Bloomberg publishes a story about Nick Lim, who sold BitMitigate to Epik.
Bloomberg has published a profile of Nick Lim, who sold his company BitMitigate to Epik in 2019.
Lim has since left Epik but remains a shareholder. He now spends his time helping sites favored by White supremacists and QAnon followers stay online.
It’s a fascinating story about the 23-year-old who says he is motivated by free speech. Authors William Turton and Joshua Brustein dig into Lim’s background, finding some contradictions in his story.
The story also discusses Epik and Rob Monster. Bloomberg discusses how the company provides services to extremist sites and provides this nugget:
In October, Bloomberg Businessweek emailed Monster, requesting an interview to discuss Epik’s political philosophy and its relationship with Lim. [Rob] Davis, the Epik executive, sent a nine-page response arguing that Epik had been demonized unfairly and had done a great job of combating extremism. Davis accused the news media of trying to destroy the lives of Epik employees and said the interview request itself was part of an attempt to manipulate the 2020 presidential election. “The long and short of it,” he wrote, “is that we don’t give interviews to traitors of our country that participate in attempted coups sponsored by offshore money.” He cc’d close to 100 other recipients, including the Republican chair of the Federal Communications Commission, the antitrust division of the Federal Trade Commission, and Fox News host Sean Hannity.
This will sound familiar to anyone who has received an email from Davis. When PayPal dropped Epik, Davis wrote an open letter mentioning Hollywood pedophiles and Hunter Biden. When GoDaddy terminated its Afternic partnership with Epik, Epik questioned receiving GoDaddy’s letter “two hours after the election was called for Joe Biden.”
And when some domain name investors reacted to an ostensibly racist comment by an Epik representative, Davis sent an email cc’d to the FTC telling people to stop, threatening that he could email 300 million people within 15 seconds.
J.R. says
Many overlook unintended consequences of censoring free speech, like growing the Dark web and the Streisand Effect.
Best response to opinions we disagree with is to add your ideas to the marketplace of ideas, counter bad ideas by shining light on them and even refusing to do business with those repellant to your core values.
But Censorship is a dangerous slippery slope, and the reason SCOTUS has very narrow definitions of the sorts of speech that can be regulated.
John says
See my big separate comment below Kevin Murphy’s when it gets out of “moderation.” It’s in part a reply to yours.
Kevin Murphy says
Birds of a feather, etc.
J.R. says
Explain.
Kevin Murphy says
Monster’s a bit of a fringe, conspiracy-believing kinda guy. Seems this other Rob is also.
J.R. says
I’d rather light be shone on fringe elements. Also, ‘conspiracies’ need to be heard as well – even if only to be debunked.
Why? See the Panama papers, Nixon water-gate, Wikileaks exposure, Snowden, Bernie Madoff scheme, etc.
Often ‘conspiracy’ theories lead people to uncomfortable truths.
Let bad ideas receive the FULL light of attention and replaced with better ideas in the public discourse.
Kevin Murphy says
I won’t disagree with any of that JR. Sometimes, people in power are up to no good, and it’s absolutely vital that those kinds of things are exposed when they occur. I try to expose them myself, whenever I come across them in my own little limited niche.
It’s also important, as you say, for false conspiracies to be thoroughly debunked, particularly when they lead to harms against innocent parties.
John says
That may be a more softball than usual delivery style for someone making a comment like that about one or both of them this particular time, but that’s still just a smear of Rob Monster and Rob Davis.
And regarding the use of the term “conspiracy,” I have come to call that the “conspiracy theory card.” Or we can just call it the “conspiracy card” for short. People like you need to wake up and realize how profoundly stupid and ultimately dishonest it truly is. However, knowing you as well as I do through blog interactions I won’t exactly wait for that in your case.
I do highly recommend you and others read a brilliant article on the topic by someone named Caitlin Johnstone, however, “Everyone’s A Conspiracy Theorist, Whether They Know It Or Not.” It can be found on Medium or her eponymous blog. This particular quote from it is one of my favorites and particularly devastating to the disingenuous and deluded “card” so many people play:
“The problem has never been with the actual term “conspiracy theory”; the problem has been with its deliberate and completely meaningless use as a pejorative. The best way to address this would be a populist move to de-stigmatize the label by taking ownership of it. Last month Cornell University professor Dave Callum tweeted, “I am a ‘conspiracy theorist’. I believe men and women of wealth and power conspire. If you don’t think so, then you are what is called ‘an idiot’. If you believe stuff but fear the label, you are what is called ‘a coward’.” This is what we all must do. The debate must be forcibly moved from the absurd question of whether or not conspiracies are a thing to the important question of which conspiracy theories are valid and to what degree.”
Especially the part where he says “I believe men and women of wealth and power conspire. If you don’t think so, then you are what is called ‘an idiot’.”
We are all fallible and flawed in various ways, but your comment about those two guys is one of your flaws and says more about you than about anyone else.
John says
That would be you, Kevin Murphy. You are one of the worst examples of being a “friend of the establishment” I have seen in domaining over the years.
Kevin Murphy says
Which establishment would that be? And what on earth makes you think I’m “in domaining”?
John says
I should’ve mentioned “friend of” censorship and suppression of freedom of speech too, but I figured that went without saying. You can just review every interaction we’ve ever had over the years in various blog comments.
Kevin Murphy says
Oh, you’re that “John”. I’d forgotten about you.
Sorry for feeding him, Andrew, I’ll avert my gaze and back away slowly now.
Robert Davis says
“And when some domain name investors reacted to an ostensibly racist comment by an Epik representative, Davis sent an email cc’d to the FTC telling people to stop, threatening that he could email 300 million people within 15 seconds.”
Wow you are something else. How dare you for real. You already know he dropped a phone and broke it Andrew, and cried out in frustration and anguish due to the cost of it. In the middle of a covid crisis, while his neighbors were flying white flags to keep their children from starving. While Epik was sending money and food to the area as others like yourself sat on pedestals creating false stories of racism to further a fake narrative. Birds of a feather? Simply disgusting.
You literally deleted comments, suppressed content, and edited posts to protect Tucows from the support they were giving to the fastest growing Nazi platform in America Andrew. Post me personally taking them offline, while you, Kevin and others continue the rants and underhanded attacks. You play damage control from racists in your own social circles as a go-to job description. While you refuse to even publish press releases on technology advancements, sales, and new helpful services based on your massive conflict of interests. Now you are twisting this and leaving out the consequential facts? What a gross mischaracterization. You really are exceptionally deceptive at times, in honoring what should be an industry that could benefit from being able to actually trust you. You do not miss an opportunity to attack Epik, even when you know unequivocally that your narrative is false and your facts are far from true. You might want to mention the backlash of PayPal cost them $35bn in market capitalization, as they were launching their own cryptocurrency plans while trying to honor the SPLC’s request being used to marginalize political discussions. Point your finger and keep yelling racist. It will not work out for you, and eventually your own continued bigotry and discrimination will be transparent for the world to see.
