Can inbound links really hurt you?

[kgun]

Originally Posted by Feydakin

Except, the effect was observed and identified.. And to the people attacked in this manner it is not negligible..

Please, start a new thread about that.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by williamc

You are still hung up on "probabilities" and guesswork. It has already been stated that we do not know if the links being added was simply a flag for review, and a handjob was applied. That "seems" unlikely as the result was reversed right after removing the links, without any reinclusion requests being made which would indeed point to a more algo related nature, but that is an unknown.

This has been my line of thinking as well. It is also unknown if any of the site(s) were manually flagged as "problematic" from the onset, with the algo then acting according.

Dave

Thank you kgun. Water under the bridge.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by crankydave

This has been my line of thinking as well. It is also unknown if any of the site(s) were manually flagged as "problematic" from the onset, with the algo then acting according.

But that has already been commented in this thread by the concept of completely zeroed out.

[williamc]

Kgun: I understand what you are saying but that is once again, nether here nor there. The original question was "Can inbound links really hurt you?"

The answer is yes, they can. Whether the site in question was completely zeroed out, or was penalized in a negative manner does not matter. What matters is simply that they lost all rankings, were not allowed to show publicly, lost all PR. Does any/all of those hurt a site? Yes.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by kgun

But that has already been commented in this thread by the concept of completely zeroed out.

Zero'd out is an assumption. Exactly what is zero'd out is also an assumption? PR? Anchor text value? Trust value? Authoritative value? Direct ranking value? The aggregate value?

Links affect far more than just a single thing including other metrics. One cannot look at them simply in the singular and automatically assume it applies to whole. The whole (the agregate) can easily be considered differently and can easily involve different metrics than the singular.

Does "zero'd out" mean that obtaining hundreds or thousands of links from a "flagged" site has zero affect on on the "authority" or "trust" of a site that is new and/or has a weak link profile?

Dave

[kgun]

Originally Posted by williamc

The original question was "Can inbound links really hurt you?"

I am not sure whether you have read the whole thread? If you have done that you will see that I have repeatedly said that algorithms are not perfect. In my theory, an IBL can not hurt your site. If it does, it is an error in my algorithm. Google (it is the Google sub forum) may have another theory where IBL's hurt you. That a site is completely zeroed out (what we in this thread have called they got as deserved) is not a wound in my theory.

Originally Posted by williamc

The answer is yes, they can. Whether the site in question was completely zeroed out, or was penalized in a negative manner does not matter. What matters is simply that they lost all rankings, were not allowed to show publicly, lost all PR. Does any/all of those hurt a site? Yes.

Again an example of an algorithm that does not fit my theory.

1. I think Google's theory is better than mine.
2. Off topic: An intentional attack on a site (for example a DDOS attack or a man in the middle attack) could also be identified by Google and the attacker penalized. Google may know much more than most of us know.
   
3. To be sure (avoid misunderstandings and complaints) Google should in my theory choose to zero out suspect link (patterns).

[kgun]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Zero'd out is an assumption. Exactly what is zero'd out is also an assumption? PR? Anchor text value? Trust value? Authoritative value? Direct ranking value? The aggregate value?

Links affect far more than just a single thing including other metrics. One cannot look at them simply in the singular and automatically assume it applies to whole. The whole (the agregate) can easily be considered differently and can easily involve different metrics than the singular.

Does "zero'd out" mean that obtaining hundreds or thousands of links from a "flagged" site has zero affect on on the "authority" or "trust" of a site that is new and/or has a weak link profile?

Dave

Good post.

To keep it manageable, I have concentrated on PageRank and suspected that a link from page A to page B can have a negative effect on SERP position (see above). In my theory it can have a zero effect.

Then what if two pages ends up with the exact same (most probably a complex metric where 10 decimals or big numbers may be allowed). How should they be ranked on the SERP's? By a random draw? Do you have a better proposal? Reevaluation?

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by kgun

To keep it manageable, I have concentrated on PageRank and suspected that a link from page A to page B can have a negative effect on SERP position (see above). In my theory it can have a zero effect.

Singularly, as in "a link" I don't disagree. But, I believe the algo looks at things, and evaluates things, as a whole as well.

Originally Posted by kgun

Then what if two pages ends up with the exact same (most probably a complex metric where 10 decimals or big numbers may be allowed). How should they be ranked on the SERP's? By a random draw? Do you have a better proposal? Reevaluation?

