Its easy for Google to tell if you've bought backlinks...

[sam770]

I think that in many cases, Google WILL know if the backlinks to your site are real (natural) or "artificial."
I think that artificial backlinks aren't very helpful to the site and it is also not very responsible to use them since a site can get penalized for them.

When a backlink is real it will usually get reproduced on similar sites in the same area till there will be a grid of sites related to each other, linking to you site. The more "natural grids" you have, the better the reward from Google will be. It is also important to know that in this natural way the amount of backlinks will increase gradually and not through a "backlinking explosion"

Just my 2 cents to you guys - backlinks are important but they must be created the right way....

[Clyde]

False, also you can just keep building links on a daily basis for it to look natural.

Negative SEO is impossible, otherwise people would just build "bad" links to competitors so their sites get sandboxed.

Google update their algorithm to reflect what they count as "good" links every now and then but it's almost impossible to differentiate between paid and natural links.

[sam770]

In order for backlinks to be natural you need to match 2 criteria:

a. The amount of backlinks to your site needs to grow constantly and gradually.
b. They need to be related to each other in a natural way which is something that Google's alogrithm can determine.
A person can't just pick several sites in the same area and decide that they are related to each other because Google has about 90 parameters to determine how much they truly belong to one another, based on internal linking and many other "hidden parameters"

So what you just said, match only the first criteria but not the second one and even this is if you work hard on a constant basis without taking any breaks - So that Google will not see a period with backlinks and a period with nothing.

Originally Posted by Clyde

False, also you can just keep building links on a daily basis for it to look natural.

Negative SEO is impossible, otherwise people would just build "bad" links to competitors so their sites get sandboxed.

Google update their algorithm to reflect what they count as "good" links every now and then but it's almost impossible to differentiate between paid and natural links.

[Giani]

It is true that Google will know if you buy bulk backlinks. It is better to build them manually slowly, like few everyday rather than buying 5,000 in 2 days.

.

[michalsemen]

I have an example of blogger who has been just penalized from google because of spam link building. Regarding paid links I think natural ways are always good.

[ADHD Charlie]

If Google can find paid links they hammer, but other links even from bad neighbourhoods are not normally considered. Matt Cutts said this explaining that if it were so competitors could sabotage your site. (Normally I take what Matt Cutts says with a spoonful of salt, but because he added the explanation I believe him this time.)

However Google might not count them if they are suspicious. Links that go from your own site can get you banned if they go to bad guys, as you have control as to whom you link to.

Google consider you responsible for paid links.

[Fraggler]

Sam, you will get a better response to these sorts of topics (backlinks) in the SEO sub-forum.

[onegoodman]

Originally Posted by ADHD Charlie

If Google can find paid links they hammer, but other links even from bad neighbourhoods are not normally considered. Matt Cutts said this explaining that if it were so competitors could sabotage your site. (Normally I take what Matt Cutts says with a spoonful of salt, but because he added the explanation I believe him this time.)

However Google might not count them if they are suspicious. Links that go from your own site can get you banned if they go to bad guys, as you have control as to whom you link to.

Google consider you responsible for paid links.

I agree Google can find out of you bought links when you get 5000 link on one day (as long as you don't own amazon or eBay where 1000,000 a day).

However, google will not get you penalized just because you bought some links otherwise, it would be easy to get rid of all your competitors

[John Romaine]

Originally Posted by sam770

a. The amount of backlinks to your site needs to grow constantly and gradually.

Wrong.

So when my press release is published and submitted and I receieve over 15,000 backlinks in less than 72 hours I should be penalised?

Originally Posted by sam770

b. They need to be related to each other in a natural way which is something that Google's alogrithm can determine.

My own personal experiences have proven otherwise. Backlinks are backlinks regardless of where they come from. Im pretty sure the guys over at BLF have busted this myth also.

[John Romaine]

Originally Posted by Clyde

Negative SEO is impossible, otherwise people would just build "bad" links to competitors so their sites get sandboxed.

Absolutely, I agree.

[Greg guitar]

I think like in a lot of areas, moderation is the key. I bought about 460 links for a video I'd just posted about 2 months ago, and without doing anything else, it ranked page 1 in less than six hours, and has stayed there for 2 months, and now ranks page 2 for a variation.

I haven't done anything since buying that 1 package on day 1. Maybe I'll be punished, but for now, I'm being rewarded.