The letter to thirty editors you refer to, was sent stating if you wanted to continue your routes in paid hypocrisy and lying to our industry, that I would be more than happy to go past the manipulation you engage in here weekly to shine some truth in our industry. Keep poking it if you want. The world is craziness enough where I would be prepared to be held accountable for broken NDA’s so the actions of a few treacherous people can be exposed. There is no love, honor, courage or truth though in the role you play here. I’d be happy to go into red pill mode for a week and then see what your false virtue signaling is really worth.
You are a bigot and a bully Andrew. Keep throwing shots at Epik.
Kevin Murphy says
Hey Rob. You seem to have conflated things I said with things Andrew said a couple of times in that comment. I don’t speak for Andrew and he doesn’t speak for me. Feel free to continue saying whatever it is you’re saying, but please make sure you understand that he and I are two separate people. Cheers.
John says
Well Kevin, it’s not for nothing I said “That would be you, Kevin Murphy” in response to your comment about “Birds of a feather.”
Kevin Murphy says
Yes, you Anonymous Coward, it was for nothing, you fucking pair of clown shoes..
John says
Cool, I like that, Kevin – “Anonymous Coward.” And the caps are a nice touch. If I could do everything over it would be tempting for that to even be my chosen screen name.
It may interest you to know that’s even one of the few things you and Rob can agree on last time I saw him say anything about that – Rob Monster, that is. I don’t know about Rob Davis. And as much as I like and even love Rob and consider him to be such a champion of truth and principle one can thank God for, though we are all fallible, flawed and imperfect in various ways in this life, and one which both the industry and the world itself would be far worse off without, he’s actually quite wrong about that if he still holds that view. As are you, though certainly not as malevolently as you with regard to Rob.
I’m real big on substance over persona, and there is also an important place in life and the world for degrees and forms and times of anonymity. This is one for some. In one sense it also wouldn’t make a difference anyway since I’m not a known person in any meaningful way to the industry to begin with. Just a guy with something to say about truth and light, darkness and lies, evil and good.
John says
Very interesting indeed. I was originally also going to call Andrew’s post itself a smear too but felt I wasn’t sufficiently up on all the facts yet. Personally I would love to see all the red pills come out.
John Berryhill says
Someone never learned the meaning of the word “ostensibly”.
Kevin Murphy says
Somebody needs to just post or point to what the comment was.
Andrew Allemann says
So what happened was there was a domainer meetup on Zoom. This was during the BLM protests. Michael Cyger gave a toast to people fighting for social justice everywhere. Right at the end of the toast, the Epik guy said what sounded like “Oh, f@ck’em”.
Later, this guy said he dropped his phone and cracked it at that exact moment.
So, ostensibly he made a racist comment. Epik then explained the phone incident.
Now, I’m not a VP of Communications for a company. But I know a lot of them, and I know what they’d do if this happened. They’d apologize for what happened. They’d probably say they were investigating the matter. Maybe even put the person on paid leave while they did. Then they’d come up with their conclusion. Let’s say they concluded their poor sap really dropped his phone at that exact, inopportune moment. They would explain this and go on an apology tour. Say sorry to the host of that Zoom. Issue a public apology.
They ended up sort of doing those last two things, but not until after blaming people who had the audacity to complain about what happened. The VP of Communications threatened to email 300 million people in an email asking people to “Cease & Desist”. It’s a bit ironic that people who cater to sites in the name of free speech use threats to shut down free speech when it’s critical of them.
Again, I’m no VP of Communications. Maybe the way I’d approach what happened is wrong.
John says
I was not even familiar with any of this or the context for the phone related matter. However, I think I can take a pretty informed guess. This is only speculation, but my pure guess is that these two factors came into play, *if and only if* someone really said what it “sounded like” he said:
1. For better or worse, a “buzz phrase” like “social justice” can be highly negative for some people, fraught with evil connotations that have to do with *anything but* real social justice and more like everything to do with corruption, hypocrisy, all sorts of evil, whatever. Hence apparently the term “social justice warrior” as well. There can and no doubt often are perfectly valid and true reasons for someone feeling that way about people who talk about and clamor for “social justice,” even though some who clamor for “social justice” may be genuine and the “real deal.”
2. Many people were *extremely* upset about the destruction and devastation of some of the riots, and view that as being the total antithesis of having anything to do with a genuine desire for “social justice.” That would only pour gasoline on the fire of point #1. That too is understandable. I personally witnessed what was probably one of the biggest and worst cases of this riot fueled devastation myself, and it was definitely more than understandable that some would be *extremely* upset about it and view it that way. One of my friends was even extremely upset, far more than I would have expected someone to ever be.
3. And of course without having the audio and video of that Zoom meeting myself, it’s entirely possible the person never said that at all, but only said something else that merely “sounded like” it. Worse, it’s even possible some are lying about what it “sounded like,” since that would certainly be a great opportunity to slam Epik and cause new trouble for Epik et al that way, for all I know. I don’t know, but I do know that is certainly possible and something people would definitely do sometimes. I could say more on that, perhaps another time.
4. *Even if* the person actually said that very remark verbatim, it is not prima facie racist or even “ostensibly racist” at all. Instead, *if* anyone even said that very remark, again it could just have been the perfectly understandable feeling of someone who honestly believed there was *anything but* genuine “social justice” being pursued in the riots and that instead the only thing going on was a lot of hypocrisy and chicanery resulting in a lot of unjustified mayhem, destruction and devastation contrary to the cause of and contrary to any genuine desire for “social justice.” The person who said whatever was said may in fact even care about real social justice extremely much and may have been disgusted and dismayed by what was going on. And if the phone dropped, then it’s also understandable that could have tipped someone over the edge in terms of letting something bubble out that would be taken the wrong way when they had been refraining from even saying anything before.
Like I said, just a guess, and I still have a paucity of knowledge and facts about all that.
Uki J says
How, exactly, is uttering the words “Oh, f@ck’em” as a response to the Marxist organization BLM in any way “racist”?
J.R. says
I can tell that whoever was in that Zoom call that was so triggered by the alleged ‘fuck @m’ comment they cried r@cism never actually OBSERVED the George Floyd protests and riots. I observed these events up close for an entire week or so.
What I noted:
(1) peaceful protest should be respected and their should be ZERO tolerance for anti-Black racism
(2) in the Twin Cities over 1/2 $billion in property of small biz and home owners was destroyed by rioters.
(3) Many of those protesting and rioting were White, especially White females (1/3-3/4)!
Sure, saying ‘fuck @m’ as a guest on a biz Zoom is low class behavior and disrespectful. But to say, using the term to describe those who destroyed at least 1/2 $billion in private property in just one city, is over-reach.
