ClickThroughTraffic.com

[Owen]

I had an entertaining conversation with ClickThroughTraffic.com. I had a bad experience with them in the past (very low CTR rate) but I decided to test them out again. I started out with a polite inquiry but got a rude response so I wrote back a irritated message--after all they just implicitly accused my of lying and/or trying to cheat them.

Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 09:53:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: Owen Prater <owen@op-design.com>
To: "ron@standardinternet.com" <ron@standardinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Stats not being tracked?
Parts/Attachments:
1 Shown 61 lines Text
2 OK ~3.3 KB Text, ""
----------------------------------------

Sure, I did a grep on my log file and have attached it for you. I track
each click for cases such as this. (Please feel free to go to
http://www.buddy4u.com/go.php?movies and verify for yourself that the link
works.) Today I do have no clicks since I stopped running it until I see
if there is a problem. However, if I have the code wrong (which is why I
emailed you in the first place) I would appreciate knowing what is wrong.

Owen

On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, ron@standardinternet.com wrote:

> Actually, I DO want the list of ips. according to our stats, you don't have
> a single click today either. Sorry, if your site is so lightly visited and
> you links so missleading that the 1 or 2 surfers you have don't click thru,
> there is no way you belong sending us traffic. You're site is unattractive
> and not interesting to most internet users and has nothing to do with the
> "movies" link you used.
> You need some lessons on how to make money on the net.
> Ron
>
> [Me--sent to him and sales@ to try to make their cust serv aware that I got a bad response]
> >Actually not a single click was mine (Do you want a list of the IPs?). And
> >today still according to your stats I don't have a single click through.
> >Sorry, but if you pages are so unattractive that I don't even get one
> >clickthrough registered out of 20 sent to your site, there's no way I
> >could possibly consider to continue using your service. That's at most
> >$0.003 per click if the 21st person clicks through.
> >
> >The click page is unattractive and not inductive for clickthroughs. Plus,
> >your customer service needs some lessons on how to be polite to their
> >customers.
> >
> >Owen
> >
> >On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, ron@standardinternet.com wrote:
> >
> >> We pay when a surfer clicks ANY link on OUR page. We do NOT pay just to
> >> have the link on your site clicked.
> >> Also, as I'm sure all 20 clicks were yours, don't bother test clicking
> >> today. we have a 12 hour unique.
> >> Ron\
> >>
> >> [My original email]
> >> >Hello,
> >> >
> >> >For account pbbt, I'm using the URL
> >> >http://clickthrutraffic.com/scripts/...pbbt&si=movies
> >> >
> >> >and sent exactly 20 clicks in the last 24 hours or so but none have shown
> >> >up on the stats page. Is there a delay or a problem somewhere? I'm not
> >> >using them on pbbt.com (but on buddy4u.com). Is that okay? (Or is it
> >> >against the contract?)
> >> >
> >> >Thanks,
> >> >Owen
> >>

Then after I sent them a grep from my log file showing 20 valid and different IP address clicking through:

Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 12:57:41 -0400
From: "ron@standardinternet.com" <ron@standardinternet.com>
To: Owen Prater <owen@op-design.com>
Subject: Re: Stats not being tracked?

we stopped doing business together about 10 minutes ago.
Ron

Any opinions on this?

[Edit: added some comments to make it more clear what I said]

Owen

[Silverado4x4]

I know many people who have been kicked out of their program and accused of cheating, so it doesn't really surprise me...

I would suggest to use profitable, honest, and friendly programs and stay away from companies like this.

[ceo]

I've been on the other hand serviced well recently.
Matter of fact, I got really no response from customer service // emails around a year ago on many occasions.

I contacted him through a PM at GV forums and he responded very well and helped me get my payment as well as co-operated on other questions.

Complaints of non-payments are many, but these guys are on top regarding cheating & anti-fraud so imho it's an analagy to Paypal.
I am alarmed however, that Ron spoke in the manner above.
Nothing tooooo bad, but unprofessional sure.
Maybe there's more to it.

[Owen]

It's possible there was something else going on. But the fact remains that I sent valid real users to their site. I can even post the IP log (since I send the users through a tracking program) if anyone is interested. It's rather irrefutable (that I wasn't loading their site over and over). Now I will admit that it is possible that I used the wrong code (which is why I emailed in the first place), but they certainly shouldn't accuse my of lying, ESPECIALLY sence I sent an email containg the server tracking logs.

Owen

[ceo]

As Silverado4x4 adviced, stay away frm them..... This is the best thing for you to do it seems.

