What's going on with Epik and Rob Monster?

[MapleDots]

I'm catching the tail end of this, seems to be some kind of controversy...

https://domaingang.com/domain-news/rob-monster-off-twitter-after-christchurch-massacre-controversy/

Must be something odd to evoke this type of a response from one of our members.

 

[NYJimbo]

Facebook should have done this a long time ago. Funny how Jones and Farrakhan are now buddies since the ban, considering how Jones was bashing him all these years.

The seven banned are NOT the voice of conservatives, they are the outer edge of the worst of conservatives. Heck, two days ago Jones started making claims that the "Globalists" were weaponizing measles by sending migrants into the USA to infect anti-vaxxers so they would start vaxxing so the globalists/liberals/mkultra/"Jews"/etc could do their mind control.

Glad to see them gone.

 

[Slanted]

If 4 horses presage the Apocalypse, then why aren't these tourists running for their lives?

Once upon a time, automobiles had not been invented; and carriages drawn by 4 horses were a common sight.

Ditto chariots. Statues often commemorate battles or else symbolically present the regime's power in all its martial glory. Thus we see kings riding into the city in chariots. These aren't secret signs. In any case, 4 horsemen would imply 4 riders – not 4 horses.

 

[Slanted]

Glad to see them gone.

Are they "gone"? It seems to me that they will just be shifted from 1 platform (FaceBook) to another. They and their audience will end up in some forum that is more extreme, where poisonous ideas will circulate in greater concentration and seldom be subject to a rebuttal.

In the process, by dint of being banned, these jerks will gain prestige and a cult following of "rebels" who distrust the establishment.

Meanwhile, FaceBook sets a precedent that might be expanded to ban other voices – or even positive references to them. That is not a trend to be cheered.

 

[Internet.Domains]

In the process, by dint of being banned, these jerks will gain prestige and a cult following of "rebels" who distrust the establishment.

I agree with some of what you said, but labeling those who distrust the establishment as "rebels" is inaccurate.

In fact, most people in America at least, who oppose the establishment has very high praise for our Constitution and our democracy. Those who oppose the establishment are not "rebelling" against our government structure, they are in opposition of those who are trying to ruin our government structure.

Therefore, those who belong to the establishment would be more appropriately labeled as "rebels."

 

[RogueWriter]

This thread should be moved to the break room. There is a specific thread for politics, and a specific thread for religion. Am I wrong? That is where these non domain related issues belong.

Currently this thread is in "Free Resources / reviews"

 

[Slanted]

@RogueWriter

NamePros moderators can move this thread anywhere they think it fits.

This discussion has been, from the outset, about the mixture of 2 topics that are normally kept separate: Domains and Politics. Sometimes the thread has veered off in directions that leave the domain industry far behind. But at other times, the thread has focused on a domain registrar's responsibilities with respect to particular domains with controversial content. It's all over the place, and – given its origins in that mixture of politics + domains – that's no surprise.

 

[Slanted]

Therefore, those who belong to the establishment would be more appropriately labeled as "rebels."

Aren't "rebels" by definition the people who rebel against an establishment?

Just to be clear, there is nothing right or wrong about being part of the establishment or being a rebel. Sometimes people feel justified because they're in the majority or in power. Sometimes people get a romantic thrill from belonging to a minority that fights against the prevailing order – especially if it's a persecuted minority. That was my point about "rebels". But in both cases, people are only members of a group and striking a pose.

 

[Rob Monster]

@RogueWriter

NamePros moderators can move this thread anywhere they think it fits.

This discussion has been, from the outset, about the mixture of 2 topics that are normally kept separate: Domains and Politics. Sometimes the thread has veered off in directions that leave the domain industry far behind. But at other times, the thread has focused on a domain registrar's responsibilities with respect to particular domains with controversial content. It's all over the place, and – given its origins in that mixture of politics + domains – that's no surprise.

The thread started out as a bit of a public lynching of Epik, initiated by an uninformed Shane Cultra and amplified by certain members of a left-leaning lynch mob here at NamePros.

Although I initially did not engage with the thread, it finally became apparent by page 16 that either I was not going to run Epik, or the industry was going to get to know the real Rob Monster.

The thread has since evolved into a larger conversation about censorship, and the search for truth. The thread defies categorization. It has certainly increased Epik's brand awareness at NP and elsewhere.

Regrettably, the resulting controversy did cause Joseph Peterson to move on from Epik. He did great work for us, and will be missed. Despite our differences of opinion, I endorse him highly as a valued alumnus.

 

[frank-germany]

Regrettably, the resulting controversy did cause Joseph Peterson to move on from Epik. He did great work for us, and will be missed. Despite our differences of opinion, I endorse him highly as a valued alumnus.

yes that, of course, the result of this controversial thread

stupid me was thinking it was caused by
@Rob Monster
posting a lot of unbelievable nonsense

 

[Rob Monster]

yes that, of course, the result of this controversial thread

stupid me was thinking it was caused by
@Rob Monster
posting a lot of unbelievable nonsense

Hi Frank - Welcome back. You can believe whatever you want. This particular decision, initiated by Joseph, had more to do with the public "scandal" to use Joseph's term. Prior to the recent media attention, Joseph and I did talk openly about our respective views, including aspects of what you call "nonsense". This is probably why Joseph felt comfortable discussing his unmoderated observations in this thread.

