On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 19:43:53 GMT, David
>On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 17:50:29 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
>>__/ On Friday 26 August 2005 17:22, [David] wrote : \__
>>> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:51:24 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
>>> <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>They also obfuscate words like p0ker and v1agra to get past the
>>>>filters. (change in encoding, not numbers and symbols which does not help
>>>>them with SERP's)
>>> It does help since they get your PR.
>>It doesn't "help". It "destroys".
>It helps the spammer, not you.
>You said "change in encoding, not numbers and symbols which does not
>help them with SERP's".
>Since the increase in PR does help with SERPs your statement above is
>>> Obviously having the anchor text
>>> as well would be better for them, but with the spamming scripts
>>> available today gaining thousands of links is easy.
>>How would you know? In fact, I sometimes wonder how you get PageRank for
>>your sites. Care to share?
>Theoretically you know how to abuse children, not implying you are a
>Theoretically you know how to perform a terrorist act, not implying
>you are a terrorist.
>>I am not implying anything, but comment spammers
>>are either located in remote and exotic havens or have sites whose content
>>and existence have no sentimental value to its webmaster.
>Would you stop trying to infer a connection this way. If you think I'm
>a comment spammer do some research and prove it instead of throwing
>mud this way.
>BTW I live in the North of England, if that's exotic you got me :-)
>>If somebody like John and I lost our sites for good, I can assure you we
>>would be gutted (I know I would) whereas you seem rather nonchalant about
>In business things go wrong, you learn from it and move on not
>repeating the same mistakes, after all it's only a web site not like
>both kidneys have failed and you need a transplant (you need a lighter
>perspective Roy). The loss of that site has cost about £30,000 a year
>in lost profits (assuming the site never improved which it would
>have). This doesn't phase me because I learnt an important lesson and
>can afford to loose (not earn to be precise) that amount extra a year
>and was able to make it back up with other stuff.
This is the guy who earlier this year was moaning about he was short
of a few hundred quid. Perhaps Dave would be better off just
killfiling the entire internet, that way he can contradict himself
endlessly and no-one will ever, ever point that out.
>Imagine had I not learnt that lesson early on and was still link
>spamming and all my current sites got banned!!!!
>I didn't then and don't now have an ethical problem with the concept
>of link spamming, for me it's a risk vs benefit thing.
I believe you about not having ethical problems. I remember when you
were running a mirror of this group with our entries edited to make
yourself look good. Yo got shouted down by the rest of the then group.
When Roy put up something to illustrate mathematical points you
threatened him with copyright. So I'm in no way surprised to see you
say you have no ethical problems. Actually, we knew that.
>How do you sleep knowing you are stealing the copyright works of
>I see you still use my copyright material here
Oh look, he's still on about it! Different story when you were doing
this, wasn't it?
Elvis does my SEO