What's going on with Epik and Rob Monster?

JB Lions said:

I thought they were a little more involved than just a registrar? Not sure about now but I see a screenshot talking about the Cryin' Nazi saying "He is 1st on my list to send packing if he is not able to line up with the Gab ToS"

or another screenshot of Rob saying he was providing air cover for Gab.........stood in the gap.....

https://twitter.com/MollyOShah/status/1064559963744419840

Seems a bit involved, again, not sure about now.

Click to expand...

A few thoughts here:

- When Gab was on the cusp of being done, I did apply some diplomacy skills to buy them time. This is where I engaged with ANTIFA, SPLC, HuffPo, WaPo, NYT, WSJ. In the end they lit me up but I certainly did my best to make the case that Gab has some supervision and should be given a chance to prove it.

- In retrospect, my sincere efforts to find compromise with the aforementioned groups was not that successful. There might have been some detente, but they vilified me instead. Some of the people on this blog believe some of what has been written about me when much of it is simply not true.

- As for Gab, my involvement there is almost nil now. I have not spoken to them in months. The last contact was actually with their attorney. We simply don't talk. They did register Dissenter.com with us and are happy with us, but we are just a supplier to them now and that's fine by me.

- As for Chris "Crying Nazi" Cantwell, it is no secret that I tried to engage him to drop his shock jock routine. I was not successful there either. And in the end, he kept testing the boundaries until Andrew Torba booted him earlier this month. It was not me who sent him packing though. I was never an admin there.

- As for ANTIFA, they never met with me. I am still hoping they will meet someday. We would happily be their registrar too. I realize some doubt that, but I am serious. We specialize in resiliency, and can manage the controversy. We will however enforce the law. We don't protect criminals.

Hope that helps.

Kate said:

You said earlier Rob is not Epik but he makes no effort to dissociate the two on his profile.

Click to expand...

Rob has been the owner and CEO of Epik for many years. Unlike other CEOs, Rob actively engages with individual customers, answering support tickets, bailing them out with domain-backed loans, even editing their DNS records over the phone. And he's a workaholic (I mean that in a good way) who is always "ON". Except when Rob's asleep, there is almost no moment when he might not respond to someone who has a question for Epik.

So, you're right: Rob hasn't been in the habit of distinguishing between Epik and himself as an individual 100% of the time. In public, he has just said what he thinks and sometimes mentioned his company and its services, which are often directed toward issues he cares about – like privacy or censorship.

For many years, this identification of Rob = Epik has helped the brand. Many customers at Epik choose the company primarily because of positive experiences they've had with Rob. Indeed, many in this thread have said so. Rob never built a wall between Epik and his individual identity.

Blurring the lines between Rob / Epik caused a problem finally. Please give Rob a chance to adjust policies and habits. It's only fair. Within the past week, Rob has made a number of changes:

• Rob closed his individual Twitter account. That's based on the risk of his individual opinions being mistaken for Epik positions (which caused the recent scandal).
• Epik social media accounts at Twitter and Facebook are now made via a designated Epik employee in all cases and not by Rob directly, as sometimes was the case. This provides a filter and allows for the post to reflect more team consensus – which is the real Epik. It also provides an opportunity for basic editing and fact-checking.
• Within this thread, I suggested that Rob should change the Gab username from "Epik" to something reflecting him as an individual. And his comment today suggests that will happen.
• Here at NamePros, Rob changed his avatar / image so that it no longer reflects the Epik logo. People still recognize Rob as Epik's CEO. But this emphasizes that posts by Rob about religion or politics are not Epik positions as such.

Some CEOs delegate public comments to underlings as much as possible. But Rob has been in the habit of speaking directly to people in forums, emails, and social media. That can backfire. In some cases, it helps to have an extra layer of teamwork in a company's public statements on blogs, in Twitter or Facebook, or forums. If there is no such layering, then there may not be any consensus within the organization. And then arguably it makes sense to emphasize that each person is speaking as an individual, except when emphasizing that they are speaking about official policy. That's the case here in NamePros with Rob's posts.