What's the probability of 2 pages having exactly the same "score" (for lack of a better way to put it) for every single metric considered?

Now if you're referring to a "total score" (again for lack of a beter way to put it) then my supposition would be that the individual metrics are weighted in order of their importance... ie title is more important than H1 which is more important than H2 which is more important than H3 etc. (to oversimplify it).

Dave

[kgun]

Originally Posted by crankydave

What's the probability of 2 pages having exactly the same "score" (for lack of a better way to put it) for every single metric considered?

That was my implicit point.

[williamc]

Kjell, I did in fact read the entire thread, as much a waste of my time as it was.

I noticed someone asking point blank if inbound links can hurt a site. I saw a number of people offering their opinions, and a few explaining test results on just this subject. That is all well and good, this is how we all learn.

Then I see you and one other doing nothing but theorizing about what you have no way of knowing without actually getting off your collective butts and doing some work/testing instead of guessing, and trying to pass that off as truth or fact.

You can say it is "probable" all you like, but that probability is skewed by your own way of thinking therefore it is simply nothing more than your opinion.

The fact is, after all 50-100 or so posts you made in this thread, you have but merely an opinion, without any testing whatsoever, which could have been said in a single post.

The fact is, a number of citations in this thread pointed out that quite a few of the more "notable" (meaning well known, and generally respected) SEO's all say they have seen this exact thing themselves. Test results have been explained which show it was in fact done numerous times to several websites which fit the patterm we targetted with the expected results.

Once again, the answer to this entire topic is: Yes, they can.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by williamc

Once again, the answer to this entire topic is: Yes, they can.

Yes, since algorithms are not perfect and can have side effects. I doubt it since the programming should not be difficult IMO.

I can not exclude that a SE use their software to manipulate the ranking of web pages. That is speculation and a potential subject for another thread.

In my theoretical SE they can not. I don't know how far the practical SE's are from my theoretical.

William, how is it possible to continue this discussion about imaginary data that I have never seen? How is it possible to control that a statistical test of

H0: IBL's can not hurt a web site

is rejected without data. What was your significance level?

I think it is time for me to stop.

[cz]

I noticed someone asking point blank if inbound links can hurt a site. I saw a number of people offering their opinions, and a few explaining test results on just this subject. That is all well and good, this is how we all learn

Once again, the answer to this entire topic is: Yes, they can.

Thanks for summing up williamc. I offered my real life experience and got shooed away by the brainiacs who don't want to bother with anything but tossing around math formulas and suppositions. It's a simple question that could have been answered by posters with their opinions or experiences. But they take it to a level of ridiculous self serving grandiosity that it makes me nauseas. They sure have a lot of money or extra time on their hands to spend so much time grandstanding in a simple Q&A thread.

[williamc]

CZ: Agreed.

Kgun you said:

William, how is it possible to continue this discussion about imaginary data that I have never seen?

Good question. I have seen the test results firsthand. But I do have to wonder about your arguements due to the fact that your theory is simply your opinion with no facts to back it up. You have no Google algo snippets to show to support your claims, or from MSN or Yahoo even. The only one talking about imaginary data has been you my friend. Your entire arguement is supposition. Imaginary as you said.

So why are you still talking in this discussion?

[kgun]

Originally Posted by williamc

But I do have to wonder about your arguements due to the fact that your theory is simply your opinion with no facts to back it up.

I could have brought in 10 people and said that we had seen 10 pink elephants.

That is in a nutshell your story my frind.

[Feydakin]

If your friends had a long history and reputation in the industry of Pink Elephants, complete with a track record of successfully finding pink elephants and testing pink elephants, yes, I might believe you since I am NOT an expert in pink elephants..

Just as some of the naysayers in this thread, by their own admission, are not experts in SEO..

[williamc]

Originally Posted by kgun

I could have brought in 10 people and said that we had seen 10 pink elephants.

That is in a nutshell your story my frind.

Except that all of the people who were privy to the experiments are active SEO's and know what they are doing, have been doing this for years, and are not bandwagon jumpers.

Not to mention I did not "bring anyone in" as I was not even aware of this thread until the 14th or 15th page, and everyone was here ahead of me.

