WhiteHouse.com for sale ? daddy is ashamed of his business? what da!?

**smoothlime** · 02-10-2004, 04:46 PM

http://www.computerworld.com/develop...,90035,00.html

so why do you guys think he's selling a 1mil / year biz ?

**smoothlime** · 02-10-2004, 04:49 PM

......but he also wants to make sure it doesn't fall into the hands of terrorists or anyone in the adult entertainment industry .....

so he doesn't want someone else to run a porn site on it? don't make sense.

**Rocket2Uranus** · 02-10-2004, 06:56 PM

some might call him a terrorist...

**NameTower** · 02-10-2004, 07:48 PM

all the "traffic" isn't worth nearly as much because it cannot be used for what it was getting the traffic for..

Not such a valuable name if it cant be used for adult since it has been used for adult since 1997.

- Jordan

**draqon** · 02-10-2004, 08:02 PM

Originally posted by MovieDomains
some might call him a terrorist...

luckily most of us are smart enough to see the difference between blowing up a bus and leading people to porn.

**Banned: PCplay** · 02-10-2004, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by NameTower
all the "traffic" isn't worth nearly as much because it cannot be used for what it was getting the traffic for..

A lot of the traffic was type-in traffic for whitehouse related information. Still very valuable.

**WebCat** · 02-10-2004, 10:39 PM

Pretty pathetically funny!

It's ok if OTHER people's 4 year olds are polluted, but not HIS kid!

What a hypocrite!

**NameTower** · 02-11-2004, 06:46 AM

NOT 2 MILLION A DAY THOUGH

sorry caps lock..

**Rocket2Uranus** · 02-11-2004, 07:15 AM

Originally posted by MovieDomains
some might call him a terrorist...

Originally posted by draqon
luckily most of us are smart enough to see the difference between blowing up a bus and leading people to porn.

Clearly, you misunderstood me...

An argument could be made that he has been holding a very valuable "national asset" hostage for all of these years. Shouldn't that domain belong to the American people?

**draqon** · 02-11-2004, 10:33 AM

i see what you're saying, and it does make sense.

**Garry Anderson** · 02-11-2004, 10:52 AM

I suppose the ccTLD's can be considered a national asset - how can a specific SLD word in a generic TLD be?

Government could have had WhiteHouse.US if they wanted it.

Indeed they use WhiteHouse.GOV and could use WhiteHouse.US.GOV etc.

I cannot understand why some want to give sole use of words to specific people - like trademark holders.

Perhaps they do not consider freedom of speech all that important.

A domain does not belong to anybody - it is first come first served.

The only exception should be when unlawful activity takes place e.g. passing off.

Sunrise period is a chance for trademark holders to overreach rights and violate competition law. They can take words that also belong to small business.

**gogeorge** · 02-11-2004, 11:54 AM

Whitehouse.us is reserved but the White House web guys don't seem to want to use it.

**dtobias** · 02-11-2004, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by MovieDomains
An argument could be made that he has been holding a very valuable "national asset" hostage for all of these years. Shouldn't that domain belong to the American people?

Why? The real White House properly has its site at whitehouse.gov, where government sites belong. Why should "the American people" have any special claim on a commercial domain that has the same string of letters in it?

**stuff** · 02-11-2004, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by MovieDomains

Clearly, you misunderstood me...

An argument could be made that he has been holding a very valuable "national asset" hostage for all of these years. Shouldn't that domain belong to the American people?

Sorry don`t see any sense in that???

**Rocket2Uranus** · 02-11-2004, 03:45 PM

In that neat little black and white world you've painted, you are both right. But in the real world, millions of school-age children type in "whitehouse.com" expecting to find something educational and are exposed to porn.

Is that really worth defending morally? I am pretty far away from being a prude, and I am a vigorous defender of free speech, but this is just wrong, and this guy should have done something else with it or sold it years ago. I don't know how he has been able to sleep at night all these years.

**stuff** · 02-11-2004, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by MovieDomains
In that neat little black and white world you've painted, you are both right. But in the real world, millions of school-age children type in "whitehouse.com" expecting to find something educational and are exposed to porn.

Is that really worth defending morally? I am pretty far away from being a prude, and I am a vigorous defender of free speech, but this is just wrong, and this guy should have done something else with it or sold it years ago. I don't know how he has been able to sleep at night all these years.

I would have no trouble sleeping, he was making $1 million annually , thats $2777 in day, $1388 with night, when he sleep`s 12 hours in day. I would sleep like a baby!

**Garry Anderson** · 02-11-2004, 04:02 PM

What children expect is neither here nor there - unfortunately life aint like that.

Or, to use your words, the 'real world' is not like that.

I am sure you know that the word 'whitehouse' can be used to sell anything.

Quote: Gold Star's best selling publication is Whitehouse magazine. The title, defiantly named after the anti-pornography campaigner Mary Whitehouse, sells about 11,150 copies a month, according to industry estimates.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/busin...489832,00.html

PARENTS should protect children with net nanny type software and having computer in family room.

**Rocket2Uranus** · 02-11-2004, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by Garry Anderson
PARENTS should protect children with net nanny type software and having computer in family room.

Of course they should. That's not my point. In fact, nobody seems to get my point.

This guy profited greatly from redirecting a high-traffic very mainstream word with family appeal to PORN CONTENT!

Does that not bother you? How is this better than that scumbag who redirected disney misspells to porn?

Think about it. Is this really the way we want to manage the web?

**Garry Anderson** · 02-11-2004, 04:28 PM

MD> This guy profited greatly from redirecting a high-traffic very mainstream word with family appeal to PORN CONTENT!

This word was already used to sell porn content.

MD> Does that not bother you? How is this better than that scumbag who redirected disney misspells to porn?

YES IT DOES BOTHER ME GREATLY - I had two young daughters when the Internet came out.

Years ago I wrote that I believed there should be two seperate DNS servers.

One under control of some world organization - only with sites added that had no porn, racial violence, or bomb making etc. Of course, it would be taken out if complaint that porn was later put on site. Parents then had the option of choosing this safe DNS.

I consider myself responsible parent - so I made my girls aware of the dangers and supervised Internet usage.

**smoothlime** · 02-11-2004, 04:42 PM

I think it would be more interesting to know why he's selling it?

My guess is, somebody from the "government" has threatened him with "bad consequences" , what ya think about that ?