[david carr]

Originally Posted by Clyde

Negative SEO is impossible, otherwise people would just build "bad" links to competitors so their sites get sandboxed.

I respectfully disagree with your statement above, you can use backlinks as a weapon:

Regards
Dave

[BIG Mike]

Sam, no offense brother, but it's this kind of misguided information that confuses everyone - don't parrot what you've read elsewhere without understanding it first.

Originally Posted by sam770

In order for backlinks to be natural you need to match 2 criteria:

a. The amount of backlinks to your site needs to grow constantly and gradually.

No. No. No.

A gradual accumulation of back links is not "Natural" by any means. From experience with testing backlinks, I can say emphatically that Google doesn't care if you get one or a million all at once.

Years ago, this was a known flag, before Google's algos matured with more sophisticated technology.

Google cannot tell the difference unless the links are coming from what they consider "Bad Neighborhoods", i.e., link farms, known link aggregators (those that charge), etc.

b. They need to be related to each other in a natural way which is something that Google's alogrithm can determine.
A person can't just pick several sites in the same area and decide that they are related to each other because Google has about 90 parameters to determine how much they truly belong to one another, based on internal linking and many other "hidden parameters"

So what you just said, match only the first criteria but not the second one and even this is if you work hard on a constant basis without taking any breaks - So that Google will not see a period with backlinks and a period with nothing.

Yes and no - The best "Link Juice" is gained from related topics. Unless you're a linguistics genius, the "Relationship" between links and anchor text for a given site is based on LSA/I. This is their vector-based algo that in overly simplistic terms looks for relevance based on overall context.

For example, the WF, like most forums, is unrelated to the majority of sites people link to in their sigs on a topic level. Yet, Google includes backlinks from it, regardless.

And you failed to mention any outbound links to related sites, which is also important on an authority level.

Regardless, Google doesn't exactly know for certain a link is artificial or natural as you put it. They can identify when a link is from a bad place, but Google doesn't know if a bot created it, a paid person like a VA or linking service or you did it yourself.

[John Romaine]

Originally Posted by david carr

I respectfully disagree with your statement above, you can use backlinks as a weapon:

Regards
Dave

What exactly does this prove/disprove?

Your graph doesnt tell us anything.

[eubertmo]

Originally Posted by david carr

I respectfully disagree with your statement above, you can use backlinks as a weapon:

Regards
Dave

Oh, this makes SEO even dirtier!

[trytolearnmore]

If that were true, almost all SEO services here on WF would run out of business

[sam770]

No, I am NOT wrong,
If you don't have backlinks at all (for a specific site) or you do have backlinks in a growing pace of a few backlinks a day and then within 1-2 days you get 15 000 backlinks it can definitely raise a red flag.

Also the other thing you said is not true, backlinks from areas that are not relevant are not so effective in the good case and can even harm a website in the worst case!

Originally Posted by ramone_johnny

Wrong.

So when my press release is published and submitted and I receieve over 15,000 backlinks in less than 72 hours I should be penalised?




My own personal experiences have proven otherwise. Backlinks are backlinks regardless of where they come from. Im pretty sure the guys over at BLF have busted this myth also.

[sam770]

Hi Mike,
With all respect I must disagree with you,
According to my experience (over 9 years) a massive amount of backlinks in a very short time can definitely raise a red flag.
Believe me, I have several powerful tools that I can use to create REALLY big amounts of backlinks in a very short time, if it was good for my business I wouldn't think twice and do it. I am not doing so because of the reasons I mentioned in this thread.

Originally Posted by BIG Mike

Sam, no offense brother, but it's this kind of misguided information that confuses everyone - don't parrot what you've read elsewhere without understanding it first.



No. No. No.

A gradual accumulation of back links is not "Natural" by any means. From experience with testing backlinks, I can say emphatically that Google doesn't care if you get one or a million all at once.

Years ago, this was a known flag, before Google's algos matured with more sophisticated technology.

Google cannot tell the difference unless the links are coming from what they consider "Bad Neighborhoods", i.e., link farms, known link aggregators (those that charge), etc.



Yes and no - The best "Link Juice" is gained from related topics. Unless you're a linguistics genius, the "Relationship" between links and anchor text for a given site is based on LSA/I. This is their vector-based algo that in overly simplistic terms looks for relevance based on overall context.