But for those that are 1st timers, give them a try for sure...
Just don't let your account go to 100's of $ before re-verifying whether everthing is smooth or not ; )

[Standard Internet Ron]

Owen, just one hole in your one sided story.

you NEVER supplied a grep from your log file showing 20 valid and different IPs. If you had, it would have been attached to the email you copied here.
You didn't because you couldn't.

I told you not to click your links again because you DID click your link 20 times.
I did this to save you the trouble of clicking your link a 21st time, then clicking thru, having it not be unique because of your previous clicking, and you sending me another email advising me that the stats STILL don't work.
Now, I'm sure it comes as a slap in the face to have someone know EXACTLY what you're doing, but to then write this:

> >Actually not a single click was mine (Do you want a list of the IPs?). And
> >today still according to your stats I don't have a single click through.
> >Sorry, but if you pages are so unattractive that I don't even get one
> >clickthrough registered out of 20 sent to your site, there's no way I
> >could possibly consider to continue using your service. That's at most
> >$0.003 per click if the 21st person clicks through.
> >
> >The click page is unattractive and not inductive for clickthroughs. Plus,
> >your customer service needs some lessons on how to be polite to their
> >customers.
> >
> >Owen

deserves a mimicked response of this:

> Actually, I DO want the list of ips. according to our stats, you don't have
> a single click today either. Sorry, if your site is so lightly visited and
> you links so missleading that the 1 or 2 surfers you have don't click thru,
> there is no way you belong sending us traffic. You're site is unattractive
> and not interesting to most internet users and has nothing to do with the
> "movies" link you used.
> You need some lessons on how to make money on the net.
> Ron

now after that, I recieved another smart assed email, cancelled his account (which cost him a total of $0.00), and informed him of it.


take it for what its worth. I can't spend all day on a guy clicking his own links to make money.

[ceo]

The other side of the story !
And if Owen cannot show his IP's then we know the facts.

But heck, I don't understand, just showing a list of IP's justifies nothing isn't it !

Best wishes to both parties.
But Ron doesn't need it.
He's a multi-millionare by now ; )

[JonPKibble]

Yup and I bet he became one by scamming others.

[Owen]

I'm putting .xxx at the end of each IP address to protect the privacy of the user.

64.0.99.xxx - - [19/Aug/2002:16:26:10 -0700] "GET /go.php?movies HTTP/1.1" 302 5 "http://www.buddy4u.com/view/?x=safe&u=BiG+PoPPa" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows 98)"
64.12.105.xxx - - [19/Aug/2002:16:44:58 -0700] "GET /go.php?movies HTTP/1.0" 302 0 "http://www.buddy4u.com/view/guestbook.php?u=laccceey" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; AOL 7.0; Windows 98)"
146.145.123.xxx - - [19/Aug/2002:17:32:50 -0700] "GET /go.php?movies HTTP/1.1" 302 5 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98; Win 9x 4.90)"
67.37.138.xxx - - [19/Aug/2002:17:53:29 -0700] "GET /go.php?movies HTTP/1.1" 302 5 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows 98; yplus 1.0)"
66.214.53.xxx - - [19/Aug/2002:18:48:57 -0700] "GET /go.php?movies HTTP/1.1" 302 5 "http://www.buddy4u.com/view/?x=safe&u=Sk8bordisnocrime" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98; NetCaptor 7.0 RC2)"
162.39.4.xxx - - [19/Aug/2002:19:07:26 -0700] "GET /go.php?movies HTTP/1.1" 302 5 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; MSN 2.5; Windows 98)"
64.123.159.xxx - - [19/Aug/2002:19:13:17 -0700] "GET /go.php?movies HTTP/1.1" 302 5 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1)"
68.5.31.xxx - - [19/Aug/2002:19:33:39 -0700] "GET /go.php?movies HTTP/1.1" 302 5 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.01; Windows 98)"
68.5.31.xxx - - [19/Aug/2002:19:33:49 -0700] "GET /go.php?movies HTTP/1.1" 302 5 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.01; Windows 98)"
172.138.239.xxx - - [19/Aug/2002:19:46:42 -0700] "GET /go.php?movies HTTP/1.1" 302 5 "http://www.buddy4u.com/view/?u=hellsangel979" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1)"
24.50.89.xxx - - [19/Aug/2002:20:29:05 -0700] "GET /go.php?movies HTTP/1.0" 302 0 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.01; Windows 98)"
12.213.27.xxx - - [19/Aug/2002:20:37:07 -0700] "GET /go.php?movies HTTP/1.1" 302 5 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1)"
68.65.110.xxx - - [19/Aug/2002:21:33:14 -0700] "GET /go.php?movies HTTP/1.1" 302 5 "http://www.buddy4u.com/view/quote.php?u=Ashes0601" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98; Win 9x 4.90; T312461)"
162.39.4.xxx - - [19/Aug/2002:21:43:08 -0700] "GET /go.php?movies HTTP/1.1" 302 5 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; MSN 2.5; Windows 98)"
24.130.62.xxx - - [19/Aug/2002:22:21:09 -0700] "GET /go.php?movies HTTP/1.1" 302 5 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.0.3705)"
207.214.211.xxx - - [19/Aug/2002:22:21:17 -0700] "GET /go.php?movies HTTP/1.1" 302 5 "http://www.buddy4u.com/view/quote.php?u=Tinuviel&v=50" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98; H010818; Q312461)"
64.12.106.xxx - - [19/Aug/2002:23:21:23 -0700] "GET /go.php?movies HTTP/1.0" 302 0 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; AOL 4.0; Windows 98; Compaq)"
66.176.162.xxx - - [20/Aug/2002:02:23:38 -0700] "GET /go.php?movies HTTP/1.1" 302 5 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows 98; Win 9x 4.90)"
152.163.206.xxx - - [20/Aug/2002:04:40:59 -0700] "GET /go.php?movies HTTP/1.0" 302 0 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; AOL 4.0; Mac_PPC)"
172.171.161.xxx - - [20/Aug/2002:09:31:01 -0700] "GET /go.php?movies HTTP/1.1" 302 5 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows 98)"

