Category Archives: Just cause

The Imaginary Stories Of Tom Raspotnik

Listen well “dr” Raspotnik…

 Image13“There is a huge difference between proof and nothing but talk or defamation both in public opinion and legal opinion. The failure to understand that can be costly and ignorance of the law is no excuse.  An attempt to play childish games of “you did it first” also will fail.  You can’t dodge accountability for breaking the law by claiming some other wrong was done to you. They don’t wipe each other out. Each is considered on it’s own merit and needs to be supported by evidence, not just words. Anyone can say  words or blog accusations that’s easy. When you are expected to prove those words are based on actual events and can’t you are in trouble …”

Reality –

That is where I will begin.  This all stems from a childish attempt by Tom Erik Raspotnik to discredit me by making up fictional stories in his head and then posting those stories in his blog as if they actually occurred. Tom then rambles on his Sound Cloud account using his cell phone to talk shit and publicly defame me. It seems odd he would do so because when I one time attempt to call him on the phone to ask him why he insists on telling lies about me sexually abusing my daughter, he hung up on me. He did tell me that he wouldn’t talk to me because I “record shit”.  What damn difference is there between my recording him and his recording it to Sound Cloud?  None.

Tom has accused me of stalking his wife. He does this despite the fact I have only encountered the woman one time. It is all on video. One time was enough

Documented.

The claims Tom Raspotnik has made are numerous. As he becomes more frustrated because I won’t do as he commands, the accusations grow. Now he claims I have been harassing him on his phone. I have exchanged text messages with Tom, he was texting me threats so I was texting him back politely asking him to “fuck off”. Eventually I grew tired of his moronic threats like “your suffering will be legendary” and “you will kneel before me at my throne” and told him not to contact me anymore. He of course had to text me one last time to get the last word because that is his style…childlike

Tom also claims I am making calls to his phone. As usual no proof is offered to support his claim. The one thing Tom Raspotnik has proven beyond doubt is he lacks credibility. i have not made any calls to his phone since the last time he hung up me and that was months ago.

A Question-

What kind of moron would brag  about “making you famous” by posting bullshit about you on the internet and tagging you, friends, and family?  Tom Raspotnik.

In his Sound Cloud recordings Tom constantly threatens to make anyone he is pissed at “famous” along with publicly shaming them. You can hear the gears in Tom’s head slowly turning as he speaks. As he carries on whining and moaning about how little people respect him. He grows more and more angry and the fictitious claims grow more and more serious. As Tom tries to convince the listener he is successful and superior in all possible ways a picture forms of a man who is also trying to convince himself at the same time. Tom runs around and around in this self validating circle of imagination until his confidence fully inflates. He has performed this ritual about 160+ times at the time of this post. That’s just on Sound Cloud, his blog is the same sad story.

I don’t know what his motives are except to do harm to others. It seems that Tom is so intent on being the “leader” of something, controlling others, and winning he will do/say anything.

His own ego has gotten they best of him. It has caused him to underestimate the resolve of those he has been bullying. I can only speak for myself when I say there is no possible way I will ever give in to Tom Raspotnik. No fucking way.

Tom has offered to  “make a deal” where I take down my posts and he drops all his accusations including “burying” the story from the fictitious “ex girlfriend”. Funny how easily  Tom can simply forget all the things he has accused me of isn’t it? Not really cause it was all created in the vast empty space between Tom’s ears.

A “deal” is never going to happen. I won’t make a deal to remove the truth about Tom Raspotnik in order to have him remove his lies and pretend it never happened just so he can go on and do the same to someone else.

WTF?!

Those of you reading probably have never seen the kind of crazy ongoing shit I’m writing about here before. There is a reason for that. It is against the law. Most people understand that and even if they say things on the internet which are unlawful they do it anonymously which is ineffective without proof. Tom has made his accusations in numerous blog posts, internet forums, comment sections, recordings, twitter, facebook, scoopit, and others I’m sure.

Nice Job Dick

For those of you who don’t know it I have been looking for work. Tom has made it clear he intends on making that search as hard as possible while at the same time attempting to undermine my credibility by constantly describing me as an unemployed alcoholic. Just another example of the strength of his character.

Women

Just a day ago Tom attacked a friend of mine named Renee because she called him on his unsupported accusations. The same day he recorded a Sound Cloud calling Renee a fat cunt among other things and constantly belittling her during his pathetic rant. If you listen to other recordings on Tom Raspotnik’s Sound Cloud and hear him attacking women in exactly the same manner numerous times

You can hear the “enhanced” version of Tom’s rant at Renee here  (warning: It isn’t nice)

The Good News

While what you have read so far may be troubling, do not fret. There are things that can be done about people like Tom Raspotnik. I have never been the type to bluff. It seems a pointless en-devour to me. We have systems in place to deal with this type of behavior. You don’t need to have money and you don’t need to put up with people who try to intimidate you, your family, and friends.

New Friends

Another good result comes out of the irresponsible and spineless actions of Tom Raspotnik. Tom has been going out of his way to create a divide among Satanists. There have been some Satanists who have come to me about Tom’s accusations that I want to to destroy Theistic Satanism. That is not the case.  Tom forgets that Satanists aren’t sheep, they do not blindly believe whatever is told to them especially by some guy who has declared himself a “leader”. When I explain the facts it becomes clear very quickly that Tom is trying to fool people. I have had the opportunity to meet Theistic Satanists that I may never had met without Tom’s “help”. Bridges have been built. Tom has failed in his attempts once again. He is no Satanist that is obvious to anyone, except him

Others who have been targets of Tom’s bullshit have also contacted me. Tom would do well to realize none of these people are going to play his childish game of “cease-fire”.

The End?