You however, did in fact bring a lot of supposition and theory based on what you admitted that YOU would do. Unfortunately, you are not google, do not work for google, and have no idea what the google algo is. Imaginary Data comes to mind.... as someone coined.

[Tubby]

Kgun said "I could have brought in 10 people and said that we had seen 10 pink elephants."

As long as the people truly believed they saw pink elephants Kgun this is fine. as long as we know who the people are that saw the pink elephants . . This is fine. The truth is often obscure, it is often perceived differently. Each of us ad to it our own life experience.

If at the end of the day If I conclude that the ten people that saw pink elephants drink a little more alcohol than they probably should. . then I shall simply absorb this information. (it is good information) - If I later on see a pink elephant, I might even be tempted to check the level of spirits left in the bottle. . or I might build a barrier to keep out the bloody elephants.

I have never seen a Pink elephant, but I did once see a tree that was walking.

I am not impressed by your comparison. . I myself do not have such contempt for the observations of other well qualified members of WPW.

SHUT UP! kgun- accept other members observations and conclude what they mean to your own satisfaction.

Attempting to undermine or discredit what you do not accept is DISTATESFUL.

I am passing you on a bit of Red rep (I am not going to let you get away with dissing other members)

[Tubby]

Thank you for the Red Rep (I had antisipated some) - Yes. I agree "anecdotal 'evidence' of 'dissed' members does not constitute anything and facts are not determined by 'Majority' opinion."


My beef was
"I could have brought in 10 people and said that we had seen 10 pink elephants.

That is in a nutshell your story my friend."

My thinking is one should accept others observations and assign a value to them . . Not post "pink elephant' observation "remarks.

An observation is valid - attempting to devalidate the observation is not. If the observation has no value, then it has no value. You do not devalue the Observation by ridicule.

We have been here before, a place where honest observations are ridiculed. Kgun did that. He should not have, it is a bad path to take. This thread had a lot of silent readers that are wary about posting for exactly this reason. 'fear of ridicule'

I have already stated my view on this topic 'IBL's are harmless' But I do want to read anything that might update or ammend this view. . . RIDICULE is not a tool that encourages forthcoming of insights. .

P.S. so far 2 green reps and 1 red rep for that previous post - it is a good (fun) voting system.

[williamc]

I do believe you killed the thread adequately

[Tubby]

HMM. well I only gave it a nudge. . .

If it died that easily it must have been on its last legs anyway..

[williamc]

Originally Posted by Tubby

HMM. well I only gave it a nudge. . .

If it died that easily it must have been on its last legs anyway..

One can hope

[kgun]

Originally Posted by Feydakin

If your friends had a long history and reputation in the industry of Pink Elephants, complete with a track record of successfully finding pink elephants and testing pink elephants, yes, I might believe you since I am NOT an expert in pink elephants..

Just as some of the naysayers in this thread, by their own admission, are not experts in SEO..

Good point. Green Rep added.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by Tubby

I am passing you on a bit of Red rep (I am not going to let you get away with dissing other members)

No problem with your emotions Tubby. Have you read the forum rules?

I have got a lot of red rep points (at least three the last time I saw) in this thread. I am starting to like red and deepsand have got a red online indicator. Admins can you give me a pink online indicator?

Have a nice day Tubby. Green light added to you for this:

Originally Posted by Tubby

I have already stated my view on this topic 'IBL's are harmless' But I do want to read anything that might update or ammend this view. . . RIDICULE is not a tool that encourages forthcoming of insights. .

[kgun]

Originally Posted by williamc

Except that all of the people who were privy to the experiments are active SEO's and know what they are doing, have been doing this for years, and are not bandwagon jumpers.

There are a lot of people that have seen UFO's too. The evidene is seldom verified.

William, with all due respect. You have not told me what significance level you and your SEO friends used.

William, When you get 80 years, you will hopefully thank me for the following.

He said that the only thing that did not lie was mathematics, simply because it could not.

The first person that use that cite in their signature are candidates to: OrangeRank. Ordinarily you must rank at OrangeRank.com before you can rank on PurpleRank.com and RedCarpetRank.com if they are not on

• PurpleRank. Ordinarily you must rank at OrangeRank.com before you can rank on PurpleRank.com and RedCarpetRank.com or
• RedCarpetRank - Webs outstanding sites, resources and articles

Statistics can lie. Yes in a sence it can.

