Received this! www.searchenginecloaker.com/tourB.shtml
<P>Are these guys, good guy or bad guy software?
Who has good guy SE cloaking software????<P>[Moderator Note: We don't allow signatures on these forums -SimpleEnigma]<p>[Note: This message has been edited by SimpleEnigma]


[ Message was edited by: bhartzer 06/30/2005 01:30 pm ]

Well I feel as I have to reply, as I am the owner of said software company! And what can I say, we're good (of course). <IMG SRC="http://searchengineforums.com/wink.gif"><P>What would you like to know specifically?<P>[self promotion deleted, please see our rate card for promoting here.<p>[Note: This message has been edited by Janet Berg]


[ Message was edited by: bhartzer 06/30/2005 01:31 pm ]

KEN KESSLER, ask for customer list and contact those customers.

Automatically generating "infinite" doorway pages composed of nonsense keyword strings for a two page website is about like putting anthrax up your nose to see if it gets you high.

[self promotions deleted]
If you're referring to the possibility that someone will get banned by using such a technique, that's of course possible. Curiously, however, I've never even used my own software until recently on our site -- but Google still lists us, and they still picked up (and still have in their index) a bunch of cloaked pages that I was debugging... and let me tell you, the pages that they are indexed are pure nonsense (the word 'dsl' repeated over and over again). Yet they still generate a respectable amount of daily traffic

[Note: This message has been edited by Janet Berg]

Ken,

I highly recommend you proceed with extreme care before proceding with cloaking. Especially anything autogenerated.

If you do decide to try it use a disposable domain.

And, do as Dinkar suggested, have contact with previous customers, SEVERAL, to make sure you are not being BS'ed, and verify whatever they tell you.

You can learn more about cloaking, and even download some FREE stuff at http://www.spiderhunter.com/ . Even if you are not interested in trying it yourself it is good to be able to converse with others while investigating a firm to use.

Another reputable site to investigate would be http://fantomaster.com/ . I don't touch cloaking myself, but I know the reputation of both of these sites is a good one, and it is a long standing one, these are not fly by night.

[self promotion deleted]
The poster is correct: you should proceed with caution in regards to cloaking. It is risky business, but, for some webmasters, it's appropriate.

[Note: This message has been edited by Janet Berg]

i've only read the first three articles in this thread and i'm novice with cloaking so i may be jumping the gun but i've got to say this stuff looks like crap.

i close this company's webpage window and a popup comes up that starts with "HEY! WAIT A SEC! Enter your email address to get 5 amazing tricks to get more traffic from search engines. PLUS get instant access to Search Engine Cloaker!
"

sounds desparate. from what i've heard so far ip-delivery (ip-delivery.com) is the stuff you want if you want to cloak successfully.

Tsk tsk! You shouldn't make judgements just because a site has pop-ups... that way, you'd be calling The New York Times "crap" too!

Cloaking is not a very difficult thing to do, to be honest. Any Perl programmer can write a cloaking script in about 10 minutes.

What is difficult, however, is providing a solution that is easy to install and manage for relatively novice Webmasters; which auto-updates both itself and its IP lists; and which provides a multitude of cloaking possibilities (stuffing, reverse stuffing, auto-generation, etc.)

As others have pointed out, auto-generation of pages is not for everyone, for instance. But page stuffing, a more subtle form of cloaking where existing pages are "stuffed" with keywords just for search engines might work for others.

[ad deleted]

Moderator: as this post is about our software, please would you keep my reply intact. When someone calls our software "crap", I need ample room to respond!

[promoting your site is not allowed here]

[Note: This message has been edited by Janet Berg]

It looks like you all had better only say nice things about this company, it can not deal with unbiased review.

My email:

Can you please confirm that your FAX is 650-966-1727? We wish to send you
the following:

Little Dipper Corporation
3169 NE Irving St
Portland, OR 97232

May 13, 2002

To Jim's World & Janet Berg:

We hereby notify you that you are hosting and fostering libelous content
on Search Engine Forums. Specifically, several posts in "Search Engine
Technology Issues > Cloaking Software, Good Guy, Bad Guy" reference our
software in a libelous manner:

Janet Berg indirectly refers to our product and company as "fly by night".

KiloEcho refers to our product as "crap".

Moreover, when we attempted to reply to said libel, our posting was
modified, reducing our response to out-of-context snippets.