Rob may be the CEO of a company, but he deserves some right to have his own opinions and express them as an individual. Nobody needs to agree with his opinions. But we should acknowledge that Rob says things as Rob. He isn't always a mouthpiece of Epik's official positions 24/7. If Rob says he enjoyed the last movie he saw, nobody will interpret that film review as a statement by Epik. By the same token, if Rob expresses a political view using the "Epik" username, it doesn't necessarily reflect Epik's position.

Rob began engaging with people at Gab.com in connection with the domain being transferred to Epik from GoDaddy, which refused to service it any longer in response to public pressure after a crime was committed by 1 of Gab’s members. So when Rob began commenting on Gab, he would have been representing Epik. To the extent that Rob began engaging with Gab members about politics, that was Rob acting as a private citizen, expressing his personal opinions. It’s easy to understand why, under the circumstances, the username began as “Epik” and how Rob might have continued using it in a personal capacity without realizing that it would be helpful to create a separate personal account.

In the post above, Rob outlined a number of proposed changes in Epik’s practices. I think he deserves some credit for that. Among other things:

Rob Monster said:

The online personas called #Epik, #Anonymize and #BitMitigate will restrict their engagement to technical matters and not engage in commentary that could be construed as being inflammatory.

Click to expand...

So Epik usernames will be limited to official Epik business. That's progress. If I understand that correctly, then Rob’s personal posts on Gab would henceforward be made under a username not bearing the Epik brand.

This won’t address all issues. But it cannot be said that Rob “makes no effort to dissociate” between Epik and Rob Monster. He is making that effort.

For years, Rob relied on people to understand that his comments reflect individual opinions (like christianity) and to judge Epik as Epik, based on the quality of its services. Evidently, the general public gets Rob and Epik mixed up sometimes. To some extent, I get it. But when this scandal arose, some people were calling for a boycott of Epik based on a political opinion Rob expressed in his own personal Twitter account. And I know the general public is smart enough to realize there is a distinction between Rob and Epik in such a situation. I agree that more differentiation was needed. Rob and Epik are working on that.

wasterman: Out of nowhere...a Rob supporter soon after the covers were pulled.

johnn said:

@waterman - You must be Epik employee or RM son?
Just registered so you can post to defend RM.

Your tone and writing style looks very much like RM to me. Twin?

Click to expand...

Nope sorry to disappoint, but I'd take it as a compliment my writing is similar to smart people. I've been around a while... since 2007. Never had my patience for the forums, though... and especially the way NP is sometimes tyrannically managed IME. Not my game to hang around in forums anyway.

I registered because I'm annoyed at something else in domaining... and then I saw the discussion under "new posts". I already knew of the issue (of course).

Question for you, though... why assume I'm an employee or relative? Someone who disagrees with your world view must be part of a conspiracy? I hope that's not how you think.. but of course you're free to be that way in your own life.

xynames said:

wasterman: Out of nowhere...a Rob supporter soon after the covers were pulled.

Click to expand...

No idea what this means, but I have been told there is another "waterman" somewhere else. Sorry if it's a namespace conflict... it's a freakin' forum handle. I coulda picked anything.

Enough about me, lol. Just another domainer.

New members don't pop out of nowhere just to step into the latest greatest controversy on the side of the underdog right when he's being kicked, at least not in such an assured tone, and especially not with the immediate disclaimer of "New account but not new player."

Whoever you are, you did state one truth: you're not new here.

Kate said:

One member here mentioned that Rob posted a lot more on Gab in a few months than he did on NP in 8 years. 1760 posts in 5 months is not bad, it can be described as active engagement in a forum.

Click to expand...

Personally, I have never seen any of Rob's posts inside Gab – only those that have been shown to me in a thread like this one. So I have no idea whether that number is accurate or not.

Because Gab.com is just 1 domain that caused a scandal (out of hundreds of thousands of domains at Epik that get our attention), and because Gab is utterly detached from Epik's actual operations (which has been my role), and because Rob's posts inside Gab would be about politics (which is personal and nothing to do with Epik policy), it seems obvious to me that this was Rob being Rob and not Epik.

xynames said:

I can't swallow Rob Monster's claim that the "only" reason he is allowing Gab to flourish on Epik is due to his neutral championing of free speech

… Rob is not merely a detached ISP for Gab, but an active participant, and perhaps even a sympathizer.