1. You use a significance level of 50 %. You are gambler my friend.
2. You use a significance level of 2.5 %. You have a 2.5 % probability of being classified as a "lier".
3. You use a significance level of 1 %. Most probably you are a doctor, since you are very careful with your pasient's health.

William, the least thing we could require from an expert, be it SEO or from an other profession is:

That he could report the significance level he used in his statistical analysis. Is that a secret too?

It was a statistical analysis?

Originally Posted by williamc

You however, did in fact bring a lot of supposition and theory based on what you admitted that YOU would do. Unfortunately, you are not google, do not work for google, and have no idea what the google algo is. Imaginary Data comes to mind.... as someone coined.

You are complaining about the commodity of one of the biggest media companies in the world. It could be much harder to meet them then old kgun WilliamC.

Green Rep point added to you too

[Tubby]

Kgun said
"No problem with your emotions Tubby. Have you read the forum rules?"

All my emotions are running well Kgun. Today I got angry, I watched a cloud for an half an hour (not sure what emotion that is) I had a laugh. .
I have not read the forum rules for years. . Did I break some rules? . . It only usually worries me when others do that.

Three red reps in one thread! Mate. that take real effort, No doubt you will get them back with interest. (probably some from me)

you evoke emotion Kgun (I like that)

[kgun]

Now it has increased to four (only one with his nick, a moderator). So there are two faceless red when I deduct the one you gave.

Very few clouds here Tubby. Sunny beautiful spring. I just came back from a short walk on the beach. I should do more of that than writing here. Sometimes we act like human word processors - we produce words. I am unsure of how informative these words are for other forum readers and members,

One way to avoid red rep points is to use the forum ignore function. There are some candidates in this thread.

You find the forum rules in the upper left corner. As far as I remember there is (was?) some guidelines on using big letters in combination with colors. It is regarded as shouting. No problem for me personally and the moderators have not intervened.

[COWDENPARK]

So, ive tried everything from directories to articles, blogging and a little paid and reciprocal...what on earth can I do to increase ranking and traffic?
Its a no win...

Originally Posted by crankydave

Precisely the point. They can't. They can't "know" whether or not a link is paid. They "guess" and act upon that "guess", based upon a pattern.

As I said earlier, algorithms, bots, filters, etc. are not intuitive. They can't "know". They don't consider what "makes sense". They don't "think" (not yet anyway). They can't assign "no value" to a paid link, they need webmasters to do that, what makes you, or anyone else for that matter, think they can assign "no value" to any other link "automatically"?

A pattern is a pattern. When that criteria is met, it is acted upon automatically. Doesn't matter why the pattern exists. "Why" cannot be automatically discerned.

Dave

[kgun]

They can't assign "no value" to a paid link, they need webmasters to do that, what makes you, or anyone else for that matter, think they can assign "no value" to any other link "automatically"?

Hm

<cite>
Objective search is not an easy game. When you use mathematical algorithms, you must know what they say and don't say. You must know their limitations. That a lot of people vote for the same person, does not imply that that person is more trustworthy. It simply says that he got a lot of votes. You are not more right, even if most people agree with you.

"Academic citation literature has been applied to the web, largely by counting citations or backlinks to a given page. This gives some approximation of a page's importance or quality. PageRank extends this idea by not counting links from all pages equally, and by normalizing by the number of links on a page. PageRank is defined as follows:

We assume page A has pages T1...Tn which point to it (i.e., are citations). The parameter d is a damping factor which can be set between 0 and 1. We usually set d to 0.85. There are more details about d in the next section. Also C(A) is defined as the number of links going out of page A. The PageRank of a page A is given as follows:

PR(A) = (1-d) + d (PR(T1)/C(T1) + ... + PR(Tn)/C(Tn))

Note that the PageRanks form a probability distribution over web pages, so the sum of all web pages' PageRanks will be one.

PageRank or PR(A) can be calculated using a simple iterative algorithm, and corresponds to the principal eigenvector of the normalized link matrix of the web. Also, a PageRank for 26 million web pages can be computed in a few hours on a medium size workstation. There are many other details which are beyond the scope of this paper."

.......

A natural modification is this

PR(A) = (1-d) + (d1*(PR(T1)/C(T1)) + ... + dn*(PR(Tn))/C(Tn))

where d1+d2+ ... + dn = d.