As a result, we have suffered significant harm to our brand and
incalculable damages.

We hereby demand that you immediately remove the entire thread under
discussion. Failure to do so will result in legal action against both
Janet Berg and Jim's World for each day that said libel remains on-line.

Peter Bray
President
Little Dipper Corporation

On Mon, 13 May 2002, Janet Hannestad wrote:

> Peter,
>
> Please restrict your "answers" to questions actually asked. Keep all
> marketing hype to your website, not ours.
>
> I re-reviewed what was deleted and none of it was related to the question
> being asked. A recommendattion for your site was asked for only. You
> recommended yourself, which was OK, but the rest of the marketing hype was
> not.
>
> ~Janet Berg
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Bray [maimailto:Peter@searchenginecloaker.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 3:52 AM
> To: janet@searchengineforums.com
> Subject: search engine forums administration...
>
>
>
> Moderator: I think your deletes of my "self promotion" were inappropriate
> in the cloaking forum. That discussion was specifically about our
> software -- someone specifically asked about us. Surely, I can reply?
> Or do all of my posts have to be reduced down to an out-of-context
> soundbite? And several people there attacked our software (including you,
> indirectly). I should be allowed to reply without having my replies
> labeled "self-promotion" and deleted. I need to be able to respond. Be
> fair! Thanks, Peter
>
>

wow. I'm guilty of liable?

searchenginecloaker, I didn't say your site was crap because you had a popup. read my post a little bit better.

an addition to my previous post: From the reading I've done since I posted last I'm no longer have any plans to use cloaking myself. the reason? google came out about a month ago saying they'll soon begin enforcing their policy against cloaking. Ask around though and some have already felt this. Cloaking may be becoming a thing of the past.

Someone can't say that something is crap if that's the way they feel?????

Where'd my free speech go? I never went to an extreme in my comment and I put reason in as to why I feel that way. Whatever.

Original post asked for comment on a particular service. Opinions have been given. My opinion on any cloaking services that serves template pages with your key phrases inserted is to think again. Such things may work now but may not work tomorrow in accordance with the published information put forward by various search engines. Hope that helps to answer the question.

Don't worry about it KiloEcho.

You are entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to make recommendations of sites and services.

I posted the communication, entirely, as the original question was "Are these guys, good guy or bad guy software?" I think people can draw a conclusion of good guy/bad guy from how this "company" has conducted themselves.

As to the other question asked by the original poster, "Who has good guy SE cloaking software?" I still recommend that you research the topic yourself, so you know what is going on even if you use a cloaking service at http://www.spiderhunter.com . And, if you are going to use a service, do not use anything fly by night, but stick to long lasting companies, with lots of referances and a good reputation. One where other people recommend them, not the owner saying "Ya, I am a good company".

While I personally do not cloak anything, IF I were to decide to do so I would most likely deal with http://fantomaster.com/ , the reason being that they have been doing this for a long time, they are active, and I hear lots of "stuff" about companies, NEVER any negative things about this one, and I am talking about a period of several years.

Well, it would appear that I MUST retract my recommendations, delete this thread, AND register a spammer back in (was spamming with an additional site too).

I don't think so. You brought it up Kenny boy.

More from my email: (amazing that no one is jumping in here to say how wonderful this product is except for this oh-so-professional site owner)

quote:

---

You deleted our account, preventing us from replying to your libel.

We are not a fly-by-night company, as you imply. We offer sound software,
excellent support, and innovative solutions (we have 3 different types of
cloaking in our product).

We do plan to pursue legal action against you and related parties
vigorously. Our lawfirm is Brownstein, Rask, et al. We plan to bring
action against you in Federal courts. We will halt these actions if you
remove the entire thread immediately; post a retractment; and reactivate
our account.

For more information about how "opinions" are not immune from liability,
please read:
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/04/04/aquatic_plants/print.html

---

If freedom of speech was not protected, then how can you explain the longterm existence of the site?
www.f***edcompany.com

He even recently released a book, that has lots of content that friges on libel.

The companies he slams on a daily basis are multi-million-dollar companies. How can it be that he is allowed to go on?

Because it is his and our right as laid out in the US Constitution to Freedom of Speech.