For example, the WF, like most forums, is unrelated to the majority of sites people link to in their sigs on a topic level. Yet, Google includes backlinks from it, regardless.

And you failed to mention any outbound links to related sites, which is also important on an authority level.

Regardless, Google doesn't exactly know for certain a link is artificial or natural as you put it. They can identify when a link is from a bad place, but Google doesn't know if a bot created it, a paid person like a VA or linking service or you did it yourself.

[mattlaclear]

How do you explain the success of all the backlink vendors here on the forum? You're telling us Warriors keep buying services that don't work???

You just indirectly called thousands of Warriors here on the forum ignorant.

[Danny Cutts]

negative SEO , that's quite funny!

if that was true, would you spend more time doing good SEO on your website or would you spend the time trying to damage your competition?

With SEO . Just remember make sure you build sites for the user. No one else!!!

However, there are ways in which you can do both. :-)

[mattlaclear]

Originally Posted by sam770

Hi Mike,
With all respect I must disagree with you,
According to my experience (over 9 years) a massive amount of backlinks in a very short time can definitely raise a red flag.
Believe me, I have several powerful tools that I can use to create REALLY big amounts of backlinks in a very short time, if it was good for my business I wouldn't think twice and do it. I am not doing so because of the reasons I mentioned in this thread.

Another post from a link bait writer slamming backlinking services. I guess the only thing to do is compare the number of testimonials you have gathered in your 9 years of experience. Surely you must have thousands of them. Then you can check out the testimonials of the backling vendors here on the forum.

Should be fairly easy litmus test to implement to see if backlinking is really indeed ineffective.

Game?

[savvybizbuilder]

It is obvious natural backlinks has more quality than artificial or from automated. But most of SEO nowadays are using software to build links. One should utilize both (manual & automated) in building backlinks.

[John Romaine]

Originally Posted by sam770

No, I am NOT wrong

Yes you are.

[sam770]

Trust me, I am not

Originally Posted by ramone_johnny

Yes you are.

[John Moore]

I think way too many people are way too paranoid about what google does, do you really think a multi billion dollar company is worried about what a little ole warrior does? Oh that, and 20 million other websites with products/services online, pretty sure they aren't combing over everyone's link profiles looking for anomalies. Like I said before I don't think google has an issue with created links so long as they're embedded in unique quality content, as they always want more to categorize for the end user. It's link farms they have an issue with and why things like profile links don't work as well, no surrounding content. Play the game right and you can do very well.

[david carr]

Originally Posted by ramone_johnny

What exactly does this prove/disprove?

Your graph doesnt tell us anything.

Funny how the person under your comment got it straight away.

It is a graph from the Market Samurai rank tracker, I think it is pretty self explanatory.

"Negative SEO is impossible, otherwise people would just build "bad" links to competitors so their sites get sandboxed."

So I respectfully proved to them it is not impossible.

Regards
Dave

[mattlaclear]

Originally Posted by sam770

Trust me, I am not

So then you have the testimonials to prove that link baiting is more effective than purchasing backlinks?

[John Romaine]

Originally Posted by david carr

Funny how the person under your comment got it straight away.

It is a graph from the Market Samurai rank tracker, I think it is pretty self explanatory.

"Negative SEO is impossible, otherwise people would just build "bad" links to competitors so their sites get sandboxed."

So I respectfully proved to them it is not impossible.

Regards
Dave

Whats funny about it?

I see two squiggly lines, nothing else.

It doesnt tell me...

1. Whos sites they are
2. What sites they are
3. What changes were done to those two sites
5. A million other factors that could have contributed towards the downward trend

I can throw together a quick screenshot in Market Samurai here too, but it doesnt exactly say much with a few squiggles and some MS Paint effects.

PS - And because they commented "Oh, this makes SEO even dirtier!" means they "got it" ????

[MoreTricks]

guest blogging ,commenting and forum posting are the easy way to get backlinks .Do it and get pagerank high.I got page rank 2

[John Romaine]

Originally Posted by sam770

Trust me, I am not

I've recently sold two large database driven sites that I owned for years. Since 2004 actually. Both with over 15,000 members each.

1 site has over 24,000 pages indexed, the other, just under 6,000 pages.

If I put a link in the footer of those two sites combined alone, I can literally have 20,000+ backlinks within a matter of days.

