I filtered Bills posts a while back, because he's an idiot so I don't
>>see his crap.
>
> What, none of it?
Remember, he has over 50% of the people who post regulary in this group in
his kill file. So, yeah, there is a very low probablity he reads your
replies.
>> Just having to scroll through all the stuff he repost's is
>>enough reason to filter him out let alone his complete
>>misunderstanding of near enough everything!!
>
> It is?
Remember: David = SEODave ;-)
John Bokma
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 21:46:16 +0000, Guy Macon
> <_see.web.page_@_www.guymacon.com_> wrote:
>>David wrote:
>>
>>>WHAT!!
>>
>>>When have I "been proven in the past to be a pathological liar"?
>>
>>>he's an idiot
>>
>>>Anyone reading his posts must have more free time than sense.
>>
>>>I absolutely loath narrow minded people like you
>>
>>I don't have the time or inclination to sort out Usenet arguments,
>
> Yet you get involved anyway. Say one thing, do another.
He's not sorting out the argument, he's just stating something.
> Interesting snipping BTW.
Ah, yeah. If the people are against David, they are twisting posts, and
creatively snipping :-D.
> By your argument I can call Roy a pervert who plays with himself in
> public
Funny, how you got all wound up when I write about condoms, but are not
scared to call Roy an exhibitionists who stimulates his erogenous zone
(s) in public in order to get sexually aroused. Or is it ok if you don't
call things by there name(s)? I hope you raise your kids better than
that.
Big Bill
>Big Bill <kr...@cityscape.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 16:21:47 GMT, David
>
>>>I filtered Bills posts a while back, because he's an idiot so I don't
>>>see his crap.
>>
>> What, none of it?
>
>Remember, he has over 50% of the people who post regulary in this group in
>his kill file. So, yeah, there is a very low probablity he reads your
>replies.
>
>>> Just having to scroll through all the stuff he repost's is
>>>enough reason to filter him out let alone his complete
>>>misunderstanding of near enough everything!!
>>
>> It is?
>
>Remember: David = SEODave ;-)
He was? :-)
BB
John Bokma
> On 18 Oct 2005 02:17:40 GMT, John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote:
>
>>Big Bill <kr...@cityscape.co.uk> wrote:
>>Remember: David = SEODave ;-)
>
> He was? :-)
http://utterlyclueless.blogspot.com/ :-D
Big Bill
>Big Bill <kr...@cityscape.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 18 Oct 2005 02:17:40 GMT, John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Big Bill <kr...@cityscape.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>Remember: David = SEODave ;-)
>>
>> He was? :-)
>
>http://utterlyclueless.blogspot.com/ :-D
Heh-heh. It's almost as funny as what he does write.
Stacey
news:a8o9l11iichp21prf...@4ax.com...
> On 18 Oct 2005 07:16:14 GMT, John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote:
<snip>
>>
>>http://utterlyclueless.blogspot.com/ :-D
>
> Heh-heh. It's almost as funny as what he does write.
That one was done by Sam.
Paul
Still funny though
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-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
<Remove-th...@staceyssimplestuff.com> wrote:
Original Sam?
Stacey
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 14:05:33 +0200, "Stacey"
> <Remove-th...@staceyssimplestuff.com> wrote:
>
>>"Big Bill" <kr...@cityscape.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:a8o9l11iichp21prf...@4ax.com...
>>> On 18 Oct 2005 07:16:14 GMT, John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>http://utterlyclueless.blogspot.com/ :-D
>>>
>>> Heh-heh. It's almost as funny as what he does write.
>>
>>That one was done by Sam.
>
> Original Sam?
Yeah, Chrissy's Sam.
Stacey
John Bokma
Yeah, I already noticed that the Sam and SEODave/David show moved to the
Internet. Not sure who started it there, I saw David's miracles first, and
only found Sam's yesterday. So much for professional SEO, *cough*.
Big Bill
>"Stacey" <Remove-th...@staceyssimplestuff.com> wrote:
>
>> "Big Bill" <kr...@cityscape.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:a8o9l11iichp21prf...@4ax.com...
>>> On 18 Oct 2005 07:16:14 GMT, John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>http://utterlyclueless.blogspot.com/ :-D
>>>
>>> Heh-heh. It's almost as funny as what he does write.
>>
>> That one was done by Sam.
>
>Yeah, I already noticed that the Sam and SEODave/David show moved to the
>Internet. Not sure who started it there, I saw David's miracles first, and
>only found Sam's yesterday. So much for professional SEO, *cough*.
What have I missed?
John Bokma
Stacey
A lot! If you just try you can find a few things on the internet that was
done by Sam.:-) I seen the blog mentioned above last year, as Sam said he
had done it in the NG.
Stacey
David
<Remove-th...@staceyssimplestuff.com> wrote:
And posted to the newsgroup by one of the failures at real life. Which
was it Bill or John, the post doesn't make it clear?
Ahh, the :-D smiley suggests John, and realistically wouldn't be Bill,
he doesn't have the skills to find a site on Google :-))
Kind of sad how those with no real life try to put people down who are
successful in life. I feel sorry for them, so sad that we can't all be
happy :-((
How's the family John?
Bill you ever been married (or even with a woman :-))?
Both removed from my filtered list as fancy an argument or two today,
so please comment ;-D
Still waiting for Roy Schestowitz to backup his "been proven in the
past to be a pathological liar" statement.
If you don't back it up that makes you a liar Roy Schestowitz.
John Bokma
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 14:05:33 +0200, "Stacey"
> <Remove-th...@staceyssimplestuff.com> wrote:
>
>>"Big Bill" <kr...@cityscape.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:a8o9l11iichp21prf...@4ax.com...
>>> On 18 Oct 2005 07:16:14 GMT, John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>http://utterlyclueless.blogspot.com/ :-D
>>>
>>> Heh-heh. It's almost as funny as what he does write.
>>
>>That one was done by Sam.
>
> And posted to the newsgroup by one of the failures at real life. Which
> was it Bill or John, the post doesn't make it clear?
Yup, you miss out quite some fun with kill files :-D. I couldn't find the
blog(s?) with your drivel against Sam however.
> Kind of sad how those with no real life try to put people down who are
> successful in life.
:-D.
Talking about real life: http://johnbokma.com/mexit/2005/10/16/
Big Bill
>David <seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 14:05:33 +0200, "Stacey"
>> <Remove-th...@staceyssimplestuff.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Big Bill" <kr...@cityscape.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>news:a8o9l11iichp21prf...@4ax.com...
>>>> On 18 Oct 2005 07:16:14 GMT, John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>http://utterlyclueless.blogspot.com/ :-D
>>>>
>>>> Heh-heh. It's almost as funny as what he does write.
>>>
>>>That one was done by Sam.
>>
>> And posted to the newsgroup by one of the failures at real life. Which
>> was it Bill or John, the post doesn't make it clear?
>
>Yup, you miss out quite some fun with kill files :-D. I couldn't find the
>blog(s?) with your drivel against Sam however.
>
>> Kind of sad how those with no real life try to put people down who are
>> successful in life.
>
>:-D.
>
>Talking about real life: http://johnbokma.com/mexit/2005/10/16/
Those pix are amazingly sharp.
John Bokma
Thanks! I have to jump through big hoops though to get that result from the
Philips cam I bought back in 1998 (640 x 480, hurray!)