As far as using cloaking technology, here is one good reason not to: http://www.google.com/contact/spamreport.html

This is only my personal view on the matter and is not intended to be relied on as the giving of professional legal advice

Janet:
"If you do decide to try it use a disposable domain"

Linda's comment: If Cloaking is considered within the industry as a method of unlawfully manipulating search engine results then it should not be suggested that testing it on a throw away domain or ISP be tried. It is either a good method or a bad one, and weather using a pay or free ISP does not enter the picture.

Taking this to an extreme, If Janet tried it on a throw away and as a result got 10 Thousand visitors a day with a sales campaign converting at 20 to 1 at say $50 a time, and did not get cut off, would She continue to use it, or would Janet voluntarily stop using it following Excell's principle's of ethical business practise?

"And, do as Dinkar suggested, have contact with previous customers, SEVERAL, to make sure you are not being BS'ed, and verify whatever they tell you.
these are not fly by night"

Linda's comment: This is in theory sound advice however how do you find previous customers? from the vendors site perhaps?

KiloEcho:
"but i've got to say this stuff looks like crap.
i close this company's webpage window and a popup comes up that starts with "HEY! WAIT A SEC! Enter your email address to get 5 amazing tricks to get more traffic from search engines. PLUS get instant access to Search Engine Cloaker! "

Linda's comment::

The word,"Crap" is a term of art and not a technical term. It is used in popular informal banter and conversation,( Although the Rebbe would not be too happy if addressed in such a way !),although it can have a derogotary suggestion,I do not think using it in the way it was used is enough to establish a good cause of action

Searchengineclocker:

"as this post is about our software, please would you keep my reply intact. When someone calls our software "crap", I need ample room to respond!"

Linda's comment::

The above is fair comment, however Searchengineclocker at the same time when making replies must not continue to attempt to get free advertising on the Forums. It would appear from the Moderators edits, Searchengineclocker continued to advertise after being asked to stop

Janet Berg:
Linda's preamble: I think this is an email to our Janet and not from Janet which is the way I understood her post

"Little Dipper Corporation
3169 NE Irving St
Portland, OR 97232
May 13, 2002
To Jim's World & Janet Berg:
We hereby notify you that you are hosting and fostering libelous content
on Search Engine Forums. Specifically, several posts in "Search Engine
Technology Issues > Cloaking Software, Good Guy, Bad Guy" reference our
software in a libelous manner:
Janet Berg indirectly refers to our product and company as "fly by night".
KiloEcho refers to our product as "crap".
Moreover, when we attempted to reply to said libel, our posting was
modified, reducing our response to out-of-context snippets.
As a result, we have suffered significant harm to our brand and
incalculable damages.
We hereby demand that you immediately remove the entire thread under
discussion. Failure to do so will result in legal action against both
Janet Berg and Jim's World for each day that said libel remains on-line.
Peter Bray
President
Little Dipper Corporation"

Linda's comment:

The above email was not written by a Lawyer. The most important part however is,"As a result, we have suffered significant harm to our brand and
incalculable damages".

Ah ha , this is the nub of the email:
"suffered significant harm" Has it?

What about loss and or damage? An essential part of any claim in a tort action is to plead and to prove that the plaintiff suffered loss and or damage as a direct result of the Defendants legal wrongs, and the proving has to be to a high standard of particularity, including of course I.R.S, records covering perhaps the last three years trading accounts

"incalculable damages" If the prospective plaintiff has no way of calculating them how do they expect a Court to do it for them?

Further:
"Failure to do so will result in legal action against both Janet Berg and Jim's World for each day that said libel remains on-line"

I think they mean they will be seeking damages for each of the days the alleged defamatory material is live on the Internet

May I also bring up the principle of going to court with, "Clean hands", and the principle of,"Tainted with illegality"

For those that do not know what all that, "crap", means, it means one cannot go to a court seeking a remedy when the core subject matter has a bad taste to it in the first place

I am sure anybody being sued where the subject of cloaking was the core subject could show a Court that it was used to intentionally influence the algorithm of a search engine to produce results in a way inconsistant with the search engines terms of use and in those circumstances the product is deemed unlawful, and that the action before the court is tainted with illegality, and the action will be kicked out quicker than Clintons Zip would appear to operate, and out you go with nuffing but financial loss