… But the evidence I see, tends to establish that Rob chose this particular group Gab for a reason, and supports them and their thinking, at least on some level.

Click to expand...

I don’t remember Rob claiming that he had nothing in common with Gab members. But that doesn't necessarily imply that Rob shares the extreme racism found in Gab posts like the one above. Also, I can't say if such posts are representative of the entire forum because I don't visit Gab.

"On some level" is the key phrase. Perhaps what Rob found he had in common with many Gab members were such things as

• Concern about censorship and de-platforming
• Distrust of the mainstream media
  
• Concern about rapidly changing demographics due to immigration
• Support for Donald Trump
• Christianity
• Conservative / right-of-center social and political views
• Interest in conspiracy theories (or what others would call conspiracy theories)
• Distrust of the government

I am not implying that Gab is merely another venue for mild-mannered Republicans. Gab achieved notoriety because of the extreme racism found inside the forum. But what I'm getting at is this: The qualities enumerated above are almost certainly found inside Gab, alongside more virulent ideas. And what Rob may share is simply this right-wing viewpoint. So would most Fox viewers or Rush Limbaugh listeners.

Given Rob's focus on censorship issues, that might have been enough common ground. Why overlook the more extreme racism? As I've said before, I believe this is due to Rob's christianity – a sincere belief that he can break bread with sinners, establish genuine trust, and eventually convert them.

When Rob sees a need, he engages. That might mean identifying censorship concerns to build services that people want. (After all, Rob cares about censorship and registrant rights. That's why Gab.com ended up at Epik.) Or it might mean ministering (in the christian sense) to racists whose extreme views Rob believed he could make less obnoxious. (Though some will laugh, I know this was 1 of Rob's sincere motivations. And it really shouldn't be laughed at. Someone has to persuade hardened racists to be less racist. And that can't be done by condemning them from afar, as most progressives are doing. No, it means going into the lion's den, inside Gab or wherever they are, to talk to them. Rob did that. It's easy to misconstrue.

xynames said:

If Rob were say, some fat cat capitalist with a cigar, hosting whatever content just for the almighty buck, tongues might wag, but at worst, we could say that the guy doesn't care one way or another about anything.

Click to expand...

It's ironic in a sense, that Rob is being judged more harshly because he is NOT a cynic who is just after money. Instead, he's an idealist who believes in the causes he fights for. Rob isn't perfect. Nobody is. But I don't believe Rob is a Nazi or a white supremacist. I have observed the way he actually interacts with people who are very different from himself, and I have never observed discrimination.

When I resigned Tuesday afternoon, I spoke to Rob about the antisemitic chart that someone brought up earlier. Rob had retweeted it hastily, without noticing that the color-coding showed which CEOs are Jewish. Rather, he only noticed the labels about mainstream-media control. (I'm relying on memory here. So apologies if I'm getting it wrong.) That explanation is actually credible. Rob often acts very quickly. I've often bemoaned the fact that my longwinded emails, full of well researched detail, only get skimmed when Rob replies. Sometimes he misses the details because he has a large pile of things to look at each day. Personally, I'm always afraid that by "liking" a NamePros post I might have missed some horrible offensive detail buried in the middle somewhere. I'm the measure-twice-cut-once kind of guy. Rob is the charge-ahead kind. Both personality types have their pros / cons. But I do believe Rob spread that post in error. I have never observed anything in his comments or behavior that would indicate he is antisemitic. And Rob has always professed the opposite.

The post about Islam not being a real religion, just a takeover plot – that bothers me more because it seems to reflect a real misunderstanding. But I must admit that a lot of Americans have these misconceptions about Islam. Especially since 9/11, authors and pundits in the west have spread the notion that Islam is fundamentally violent or repressive. Though I would criticize Rob on that point, half the American population sees Islam the same way, to my chagrin. It's very easy for people in a likeminded group online to share an obnoxious meme amongst themselves without considering how it might offend their acquaintances in other contexts. In Rob's defense, he does treat his muslim employees with respect. Likewise his muslim customers. You can all see in this NamePros thread that Rob has shared his concerns about Islam but also listened attentively to muslims who explain their own faith. When all is said and done, Rob practices what he preaches about tolerance.

xynames said:

New members don't pop out of nowhere just to step into the latest greatest controversy on the side of the underdog right when he's being kicked, at least not in such an assured tone, and especially not with the immediate disclaimer of "New account but not new player."