This method is PROVEN to work, time and time again, with great results. The same goes for press releases.

Let me ask you this, (and god knows this has been discussed on here time and time again) ....if your site was picked up by a large PR company and pushed out over thousands of sites within a few hours, do you think Google is going to penalise you for this????

Absolutely not.

Then again, perhaps you need to clarify your definition of what exactly RED FLAG means???????

[david carr]

I take it you dont track your ranks with market samurai, I'm sorry I should have explained.

My Bad!

The blue is google the red is bing, the two squiggly lines show the rank, obviously the bottom one is the date, you can tell this by the dates being accross the bottom so that leaves the rank on the left and I pointed out where a scrapebox blast occured so you could see what happened after!

Hope this clears up the mis-understanding.
Regards
Dave

[KevinBolty]

Maybe in 5+ years Google will do better job recognizing natural backlinks, but now, well, after all big G is still easy to 'trick'

[John Romaine]

Originally Posted by david carr

I take it you dont track your ranks with market samurai, I'm sorry I should have explained.

My Bad!

The blue is google the red is bing, the two squiggly lines show the rank, obviously the bottom one is the date, you can tell this by the dates being accross the bottom so that leaves the rank on the left and I pointed out where a scrapebox blast occured so you could see what happened after!

Hope this clears up the mis-understanding.
Regards
Dave

No misunderstanding, as I do monitor my own rankings within MS also.

Its just that throwing up such an uninformative image to prove a point doesnt really prove anything.

Ive got plenty of MS statistical data that shows similiar downward trends. Most of them could be due to any number of things...

a) algorithm updates
b) changes to seo onsite
c) changes to seo offsite
d) competitive activity and promotion

....the list goes on.

I can say with all certainty that when I blast links out to some of my sites also that they nosedive. They do it every time. But in just about every case - they come back stronger.

Sometimes it takes hours, sometimes it takes months. It depends on so many potentially unknown contributing factors that theres no way I could say with any certainty that it was "definitely because of this".

If what you say is true, Id like to see a case study performed, in a controlled environment. Even still ....thats probably a waste of time anyway, because again, theres no real way of knowing with 100% certainty.

Suggesting that you can simply blast someones site with a few scrapebox links and have them dissapear out of the rankings, goes against what almost every SEO professional on this planet would tell you otherwise.

Just something to think about.

[Liam Hamer]

Originally Posted by david carr

I respectfully disagree with your statement above, you can use backlinks as a weapon:

Regards
Dave

Originally Posted by ramone_johnny

What exactly does this prove/disprove?

Your graph doesnt tell us anything.

Originally Posted by david carr

Funny how the person under your comment got it straight away.

It is a graph from the Market Samurai rank tracker, I think it is pretty self explanatory.

"Negative SEO is impossible, otherwise people would just build "bad" links to competitors so their sites get sandboxed."

So I respectfully proved to them it is not impossible.

Regards
Dave

Originally Posted by ramone_johnny

Whats funny about it?

I see two squiggly lines, nothing else.

It doesnt tell me...

1. Whos sites they are
2. What sites they are
3. What changes were done to those two sites
5. A million other factors that could have contributed towards the downward trend

I can throw together a quick screenshot in Market Samurai here too, but it doesnt exactly say much with a few squiggles and some MS Paint effects.

PS - And because they commented "Oh, this makes SEO even dirtier!" means they "got it" ????

From what I can understand, the downward trend started as a result of a Scrapebox blast - i.e blasting thousands of blog comments or similar. I know, because a similar thing happened to one of my sites recently I stupidly(had never had anything to do with Scrapebox/Xrumer services before) ordered a Scrapebox blast on Fiverr and the seller ended up blasting more than double the amount of links that I wanted. The following day, my site dropped like a stone for EVERY keyword he blasted.

That was towards the end of July, and still my site is way down at the bottom of the listings for those keywords. I'm hoping it's just a really long Google Dance. Time will tell. My site is still indexed, and actually ranks in the top 10 for one of the keywords that WASN'T blasted. I have kept building quality/varied links for it and have ordered a link building WSO(nothing to do with Scrapebox this time!) to hopefully help get it back up again.

Generally speaking, I don't think there is anything wrong with buying links, as long as they are good quality - but buy massive amounts of 'blasts' with Scrapebox and the like, and you could well be drawing some negative attention to your sites from Google.