On Mon, 13 May 2002, Janet Hannestad wrote:
> Peter,
>
> Please restrict your "answers" to questions actually asked. Keep all
> marketing hype to your website, not ours.
>
> I re-reviewed what was deleted and none of it was related to the question
> being asked. A recommendattion for your site was asked for only. You
> recommended yourself, which was OK, but the rest of the marketing hype was
> not.
>
> ~Janet Berg

Linda's comment:
Very fair reply except for the bit that says,"not ours". 5th amendment Janet, 5th amendment, Oie veh!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Bray [maimailto:Peter@searchenginecloaker.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 3:52 AM
> To: janet@searchengineforums.com
> Subject: search engine forums administration...
>
>
>
> Moderator: I think your deletes of my "self promotion" were inappropriate
> in the cloaking forum. That discussion was specifically about our
> software -- someone specifically asked about us. Surely, I can reply?
> Or do all of my posts have to be reduced down to an out-of-context
> soundbite? And several people there attacked our software (including you,
> indirectly). I should be allowed to reply without having my replies
> labeled "self-promotion" and deleted. I need to be able to respond. Be
> fair! Thanks, Peter

Kilo Echo:
wow. I'm guilty of liable?

Linda:Libel Kilo Echo, Libel

Linda's summary:

I cannot speak for American Law, however in this thread some things have been said about a company and a product that were decribed in a way that was not very nice quite apart from the fact that the purpose of the product may be for an unlawful purpose in the legal sense.

A more professional language style might have been more usefull
I think the company concerned made the situation worse by not following the forums Terms of use after being requested to do so by the Boss-ette

Members posting in threads where it is their own product or service under discussion should remember that in the, "Rough and tumble", of Internet Forums and the many different types of members participating, it is quite possible that comments will be made in a way which would not be accepted in a more formal arena.

Forget suing for such matters, make Love not War Little Dipper , for the most part it is just not worth the hassle, and only makes the Lawyers rich whichever way the matter goes.

Linda's final word:

May I respectfully venture to suggest that members avoid legal mumbo jumbo, and threats of legal action unless they actually know something about the subject at a professional level. That is one area where, "Weekend participants", should say well clear of

quote:

---

Hello:

This message is to confirm the listing of your URL to the
Searchit Search Engine. We received the following info:
URL: http://searchengineforums.com/Forum17/HTML/001072.html

If your url contains only "http", this is an error from your autosubmitter. You can resubmit your Url here: http://www.SearchIt.com/
If your url is incorrect you must submit it again.
Your URL will be added to our database soon.

Remember, to find what you are looking for, Always use SearchIt.com http://searchit.com/

Thanks For Using SearchIt.com

The Searchit Staff

---

If this thread is so damaging, why did they submit it to the search engine?

Page Rank/Link Pop of course.

IMHO - crap, crap, crap, spam, spam, spam! Now sue me! Janet well handled

Thank you MJR!

Am I missing something but have we gone off at a tangent from Jim's post down, I cannot follow it

Crap (n) slang.
Derived from proper name Thomas Crapper, inventor of the water closet.

A soft message.

I'm owner site and don't cloak it. But I would like to do. Why do I not do?

Because I intend it must to have a long life.

At this point there is an unbalance. It seems to me that many webmasters that get a lot of domains to sell something on a campaign, i e, will have sites of short life, cloak them without so many risks. When Google begins (it begins, indeed?) to detect the question, the campaign is at end. At the other side, who has a long life site has more chance to be punished.

Excuse me my poor English.

Nice post, ruymiranda

Linda, I am puzzled by your comment to this comment.

> Peter,
>
> Please restrict your "answers" to questions actually asked. Keep all
> marketing hype to your website, not ours.
>
> I re-reviewed what was deleted and none of it was related to the question
> being asked. A recommendattion for your site was asked for only. You
> recommended yourself, which was OK, but the rest of the marketing hype was
> not.
>
> ~Janet Berg

Linda's comment:
Very fair reply except for the bit that says,"not ours". 5th amendment Janet, 5th amendment, Oie veh!

How is Janet's comment a 5th ammendment deal? Janet or Jim does have a right to request that marketing hype not be posted here. I don't see the 5th having jurisdiction in this case.

Just to clear things up....when I say "ours" I meant this community, kind of like saying "not in our town".