Whoever you are, you did state one truth: you're not new here.

Click to expand...

Enjoy your conspiracy theory and mob, "xynames". I'll leave (again) pretty soon... unless I see value in the forums this time. Didn't last time.

Seems you enjoy your mob fest activities. Amiright? I only answered these because you've attempted to discredit my post... I'm a relative, an employee, and now some secret NP user who made a fresh account or something?

Clue for you: I'm an experienced domainer and business person who knows the community (and therefore Rob Monster, duh), who reads the news, and understands not only the importance of free speech in civil society but also (gasp) the way nasty people can bully and mob-up to force their will on others.

Hard to imagine? Shouldn't be. Maybe look into that.

xynames said:

Whoever you are, you did state one truth: you're not new here.

Click to expand...

I did private message with "Waterman" just now. I am 100% certain that his comments were unsolicited, unprompted, and uncoordinated. I appreciate them. I will not out his comments or his real name here but he has legitimate reasons for being a former NamePros user, and he apparently came back to NP today looking for something about Fabulous. I think I have not said too much there. So, thanks @waterman for your efforts to overcome the manufactured consensus and for resisting self-censorship from those who feel they should berate anyone endorses Epik's efforts to find compromise in the area of lawful free speech.

Rob Monster said:

I did private message with "Waterman" just now. I am 100% certain that his comments were unsolicited, unprompted, and uncoordinated. I appreciate them. I will not out his comments or his real name here but he has legitimate reasons for being a former NamePros user, and he apparently came back to NP today looking for something about Fabulous. I think I have not said too much there. So, thanks @waterman for your efforts to overcome the manufactured consensus and for resisting self-censorship from those who feel they should berate anyone endorses Epik's efforts to find compromise in the area of lawful free speech.

Click to expand...

Haha no problem Rob. I see the ignorance (or deliberate bias.. I don't have enough evidence to say) that you deal with here, lol. I guess you need to since you're Epik, but I don't.

I suggest people look at the discussions and discussants.... the loud ones seem more intent on "kicking Rob when he's down" and enjoying "the latest and greatest controversy" (really??) than addressing the issues.

The issues are freedom of expression and censorship. If loudmouths with strong wills and desire for things-to-be-a-certain-way can incite a mob to enforce censorship of others, that leads to tyranny, not free society.

Careful who you support. If you don't have time to study up in great detail, your best odds are supporting the guy who defends your right to your own opinion, not the guy who wants you to agree to ban / censor/ or "kick" someone else that they dislike or disagree with.

mr-x said:

Islam was spread by war and conquest. People have been fighting over the same ground in the middle east and north Africa for thousands of years.

Click to expand...

If Islam was spread by war and conquest, then the conquerers did a very bad job. Christianity in Egypt dates back to around 33 A.D., about 1000 years before my ancestors in Norway heard of the religion. Egyptian christians have continued to live peacefully among muslims for 2000 years.

That’s not to say that there aren’t violent bigots in Egypt too, who have bombed churches in recent years. No country is immune to hatred, after all. But coptic christians in Egypt still amount to 5 - 20% of the population. If Islam had been imposed by the sword, then christians would never have been allowed to remain christians during more than 1000 years of muslim rule. Nor in contemporary muslim-majority society. Their very existence proves that Islam is more tolerant than some people suppose.

For that matter, Cairo still has synagogues built centuries ago. And the older generation living in Cairo today still remembers their Jewish neighbors – from before the Israel / Palestine conflict. Christians, jews, and muslims lived in harmony for centuries – especially when compared to the religious wars and persecutions going on in christian Europe during the same period.

War and invasion have been frequent for thousands of years all over the world. Naturally, ideologies follow conquests. World views, including religions, follow political power because it becomes socially advantageous to share the views of the rulers. That’s why Native Americans speak English – conquest. It’s why Latin American countries speak Spanish and practice christianity – violent conquest. It’s why Gospel music is sung in southern churches – slavery.