Again, often those rioting and destroying property were White males and females. So, I would need more than ‘fuck @m’ in response to destructive and undisciplined rioters (who did more harm to regular folks than the authorities responsible for racial terrorism) to smear an entire biz as r@cist is over-kill.
But if it was said, it would classify as low-grade behavior, no doubt.
Steve says
It’s really contrived to call that “racist.” If that’s “ostensibly racist,” then your post is ostensibly slander.
It seems people nowadays are bending over backwards to accuse others of their pet words. Why? Does it make you happy to spew hatred? And in your own words, they even apologized for the misunderstanding afterwards. Would you frame it the same way if a GoDaddy employee made a mistake and then apologized?
Andrew Allemann says
Yes, if GoDaddy subsequently threatened the people complaining about it. Absolutely. I can guarantee you that a company like GoDaddy would have handled it differently.
Annoyed by John says
Andrew my comment from yesterday evening immediately below yours of April 14, 2021 at 7:38 pm is still in moderation and not appearing yet. It’s actually a bit interesting if I can say so myself, a stab at analyzing and speculating about the “allegation.”
John, you have been complaining and (crying wolf) creating conspiracy after conspiracy about comment moderation on this blog, and other industry blogs for many years now.
Here’s what you were doing exactly 4 years ago.
https://domainnamewire.com/2016/04/14/thats-radio-five-os/#comment-2238322
I could pull many examples of you questioning comments, but frankly, I’m sick of reading your shit, and wish this blog had a way of ignoring/blocking comments from a repeat commenter similar to namePros or Twitter.
Everything is almost always quickly sorted out, yet for some reason, you persist on padding the comment section with “where/why is my comment in moderation” nonsense that all the other reads have to see. Why not email Andrew? Why does Andrew have to be constantly on call to approve your comment? The readers come here to read what the author had to write, not worry about the John who trolls the comment section just waiting to cry conspiracy wolf. I apologize if this sound insensitive, but I’m damn tired of watching/reading you agonize of moderation conspiracies. Maybe you should start your own blog where you’d be more accountable to yourself?
John says
Well, “Annoyed by John”…
Unfortunately just as “fear sells” with regard to what is going on globally and especially here in the US right now, actions like yours tend to work too, at least with far too many still. So for the greater good and the cause, I need to waste some time replying to you.
I was going to start with “Dear Lying Dumbass” or “Dear Culpable Lying Dumbass,” but instead will just go with –
Dear Culpable Liar,
To begin with, you know you are doing something particularly good and effective when someone like you goes to all the trouble to make a lengthy comment quite like that and even name yourself “Annoyed by John.”
(On a side note, by the way, note that I would not use terms like “dumbass” or “stupid” unless it is truly deserved with an element of true culpability, not to be confused with ill-intended idiots who use terms like that in a purely malevolent, evil and unjustified way.)
On another side note, I must say that although I’m still not as up on all the facts as I’d like, it now seems like I’m in the very same kind of position I have seen Rob Davis dealing with with regard to addressing such lying and distortion. As Spock would say, “Fascinating.”
Do you know that from my perspective I actually invented the term “conspiracy theory card”? It’s amazing someone like you will still play the card regardless, even no matter how much adequate exposure it has received in this very thread. Amazing, but also typical of our time.
With those who engage in that tactic, one thing I have noticed for years now is how they are so eager to play the card that they often jump the gun and do it prematurely and dishonestly as you have here. Never fails that someone is eager to do that.
Okay, so, to further waste time on this, for the sake of the greater good and the cause, not you…
To begin with your opening statement is a pure bald-faced lie. How many people even know that the preferred term is “bald-faced lie” and not “bold-faced lie,” by the way, but I digress. So that’ll be a big fat lying “no” on your part, I have not been “complaining,” or “crying wolf,” or “creating conspiracy after conspiracy” about comment moderation on this or other blogs.
Regarding your link from 2016 – ah yes, the old tactic of presenting something as if it supports your phony case when in reality it does the opposite. Ergo, exactly what part of statements there like “At times I have wondered, Andrew, but at other times I have also been pleasantly and favorably impressed to see that you don’t censor or block me” or “as I have certainly tried before” or “Weird, yours wasn’t showing when I just posted now. Lol” did you not understand? Rhetorical question of course, since you are simply lying here.
What part of what you just quoted from this morning did you not understand so as to mischaraterize it in such a lying way as well, though I digress again…or not…
So for the reader, and the cause, and the sake of the greater good, what is the truth about this matter then?
Here is the truth, contrary to your lie:
1. Andrew himself is well aware and has been for years now that there is an issue with his blog, that for some reason comments, at least particularly mine if not so much others, wind up getting trapped in “moderation” to a fairly absurdly frequent extent. So much so that in years past we did exchange a number of emails about it. He indicated it has something to do with some of the software plugins or features but that basically there wasn’t anything he could do about it. After he mentioned the issue of software, I would have to review the old emails but I may have even tried to help him out a bit with information about what some of the other domain bloggers were using for that.
This issue has occurred mainly with only Andrew’s blog here, though far more infrequently on some of the other four domain blogs I also frequent. There has also been just plain deliberate “censorship” over at Morgan Linton’s blog, a fifth, though I rarely go there anymore.
2. The truth vs. disgusting lies like yours is so often as purely ironic as it gets, and that is the case this time. The truth is that for so many years now I have been fully aware that lying “scumbags” like yourself are ready and eager to cry “conspiracy theory” if I mention a comment needing to be rescued from moderation, so I have deliberately always been wording it in such a way that no honest person acting with even the slightest regard for truth could play that card honestly. And that is precisely what I did with what you quoted, and in my reference to the matter in my comment of 12:54 pm below. Nonetheless, there’s nothing you can do when people play the bald-faced lying game because they want to play the card regardless.
3. Regarding why I mention when a comment got stuck in moderation, I have simply determined and discovered including through experience that it’s simply best to do it that way for a variety of good practical reasons. Honest good faith reasons, concepts that might be alien to someone like you. I could say more, but honestly only a culpable lying person like yourself even needs me to, so for now I’ll just leave it at that instead of spending more time on this element.
So, “Annoyed by John,” apparently you don’t mind making a fool of yourself, as I pointed out with Kevin earlier. As it is said, “try again.” And one does have to love your own cry for censorship too.
For everyone else, hopefully the above covers this particular topic well enough.
John says
That’s not even just weak, John Berryhill, but is simply nonsense. I’m quite confident also disingenuous nonsense.
The rock said it doesn't matter what my name is says
“The letter to thirty editors you refer to, was sent stating if you wanted to continue your routes in paid hypocrisy and lying to our industry, that I would be more than happy to go past the manipulation you engage in here weekly to shine some truth in our industry. Keep poking it if you want. The world is craziness enough where I would be prepared to be held accountable for broken NDA’s so the actions of a few treacherous people can be exposed.
