GoDaddy.com Cease and Desist Letter

[PRED]

Internet Warrior :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Gerry]

"Don't taze me, bro!"

 

[floname]

Talk about Karma; you put yourself out there as a racist; you threaten people that don't bend to your will; you deny anyone who reminds you of how f*cked up you are. And you still seem as though your surprised that all of your ways are leading you to nowhere.

What goes around is sure to come around.

Here's a lesson I taught my 6 year old:

"you get what you get & you don't throw a fit"

 

[WINNA]

GoDaddy,

Leave my domains alone and leave me alone. I did not call you and make threats.

Get your act together, and if you and BobParsons.me wants me in court, come to Australia and sort it out. :]

I am sick of this crap. As far as I am concerned you stole the domains ouoa.com and ouks.com and until you prove otherwise that statement stands.

That was the only email threat that was made.

And I know you have been checking this thread, cause my logs keep showing:

Referrerhttp://www.geaney.com/Host Nameip-64-202-161-177.secureserver.netIP Address64.202.161.177 [Label IP Address]CountryUnited StatesRegionArizonaCityMesaISPGodaddy.comReturning Visits0Visit Length12 mins 49 secsVISITOR SYSTEM SPECSBrowserFirefox 3.0Operating SystemWinXPResolution1280x1024JavascriptEnabled
Navigation Path

DateTimeTypeWebPage26th May 201002:25:50Page Viewwww.geaney.com/
www.winna.com/26th May 201002:38:39Page Viewwww.geaney.com/
www.winna.com/

All the best and have a great weekend BOB,

Jeff Geaney
www.WorldInternetAuthority.com

---------- Post added at 05:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:43 PM ----------

BTW I did not mention the words, f*ck, c*nt or Sh*t :]

---------- Post added at 05:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:45 PM ----------

anyone want to buy a vowel. :]

 

[Cartoonz]

why does the word douchebag come to mind?
oh, wait... yeah, that's the right guy.

 

[WINNA]

Yeah mate.......Let's see if you can all get around this domain.

www.WorldInternetAuthority.com
:-/:-/:-/:smilewinkgrin::smilewinkgrin::smilewinkgrin::lol::lol::lol:

---------- Post added at 07:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:00 PM ----------

www.WorldInternetAuthority.com to condcut full business audit into GoDaddy.com business practices, including full audit of their auction platform.

www.WIPPO.com

---------- Post added at 07:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:05 PM ----------

Who's the douch bag now f*ck face!!!

---------- Post added at 07:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:06 PM ----------

'conduct' and "douche bag'

---------- Post added at 07:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:07 PM ----------

www.ThatKills.com

---------- Post added at 07:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:08 PM ----------

Anyone else including BobParsons.me wanna play with me.

It's Game over boys and girls.

I am the WINNA.
:yes::yes::yes:

 

[WINNA]

Attention: Bob Parsons, Warren Adelman, and Legal Counsel of GoDaddy.com

For the courts record could you please clarify, verify and confirm the following:

Has Adam Dicker, owner of DNForum.com, ever been affiliated with GoDaddy.com or any of GoDaddy.com’s subsidiaries or auction platforms?

Sincerely,

Geaney.com

 

[INVIGOR]

What's the deal with this twat? I think there's a village somewhere in Australia missing him. Talk about issues! Dude, you off ur meds again or something? Interesting ramblings nonetheless! LOL!!!

 

[Adam DickerAdam Dicker is verified member.]

Has Adam Dicker, owner of DNForum.com, ever been affiliated with GoDaddy.com or any of GoDaddy.com’s subsidiaries or auction platforms?

What do I have to do with this?

-=DCG=-

 

[DN BROKER]

What do I have to do with this?

-=DCG=-

oh oh

 

[katherine]

Is there a shortage of padded rooms in OZ ?

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

All we want to know is who is making these decisions, and are they coming from Bob Parsons personally, or his team?

You are not entitled to know.

Any business has the right to refuse service to anyone, within certain limitations in the US.

For example, if I run a hot dog stand and decide I will only sell hot dogs to people with red shirts, then you are going to have to be wearing a red shirt in order to buy a hot dog from me.

I can also decide that I just don't like you, and refuse service to you.

What I cannot do, if my business is a public accommodation, is to refuse service to you on the basis of certain personal characteristics.

People often fail to understand this principle. A recent public example is KY senate candidate Rand Paul asking why a business can refuse to allow people in with guns, but cannot discriminate on the basis of race. He argues that the right to have a gun is a Constitutional right, so why can a business discriminate against one and not the other?