If I forgot to attach the file instead of chewing me out, why didn't you say "You forgot to attach the file?"

Owen

[Owen]

And here's the IP addresses of people who have clicked on it since I took it down (ie clicked on the email in the posting here--see if you can find your own IP!)

216.188.76.xx - - [21/Aug/2002:09:50:33 -0700] "GET /go.php?movies HTTP/1.1" 302 5 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0)"
81.5.133.xxx - - [21/Aug/2002:11:28:53 -0700] "GET /go.php?movies HTTP/1.1" 302 5 "http://www.humorweb.net/cgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?s=3d63d45878f1ffff;act=ST;f=7;t=396" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98; Q312461)"
67.113.197.xxx - - [21/Aug/2002:13:35:26 -0700] "GET /go.php?movies HTTP/1.1" 302 5 "http://www.sitepointforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=73249" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows 98; T312461)"
151.197.250.xxx - - [21/Aug/2002:13:41:39 -0700] "GET /go.php?movies HTTP/1.1" 302 5 "http://www.humorweb.net/cgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?s=3d63f9231c58ffff;act=ST;f=7;t=396" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows 98; DigExt; sureseeker.com)"
66.32.77.xxx - - [21/Aug/2002:14:30:02 -0700] "GET /go.php?movies HTTP/1.1" 302 5 "http://www.sitepointforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=73249" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; Q312461; (R1 1.1))"
212.129.203.xxx - - [21/Aug/2002:16:01:57 -0700] "GET /go.php?movies HTTP/1.1" 302 5 "http://www.sitepointforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=73249" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; 1.21.2 )"
212.129.203.xxx - - [21/Aug/2002:16:03:29 -0700] "GET /go.php?movies HTTP/1.1" 302 5 "http://www.sitepointforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=73249" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; 1.21.2 )"
195.92.168.xxx - - [21/Aug/2002:18:59:44 -0700] "GET /go.php?movies HTTP/1.1" 302 5 "http://www.humorweb.net/cgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?s=3d643484536dffff;act=ST;f=7;t=396" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows 98)"
24.80.49.xxx - - [21/Aug/2002:20:37:54 -0700] "GET /go.php?movies HTTP/1.1" 302 5 "http://www.sitepointforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=73249" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
141.156.140.xxx - - [23/Aug/2002:10:59:39 -0700] "GET /go.php?movies HTTP/1.0" 302 0 "http://www.sitepointforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=73249" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; Q312461)"


Owen

[Owen]

Oh, and the link redirects to: http://clickthrutraffic.com/scripts/click.php?aff=pbbt&si=movies

Again, why don't you check your logs for the 10 people from this forum who clicked on the links? Or were they trying to help me scam you?

BTW, My email out box has the attachment as well as the message posted here (See my message at top: "Parts/Attachments: 1 Shown 61 lines Text 2 OK ~3.3 KB Text, """) But hey, maybe your virus filter filters out .txt files or my email program was broken. It's possible.

Owen

[ceo]

JonPKibble - Harsh one, but as I said, a lot of people have complaints against 'em.
I was tired too for a while, but luckily for me they just had to view my account to say 'here's your money'

Owen, that's good.... and I was going to say but you should have emailed that to him during the exchanges you were having.... but I guess you did.