If you have a true metric that other sites are valued against, human beings or perhaps AI could be used to set di=0 if page i is false. I never promised you a rose garden.
</cite>

Source: http://www.blognorway.com/

The source link in that article is broken.

An alternative is this: http://infolab.stanford.edu/pub/papers/google.pdf

[Feydakin]

Originally Posted by COWDENPARK

So, ive tried everything from directories to articles, blogging and a little paid and reciprocal...what on earth can I do to increase ranking and traffic?
Its a no win...

"Trying everything" is rarely effective.. A lot of what will be effective for 'your' site will depend on the phrases you are targeting, your competition, and the quality of your own website..

But this isn't the thread for this discussion..

[Tubby]

Kgun mentioned
"some guidelines on using big letters in combination with colors. It is regarded as shouting. "

Yes! . . I do recall that one, but the option to do just that is part of the wpw program. WebProWorld offers me this colour and variety. I shall offer the defence that I do it for less than 1% of my posted words. This merely increases the average tone of my voice a minimum amount, this hardly even compensate for my normal softly spoken bashful coy diffident retiring self-effacing shy timid blushing earnest demure personality.

I am a long way from the beach Kgun.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by Tubby

Kgun mentioned
"some guidelines on using big letters in combination with colors. It is regarded as shouting. "

Yes! . . I do recall that one, but the option to do just that is part of the wpw program.

Agree. WPW is not always consistent and easy to understand

[kgun]

Originally Posted by williamc

As for using the ignore function tho, I take it you don't want to debate anymore threads where you may come across in a different light than you had hoped?

1. It is impossible to discuss when you come to a forum claiming evidence of a controlled experiment. I personally see it as a discussion thechnique. I may be wrong.
2. Have you reported the result of that experiment to Google?
3. In sum it is IMO a very hard complaint about their commodity / service unless they use IBL's to manipulate the web's inverted link matrix.
4. That will be in direct conflict with their policy on not being evil.
5. I think, the next time you come to WPW with "similar evidence", I will remain silent. (And my story about pink elephants created a (but not the) reaction I awaited. Not everybody understood that),
6. We need differnt opinions on a forum and not unisone agreement.

I don't agree. deepsand is the person in this forum that gives me personally the greatest challenges.

We are different William.

[Tubby]

Kgun said
'WPW is not always consistent and easy to understand'

Neither are People Kgun, people are not consistent or easy to understand. I have noticed that you attract more 'Flak' when you expect a consistent result from people.

People can accept an input of zero that can result in a multitude of different values. An input of zero can be re-valued for no better reason than the reason it has no value. People are a trap Kgun. (not a bad trap)

Your world seems to have more mathematical conceptual recognition. Mine has a more emotional foundation. We will to clash occasional, anyone who can define infinity with imaginary lines heading towards the poles - is bound to get red rep points from 'sane' people . .

I think Inbound links are harmless. I am open to the possibility that a website can be deliberately targeted for attack through IBL's - but this situation is unlikely to accidentally occur. enough to maintain my view that -for all intents and purpose Inbound links are harmless. (A person targeting the site might not be so harmless)

Just wanted to return to topic. and register my ammended view on this topic.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by Tubby

Your world seems to have more mathematical conceptual recognition. Mine has a more emotional foundation. We will to clash occasional, anyone who can define infinity with imaginary lines heading towards the poles - is bound to get red rep points from 'sane' people . .

So your remembered this

http://www.webproworld.com/breakroom...tml#post365487

#41 post. If yes, you deserve a new Green rep point when I have spread some more red / green around. I got a new red rep point from a member that wrote his name, so he also deserves a green point. Enough about this IMO manipulatory Rep Point system. There at least, ctabuk and I seem to agree.

Yes, it is natural that we clash on an eCommerce forum.

I use and will use more of my time on more technical forums. I am sure that some silent surfers laugh at this thread.

[Tubby]

Yes I remember that. I remember every argument that refuses to accept that infinity can exist without a boundary. It is so damn blatently obvious . .
(I always remember things that confront my core beliefs. .)

you say "I am sure that some silent surfers laugh at this thread."
I am sure many keep calling back to read what you say Kgun. there are many threads where you contribute to creating traffic'
But you 'insult' people that do not conform or confirm or who contradict the concept you have in your vision.