A tax on non-muslim citizens might seem terrible to some. But it's far better than the torture or extermination of religious minorities like jews and huguenots during the Renaissance in Europe. There is nothing uniquely violent about Islam.

Christianity and Islam spread in much the same way.

Slanted said:

If Islam was spread by war and conquest, then the conquerers did a very bad job. Christianity in Egypt dates back to around 33 A.D., about 1000 years before my ancestors in Norway heard of the religion. Egyptian christians have continued to live peacefully among muslims for 2000 years.

Click to expand...

That’s not to say that there aren’t violent bigots in Egypt too, who have bombed churches in recent years. No country is immune to hatred, after all. But coptic christians in Egypt still amount to 5 - 20% of the population. If Islam had been imposed by the sword, then christians would never have been allowed to remain christians during more than 1000 years of muslim rule. Nor in contemporary muslim-majority society. Their very existence proves that Islam is more tolerant than some people suppose.

Click to expand...

Thankfully for Egypt and the world, the Muslim Brotherhood couldn't hold on to power. Christians have survived in majority Arab countries under secular governments like Iraq and Syria. And have survived in Islamic countries like Iran.

For that matter, Cairo still has synagogues built centuries ago. And the older generation living in Cairo today still remembers their Jewish neighbors – from before the Israel / Palestine conflict. Christians, jews, and muslims lived in harmony for centuries – especially when compared to the religious wars and persecutions going on in christian Europe during the same period.

War and invasion have been frequent for thousands of years all over the world. Naturally, ideologies follow conquests. World views, including religions, follow political power because it becomes socially advantageous to share the views of the rulers. That’s why Native Americans speak English – conquest. It’s why Latin American countries speak Spanish and practice christianity – violent conquest. It’s why Gospel music is sung in southern churches – slavery.

A tax on non-muslim citizens might seem terrible to some. But it's far better than the torture or extermination of religious minorities like jews and huguenots during the Renaissance in Europe. There is nothing uniquely violent about Islam.

Christianity and Islam spread in much the same way.

Click to expand...

Western culture and Christians call the period of time when the crusades occurred, the "dark ages". The Catholic church was corrupt, locked up the word of God and treated people like cattle,

The reformation was a public rejection of the Catholic church and a return to the roots of Christianity and Judaism.

You're the person who brought up the Crusades, I just reminded you that war and conquest in the middle east and north Africa have been the norm, not the exception.

Rob Monster said:

I did private message with "Waterman" just now.

Click to expand...

@Rob Monster

I know you invited people to get in touch with you, whether off or on the record. But please feel free to get in touch with me via private message.

You know my postings. I have not deleted any of them. You know I have no ill will towards you. That my objections are about words and actions. Not against your person.

You probably have a lot of messages in your inbox, so I want to let you know now that you can contact me when you are ready and available at any time.

Yes but what we revert to here, is a continued attitude from Rob, in line with not being sorry for anything he said or did, and indeed doubling down on whatever he said or did.

https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-27#post-7169281

And now he's emboldened by this "former NP member." It really takes just one person to convince Rob that he was right all along? lol

It's not edifying.

I'm a little saddened actually, I would have thought Rob would be less recalcitrant.

For someone as even tempered as silentptnr to come out with

Silentptnr said:

Yet Rob, in his finite wisdom, disliked my post. Certainly he can, but I give a failing grade for his lack of action or even response.

Did someone say Rob is a quality, intelligent person?

Have I so hurt Robs widdle feewings that he can't find words?

I suppose he has his widdle weasons.

I don't know of any Christian like Rob.

Click to expand...

says quite a lot.

I think a lot of people have said a lot of thoughtful things on this subject, most recently silentptnr a person whom everyone here, I believe, respects. Waterman's coming in is equivalent to a bull busting into a china shop (uninvited), his input is not well thought out or reasoned, and his defensiveness doesn't add to his credibility either when we consider how anonymous he is, and that he chose to reappear with a new anonymous identity rather than his old NP username. Maybe there was something there in his old NP record that he doesn't want us to research.