Does anybody else view this repeated tactic, ie. threatening to expose the industry, by Robert Davis as an extortion typical technique designed to wield power whenever Epik is put on the hot seat? If Rob Davis had information on treacherous people within the industry, why does he only threaten to expose when Epik is under fire?
Robert Davis previously threatened to expose some absolute truth related to the domain industry when Braden Pollack temporarily resigned from Epik BOD after the zoom fiasco. Unfortunately, that tweet/threat has since been removed, though it looks to be what prompted Rick Schwartz to tweet:
“There is an ugly industry storm erupting.
Probably the worst I have seen in #domaining and it includes some heavyweights and a lot of dirty secrets, accusations and threats to expose.”
https://twitter.com/DomainKing/status/1271025224205697024
This is almost like the domain version of Hilary Clinton threatening to expose United States secrets if Trump locked her up. Or vice versa, Trump threatening to expose United States secrets if he or is family is to be prosecuted for anything.
Just because you know dirty secrets of the powerful, doesn’t mean you’re above the law. Or does it?
I surmise this is the benefit to hiring somebody with a Q level security clearance as senior VP of Qommunications?
John says
Going back decades now, my personal experience has born out the commonly known and as blatant as it gets reality that censorship, assault upon, and even nothing less than hatred of free speech is something particularly “signature” to, and even to the point of being truly stereotypical of, “liberal Democrats,” i.e. the neo-liberal Democrat establishment.
In my experience over the years it also seems clear now, and all but even formally announced by them, that domain bloggers like our host Andrew here, and Morgan Linton, just to name a few, are “liberal Democrats” themselves, at least effectively and practically even if they are not actually formally registered members of the Democratic party itself.
So-called “conservatives,” the “right,” and Republicans have their defects too, some of which are also just as extreme to the point of being truly and validly stereotypical as well. Free speech, however, is mostly not one of them.
When it comes to free speech, the “right” is certainly far better. However, it is important to note something many may not be aware of. And that is that even on the so-called “right,” they actually do want to get in on the censorship and free speech suppression game a bit themselves, just not nearly as much or as extremely as the liberal “fake left.” (Contrary to your standard brainwashing and language usage 24/7, the “liberal” establishment and its disciples and supporters are not “the left” at all, and even hate and suppress the real “left” more than they do in their conflicts with the “right,” but we can cover that another time.) With the “right” it’s mainly about suppressing opposition to war if they are so inclined at all, on which the liberal/fake left side is not only completely in bed with the right but is sometimes even more war mongering.
So yes, J.R. above has pointed out an important point about the unintended consequences of censorship, a point that others in independent media have pointed out before. It’s blatantly obvious truth, but people can point it out all they want, and sadly it almost always makes no difference. Even when some learn it the hard way, still nothing changes. The liberal “fake left” who fight for censorship and suppression so much, and even those so inclined re censorship who are not as bad as them but who lean more in that direction than not, will apparently continue to do so, and continue to approve and rejoice with glee when they get it, until the day comes when one of those unintended consequences comes to bite them and they learn the hard way. Case in point (though I’m surely wasting my time here), I literally was watching a Jimmy Dore video the other day in which the person he was speaking with actually admitted that very thing, how he had originally supported the censorship and deplatforming of Alex Jones, but how those unintended and unwanted consequences came back to bite him and his organization personally and how wrong he had been in supporting the censorship of even someone like Alex Jones.
In closing:
The “fake left” and “liberal” side of the false left/right paradigm is bad.
The “right” and “conservative” side of the false left/right paradigm is also bad, in their particular ways.
It’s two wings of the same bird, two sides of the same coin. One side may be better than the other for certain specific ares of life, but both are serving the same cause of oligarchy, plutocracy, and the profoundly evil status quo.
On a personal note of recommendation, it is far better to be “independent,” a truth seeker, placing truth above partisanship and ideology. No doubt many delude and deceive themselves into thinking they really do that, however, which is part of the problem.
Kevin Murphy says
I’d just like to post for the record that i scrolled past all of the commentary above and did not absorb one piece of the information that she tried to impart.
This chick is trying to make a point about sexism, and I don’t think we should let it work.
John says
Seriously? No qualms about making a fool of yourself? Drinking perhaps? Alcohol is really bad for you even in “moderation” if that’s the case.
Kevin Murphy says
I’ve been on the wagon for 30 years, dickwad. I’m not even sure what beer tastes like any more. How are you doing, Anonymous Coward?
John says
Okay… Well no qualms about making a fool of yourself is a perfectly valid option too. I’m really loving you today – haven’t heard an endearing epithet like that particular one in possibly 30 years myself. It’s almost nostalgic. Never even would have guessed it was a familiar term in your neck of the woods.
Still annoyed by John says
Congrats Kevin on the success!
…and also, nicely done on putting the trolls (Johns) in the place.
If I would have just scrolled past all his nonsense, I probably wouldn’t be “annoyed by John” right now.
I don’t know why John doesn’t realize he’s making a fool of himself. He’s been doing it for years now. You’d think he’d finally learn, or at a certain point domain bloggers would start blocking his outrageous comments.
Good on Morgan Linton for blocking or censoring you John, as you claim. I guess he just had enough of you setting up camp in his comment section, for you to harass his viewpoint, or the opinions of other commenters.
I would say get a life, but, it looks like you’ve found your calling as a comment troll. I assume you will be here the same time tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow, and again, two days after tomorrow. While I wish I could keep typing, just so you can read, and waste more of your time, as your comments have wasted too much of my time over the years, I fear hanging in the comment section under an anonymous coward namesake, may turn me into John, the domain blog commenting troll.
John says
Wow, just saw this, “Still annoyed by John.” I wonder if even you yourself realize the depth and extent to which you are so profoundly such a liar. People often don’t.
Still not amused by John says
Dear John,
I see you’re still here being a good trolling. This time keeping it short, but not without an insult.
Do we enjoy insulting other anonymous cowards? Or does an anonymous coward only take pleasure in those who don’t post anonymously? Also, what does one anonymous coward win after #winning an internet comment war? Is it the, #1 anonymous coward of the year trophy? Is there ever a victor, or is it always wasted time that you, your family, or other readers will never get back.
Note, I have nothing against you being anonymous. It’s the cowardly insults and lack of depth within your comments that I take issue with.
Sincerely,
Still not amused by John
John says
Well I sure wish there was a facepalm emoji to give this time like on Facebook. But to answer your question about what one “wins,” I will refer the reader to “So for the reader, and the cause, and the sake of the greater good” at 3:37 pm above, and a similar statement in my first paragraph there. Now or before long, however, as usual I may determine there is no longer any reason to waste time with you and leave you the last word.
