No, the most disturbing part is that we were one of the satisfactory search results.
Bureaucracy 3: Oh, so now you want to be part of the SOLUTION?
A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych
Actually, even more disturbing than that is the diligence with which this person went through their results, checking out each page. That search string, even with the highest level of filtering set in Google preferences?
Does not produce b.org in the first five pages.
Huh, if we're a valid response to the creepy torture search string, Google won't let me see it, no matter how strict or loose my settings.
It mightn't have been Google, Sean.
Ah.
Now I'm worried of which strange search engine produce us as a valid result to that search string.
No, the most disturbing part is that we were one of the satisfactory search results.
That and #32. Makes me want to replace random vowels with *
I don't like it when we hit for sick shit.
Now I'm worried of which strange search engine produce us as a valid result to that search string.
MSN?
ita, you inspired me to look at my referrer logs.
Mine aren't as exciting though. I just have stuff like "tim sucks" and "why the hell was wonderfalls filmed in canada?!"
ETA: Also. A lot of Seinfeld requests.
I love referrer logs. I'm completely addicted. Backtracking the URLs to my picture sites? Hours of fun.
Okay -- checked.
If you use the teoma.com service to search on that string, it hits our links page. So they may have found some of what they were looking for.
Although there was only the one hit, we could shorten the description to NC-17. That would let any Buffista or guest interested read the content information at the other end of the link...