This is a very interesting, ongoing thread about this subject - and this guy makes some very good points in my opinion.

http://www.warriorforum.com/adsense-...deindexed.html

[lordkensal]

Now I am just terrible confused! Ultimately I guess that the levels I work, getting just a few back links a day will fly any "Google radar". Has anyone had success buying Paul's and Angela's links (i.e. from oDesk)?

[david carr]

Originally Posted by ramone_johnny

Suggesting that you can simply blast someones site with a few scrapebox links and have them dissapear out of the rankings, goes against what almost every SEO professional on this planet would tell you otherwise.

Just something to think about.

I'm not interested in what other people say, If I did that then I would never have got into IM in the first place because obviously everything is a scam.

I've tested it and the results are shown in the image I posted.

You can build links to effect someones rankings in a bad way.

Regards
Dave

[Newbieee]

Originally Posted by Clyde

False, also you can just keep building links on a daily basis for it to look natural.

Negative SEO is impossible, otherwise people would just build "bad" links to competitors so their sites get sandboxed.

Google update their algorithm to reflect what they count as "good" links every now and then but it's almost impossible to differentiate between paid and natural links.

yup i ever tot about that logic and i agree.

[MikeFriedman]

Originally Posted by mattlaclear

So then you have the testimonials to prove that link baiting is more effective than purchasing backlinks?

Testimonials do not prove which is more effective.

Both can be very effective for rankings.

The number of testimonials a product has is a poor barometer of its effectiveness. Testimonials can be bought, faked, and misleading.

There was a product a few years ago called The PC Edge. It had fantastic "testimonials" from customers. I know someone that bought $40,000 worth of their stock based on those testimonials, even though I advised him not to and told him cellphones were evolving in a way that would make it obsolete in less than a year. Their stuck plummeted to about $0.03. He lost it all.

If I were to believe testimonials, I would think that HydroxyCut is a great and healthy way to lose weight.

If I listened to people's testimonials, I would be convinced that Coors Light was a good beer.

[dcristo]

Originally Posted by ramone_johnny

I've recently sold two large database driven sites that I owned for years. Since 2004 actually. Both with over 15,000 members each.

1 site has over 24,000 pages indexed, the other, just under 6,000 pages.

If I put a link in the footer of those two sites combined alone, I can literally have 20,000+ backlinks within a matter of days.

This method is PROVEN to work, time and time again, with great results. The same goes for press releases.

Let me ask you this, (and god knows this has been discussed on here time and time again) ....if your site was picked up by a large PR company and pushed out over thousands of sites within a few hours, do you think Google is going to penalise you for this????

Absolutely not.

Then again, perhaps you need to clarify your definition of what exactly RED FLAG means???????

That doesn't really disprove what he said.

Sitewide links don't count as individual links. So if you have a footer link on a 6,000 page site, its not the same as having a single link on 6,000 different sites.

Also what you said about getting syndicated on PR sites doesn't prove much either, since these outlets are respected sites, which can't be said when you blast links on a ton of spammy sites etc.

[mattlaclear]

Originally Posted by MikeFriedman

Testimonials do not prove which is more effective.

Both can be very effective for rankings.

The number of testimonials a product has is a poor barometer of its effectiveness. Testimonials can be bought, faked, and misleading.

There was a product a few years ago called The PC Edge. It had fantastic "testimonials" from customers. I know someone that bought $40,000 worth of their stock based on those testimonials, even though I advised him not to and told him cellphones were evolving in a way that would make it obsolete in less than a year. Their stuck plummeted to about $0.03. He lost it all.

If I were to believe testimonials, I would think that HydroxyCut is a great and healthy way to lose weight.

If I listened to people's testimonials, I would be convinced that Coors Light was a good beer.

So if someone tells you I bought this widget and it worked you wouldn't believe them? What if 500 people told you the same thing? A 1000?

My point is there are enough vendors here selling links that we know by now whether backlinking to a site helps it or hurts it.

[mattlaclear]

I see OP has enlisted the help of Matt Cutts on this topic. Anyone else see the the title to the thread change?