John says
Come to think of it, I will refer the refer to the whole first paragraph there:
“Unfortunately just as “fear sells” with regard to what is going on globally and especially here in the US right now, actions like yours tend to work too, at least with far too many still. So for the greater good and the cause, I need to waste some time replying to you.”
Perhaps it is also an alien concept to you that some may say what they mean and mean what they say the first time. I’d refer you to that comment too but that would appear to be pointless…
John says
refer the reader* (typo)
Squarely says
A minority guy “Protecting” the groups that spew discrimination and hate minorities for the sake of making money?
The saying that goes…the hand that feeds the snakes that think the snakes will love you back!!!
J.R. says
There is MUCH more money to be made in placating to leftist virtue signaling and status quo STATIST censorship than actually standing up for free speech.
One day, the authoritarians on the left and right, will look to abolish free speech completely and you might wish they had been stopped much sooner.
As Justice Douglas once stated about Free Speech, “Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could MOST easily defeat us.”.
How we respond to authoritarians on the right and left undermining free speech now, will have implications for domain names in the future as these digital assets become more and more valuable.
Soon enough, the same authoritarians on the left & right will look to abolish individual registrant rights in URLs exempting them from 5th Amendment protections by legalese trickery.
Better to stand up for the constitutional protections, and trust that they exist for better than worse.
Samer says
“Lim has left Epik but remains shareholder. now spends his time help sites favored by White supremacists and QAnon followers stay online.”
Tell us how you really feel, Andrew?
When did this site get Political. Not you too.
Go Epik! My favorite Registrar.
Samer
PS: Bloomberg has a liberal Left bias.
Andrew Allemann says
Er, there’s no opinion in the statements you quoted.
Squarely says
@Samer-
Since you admire the great company of Epik-
Epik is hiring good customer service to handle phone calls, you will make a good loyal dedicated obedient employee. They pay very well and they “do not discriminate”
Rob says
@Epik & staff
I have learned a lot about all of you from various articles and comments here and elsewhere. After watching for a while one can see hidden interests and agendas. The world has woken up to a large extent to the tribe who has hijacked the world and their evil agenda. It’s also very easy to spot the blatant bias and psyops in some of their writings and comments.
I have opened an account with you recently and will be steadily transferring all my domains over to you as they near expiry. It’s not a huge portfolio, but you deserve my business.
Rob Monster - Epik.com says
Thanks @Rob.
We appreciate your support. We all can do our part to empower humanity to make wise choices, and to overcome scarcity mindset by co-creating abundance. The team at Epik has led by example.
Important to remember that God remains on the throne. Satan himself is controlled opposition, doing his part to manifest the conditions where each individual gets to choose in whom they place their trust and confidence.
The margins we do earn from our various areas of operating activity all go towards new initiatives for digital empowerment. The growing catalog of projects are on display here:
https://www.epik.com/about/labs/
And we have some pretty exciting news on the horizon that should make Epik an even more obvious choice, especially for anyone operating at the intersection of domains and cryptocurrencies.
John says
As I mentioned yesterday, I almost called this whole blog post itself out for being a smear itself in my first comment, but decided to refrain for the time being then. Today I felt like adding something I also first thought yesterday. Not to be immodest, but I’m a pretty astute guy and many have confirmed that in spades over the years. God simply made me that way and it is what it is, though normally one may prefer and choose to avoid saying anything good about oneself, and there is certainly no credit to myself either. Long story short, I’ve also dealt firsthand with a great deal of deep layered corruption in my life. In fact it would be accurate to say it almost even cost me my life, in this world that is. That said, I just wanted to say that as I read Andrew’s blog post yesterday, it held the distinct flavor of someone doing a hit piece that was simply trying to not look like a hit piece, with the author probably even thinking he was succeeding at that. In fact it even reminds me of what I already wrote above in my comment from yesterday evening which is still in moderation and not appearing yet, in which I speculated that whatever occurred during that Zoom meeting I don’t know much about may have just been a “great” opportunity to slam Epik again and try to cause new trouble. Whether yes or no on that, a high profile item like the Bloomberg piece is also that very kind of “opportunity.”
Duh says
Short, one word domains are best. Long-tailed domains are for ignorant people who are also bad spellers.
DropGrabs.com says
Everything Epik / Davis says is TRUE… Interesting to see the DS players OUT themselves in responses to things Epik does to protect FREE SPEECH…
in the END — GOD WINS…
Rob Monster - Epik.com says
Amen.
Rob Davis has some notable gifts. In fact, he is the only guy I know personally who consistently gets more done in a day than I do. I am very thankful for his talents along with an extremely high work ethic and high empathy for people in this industry who need a hand up now and then. The folks who have had Rob Davis go to bat for them will likely know what I am talking about.
I will add that it is true that Rob Davis is highly protective of Epik. For 18 months, the media ran with a story and Wikipedia cataloged it. The reality was rather otherwise and the result is that much of the MSM overplayed their hand. This is now all coming home to roost as the media gets systematically exposed as propagandists and as their ops gets busted. To God be the glory.
Earlier today, we saw Project Veritas get dumped by Twitter for the heretical act of publishing incontrovertible evidence of propagandists engaging in propaganda. The evidence quickly got wiped from the Big Tech outlets. As usual, it lives on at alternative media outlets like this one:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/W5P4e82yP98/
In the end, God does win because more TRUTH sets more people free. For the establishment apologists and misguided trolls, sooner or later they will realize that the loaf of bread and the virtue signaling was not worth it. However, I don’t judge any of them because, after all, we’re ALL on a journey!
John says
Well before this when I’ve seen Rob Davis at work dealing with all the nonsense, I’ve seriously wondered where and how on earth you ever even found a guy like him. That guy is what is called “smokin!” and then some.
I’ve really been appreciating the Project Veritas bombshells the past few days too. I don’t know that much about the host and haven’t bothered finding out, but one thing that really impressed me a while ago was that while it seems fairly obvious he must personally be some kind or degree of a “conservative,” he really does exactly what I said above – places truth above partisanship and ideology. Even if he is some kind of “conservative” he never pushes or promotes anything of the sort in any material I have ever seen, only the truth. In fact if he did I wouldn’t even want anything to do with the broadcasts. And I thought all that before even considering and contemplating the very name of the “project” itself. And then it hit me. Veritas. Now that’s a guy people should pray for as he now pursues such potentially hugely consequential work, especially the latest round with Twitter. The social media monopolies are engaged in all out war against truth, basic principles, and the American people, and of course not just acting on their own. And notice how well rounded I am here in this thread – Jimmy Dore, Caitlin Johnstone, and Project Veritas. 😉
Rob Monster - Epik.com says
As for how Rob Davis showed up at Epik, it is an illustration of how God’s logistics are perfect. The story was chronicled here:
https://www.namepros.com/threads/multi-faith-prayer-request-editable-thread.1163950/page-3#post-7781832
Long story short, Rob’s wife told him he was supposed to come work for Epik. He showed up and started working. The rest is history.