Let's get some finality. There are NO legal issues involved AT ALL. The "searchenginecloaker" is not a viable product in anybody's definition. It is neither patented nor trademarked. It is not exceptional, unique or even original. We had the same "technology" five years ago and never implemented it for obvious reasons. There is no intellectual property at stake here. There isn't any secret source code. I could produce an earlier, similar copy of code that does the exact same thing in ten seconds from my own archives. Should I sue this guy? I don't think so. The whole thing is literally unreal, unfounded and illegitimate. In other words, the "searchenginecloaker" doesn't constitute posession of a damn thing.

Janet, MJR, OAC and everyone else here are absolutely free and blameless to say whatever they want about this stuff, anytime they like, without any remote threat of "legal" action. It is total spam and completely dangerous, insidious garbage. It is in the same category as ***** enlargement pills, Haitian Voodoo hair replacement, snake oil treatments, Quija Board SE Indexing, etc.

It is particularly annoying when someone who plagiarizes a third-rate programming technique, really thinks they've done something spectacular and announces their ignorance to the world. Combine that with a perfectionist personality plus a huge ego and the result is this kind of ugly, childish vanity that rails everyone who dares venture criticism.

Sum: <echo>CRAP!</echo> There are no issues. That's my opinion and I'm stickin' to it. I couldn't care less if someone's feelings get hurt because they are exposed for selling (as in taking money for) highly questionable, shady, unproven clap-trap rubbish that they claim to be pure genius.

Just to back up Janet's earlier recommendations. The product mentioned here is not cloaking software. It is a spam page generator which then uses cloaking technology to serve thousands of meaningless pages to SEs. It may fool some of the search engines some of the time - but will not fool them for long. The resultant listings (even if they are included) will also look like garbage and be hardly attractive to potential purchasers.

I know a little bit about cloaking technologies (and those that work) and this isn't one of them! I would not recommend it to anybody looking to construct a long-term search engine marketing strategy - and I would not recommend using cloaking to anyone who really didn't understand the technology or the risks fully.

This is REALLY interesting. 3 years ago I saw someone using this technique combined with 404 technology to generate the top 100 listings on 100's of keywords and combos.
MakeMeTop, iS correct in that 2 technologies exist here: "Cloaking" and what I would call "spider trapping". In Spider Trapping you use clocking to FEED the spider numerous pages autogenerated with additional links that 404 back to the script which generates more based on a list of 100's or thousands of keywords (one page per keyword/combo). the spider gets TRAPPED in this endless loop of following these phoney (404) links.

Straight Cloaking simply feeds a SEOed page instead of your main ad page to the variuos SE spiders to:
1) protect your SEOed page from other would be copiers and
2) to get a better listing without compromising your ad pages. No 404's , no endless loops or spider trapping and no SE spamming

Software that forcebly traps the engines WILL GET YOU BANNED period.

Just "MHO"
Hiding your Page source code WILL not (unless you over submit of course but that is another issue)

Heh... I personally would never even talk about cloaking for work, but if I were too I would stay away from the mentioned company simply by the way they handled a negative opinion on this forum. If you cannot handle both praise and criticism, do not release a product to the massess.

Well said!

One defense for the searchenginecloaker...

Some of you here are posting rather rudely/harshly. That's not necessary and actually not very professional. I can see why the searchenginecloaker has gotten upset.

Now, whether his software is unique or even good to use is another issue.

Spider trapping is likely something the engines hate and thus this software is not something I would want to use if it loops continuously. It would have been smarter to put a governor on it that limits the pages generated. The pages generated are of Zero quality and help no one except to generate possible ranking pages. The pages are just random choices of sentences—basically junk pages to the engines.

That makes the method a really lousy way to get ranks. It's interesting from one aspect only, but beyond that, basically junk bombing just like a spammer. This is spam software for the engines.

"That's not necessary and actually not very professional. I can see why the searchenginecloaker has gotten upset."

Unless you have a copy of all the material that was deleted from searchenginecloakers posts back in May( a significant amount) and considered this material when making your comment, I would respectfully suggest you don't have sufficient facts to make this call.

Clipped from a post just up a bit...
-------------
Straight Cloaking simply feeds a SEOed page instead of your main ad page to the variuos SE spiders to:
1) protect your SEOed page from other would be copiers and
2) to get a better listing without compromising your ad pages. No 404's , no endless loops or spider trapping and no SE spamming
----------------

I have been looking and looking for a relatively inexpensive way to do the above. I have a client who wants his seo'd pages protected.

