Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

What the Hell Happened to Billy Zane?

35 views
Skip to first unread message

Terrence Clay

unread,
Jun 29, 2014, 1:38:29 AM6/29/14
to
http://lebeauleblog.com/2014/06/28/what-the-hell-happened-to-billy-zane/

Billy Zane got his start in one of the most beloved science fiction movies of the 80′s. He gained popularity on one of the quirkiest TV shows of the 90s. And he played the least-loved character in what was at the time the highest-grossing movie ever. His list of credits include several popular films. But when the handsome actor tried to transition into leading man roles, something didn’t click. Zane has worked steadily since 1985, but somehow he never became a household name.

What the hell happened?

http://lebeauleblog.com/2014/06/28/what-the-hell-happened-to-billy-zane/2/

http://lebeauleblog.com/2014/06/28/what-the-hell-happened-to-billy-zane/3/

http://lebeauleblog.com/2014/06/28/what-the-hell-happened-to-billy-zane/4/

http://lebeauleblog.com/2014/06/28/what-the-hell-happened-to-billy-zane/5/

http://lebeauleblog.com/2014/06/28/what-the-hell-happened-to-billy-zane/6/

http://lebeauleblog.com/2014/06/28/what-the-hell-happened-to-billy-zane/7/

http://lebeauleblog.com/2014/06/28/what-the-hell-happened-to-billy-zane/8/

http://lebeauleblog.com/2014/06/28/what-the-hell-happened-to-billy-zane/9/

http://lebeauleblog.com/2014/06/28/what-the-hell-happened-to-billy-zane/10/

http://lebeauleblog.com/2014/06/28/what-the-hell-happened-to-billy-zane/11/

http://lebeauleblog.com/2014/06/28/what-the-hell-happened-to-billy-zane/12/

Barb May

unread,
Jun 29, 2014, 3:10:56 PM6/29/14
to
Terrence Clay wrote:

>
> Billy Zane got his start in one of the most beloved science fiction
> movies of the 80's. He gained popularity on one of the quirkiest TV
> shows of the 90s. And he played the least-loved character in what
> was at the time the highest-grossing movie ever. His list of credits
> include several popular films. But when the handsome actor tried to
> transition into leading man roles, something didn't click. Zane has
> worked steadily since 1985, but somehow he never became a household
> name.
>
> What the hell happened?

Ooooh! Oooooh!
I know.

Instead of being satisfied with one link to his web site in exchange for
his contribution, he decided to use the newsgroup for SEO and posted a
bunch of links to the same article. By the time he realized that his
target audience resented such craven self-promotion and had been kill
filing him as a result, it was too late to salvage his reputation.

--
Barb


Terrence Clay

unread,
Jun 29, 2014, 8:27:52 PM6/29/14
to
So what the hell happened to Billy Zane!? ;)

Barb May

unread,
Jun 29, 2014, 10:01:19 PM6/29/14
to
It appears that no one cared enough to find out. Perhaps because they
were put off by too many links to the same article.
--
Barb


Terrence Clay

unread,
Jun 30, 2014, 4:23:31 AM6/30/14
to
What the hell is your problem!? Why do you need to waste my and your's time diverting the conversation elsewhere! What difference would it make if I posted only one or all the links (just to emphasize that it's a lengthy article). They still all boil down to the fundamental question: WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO [insert actor's name's] CAREER? I find it hilarious that you talk about NOBODY CARING, yet you seemed to CARE enough to respond in the very first place.

Barb May

unread,
Jun 30, 2014, 12:42:02 PM6/30/14
to
Terrence Clay wrote:
> On Sunday, June 29, 2014 7:01:19 PM UTC-7, Barb May wrote:

>> It appears that no one cared enough to find out. Perhaps because they
>>
>> were put off by too many links to the same article.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Barb
>
> What the hell is your problem!? Why do you need to waste my and
> your's time diverting the conversation elsewhere!

Riiiiight. We should only be talking about your article and your web
sites...

You certainly don't want anyone to "waste their time" challenging you on
the number of links you post, because then you have to "waste your time"
defending your spammy posts.


> What difference
> would it make if I posted only one or all the links (just to
> emphasize that it's a lengthy article).

Oh please. You know exactly what the difference is and why it matters.


> They still all boil down to
> the fundamental question: WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO [insert actor's
> name's] CAREER? I find it hilarious that you talk about NOBODY
> CARING, yet you seemed to CARE enough to respond in the very first
> place.

Nope. We're talking about two things here; your spammy post and your
article. I don't care about your article, and apparently neither does
anyone else, but I do care about people who use newsgroups to promote
their web sites. One link is fine. Multiple links is spam.

I'm sure you'll disagree, because apparently you are relying on USENET
for SEO. But don't embarrass yourself by claiming that posting multiple
links to the same article is for anyone elses benefit but your own.


--
Barb


Terrence Clay

unread,
Jul 1, 2014, 2:40:41 AM7/1/14
to
This isn't my website you dumbass! I didn't create it and I don't make any money from it. And like am the only one who posts what boarders on "spam" (and excuse me for not following proper USENET "etiquette" by posting too many links for you to handle all at once) on USENET. Again if you don't like it, then don't respond at all.

Barb May

unread,
Jul 1, 2014, 12:33:52 PM7/1/14
to
Terrence Clay wrote:
> On Monday, June 30, 2014 9:42:02 AM UTC-7, Barb May wrote:
>> I'm sure you'll disagree, because apparently you are relying on
>> USENET
>>
>> for SEO. But don't embarrass yourself by claiming that posting
>> multiple
>>
>> links to the same article is for anyone elses benefit but your own.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Barb
>
> This isn't my website you dumbass! I didn't create it and I don't
> make any money from it.

I don't believe you have no stake at all in the success of that web
site, but ultimately it doesn't matter in terms of whether posting
multiple links to the same article would be considered spammy.

> And like am the only one who posts what
> boarders on "spam"

When it comes to the promotion of a particular web site by posting
multiple links to the same article, you ARE the only one.

> (and excuse me for not following proper USENET
> "etiquette" by posting too many links for you to handle all at once)
> on USENET. Again if you don't like it, then don't respond at all.

Nah. I have a better idea. I'll just report your ass every time I see a
spammy post from you and I'll encourage others in RAT to do the same. If
that doesn't generate enough backlash to change your mind, then I'll
invite some friends from other groups to help out.

Let's not go there. Please just accept the "advice" in the spirit it was
originally offered and move on.

--
Barb


Terrence Clay

unread,
Jul 2, 2014, 12:35:22 AM7/2/14
to
Why do you insist on being a rude, disrespectful little snot for no apparent reason other than me posting more than one link? It's absolutely petty that this is something that you can't let go of. Frankly, I'm wasting my time having to respond to your juvenile bullshit.

Barb May

unread,
Jul 2, 2014, 12:00:46 PM7/2/14
to
Pathetic denial and childish name-calling won't help you.

You spammed and you were called on it. You know the challenge is valid
and that's why you can't afford to ignore it. I'm going to move on now
and I suggest you do the same. If you spam again you won't be proving to
anyone that you have a "right" to do it, but you will generate
additional backlash that will not be good for the web site.

--
Barb


0 new messages