For those who never read it, one of my all-time favorite books is called the “Mystery of Providence”, written in around 1668.
It is an under-appreciated text written by an under-appreciated guy, John Flavel There are copies floating around. Here is a free PDF:
https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/flavel/The%20Mystery%20of%20Providence%20-%20John%20Flavel.pdf
Joseph Peterson says
54 comments … and nary a nod to the substance of the Bloomberg article, which is nominally the topic at hand.
Apparently nobody could find anything in it with which to specifically disagree, which seems like a tacit admission that it’s factually correct.
What then? Tangents. Bluster. Wave the tribal flag. Skirmish with perceived political enemies. Invoke God and Satan while chiding critics for “virtue signaling”.
But what am I doing setting foot in the quicksand of a comments section?
Even now, it bothers me to see Epik so politicized.
John says
Hi Joseph, that’s a rare sighting of you these days. I wasn’t going to comment today but a Kim Iversen video I just watched persuaded me otherwise.
Now along the same lines as how and where on earth Rob M ever found a guy like Rob D, in your case you may recall I had compared you to Bruce Lee when you were still with Epik. Those were also some times. However, I must say that for this comment, not so much.
“which seems like a tacit admission that it’s factually correct” – in all candor that honestly only arouses feelings of “now, now” and “oh please” for me, just being frank. And frankly as well, I would also suggest for one’s consideration that the “real story” here is not the Bloomberg piece at all, but rather more so Andrew’s post itself and his use of it, most especially and particularly everything beginning with “The story also discusses Epik and Rob Monster. Bloomberg discusses how the company provides services to extremist sites and provides this nugget” till the end. And I will also suggest for one’s consideration that people have addressed what needs to be addressed here and made their views adequately clear.
I would also suggest that everything you wrote from “Tangents” to “virtue signaling” is a mischaracterization of the thread. Except for some obvious trolling, everything people have stated here, including the necessity of what I had to deal with in the comments myself, is completely pertinent both directly and/or indirectly. (Normally I don’t like “and/or” almost as much as anyone, but I digress.) It’s not about tribalism, or bluster, or perceived enemies, but about the truth. Not to mention both truth and consequences.
As far as mentioning God goes, I would also suggest that not only is He logically necessary in terms of His existence and all matters involving truth, but that the real problem is people living as if He doesn’t exist and is not present in the events and affairs of this world, deluding themselves in that direction, and not mentioning Him nearly enough. As far as mentioning Satan is concerned, I would also suggest that one might want to contemplate all the past and present evils of this world and then rethink the matter if one is inclined to disbelieve the existence of that particular entity or consider it irrelevant.
Speaking of tangents which are not tangents at all but are completely pertinent, considering what John Berryhill tried with Rob Davis I should have mentioned that in the past even the great John Berryhill himself played the same game a time or two about me simply mentioning a comment getting stuck in moderation. So as he said “Someone never learned the meaning of the word “ostensibly” I would add that some people never learned that mere statement of a fact such as a comment getting stuck in moderation again as a practical efficiency is not the same as adding an interpretation of such a fact one may be so eager and unable to control the urge to publicly accuse someone of for whatever reason. Instead, they have to actually wait until someone actually does the thing they are so eager to portray. Who knew, go figure.
Even the very Kim Iversen video I alluded to above is extremely relevant to the topic at hand, and I recommend watching it. (Pro tip: using higher play speeds of 1.25x to 2x is a great way to cover more ground in less time with such videos.) The video is called “CNN Caught On Camera Admitting To Pro-Democrat Propaganda” dated April 14 on YouTube. And let no one be confused or make anything false or distorted or “tribal” of the fact that it happens to be about CNN and mention “Democrat” in the title either. Republicans do their thing too. One can watch that video, listen to what she says and then contemplate this entire matter here in light of it. Good stuff indeed, all about the important matter of truth – truth and consequences.
Rob Monster - Epik.com says
Amen. Amen.
The funny thing about Nick Lim is that it also applies to Joseph Peterson. I hired both of them because I saw that their potential was greater than their blind spots.
Nick is a highly gifted technologist who pragmatically connects what is needed with what is possible. At the same time, he has very odd sleep patterns, and is the most stubborn guy I have probably ever met.
Joseph is a process mastermind. He can deconstruct vast complexity into its minute components and then make it vastly better. And yet, Joseph is blind to larger truths.
It is not a secret that I have hired zealots. Sometimes zeal is misguided. Sometimes misguided zeal cannot be redirected. However zeal is precious and mighty. It is worth trying to work with it.
If I have success in this life, it is in no small measure due to my optimism in humanity. I believe God gives everyone gifts even if the person with those gifts has yet to acknowledge the gift, or acknowledge God.
Working with zealous people takes courage. Sometimes their past zeal caused them to make mistakes that they late come to regret. That does not mean they are not worthy.
Looking ahead, I have no idea if we would ever work with Joseph or Nick again. I have extended an olive branch on multiple occasions to both. I hold out optimism that, in time, it could still happen.
Long story short: never underestimate a smart zealot. Properly directed and providence-permitting, a smart zealot can get more done in a week than most will get done in a year or even in a lifetime!
So keep praying for the smart zealots.
Joseph Peterson says
@Rob Monster,
“Looking ahead, I have no idea if we would ever work with Joseph or Nick again.”
If you wish to re-hire Nick Lim, be my guest! Obviously, when I resigned 2 years ago, I was finished working with you, Rob.
Moreover, the politicization of Epik – which drove me away, and which I hoped my departure would prompt you to redress – seems to have become a more ingrained problem.
Certainly I wish you and Epik the best, although we differ on what that means.
“I have extended an olive branch on multiple occasions”
That’s a peculiar thing to say. To be sure, in early 2019 we disagreed sharply on Epik’s direction and its CEO’s public remarks. Yet my resignation was as cordial as could be. Afterward, I paid no attention to Epik and rarely, if ever, commented on the company. Since I left, we have rarely spoken.
So why offer me olive branches? Unless my memory is failing me, you didn’t. Nor would there have been any reason to do so. But saying you did so “on multiple occasions” helps you portray me as an embittered ex-employee and a determined enemy. That’s useful to you, though untrue.
When the Bloomberg journalist contacted me with questions about this period of Epik’s history, I decided that his article would be more accurate if he could hear from someone who was actually present. Epik’s own response, I surmised, would be utter silence or else bombastic hostility toward the mainstream press. So, rather than allow a void to be filled with 2nd-hand misinformation, I chose to participate.