 

[RogueWriter]

So basically there are no moderators willing to move this to an appropriate section or ask the posters to place religious comments in the religion thread and political comments in the political thread.

But, I bet the first time I make a post about politics in an inappropriate thread I will get admonished by at least one moderator and the thread will be closed or moved to a section not of my liking or choosing.

CLICK HERE FOR THE RELIGIOUS THREAD

 

[Internet.Domains]

So basically there are no moderators willing to move this to an appropriate section or ask the posters to place religious comments in the religion thread and political comments in the political thread.

But, I bet the first time I make a post about politics in an inappropriate thread I will get admonished by at least one moderator and the thread will be closed or moved to a section not of my liking or choosing.

CLICK HERE FOR THE RELIGIOUS THREAD

Regardless of where the thread is stacked, the conversation has been an enlightening one and really can't be categorically applied to any specific thread without more disagreement.

If the thread was to move I would hope that Rob would be part of that decision making process, as he is the subject.

 

[TCK]

This is the perfect video to summarize this thread (watch it all the way through):

 

[Internet.Domains]

This is the perfect video to summarize this thread (watch it all the way through):

Seriously?....George Clooney talking about dumb@$$es......Ohhhhh the irony.

If your going to make a point, don't do it with out of touch Hollywood elitists.

 

[TCK]

Seriously?....George Clooney talking about dumb@$$es......Ohhhhh the irony.

If your going to make a point, don't do it with out of touch Hollywood elitists.

The content is spot on and the delivery hilarious.

“For 200 donation you can teach 10 **** ***** ****** that dinosaurs existed but not at the same time as humans”

PS. Whenever you attack the person you undermine your own case.

 

[frank-germany]

The content is spot on and the delivery hilarious.

“For 200 donation you can teach 10 **** ***** ****** that dinosaurs existed but not at the same time as humans”

PS. Whenever you attack the person you undermine your own case.

The problem is you can't enhance peoples capability of understanding
of more or less complex facts.

Everybody is born with whatever they have.

So don't blame them - they just can't.

But that doesn't mean to take them seriously.
That would go too far.

 

[Rob Monster]

The content is spot on and the delivery hilarious.

“For 200 donation you can teach 10 **** ***** ****** that dinosaurs existed but not at the same time as humans”

Seriously though, it is a darned shame that you, a professing Christian, don't believe the content of your Bible. In the Bible, the largest "dinosaur" variants were referred to as Behemoth and Leviathan.

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-Dinosaurs/

Behemoth "whose tail hung like a cedar tree" and Leviathan with sharp teeth and scale.
Behemoth is thought to be the biblical name for the brontosaurus and "Leviathan" likewise for T-Rex.

Here is a basic compare/contrast primer for you:

https://answersingenesis.org/dinosa...s-live/what-really-happened-to-the-dinosaurs/

As for the Clooney bit, on Jimmy Kimmel, if that does not completely reek of propaganda, I am not sure what does.

Reminder:

The playbooks are all out in the open. You can either learn the game or you can choose to be played. Either way, like it or not, you are in the game, the question is whether you are a player, or getting played.

 

[TCK]

Seriously though, it is a darned shame that you, a professing Christian, don't believe the content of your Bible. In the Bible, the largest "dinosaur" variants were referred to as Behemoth and Leviathan.

False. They refer to the hippopotamus and the crocodile.

 

[Rob Monster]

False. They refer to the hippopotamus and the crocodile.

Nonsense.

Behemoth eats grass like an ox (Job 40:15) but has a tail like a cedar (Job 40:17). And more significantly, "His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth." (Job 40:21). This was a literal fire breathing dragon as secular history and mythology also documents in the stories of dragonslayers.

Nimrod, aka Baal, Osiris, and Marduk, recorded in secular history, was not just a great and mighty hunter, a brilliant statesman and the first king of the world. He was also a great dragonslayer and probably a key enabler for the modern narrative that dragons/dinos did not co-exist with mankind when they did.

Either you believe the Bible or you don't. I won't judge you but from what I observe of your punditry, you are denying the written text and an apologist for secular nonsense. And yet, based on phone conversation, I suspect that you actually know better.

Secular Humanists are relying on 3 pillars of nonsense to make people think that life is without meaning:

1. The notion that dinosaurs / dragons did not coexist with Adamic man.

2. The notion that humans and all life evolved from nothing.

3. The notion that earth is a meaningless speck in a vast, expanding and randomly arrayed universe.

The decision to investigate these, and other, topics, is the start of the search for truth.

Satan is heading for the pit. His days are numbered. He was controlled opposition all along. Anyone who puts their confidence in Satan or his minions is a certified fool.