Well, this should not drag for long ; ) unless it's allowed on the boards, but a quick reply & re-reply will not harm us spectators to the issue....
Maybe something to learn ?

[aspen]

Logs can be altered.

I suggest moving on.

Companies that are not honest and try to cheat members do not last.

Members who are not honest and try to cheat companies eventually give up.

So they did or did not rip you off for 20 clicks? Whats that? $2.00? Now you can advise against using them whenever someone asks.

Companies would be smart to get on the good side of frequent posters here. Take hosting for example, if someone asks for "Which host to use" which happens on a daily basis, if one host here is liked or recommended these forums alone could generate an additional customer every day. On the other hand if one host is not liked by a member that host could be assured of never getting a referral from these forums.

Word of mouth and public opinion are powerful. So if they did rip you off if you remember to chime in if someone asks about them then eventually you'll take more money from them than they ever took from you.

[Standard Internet Ron]

Originally posted by aspen
Logs can be altered.

or just plain made up.

Originally posted by aspen
I suggest moving on.

good idea

Originally posted by aspen
Companies that are not honest and try to cheat members do not last.

Exeactly, thats why we've been doing business on the net since '96

Originally posted by aspen

Members who are not honest and try to cheat companies eventually give up.

Not always. John kibble is still around. Of course, maybe he learned his lesson about advertising on marijuana sites.

Originally posted by aspen

So they did or did not rip you off for 20 clicks? Whats that? $2.00? Now you can advise against using them whenever someone asks.

No, he sent traffic to a second page click program. He was owed 0.00
He's complaining because he feels cheated out of 0.00
Kinda puts in in perspective doesn't it?

Originally posted by aspen
Companies would be smart to get on the good side of frequent posters here.

No, idiots can post just as frequently as smart, infrequent posters .

Originally posted by aspen
Take hosting for example, if someone asks for "Which host to use" which happens on a daily basis, if one host here is liked or recommended these forums alone could generate an additional customer every day. On the other hand if one host is not liked by a member that host could be assured of never getting a referral from these forums.

I'm not sweating a customer a day. we still have 30 to 50k webmasters in our programs. We treat them well. They don't post here because they are busy making money.

Originally posted by aspen

Word of mouth and public opinion are powerful. So if they did rip you off if you remember to chime in if someone asks about them then eventually you'll take more money from them than they ever took from you.

This works when you're a webmaster of note. When you're just some kid complaining because you cheated him out of 0.00, its like shouting at the ocean.

[D4M00S3]

lmao, what an interesting thread. and im sorry but if you are going to complain and winge about a company then please do it when they really are wrong or so you can proove it.

[Owen]

Well it's impossible for me to prove isn't it? It's also impossible for him to prove, isn't it? It's my word vs his word. I know that I sent him valid traffic. I'm 100% sure. I have unmodified server logs to prove it. Once again, you (the people reading this thread) have to trust me.

Ron: unfortunately this kind of behavior, has potentially cost you more than just my business. Now when anyone comes to SitePoint and does a search for your company name, they'll see this thread and potentially have second thoughts. As they say, bad news spreads faster than good news.

Second, since I believe that you incorrectly recorded my visitor's clicks, that would mean that I believe you owe me more than $0.00 doesn't it? Third, it's not the fact that you booted me from your service (I don't really care, it happens) but the response you gave me. You accused me of cheating. You could have been polite and reasonable about it. You weren't. Therefore I complained. My first email was perfectly polite. Only after you insulted me did I write a nasty email back. People should know about how you treat your customers and take that into account before doing business with you.

Owen

[fonzerelli_79]

there are always going to be problems of this sort between affiliate companies and affiliates

i had a really bad experience with CJ. I siged up for a merchant account around a year and a half ago and 2 days after i paid over a grand they introduced the minimum payment thing - i couldnt afford this and asked for a refund but they took more than 2 months to give me it back

but i havent let that spoil my opinion of them as they have paid on time every time ever since(touchwood) - well actually saying that my latest payment hasnt been paid and they havent replied to an email i sent around 4 days ago but ill see what happens

anyhoo, back to topic

affiliate companies get a lot of spammers - expecially standard internet due to them paying by click, this sort of spamming is why CJ and most other large affiliate companies stopped using pay per click. So they have to watch out for people abusing their system

On the other side of the coin, affiliates can get ripped off too and affiliates have very little rights when it comes to problems with payments

im not saying either party is right here - all im saying is that there are 2 sides to every story

I'm not sweating a customer a day. we still have 30 to 50k webmasters in our programs. We treat them well. They don't post here because they are busy making money.

