If it makes you feel any better (not that you really care or anything), I'd be willing to wager that there are a lot more people named Scott Keith than Christopher Robin Zimmerman. A lot of those hits are probably personal Geoshitty pages or references to other non-smarky SK's.
Hey, at least CRZ beats the hell out of Netcop. And he crushes Rick Scaia in case there was any doubt as to who the heart and soul of wrestlemaniacs was ;)
You know, that really has nothing to do with how often someone SEARCHED for something, rather, how many "hits" a particular search will get...
And "Scott Keith" is bound to get a ton on the first name basis alone... And hell, with "googlebot" roaming Wienerboard, and as much as Keith gets bashed here, how many of Scott Keith's numbers come from here?
Na- Scott wins this one by a landslide simply because of the commonality of his name.
So it is hardly definitive.
But it is damned funny.
(and damned Flea, you are going to get EVERY insect research site, every dog and cat flea infestation site... every Red Hot Chili Peppers site...)
(edited by Pool-Boy on 19.2.03 1050) Not that restraint when posting in a "public" forum isn't a good thing...
Originally posted by Pool-Boyand damned Flea, you are going to get EVERY insect research site, every dog and cat flea infestation site... every Red Hot Chili Peppers site...)
(edited by Pool-Boy on 19.2.03 1050)
every flea circus, every F. Lee Baily site, every site where the punchline is "Shall we walk, or take the dog?"
"They already have cars that you can drive, why not blenders?" "I can already write with my hands, why not my pancreas?" "They already have beef that I can eat, why not granite?"
"Darwinists sometimes find confirming evidence, just as Marxists found capitalists exploiting workers and Freudians analyzed patients who said that they wanted to murder their fathers and marry their mothers. They find further instances of microevolution, or additional examples of natural relationships, or a fossil group that might have contained an ancestor of modern mammals. What they never find is evidence that contradicts the common ancestry thesis, because to Darwinists such evidence cannot exist. The 'fact of evolution' is true by definition, and so negative information is uninteresting, and generally unpublishable."