Suggestions on solutions anyone?

One note - I did purchase searchenginecloakers product, but when it became clear it was not designed to do what I needed, I asked for a refund. I got fast and courteous answers to all my questions, and a refund with no hassles whatsoever.

OAC,

You may very well be correct in saying that. Yes, I do not have all the details in the SEcloaker's posts because his posts were modified. If he started the borderline flame, then I retract my statement. However, if others started being unnecessarily rough using words like crap to describe the product, then I stand with my comment.

I know how some people get in here. They say things that are unnecessarily hurtful—almost attacking the dignity of the specific person being critized. I don't know the SEcloaker personally, but I'd say that the visible comments made are overly rough and insight people to flame. Not all who visit here have hardened skin and may take offense at below the belt remarks.

Perhaps he imagined that his product was good or was proud of his accomplishment. He may be misguided but he is still a person behind the post. People figure they can be as crude as they want when critizing a specific person's products. Calling a product crap just encourages flaming. It is a negative demeaning word and should be avoided for the most part.

There are situations that warrant the use of that word, but this is not one of them. You can explain to him why his product is harmful and that is fine. Using demeaning terms adds nothing positive whatsoever and certainly is not helpful criticism to make his product better. Point out the flaws but avoid the offensive speak.

I know some people don't want to hear any criticism and well... there's not much we can do for them. They get mad at the least little thing.

If he said things that were not nice, did he say them in response to another demeaning comment or was he the first to make the flaming comment?

Would some of the posters here say these words to a stranger on the street who had a similar product? I think they would be a little bit more courteous don't you think? Then why be that way here? Rudeness is no excuse for criticism.

quote:

---

They say things that are unnecessarily hurtful—almost attacking the dignity of the specific person being critized.

---

Curt, there was not a single PERSON even discussed here. The discussion involves a product, an inanimate object, devoid of emotions. It is not possible to offend it.

While we do not allow flaming of people here, products and services are not included. Negative comments are just part of normal conversation. If you want to see some seriously negative comments visit the Looksmart forum, they get ripped apart farly regularly. Looksmart is a database, we are not worried about offending it.

There are a lot of nice, helpful people here, but requiring them to only say "nice" things about every product and service on the internet is not a reasonable requirement, and in itself would hurt the community by omiting valuable information.

I still maintain my position on the rather strong use of words. The author probably took the comment personally because he created it. The product is a reflection of him and calling the product crap was taken as reflecting on him.

So how does calling a product crap help anything? It's NOT quality feedback no matter how you look at it.

Now saying that it spams the engines, now that's helping to describe the problem and perhaps the person can rethink the design of their program. Using the word crap just insights flaming. You can't get around that no matter how you put it.

It's not necessary to use such words. Take my comment about his product. It is honest and yet I do not use derogatory words to describe it. He'll learn something from my input (hopefully). This brutal/harseness is not the right way!

You are right, he could have used the word junk and made the same point.

Hi Janet

You are slick

My word “junk” has been taken out of context

Perhaps it would have been more acceptable for langard to have used the term "quality impaired" or "quality challenged"?

I suppose it doesn't do much good to try to encourage people to be a little bit more civil here 'cause if a person suggests such moves, they are poked fun at.

You guys go ahead and carve each other to pieces if you wish. What goes around comes around. If someone says something nasty to you, you should grin and bear it. Flame on guys and gals.

Hi Everyone!!!!

Hey is that guy good or what? Well for one you can never knock something you never tried, I feel you can benefit this along with the good ole fashion SEO that's out there for there are numerous tactics that you can use, however if you are a person so stuck on the good ole Gopher Days, well those days are over!!!

Now as you see one aspect reading on ((url removed)) and on ((url removed)) you can go a loooooooooooong ways indeed. It's not spam, it's not hacks, it's called creating more content for your site that's needed :D, just like adding RSS to your site and such for fresh content, so if you use RSS or some sort of fashion to add fresh content, why not just add SEC too your site and let it run for itself. I will say SEC is the way too go in today's age. So in retrospect to Janet.. Why don't you just delete your own threads instead of being so miserable and bashing the next man when he succeeds. :D

Take care all and just thought I would add my thoughts!!!

With Regards,

Jimz

[ Message was edited by: bhartzer 07/01/2005 02:59 pm ]

Agreed :D