in my opinion that standard internet programs are quite good, especially the ability to get one check from different accounts, though i have to disagree with you here Ron

Sitepoint is, with good reason, one of the most respected webmaster communities on the web and you will probably find a lot of your webmasters do or have posted here in the past- infact id say that the majority of webmasters post here or in similar webmaster forums to keep up to date with whats happening etc in web development

[fonzerelli_79]

i would like to point out that after i made my post there someone spammed my forum

i have a review section of my site where people can give reviews of sites

owen - if you made this post http://www.affiliate-talk.com/showth...id=134#post134

No hard feelings though i think that this is not the way to go about things - if you read the rules of my forum you will see that i dont want posts of this sort in this room. I made this the only room on the forum where visitors can post but have decided against this due to posts of this nature being possible.

in my opinion posts of this nature can be counter productive and make people take the other persons side of view

if it is not you then i apologise

[Owen]

No, I didn't do that (but if I had thought of it I probably would ). But I like your site--good luck with it!

Owen

[fonzerelli_79]

well please accept my aplogies mate
it sort of looked like your work since you were the one who was a little peeved

and thanks for the comments

[JonPKibble]

Ron,

I have not cheated, neither do I advertise on marijuana sites, and neither do I advertise marijuana.

Jon

[Standard Internet Ron]

Originally posted by JonPKibble
Ron,

I have not cheated, neither do I advertise on marijuana sites, and neither do I advertise marijuana.

Jon

well jon, I don't scam people either.

I've got emails with your name on them so lets not go inventing anything.

[Standard Internet Ron]

Originally posted by Owen
Well it's impossible for me to prove isn't it? It's also impossible for him to prove, isn't it? It's my word vs his word. I know that I sent him valid traffic. I'm 100% sure. I have unmodified server logs to prove it. Once again, you (the people reading this thread) have to trust me.

you have to trust him because he has no proof.
Owen, do you even understand what "unique" or "second page" means?
If we discount completely the fact that you clicked your own link 20 times, did any link on our page get clicked?
How about you show everyone the page with the misleading link on it so we can all decide for ourselves wether, after a surfer clicks on your misleading link, he clicks thru or backs out.
how about you do that for us Mr."I've got logs"?

Originally posted by Owen
Ron: unfortunately this kind of behavior, has potentially cost you more than just my business. Now when anyone comes to SitePoint and does a search for your company name, they'll see this thread and potentially have second thoughts. As they say, bad news spreads faster than good news.

yeah, I've been hearing that for yrs. for your sake, lets hope it materializes before I retire.
People who come here to do business understand the difference between someone who's been cheated and some kid who doesn't understand what "clickthru" or "second page" means.

Originally posted by Owen

Second, since I believe that you incorrectly recorded my visitor's clicks, that would mean that I believe you owe me more than $0.00 doesn't it?

It doesn't matter what you believe.

Originally posted by Owen
Third, it's not the fact that you booted me from your service (I don't really care, it happens) but the response you gave me. You accused me of cheating. You could have been polite and reasonable about it. You weren't. Therefore I complained. My first email was perfectly polite. Only after you insulted me did I write a nasty email back.

I didn't insult you, I told you to not bother clicking your link again because you wouldn't be unique and you'd end up writing me more dopey emails about the stats not working.

Originally posted by Owen

People should know about how you treat your customers and take that into account before doing business with you.
Owen

Each customer and email gets the attention it deserves.
when someone doesn't understand the program they signed up for, its unlikely that the extra time spent holding your hand would be time well spent. get it?

[Owen]

you have to trust him because he has no proof.

Ditto. It's my word vs yours.

It doesn't matter what you believe.

Well that's a good way to treat your clients.

Owen, do you even understand what "unique" or "second page" means?

Of course! If instead of saying "you clicked on it 20 times" you had said, well we received 20 visitors but none clicked on the second link", then we wouldn't be having this conversation, now would we?


BTW, your contract includes a clause which says clients cannot say anything negative about SI or risk having their account terminated. If you have confidence in the accuracy of your program, why is that cluase there?

JohnPKibble: He sure is good at throwing around the insults, isn't he?

Owen

[Standard Internet Ron]

Originally posted by Owen

Ditto. It's my word vs yours.


Well that's a good way to treat your clients.


Of course! If instead of saying "you clicked on it 20 times" you had said, well we received 20 visitors but none clicked on the second link", then we wouldn't be having this conversation, now would we?


BTW, your contract includes a clause which says clients cannot say anything negative about SI or risk having their account terminated. If you have confidence in the accuracy of your program, why is that cluase there?

JohnPKibble: He sure is good at throwing around the insults, isn't he?

Owen

now there's an answer.
Thanks for making my points.