Later, when the journalist reached out to Epik for comment, Rob Davis issued one of his typical scorched-earth replies, CC-ing me. It was the usual incoherent jumble of far-right U.S. politics, weird allusions to “quantum mechanics”, insults, and dire warnings about our future in Hell – the journalist’s and mine.
Such an adversarial tone would have been unthinkable during my time at Epik. So I wrote to my former employer, pointing out that this manner of responding to a press request for input can only be counterproductive. Meanwhile, I asked Rob Monster if I was misremembering or mischaracterizing anything, volunteering to correct the record if so.
The less said of our private conversation the better. Certainly it was no “olive branch”. I had remained an Epik customer for 2 years since resigning as Director of Operations; but this conversation, 3 weeks ago, convinced me that I’d be better served elsewhere. For the record, Rob tells me that Epik continues to provide good service to its other customers; and I expect that’s probably true. Just don’t talk to the media!
Rob, you didn’t take me up on that invitation to examine the article’s statements critically; but the offer still stands. Instead, you told me that my cooperation with a journalist “smacks of betrayal”. Really, I don’t see it that way.
Society needs to reckon with the relationship between web infrastructure and de-platforming, free speech and censorship, conspiracy theories and extremist violence. Surely you’d agree, Rob.
Well, such a reckoning cannot occur without mainstream journalists writing articles for a broad audience to digest. Articles will be written, with or without Epik’s participation. And they will mention Epik, like it or not, since Epik played a small but significant part in recent events.
Of course, you may be cast in a bad light even if you participate in good faith. I know you’ve experienced that personally. That’s always a risk for anybody involved in controversy. It may be due to interviewer / author bias, or to clumsy statements by a company representative, or to a bad position (worth reconsidering) – or all of the above.
So I understand the temptation to avoid press interviews altogether. However, if Epik doesn’t engage with the mainstream media at all or only does so from a hostile ideological posture, then you can’t complain if you are perceived (and characterized) as a fringe outfit.
Likewise, if Epik doesn’t learn from the mainstream public’s reaction to its public statements and policies, then it will become more and more difficult to relate to a broad audience, let alone serve them as customers.
“The funny thing about Nick Lim is that it also applies to Joseph Peterson.”
This comment had me scratching my head for awhile. What could I possibly have in common with Nick Lim? We overlapped for maybe 2 months at Epik, clashing constantly. Indeed, Nick’s sudden appearance as CTO, as part of Rob’s shift in strategic direction for Epik, was 1 factor that led to my resignation. Knowing this, I told the journalist that I couldn’t be an impartial source for anything related to Nick Lim, as our interactions had been of short duration and somewhat adversarial.
“I hired both of them because I saw that their potential was greater than their blind spots.”
At first, this statement annoyed me, since it seemed like an aspersion wrapped in a compliment. How wise for my former boss to see beyond my shortcomings! How magnanimous to have hired poor pitiful me in spite of my handicaps!
But now I think I see what Rob’s referring to. And, if so, it’s actually rather innocent. My “blind spot” is atheism. Apparently Nick Lim’s too. If you meant something else, Rob, please advise.
Permit me to cite Matthew 7:5 on the topic of blind spots:
“First cast out the beam out of thine own eye;
and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”
I’ve bleeped the first 2 words, since Jesus is rather harsh whereas I wish to remain amicable.
Even though I don’t take offense, this comment is worth examining. How would you react, Rob, if an atheist CEO said publicly that he hired 2 christian employees because their potential outweighed their blind spot – i.e. christianity?
Although an atheist, I don’t regard belief in God as a defect. And I don’t see why a person’s religious beliefs (or lack thereof) should be a consideration in the hiring process at all.
At the same time, if a CEO wishes to be open about his christianity, as you are, I think that’s his right and privilege – even in a secular society. Or, to be more precise, in a non-denominational, pluralistic society, as the USA was meant to be.
However, there is a difference between (A) being openly religious and (B) interpreting all public disagreements as part of a cosmic battle with oneself on the side of God and one’s critics on the side of Satan.
If your VP of Communications is any indicator, then (B) is Epik’s official position.
Hence the reflexive impulse to consign journalists and ex employees to Hell – as if deputized by God Himself! “Judge not lest ye be judged,” anybody?
Worse still, partisan U.S. politics are entwined with these religious elements, in utter disregard of Jesus’s prescription to remain apolitical in Mark 12:17:
“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s”
To hear Rob Davis speak, it’s God and Trump and Epik versus Satan and Liberals and the Media. Anybody who covers Epik in a critical or unflattering way will suffer eternal damnation.
Mixing religion / politics with business is often bad for for business, Rob. Maybe that doesn’t matter to you. But misusing religion – adulterating it with petty partisan politics and dragging the Divine into mundane business affairs – is arguably worse.
In my view, it should be possible to engage in critical discussion with people who don’t share one’s opinions – without accusing them of being the unwitting pawns of Satan.
The Bloomberg article seems fair to me. I did my best to ensure that Epik and you too, Rob Monster, were given a sympathetic hearing, in spite of some inevitable criticism.
Mainly the article was about Nick Lim. Far from being a “hit piece”, the article sidestepped some of the kid’s public comments, which (as I recall) were explicitly racist. Naïve though he seems, he’s not too young to be held to account. A hit piece would have cornered and crushed him, painting him as a racist irrevocably. With luck, he may eventually reject such ideas.
Notice how the journalist did NOT send his subjects to Hell – a la Robert Davis? A decent respect for the truth and for other people demands such courtesy, at a minimum.
Rob Monster - Epik.com says
Joseph,
Like all of us, you were work in progress. The company was thankful for your contributions during your tenure. Your contributions remain to this day.
During your tenure, there were two main blind spots that you and I worked on:
(1) Analysis paralysis, e.g. I advocated for 80/20 where that sufficed, rather than spending weeks on mega spreadsheets.
(2) Penchant for attack dog outbursts in blogs. Recall, we had a term for it: “keep snarky on the leash”.
As for your atheism, I absolutely did not judge you on that, nor did I condemn you for your feminist worldview, etc. Diversity of thought was always welcome.
As for olive branches, I offered to hire you back. You were occupied with other projects. I did contact about the story as I found your comments to be very odd.
As for why I invited people to watch the Christchurch video was to give context on why I did not comply on the mandate to not allow the video to be seen.
As for any “cosmic battle”, to the extent that one is occurring, it is all certainly by God’s design, allowing each individual to be tested as to where it places its faith.
As for Bloomberg, I don’t doubt that you had a balanced commentary in your interview. I also don’t doubt that your quotes were cherry picked to fit a pre-defined narrative. It is how it goes.
My position remains unchanged. We are all on a journey and all imperfect in some way.. Everyone has gifts. Nobody on this plane is beyond redemption.
I hope that clarifies. I have nothing further to add to this thread.