But anyway this isn't about some anonymous poster, it's about Rob, and I think enough people have said enough on the subject.

Some men, you just can't reach.

xynames said:

Some men, you just can't reach.

Click to expand...

Some men, you can't brainwash. And that includes every member of NamePros who is capable of independently evaluating someone's work, and not be deceived into accepting a false narrative.

I do think it was cool for Waterman to show up when he did. We'll just have to call it providence without speculating on the source.

I do have to tell you though that it was definitely not that easy getting to the truth. With censorship running at full speed, it will get harder. No doubt, a free internet is an amazing blessing. I am working to preserve it.

Even guys that seem like really sage sources of wisdom can turn out to be wily. Take a guy like Jordan Peterson, for example -- lots of folks listen to him and yet there was more than meets the eye there:

https://video.watchmask.com/vid/watchmask/WXYuqrO8LLo/video.html

So, yes, I am caucasian, and I am not a fan of unmitigated immigration. By some standards that makes me a "white nationalist". The thing is though, I am I a Dutch-American, and consider myself a citizen of the world.

All stereotyping aside, and regardless of personal bias, I can promise you that any lawful content is 100% welcome at Epik. It will also never be disadvantaged, and can expect the same world class service.

Rob Monster said:

Two practical questions:

Are there any parts of the world where you would advise an uncovered woman not to visit without being accompanied specifically due to danger of vigilante justice being meted out by those who support shariah?


What can non-muslims do to prevent more part of the world from becoming no-go zones as is now happening in the UK? The issue goes back many years, including CNN covering it already in 2013.

Click to expand...

I dont find myself fit to answer first question as I havent went out of my country to have a view of circumstances in the rest of Muslim world. As for as Pakistan is concerned, there arent specific laws for dress code but on safer side, any western clothing which dont reveal much skin will be great to go here and it wont raise any eyebrows. As unlike media propoganda, you wont find many burka clad women in urban areas. Not covering your head is a norm in majority of the cities. Recently a vlogger Eva Zu Beck came to Pakistan and visited most of the Pakistan, even tribal and rural areas. She was welcomed as a hero, she featured as a presenter in an Army sponsored Marathon race, which had athletes from all around the world and hosted a travel show for state television too. Here are pictures of her;



In the second picture she is wearing Shalwar Kameez, which is national dress of Pakistan and majority(not all ofcourse) of women wear this kind of outfits across all Pakistan.
On second question, there are a total of 1.8 billion muslims around the world while the extremist elements are in thousands. Those elements consider and claim that they are the real muslims and millions of others are not real muslims. Now problem is that most of the western world agree to their propaganda. Whenever an attack happens by an extremist, you will see majority of muslims on social media condemning the attack and claim Islam is the religion of peace and those handfull of extremists dont represent Islam. Instead of appreciating and highlighting these voices, they are criticised, ridiculed, their faith in Islam is ridiculed, their belief in prophet is ridiculed and they are made responsible for an act they didnt do and even were against it. Since 9/11 these voices are never heard while there were a lot of interviews of Alqaeda and IS being telecasted but this Moderate followers of Islam were being discriminated, ridiculed and made scapegoats for the events they werent responsible of.
Way forward is to highlight and share voices of peaceful muslims who are 24% of the world population and not of those who arent even 0.01% of world population or even 0.01% of Muslims. And instead of militants propaganda, articles like these should be highlighted.

Slanted said:

When I resigned Tuesday afternoon

Click to expand...

Is this new information or I missed something ?

Kate said:

Is this new information or I missed something ?

Click to expand...

You caught something I missed when scanning that particular post. There are no updates on the management team page at E but that does not mean anything...there is still a reference to working with UD there. Perhaps someone will verify or deny.

Wali Dahot said:

Way forward is to highlight and share voices of peaceful muslims who are 24% of the world population and not of those who arent even 0.01% of world population or even 0.01% of Muslims. And instead of militants propaganda, articles like these should be highlighted.

Click to expand...

Thanks Wali.

In my regular travels to places like Dubai and Istanbul I have experienced the same. Oman was more police-state Shariah, but still lovely though way more backwards. So, there is a continuum.