A little bit of blood (metaphoric) on the floor will not harm anyone .

[kgun]

Originally Posted by Tubby

you say "I am sure that some silent surfers laugh at this thread."
I am sure many keep calling back to read what you say Kgun. there are many threads where you contribute to creating traffic'
But you 'insult' people that do not conform or confirm or who contradict the concept you have in your vision.

I have no problem with that observation.

I have to leave to a more technical site. Bye so long.

[edhan]

Personally, I think inbound links will mean nothing if it is not related to the site linking with otherwise it will boost the ranking instead. Having good inbound links will be better but if unrelated inbound links, it will simply mean nothing. I have yet to actually see proof of IBL hurting a website.

I am more concern for OBL from my site as it may hurts my site if it ended up linking with spam farms.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by edhan

Personally, I think inbound links will mean nothing if it is not related to the site linking with otherwise it will boost the ranking instead. Having good inbound links will be better but if unrelated inbound links,it will simply mean nothing. I have yet to actually see proof of IBL hurting a website.

I am more concern for OBL from my site as it may hurts my site if it ended up linking with spam farms.

My bolding.

Excellent post.

[deepsand]

You say science doesn't know SEO, I say you don't know much at all

What the hell are you babbling about?

[williamc]

Where the heck is that in the thread? Unless it got edited, I don't see it anywhere in the last 3 pages.

[cz]

I wondered where it was as well. I checked and found loads of edits. The Moderator should lock this thread or delete it IMHO. What started as a simple question is carrying on like.....never mind, no more fuel for these guys to go off on. It's an embarrassment and I wish I'd have never offered my opinion.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by cz

I wondered where it was as well. I checked and found loads of edits. The Moderator should lock this thread or delete it IMHO. What started as a simple question is carrying on like.....never mind, no more fuel for these guys to go off on. It's an embarrassment and I wish I'd have never offered my opinion.

Some of these guys meant that the thread was answered on the first page.

[cz]

You just can't control your self kgun can you? Most of the edits were yours - probably obsessing over some issue of accuracy and precision in your science?

<this line wasn't neccessary. please play nice CD>

[crankydave]

No reason to lock/delete the thread. Some discussions/debates can and will continue for some time.

Dave

[cz]

what dave - old timer? he calls himself 80 all the time, I call my Dad old timer? no foul intended, just delete this then if you think I was mean, just that he's stubborn like my Dad. i'm 60 so I'm an old timer too and have no problem with my younger friends saying it to me?

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by williamc

Where the heck is that in the thread? Unless it got edited, I don't see it anywhere in the last 3 pages.

That's an example of the drivel that passes for "rep." these days; rcvd. at 00:08 today, 14 MAY, in response to my post of 16:47, 10 MAY, at Can inbound links really hurt you? .

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by cz

what dave - old timer? he calls himself 80 all the time, I call my Dad old timer? no foul intended, just delete this then if you think I was mean, just that he's stubborn like my Dad. i'm 60 so I'm an old timer too and have no problem with my younger friends saying it to me?

It wasn't simply the use of "old timer" that was offensive.

In case you're not aware of it, it's your original version of a post that is sent in the e-mail alerts, not a revised version.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by edhan

Personally, I think inbound links will mean nothing if it is not related to the site linking with otherwise it will boost the ranking instead. Having good inbound links will be better but if unrelated inbound links, it will simply mean nothing. I have yet to actually see proof of IBL hurting a website.

I am more concern for OBL from my site as it may hurts my site if it ended up linking with spam farms.

I've not seen any proof that not related sites don't help, as a matter of fact I've seen some off topic links push sites to the top of the rankings.

[cz]

In case you're not aware of it, it's your original version of a post that is sent in the e-mail alerts, not a revised version.

No more offensive than I was treated, by certain parties but they have more points & posts so It's okay then. I understand now, thanks for bringing me up to speed deepsand.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by cz

No more offensive than I was treated, by certain parties but they have more points & posts so It's okay then. I understand now, thanks for bringing me up to speed deepsand.

I see that I failed in my earlier attempts at having you understand that kgun was not engaged in a personal attack against you.

As for his stubbornness, it is one born of the certainty that comes with an true understanding of the application of logic and the Scientific method. Such is no less than the steadfastness with which you hold that 1 + 1 = 2. To expect him to deny that which he knows and understands is wholly without merit.