 

[TCK]

Behemoth eats grass like an ox (Job 40:15) but has a tail like a cedar (Job 40:17). And more significantly, "His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth." (Job 40:21). This was a literal fire breathing dragon as secular history and mythology also documents in the stories of dragonslayers.

So you think literal dragons/dinosaurs existed alongside people. And you think that makes sense?

You don't think that today exist wild beasts? And that there were other wild beasts that today are extinct but existed in ancient times, that were not dinosaurs?

And also you don't believe the Bible uses poetic descriptions?

What do hippos eat? https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-do-hippos-eat-lesson-for-kids.html

If you read up on the hippopotamus then the description in Job is quite fitting. More so than to dinosaurs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippopotamus

The same goes for the crocodile:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocodile

And it is within the realm of logic/reason to believe there were species of both animals that likely do not exist today.

The false "christendom" teachings that dinosaurs existed alongside humans and that the earth was created in 6 24-hour days is part of the reason why people become atheist or agnostic.

It is amazing that you accept the science of the Internet but cast doubt on other proven sciences.

And BTW, the text you attributed to Job 40:21 is incorrect. It is Job 41.

 

[frank-germany]

Seriously though, it is a darned shame that you, a professing Christian, don't believe the content of your Bible. In the Bible, the largest "dinosaur" variants were referred to as Behemoth and Leviathan.

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-Dinosaurs/

Behemoth "whose tail hung like a cedar tree" and Leviathan with sharp teeth and scale.
Behemoth is thought to be the biblical name for the brontosaurus and "Leviathan" likewise for T-Rex.

Here is a basic compare/contrast primer for you:

https://answersingenesis.org/dinosa...s-live/what-really-happened-to-the-dinosaurs/

As for the Clooney bit, on Jimmy Kimmel, if that does not completely reek of propaganda, I am not sure what does.

Reminder:

The playbooks are all out in the open. You can either learn the game or you can choose to be played. Either way, like it or not, you are in the game, the question is whether you are a player, or getting played.

really ???
I can't believe my eyes

you are citing Joseph Goebbels?
to prove you are right?

you are supporting right-wing propaganda
and citing Joseph Goebbels

but you are a true Christian
and you love everybody

For heaven's sake!

 

[TCK]

@Rob Monster

Here's another one of the "monsters" that exists today:

Who knows what other reptiles existed 4000 years ago.

But dinosaurs? Definitely not.

 

[Rob Monster]

@Rob Monster

Here's another one of the "monsters" that exists today:

Who know what reptiles and other animals existed 4000 years ago.

But dinosaurs? Definitely not.

Let us know when you find one that breathes fire. They used to be on the earth.

To be clear, and as you should well know, that is not Christian doctrine. It is in the oldest book of the BIble -- Job was written after flood, and before Genesis. So, it would also be Orthodox Jewish.

The other non-Canonical books that provide context on the early earth are Enoch and Jasher.

 

[TCK]

Let us know when you find one that breathes fire. They used to be on the earth.

To be clear, and as you should well know, that is not Christian doctrine. It is in the oldest book of the BIble -- Job was written after flood, and before Genesis. So, it would also be Orthodox Jewish.

The other non-Canonical books that provide context on the early earth are Enoch and Jasher.

When you smoke a cigar and smoke comes out of your nostrils, are you breathing fire? It may look like it, but obviously not.

The words are poetic descriptions and accurate. I can find you other passages that are descriptive but not literal. If dinosaurs walked among humans in those times there would be a lot of direct references to them, like there are to other animals.

If you are true Christian, you would not reference non-canonical books. For obvious reasons.

BTW, the book of Job (written by Moses) is quoted throughout the Bible, including the Greek Scriptures, making it part of the biblical canon. I believe the entire Bible is the truth and must not be taken out of context.

 

[Rob Monster]

When you smoke a cigar and smoke comes out of your nostrils, are you breathing fire? Obviously not.

The words are poetic descriptions and accurate. I can find you other passages that are descriptive but not literal. If dinosaurs walked among humans in those times there would be a lot more references to them.

If you are true Christian, you would not reference non-Canonical books. For obvious reasons.

Wow, spoken like a textbook Jesuit.

There is nothing allegorical about: "Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out." The Hebrew source text makes that clear.

There is nothing wrong with reading non-Canonical texts just like there is nothing wrong with the secular history of Josephus. I don't rely on it for doctrine but for historical data points. They are pieces of the puzzle.

As for the Canon, who set the Canon? Let's see after Constantine determined in 325 that he could no longer destroy Christianity, he paganized it and forced everyone to be Catholic.

And then the bookburning began, and went full psycho in the Dark Ages. The Catholics never stopped burning Bibles nor adulterating them with nonsense like Transubstantiation, Marian worship, induldgences and confession to human confessors -- a profession initially dominated by .... JESUITS.

Ironically it was the Council of Laodicea that gave us "66 books", which conveniently omitted Revelation which calls it the Laodicean church for being lukewarm and useless.