[sovon]

Google ranking is a very important for SEO market. So need to carry on your web site to top in google rank.
Many of affiliate marketers use the Google PageRank as a reliable source to measure the popularity of the website. But many of them, in fact, many of internet users do not know how Google PageRank is actually evolved and what the notion behind it is. Ten years ago, the ranking was not the same as that of today, they were quite predictable. The search algorithm was more manually-driven than programmatically and so the search results from Google often showed the same websites over longer period of time. As a result of this, users were dependent on Google more as a site browsing tool. This is one of the facts about Google PageRanking

[mattlaclear]

Looks like OP just changed the thread title back again. I guess Matt Cutts wasn't as good of a witness as he hoped.

[MikeFriedman]

Originally Posted by mattlaclear

So if someone tells you I bought this widget and it worked you wouldn't believe them? What if 500 people told you the same thing? A 1000?

My point is there are enough vendors here selling links that we know by now whether backlinking to a site helps it or hurts it.

People who I knew and trusted, yes absolutely I would believe them.

A bunch of random people on a message forum... not so much.

I'm not saying that the backlink service providers are offering a bad service.

My point was just that if you want to compare buying backlinks versus link baiting, the number of testimonials one has versus the other is hardly a good way to show which is more effective.

[tagged]

I think google will notice it. cause google is very particular of the nature of the backlinks.

[guzpra]

whoa! really interesting discussion and debate.. but I think I'm gonna try the method mentioned above such as purchasing links etc...

[mattlaclear]

Originally Posted by MikeFriedman

People who I knew and trusted, yes absolutely I would believe them.

A bunch of random people on a message forum... not so much.

I'm not saying that the backlink service providers are offering a bad service.

My point was just that if you want to compare buying backlinks versus link baiting, the number of testimonials one has versus the other is hardly a good way to show which is more effective.

I respectfully disagree with you of course. Google ranks sites according to social proof. The more sites that link to a site the better chance that site is relevant to their serps product. Pretty safe system really. In the same way the more testimonials one method has over the other would tell me everything I needed to know about which method was more effective.

[paulgl]

Originally Posted by mattlaclear

The more sites that link to a site the better chance that site is relevant to their serps product. Pretty safe system really.

LOL! That's so friggin' true, it's funny! Google has a dang safe system!
You wouldn't know it by all the BS people do and spout off. Look at
the worriers, the google haters, the google fear mongers!!! The people
who have been banned, dropped, penalized, de-indexed! You'd think
google is unsafe!

99% of the people use google just fine and have no fear. In fact, they
have no clue they should fear google! The other 1% are here at the WF.

How does the all-knowing google know a paid link? Why is
it such a myth that google hates paid links? Their whole
empire is based on paid links.

Problem is, people take what google says and does
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of context. They only
quote half.

I make more money off of paid links, and more adsense money on
the sites I have MORE paid links! Many of these sites carry
authority, appear in google instant, get bread crumbs, etc.

Go figure.

Why would google hate and care if you bought links? They
friggin' sell links!

So, they would love it if you got 100,000 spammed links, but
hate it if you bought 10 fantastic links? And their crack staff
could tell that those links were bought?

Get logical people.

Oh but here's a big tip. Don't offer any WSO that links to
any page you care about. You know. Those pages are
doomed. Paid links dontcha know.

Paul

[Talen]

Originally Posted by sam770

No, I am NOT wrong,
If you don't have backlinks at all (for a specific site) or you do have backlinks in a growing pace of a few backlinks a day and then within 1-2 days you get 15 000 backlinks it can definitely raise a red flag.

Also the other thing you said is not true, backlinks from areas that are not relevant are not so effective in the good case and can even harm a website in the worst case!

And your proof of this is?

[paulgl]

Originally Posted by Talen

And your proof of this is?

The so-called "proof" is actually opposite, as you well know.
That's why people fill this forum with sig links. Mostly unrelated.
And I can guarantee that a link here has authority like not
many other forums. A sig link here matters, niche irrelevant.

Funny how empires like go.com, zap2it, failblog, etc., use their
unrelated sites to hook up is quite telling.

If you got 100,000 great links, google would love it. It's
called going viral.

But just because google also loves freshness, people mistake
cause and effect.

I can see it now. The people who believe this stuff had better
start putting caveats on their websites:please don't link
to me! I don't want a lot of links fast, and I don't want to get
links from non-related sites! Please don't harm me!

When the veil of lunacy is stripped away, reality is left. But,
no wise man can reason away what a fool believes.

Paul