Godaddy survey answers

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 08:05:15PM -0700, Razer wrote:
> On 09/11/2017 07:44 PM !@#$%^&*() wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 07:13:14PM -0700, Razer wrote:
> >> On 09/11/2017 04:35 PM, !@#$%^&*() wrote:
> >>> Godaddy's in-house survey monkey just hit me up. Thought it was a
> >>> good time to express their lack of advising themselves in regard to
> >>> the impact to their public image when they took a stand against TDS:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> - Why did you rate Godaddy the way you just did (low)?
> >>> Godaddy took a stand against freedom of speech in rejecting
> >>> TheDailyStormer.com's (TDS) domain registration, and GoDaddy did so
> >>> in a way which failed to uphold one of our community's foundational
> >>> freedoms.
> >>>
> >>> When undermining a fundamental human right, as Godaddy did to TDS,
> >>> even if your target is speaking objectionably, Godaddy as an
> >>> "information carrier" (of sorts) has a significantly higher duty of
> >>> care to its customers (e.g. TDS) than other entities.
> >>>
> >>> Godaddy, in cancelling TDS' domain, failed to conduct itself in a way
> >>> compatible with its duty of care obligations to our community to
> >>> treat every body fairly and in a way which preserves due process.
> >>>
> >>> Godaddy should advise itself to inform itself of the requirements for
> >>> conduct in relation to those of its customers who say things on their
> >>> websites which Godaddy may object to.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> - What is the single most important thing we could do to improve your
> >>>   experience?
> >>> Advise yourself that when you take a public stand against freedom of
> >>> speech (even objectionable speech), you are affecting your reputation
> >>> negatively, in a big way. Due to the TDS episode, my plans are to
> >>> transition completely off of Godaddy in the coming 2 years.
> >>
> >> The ShitSturmer got bounced for claiming
> > Oh?
> 
> 
> Not "Oh". The link to GoDaddy's complete statement regarding it appeared
> on this list. Look it up. The CEO said

Oh, OK, it's not you saying it, --- it's, wait for it, the CEO of
Godaddy!!! --- OMFG bow to the assertions of a CEO of some corporate
for profit entity existing on "US Govt 'Statute' welfare".

Why am I not surprised Razer that you've backed up your assertion
with the assertion of someone else - a corporate CEO and nothing less
(!) ?


> the article about Heather Heyer
> was tasteless and borderline hate speech but what cut it was the
> Shitrag's peeps claiming GoDaddy supported their beliefs,

So I assume "the peeps" is random semi-anonymous individuals (or
multiple sock puppets of the same person) posting on TDS.

Got it: a random anonmous person said something about Godaddy on some
website which Godaddy was holding the centralised domain registration
for, and so Godaddy wielded their significant corporate power to wipe
an entire website from the Internet.

Yep, entirely rational.


> and since that
> was a complete fabrication and libelous,

Are you backpeddling now saying Godaddy's claptrap was complete
fabrication and libelous?

Is this "Razer" I'm responding to?


> the Shitrag was outta there.
> Typical Nazis. Give them a gun and they commit suicide.

I expect ad-hominems from you Razer, but anyway let's review your
original assertion:


You somehow caused to be sent to this august list:
> >> The ShitSturmer got bounced for claiming
> >> GoDaddy's management supported
> >> their wrong opinion

Yes, I admit sadly, now you're beginning to make perfect sense:

 - TDS got kicked from Godaddy - your fact I agree with.

 - "Because they claimed" - your assertion, but a really important
   "more equal than others assertion" since it's backed up by a
   similar assertion by the .... CEO <drum roll> of Godaddy
   corporation.

 - "they" claimed Godaddy's management supported their .. opinion
   - so some anonymous someone (troll trying to take down TDS?) made
   some random anonymous claim about a corporation which the CEO did
   not like, and so said CEO took his bat and ball (and blanket) home
   with him since he didn't want to play anymore.

 - "they" had a "wrong opinion" - welp Razer, you've definitely
   nailed the funamentals of a strong argument and irrefutable fact
   here, I must say.


Glad you clarified your position now - we might have been confused
otherwise.

Or something ...



> > I'd ordinarily assume the good intention that you actually have a
> > fact to back this up - but your record is rather lean on the "facts"
> > dept "Razer".
> 
> I have no good intentions towards you and the only thing I'd 'lean on'
> is a 2x4 across your Carotid artery.

My my, what Antifa tactics you have there "big boy" :)

Killed any Nazis lately?



> > ...
> >> Live: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8h5VdIe33o
> >>
> >> ...but your pin head would probably explode.
> > That's called an ad-hominem attack.
>
> Yup. Absolutely, pinhead.
> Rr

Yup. Absolutely, ad-hominem.


> >  You might have heard of it before
> > - in fact, you might have used it before.
> >
> > ProTip: an ad-hominem attack is not a conversation "win", it's just a
> > decent into personal attack.
> >
> >
> >
> > I reworded the last chorus of the first song for ya Razer:
> >
> >   Sittin here on the banks of victim,
> >   lookin' out, at the White pride;
> >   Wonderin' if I'm ever gonna get 'em,
> >   believin' my "chosen people" lie!
> >
> >   Big ole' bankers, fat and plunder,
> >   Livin' high on Zio creed;
> >   Rule the world while we get dummer,
> >   Fuel the fued by other's' needs.
> >
>