What Rand Paul does not understand is that a person with a gun can put down the gun, go inside, and do business, and that "having a gun" is not an immutable personal characteristic. In other words, if you are white, you can put down the gun, go inside and do business. If you are Asian, you can put down the gun, go inside, and do business. However, if the sign says, "No Asians", then someone is going to have a hard time doing business there, because "Asian-ness" is not something the Asian can leave at the door.

There is, however, no law in the US against discriminating against assholes. You seem to have run into that problem with GoDaddy, who has made, in their sole discretion, the determination that you are one. This is too bad, because assholes do seem to be frequent targets of discrimination.

 

[fab]

People often fail to understand this principle. A recent public example is KY senate candidate Rand Paul asking why a business can refuse to allow people in with guns, but cannot discriminate on the basis of race. He argues that the right to have a gun is a Constitutional right, so why can a business discriminate against one and not the other?

What Rand Paul does not understand is that a person with a gun can put down the gun, go inside, and do business, and that "having a gun" is not an immutable personal characteristic. In other words, if you are white, you can put down the gun, go inside and do business. If you are Asian, you can put down the gun, go inside, and do business. However, if the sign says, "No Asians", then someone is going to have a hard time doing business there, because "Asian-ness" is not something the Asian can leave at the door.

That's clearly not Rand and daddy Ron Paul's reasoning. Yes, the gun example is poor, although it could be said that there may be personality differences between gun possessors and non-possessors. The reasoning is the following:
1. Constitutional - Legal
2. Evidence - Since civil lawsuits demand less evidence than criminal, unclear cases can and may be used against the defendant. I have a friend who was taken to court for firing someone openly gay. His television program had very low ratings, but that didn't stop him from suing.
3. Practicality - As in the case above this opens the door for excessive amounts of lawsuits, providing hungry lawyers with work.

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

Fab, the point is that a business can refuse service to anyone for any reason, but that certain reasons have been ruled out of bounds.

Dr. Paul frequently uses the "no guns allowed" thing as an example, but I'm willing to bet that I'll be shown the door if I want to freely practice my religion in the waiting room of his opthamology practice (especially when I get to the virgin sacrifice part).

---------- Post added at 06:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:05 PM ----------

Public accommodation law and employment law are also two different things.

 

[stock_post]

There is, however, no law in the US against discriminating against assholes. You seem to have run into that problem with GoDaddy, who has made, in their sole discretion, the determination that you are one. This is too bad, because assholes do seem to be frequent targets of discrimination.

Nice!

 

[ohkus]

People often fail to understand this principle. A recent public example is KY senate candidate Rand Paul asking why a business can refuse to allow people in with guns, but cannot discriminate on the basis of race. He argues that the right to have a gun is a Constitutional right, so why can a business discriminate against one and not the other?

What Rand Paul does not understand is that a person with a gun can put down the gun, go inside, and do business, and that "having a gun" is not an immutable personal characteristic. In other words, if you are white, you can put down the gun, go inside and do business. If you are Asian, you can put down the gun, go inside, and do business. However, if the sign says, "No Asians", then someone is going to have a hard time doing business there, because "Asian-ness" is not something the Asian can leave at the door.

His point being that he feels that business should be able to provide service to whomever they want and deny it to whomever they want for any reason including racial, after all it is private property. Now if some private business decides to not serve black people for example we have the right as consumers to use the power of the all mighty dollar and not buy from them. He was taking it from a constitution and free market standpoint which got severely twisted.

 

[Dave Zan]

You will need to
transfer your domains to a new Registrar and obtain a new provider for
any hosting and other services which currently exist in your accounts
within this 30-day period. Your accounts will be locked on June 5, 2010.

As far as I am concerned you stole the domains ouoa.com and ouks.com and until you prove otherwise that statement stands.

Today's June 5 and the two domains are still with Go Daddy. At this rate, they'll be locked out.

One thing's for sure: someone's not gonna be a winna in this situation...

 

[everydayprofit]

assholes do seem to be frequent targets of discrimination.

I loved this part especially John. hahaha!!

//cliff

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

He was taking it from a constitution and free market standpoint which got severely twisted.

No, just like the folks that want a re-match of the Civil War, he was re-hashing a loser argument that was settled more than 40 years ago. (Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=379&page=241)

 

[fab]

No, just like the folks that want a re-match of the Civil War, he was re-hashing a loser argument that was settled more than 40 years ago. (Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=379&page=241)

That's one side of the argument.