I can appreciate some of the paternalistic tradition visible in Islam where the traditionally stronger male is a protector of females -- starting with the Dad and (optionally) transferring to the husband.

Where things break down for me is when females are persecuted. Personally, I think Dubai has it right. In Dubai, a woman can weak a skirt or a bikini at the beach.

That being said, I will never get the Burkini. Can we agree that the Burkni is fashion oppression?



She looks like a navy seal. This one is a little more sensible:



I have seen both styles in person. I think we can agree that more than 0.1% of these women feel oppressed no matter how much lingerie they have under the burkha.

As I am sure you are aware, acid attacks on women wearing bikinis is a thing. And it has come to places where Islam is in the minority. This is senseless brutality:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5706173/Acid-attack-victim-opens-horrific-ordeal-time.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...re-targeted-and-had-been-attacked-before.html

This stuff has been going on for years. It is terrorism. People should not accept it anywhere, and certainly not in international tourist destinations where cultural norms vary.

I am not judging anyone. If they want to dress like that, let them. Where it goes south for me is when Shariah rolls into a country like New Zealand and a woman can't rock a bikini at Abel Tasman beach!

Rob Monster said:

Even guys that seem like really sage sources of wisdom can turn out to be wily. Take a guy like Jordan Peterson, for example -- lots of folks listen to him and yet there was more than meets the eye there:

https://video.watchmask.com/vid/watchmask/WXYuqrO8LLo/video.html

Click to expand...

If anyone is wondering why I picked on Jordan Peterson, it is because Jordan Peterson was singled out by the NZ government in the wake of last week's tragedy where his new book was "censored". See here:

https://nationalpost.com/news/world...llers-because-of-christchurch-mosque-massacre

The truthseekers were supposed to run out and get copies of his book. They won't. The NZ government could have banned Mein Kampf. They didn't.

Jordan Peterson is what is referred to among truthseekers as "controlled opposition". Free speech gives him a stage. Free speech also allows people to vet him.

In the long run, it pays to be real. I will take my lumps along the way but I absolutely mean nobody harm and will protect your right to say what you want as long as it is lawful.

Voltaire, one of history's great advocates for freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and separation of church and state said it iconically this way:

frank-germany said:

the problems is that it looks like Rob can't post w/o quoting some text passages from a bible
and keeps on talking about God in regard to profane things

I really wished he could just leave that part out

free speech - yes he can do so

but it makes him less trustworthy in my eyes
as I would suggest his spoke based on his own insights
instead of what he thinks "God" wants or the Bible's view of it

Click to expand...

Dear Frank,

Going forward, I am going to try hard to not cite Bible verses on NamePros. You are right. It is foolishness to anyone who does not believe it to be the word of God. I acknowledge that and am no fan of "pushing rope".

Since we are both, relatively-speaking, "old-timers" (I am 51), you might appreciate something that was iconically stated in 1965 in 3 minutes by the trusted newsman of that era, Paul Harvey. Walter Cronkite came later.


I think he nailed it but that is just my opinion.

Rob Monster said:

I think he nailed it but that is just my opinion.

Click to expand...

Wow...never heard this before. Thanks for posting it...wish we could hear his assessment of how he would view things as they are happening now.

Rob Monster said:

Dear Frank,

Going forward, I am going to try hard to not cite Bible verses on NamePros. You are right. It is foolishness to anyone who does not believe it to be the word of God. I acknowledge that and am no fan of "pushing rope".

Since we are both, relatively-speaking, "old-timers" (I am 51), you might appreciate something that was iconically stated in 1965 in 3 minutes by the trusted newsman of that era, Paul Harvey. Walter Cronkite came later.

I think he nailed it but that is just my opinion.

Click to expand...

That video is amazing. Paul Harvey mentioned problems that we have now, but did not exist in 1965. Truly amazing.

Internet.Domains said:

That video is amazing. Paul Harvey mentioned problems that we have now, but did not exist in 1965. Truly amazing.

Click to expand...

But they did exist in 1965. Which is why he included them in his poem. He said that if he were the devil, he'd continue doing just what he had been doing (up till 1965). He described it as the work of the devil.