Thanks
Rob
Joseph Peterson says
“I offered to hire you back.”
I have absolutely no recollection of that.
“I did contact about the story as I found your comments to be very odd.”
In fact, I contacted you.
My point about Matthew 7:5 seems to have gone over your head, Rob. Nevertheless, I’ll turn the other cheek and thank you for publicly criticizing what you dub my “blind spots”. There is no need to examine yours.
“Penchant for attack dog outbursts in blogs.”
That’s rich, considering Robert Davis is your VP of Communications!
Indeed, I participated actively in domain blogs prior to being hired by Epik in 2017 – commenting widely and writing about 150 articles here at DNW. Upon joining the company, I basically vanished from the blogosphere, since I was busy with internal matters at Epik. Rather than curb my participation in blogs, you urged me to be more active externally. But I saw process improvements and new customer features as the priority.
I would like to think that my remarks, though sometimes critical or laced with irony, are measured and nuanced. Of course, if my words sound to you like the barking of a dog, what can I say?
“keep snarky on the leash”
Yes, you did sometimes say this to me. But the context had nothing to do with blogs. Rather, I would sometimes push back against abusive or rude customers, once they crossed a certain line. As I recall, Epik’s front-line customer support staff generally thanked me for doing so. In fact, they frequently asked me to step in so that I could do just that. Of course, I understand your wish to mollify customers. You have always been more tolerant of their misbehavior than I was. Neither approach is 100% right.
“Analysis paralysis”
Oh, I remember this phrase! We are polar opposites in many ways, Rob. You wanted to announce new initiatives and launch new features even before they were built – often before they were even discussed. Meanwhile, I wanted to plan, build, test, launch – in that order. Sure, I can poke fun at that entrepreneurial eagerness of yours – outrunning its headlights, so to speak. But really the 2 approaches are complementary within an organization. My perspective, like that of the dev team, wasn’t necessarily a “blind spot”. Cars need brakes and steering wheels – not just gas pedals.
“As for why I invited people to watch the Christchurch video was to give context on why I did not comply on the mandate to not allow the video to be seen.”
No, it was not quite as innocuous as that, Rob. You insisted that the video was a fraud, concocted with computer graphics. And you adumbrated some nefarious political agenda behind this “false flag” operation.
This dominated the staff meeting, in which 2 muslim employees were present. At the same time, you were vocal about the same thing in public. But no Epik employee signed up to hear such conspiracy theories – let alone watch the video of a massacre. Even days later, after the public backlash was well underway, you privately pressed me to watch the video.
I will work on my blind spots, Rob. Thanks for the hiring me in 2017. Working at Epik was a pleasure until the company ceased being a neutral service provider and veered toward far-right political controversy. You have a lot of strengths as a boss and CEO. I wish you had stayed the course.
John says
Good luck* explaining someone like me then, Joseph. 🙂
If I feel up to it later I’ll expand on that.
*(No such thing as “luck” as the word is normally understood and despite any appearances, math or science, in which “all truth is God’s truth” when the latter are done honestly; only God’s providence and control.)
John says
PS: It takes an *incredible* amount of “faith” to be an atheist. A truly untenable amount.
Joseph Peterson says
Clarification. Rob Monster said:
“I offered to hire you back”
Initially I remembered nothing of the kind. But Rob forwarded me an email that jogged my memory.
In 2019, about 5 months after I had resigned, Rob asked me if I’d like to edit a Terms of Service agreement for an Epik side project called “Trust Ratings”. I was busy and politely declined. The episode had completely slipped my mind.
John says
Interesting, I’m seeing Joseph’s comment of April 20, 2021 at 1:54 pm for the first time today because (wait for it, wait for it) to my knowledge it was not even appearing when I made my last two. I don’t know what happened or whether it got caught up in the spam filter too, all I know is today is the first time I’m seeing it and I did not see it when I last commented. I’m a bit more experienced with WordPress these days, so all I can say about that is I hope Andrew will just ditch whatever spam filter he uses and replaces it with something else since there are numerous ones to choose from. The usual frequent hold up just happened with my reply to the troll Snoopy in the Olive.com thread too.
I do not have the time, inclination or feel up to saying everything more that either needs to be said or that it would be good and beneficial to say vs. not, so I’ll just leave it at that for now.
Jesus says
“keep snarky on the leash”.
Ha! I have now bestowed a new nickname upon Rob Davis.
John says
Interesting, normally the liberal Democrat “fake left” practically holds a patent on the war against free speech, but see what I said above earlier. Here is a sad example of when the Republican conservative “right” sometimes gets in on that, too. This commentator is pretty good for some things, though I certainly don’t always agree with him. He’s not one of my favorites, but he’s good when he’s on target:
“Florida Governor BANS Freedom Of Speech”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ks8lCBKgJOE
John says
PS: Not just sad, but I had meant to say “disgusting” originally. It really is disgusting.
Lifesavings says
Rob Davis is pure evil. He approached me under false pretenses as a buyer of my domains. He had no intention. He was digging. He made very personal and in hindsight, strange conversation.
Whenever I write this, he threatens me with police, suggesting he will ruin my reputation though my whole community. Literally said, he will DOX me and report me for saying anything relating to our conversation.
I sent an email to their support, expressing my concern with Mr. Davis, and in turn, I received a very nasty letter from his very self. Support did not see the problem with Mr. Davis’s actions.
I guess it’s up to someone other than me to decide, what his true intent was for contacting me out of the blue, offering to ‘help sell’ or even ‘buy’ my domains, but for me, the motive was clear – deceiving.
To be clear, they contacted me, for business purposes. Which never even remotely transpired, Just BS fluff – dug in very personal things…sickening.
As a (professional?), he offered our (subjectively) private conversation (negotiation) to ANYONE that asked for it – in public. No I would not do businesses with these folks EVER. Further, he figured he would try and humiliates me by saying he showed his entire EPIK staff the conversation, and that I was a laughing stock. He did that. He said it. They joked on me. Fools.
Very nice of him /sarc.
He lied to me. Period. I may have been mistaken about very tiny things, such as suggesting Rob owned namepros. That particular thread, when it was suggested, Rob Monster did NOT do the righteous thing and deny it!. He played games – posted like a weirdo. He let us believe. His ads were plastered all over. The propaganda was overwhelming. His shill army was everywhere, bashing everyone and pumping EPIK.
Such evidence is there, albeit some empirical. Anyone that was checking namepros at the time knows what a nightmare that was.
I digress, I’ve suspected Epik of a lot of underhanded doings, and particularly the lies and recklessness of Rob Davis.
Free speech when it suits them.
He’d like to brush everything under the rug, what he said and did to me.
Fakes.
I have a laundry list of things to talk about, but this will be the end of this post, there will be no more reply by me. I pray the company gets what they deserve.