Give him my number, and tell him I'm your advocate. I'd love to play with his future, if only for a publicity thing.

*loads up MS Paint*

You aren't Steve, are you?

Yes, if you're curious, on the teamnet.net site, look at the four rows of racks currently in the Level 1 security room of the facility (first image you see), the third row (of 10 racks) is mostly occupied by our clients in this facility. Our company leases racks, and colocate our own machines, as most other dedicated server companies do. We allow clients to rent our servers, or colocate their own, on our racks. Have we made a mistake here? Am I now parasitic as a result? BTW - what is an OC-42? I'm a dumb college student, and I must still be ignorant to that technology.

I've actually been making web sites for almost as long as the internet has been public. I've been studying marketting them, and researching Google, especially, for some time longer. I know this only goes so far, but I will be graduating very soon, with a degree in the field. I'm not an expert. Many people here I'm sure know far more about this field than I, and if I came off like I was trying to prove anything by posting a blog on the internet; well, sorry sir.

If you, or anyone else you're taking into account, has the opinion that the summary of the recently publicized patent information wasn't a good one, that's one thing. That's respectable, mature, conversation. Yet another screen full of insults like this, is just not. But no matter what, you can't refute that that patent information was very recent factual information referring specifically to Google's algorithms, and coming directly from Google. And, you can't refute that Google's algorithms have been left mostly up to speculation since it's conception (I hope, for the love of God). The patent itself, in my eyes, is extremely useful information to this community. And, as none of the experts here, including yourself (right?), had brought light to this in this forum, it really seems

Vapor if I were being corrected, I would have definately listened with a very open mind. What Steve did, was make a series of very unfounded attacks, most of them personal and having nothing to do with the blog; as a lot of this proved the SEO marketting !#@%@#% he'd been trying to spew to the people on this site was complete garbage. Again, I really hope no one here has paid this guy. If someone is honestly up for debate with using USPTO.GOV as a source . . . I am still listening, very openly.

Here's the article I originally posted . .