Perhaps the real issue is not prescience but "wokeness"... Paul Harvey was "awake" to what was going on in 1965, even while most were not. He was a newscaster and columnist... he broadcast a show "the rest of the story" or something like that, where he dug into the details behind the major news stories.

He was more aware than the typical consumer.

Back then, how would Paul Harvey have been treated by people like "xynames" up here? I suspect he'd be bullied and kicked.

Funny.. if you did a little, Harvey was a patriot, had trouble with his military service, was a friend of J Edgar Hoover, and a vocal supporter of the Senator Joe McCarthy's attempts to root out communists covertly corrupting the US government at that time. He was a Nationalist... favoring America, its citizens, and core ideals.. because (gasp) he was an American and loved his family, church, and country.

And in 1996 the NSA declassified documents on Russian KGB activity in America which were synched to other notes to reveal that.... Senator Joe McCarthy was actually correct. Russian communications revealed that many of the accused were indeed either spies (Rosenbergs, Alger Hiss) or had been communicating regularly (Oppenheimer.. who was not accepting the offers and terms) etc. In other words, there was cause for investigation.

Side note: Rob Monster has far greater diplomacy skills than Senator Joe McCarthy , lol.

Free speech is an essential ingredient of Democracy. A certain degree of guided democracy is necessary for capitalism. Debate and discussion are the proof-of-work that allows capitalism to advance a civil society.

Domaining is absolutely capitalism, and not coincidentally it is a form of expression that benefits from protections afforded by the 1st Amendment (and is constrained by it as well).

In other words, "free speech" is essential for successful domaining. Rob Monster defends free speech (domaining), while "xynames" attacks him for it, and encourages censorship of others on some unlawful, perhaps arbitrary basis (or not.. but as of yet not disclosed).

waterman said:

But they did exist in 1965. Which is why he included them in his poem. He said that if he were the devil, he'd continue doing just what he had been doing (up till 1965). He described it as the work of the devil.

Perhaps the real issue is not prescience but "wokeness"... Paul Harvey was "awake" to what was going on in 1965, even while most were not. He was a newscaster and columnist... he broadcast a show "the rest of the story" or something like that, where he dug into the details behind the major news stories.

He was more aware than the typical consumer.

Back then, how would Paul Harvey have been treated by people like "xynames" up here? I suspect he'd be bullied and kicked.

Funny.. if you did a little, Harvey was a patriot, had trouble with his military service, was a friend of J Edgar Hoover, and a vocal supporter of the Senator Joe McCarthy's attempts to root out communists covertly corrupting the US government at that time. He was a Nationalist... favoring America, its citizens, and core ideals.. because (gasp) he was an American and loved his family, church, and country.

And in 1996 the NSA declassified documents on Russian KGB activity in America which were synched to other notes to reveal that.... Senator Joe McCarthy was actually correct. Russian communications revealed that many of the accused were indeed either spies (Rosenbergs, Alger Hiss) or had been communicating regularly (Oppenheimer.. who was not accepting the offers and terms) etc. In other words, there was cause for investigation.

Side note: Rob Monster has far greater diplomacy skills than Senator Joe McCarthy , lol.

Free speech is an essential ingredient of Democracy. A certain degree of guided democracy is necessary for capitalism. Debate and discussion are the proof-of-work that allows capitalism to advance a civil society.

Domaining is absolutely capitalism, and not coincidentally it is a form of expression that benefits from protections afforded by the 1st Amendment (and is constrained by it as well).

In other words, "free speech" is essential for successful domaining. Rob Monster defends free speech (domaining), while "xynames" attacks him for it, and encourages censorship of others on some unlawful, perhaps arbitrary basis (or not.. but as of yet not disclosed).

Click to expand...

I almost clicked dislike but I didn't because I presume you don't know xynames. Instead, I ask that you carefully consider his opinions and try to understand his points. There is no shame in that.

From what I have read, xynames has not attacked you but questioned the timing of your joining np and your immediate strong defense of RM.

Personally, I accept your comments and consider them despite you appearing new to the forum. I am certain you have had intelligence since long before joining.

Please accept my welcome. Please take my word that xynames is a super knowledgeable, super quality, person of integrity and ethics.