It would be foolish of me to think I can stop Tom completely. He is a 50 y/o dickhead. Unless he chooses to stop being a dickhead that will not change. I can and will make sure that he is accountable for his actions and words. (see above: bluffing)

The most incredible part of this entire “episode” is the way Tom seems completely clueless to the reality of it. Listening to him he acts as if he has nothing to worry about and has support of his “members”. He is exactly like a small child with imaginary friends.

The truth of it is he has no support and the entire world can see it except one small weak man named Tom Erik Raspotnik.

Harassment?

copswatch   First, I’d like to acknowledge there have been some poor choices made. This post is more about the response to those choices and whether it is a policy people are comfortable with.

In 2010

A friend of mine was having trouble with one of their children. He was cutting school. Attempts to make sure he attended were made but being a teenager, it was difficult to force him to do anything. My friend eventually received a notice to attend truancy  court.

I have had to attend this court because of problems with my daughter attending school. The court listened to the type of living environment my daughter had and decided that there was no good reason she couldn’t attend school. There were no issues at home that would be a cause for her not to attend. They then informed her of the repercussions should she continue to skip school, and assigned her a probation officer. I was told to continue to monitor her as I had been and was not penalized for anything. My daughter understood the wake up call she had been given and had no further issues. My friend’s son was about the same age as my daughter had been and his behavior echoed hers. I assume this behavior is not unheard of when it comes to teens who are having some type of trouble with school. I am also glad they did not have this system in place when I was a teen because it would not have been fun to accompany my dad to a hearing about my school attendance.

My friend missed the  hearing.  There was no follow-up on that  part but she did manage to get her son back on track and he just received an award for his performance in his classes.  Problem solved, right? Not quite.She wasn’t even aware that it had gone to the level of a warrant being issued. Last week my friend received the following message –

In 2014

Hi _____, My name is Matt, and I’m a Deputy with the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office. I’ll speak slowly because I know this is a Google number and it’s gonna be translated to a text message. I was at your family’s house yesterday in San Jose and you missed a court date. You need to take care of this, okay. You need to call me back (408) ***-****, Your family doesn’t  need to continue to have cops come to their house looking for you. I spoke with one of your daughters. I spoke with your mother. I spoke with your sister. They all seem very nice but they are going to be continued to be harassed  as cops keep coming to your house looking for you to handle  your court date call me back. Bye.

First of all it wasn’t her house, it was her parents house and the guy who left the message should have been aware of that since he had spoken to her family members. She hadn’t lived there in years.  Next, there is something that strikes me as wrong about admittedly continuing to  harass people because of something a family member has done. The people who own the house have done nothing wrong yet they are being harassed.  My friend has informed me the police also pressured her daughters to call her and “set up” a meeting so they could arrest her. The daughters refused to do it.

I’m not saying that the cops shouldn’t be looking for people who have arrest warrants out on them but for truancy? Even the cops who arrested her (in another county) had never heard of someone being arrested over a truancy case.  But police are programmed to follow the law so they went looking for her. To go to her parents house makes sense, it would be the obvious place to start. Once they realized she didn’t live there then that’s where it should have stopped unless they had some reason to believe she was there but to harass people as a tool? Over an issue like this? The neighbors don’t know what it’s about they just know those people across the street have the cops at their house often, they must be troublemakers.

I can hear some of you saying ” She should have gone to her court date” I agree but there is something about the message that bothers me. It just doesn’t seem like it is a professional way of achieving your desired result.  “Call me or we will continue to harass your family” Yea worse things have been done and the entire situation was created by one person’s lack of action but really, there are 7.44 million people who live in the bay area. Here is a  map that shows the crime in that part of San Jose over the last 7 days.

crimemap1

Bay Area (San Jose) crime reports over last 7 days

crimemap2   Aren’t there better things to do than harass people in order to arrest a mother over a truancy issue from 4 years ago that has not been an issue since and  isn’t one now? If they must get this type of criminal off the streets due to the threat they present to the public couldn’t it be done with a bit less harassment?

From Where I Sit

perspect2

1. a.A view or vista.

b. A mental view or outlook

2. The appearance of objects in depth as perceived by normal binocular vision.

3.a. The relationship of aspects of a subject to each other and to a whole

b. Subjective evaluation of relative significance; a point of view

c. The ability to perceive things in their actual interrelations or comparative importance

 

 

I’m going to start out making some things very clear, at least to those of you who are not simpletons or already know everything by default. I don’t know Ben Radford very well. I actually met him because of his dispute with Karen Stollznow. In a post defending himself against Karen Stollznow Ben Radford mentioned the following regarding me

Baxter also states explicitly that Karen falsely accused one of his friends of making inappropriate sexual advances toward her in April 2010: “One time, in the heat of “things,” I mentioned that it would have been hot to see her with another man. She flipped out. Throughout the relationship she claims that I keep bringing it up but in reality she has been the one to keep talking about it. The renegade radio host “Reap” has made fun of me for admitting that that sort of thing can be sexy in the past. While Karen was talking with Reap after SkeptiCal, I received a text that Reap had just propositioned her based on this “interest” of mine. Reap then contacted me and asked why Karen was such a fucking psycho. She had blurted it out to him that I had this interest and he tried to make light of it. His girlfriend witnessed the whole thing. Karen passionately stands by her story that he brought it up. I still find that highly unlikely…”

I think it is important to make the following point- That is an accurate account of events. I will however expand on it a little bit because I have seen Karen claiming to have been a innocent victim but from my experience Karen is not the type to be a victim. She will do/say anything needed to keep from taking responsibility and she is vindictive. Karen does not like to be turned down. I reach this conclusion from personal experience

 

I have known Matt Baxter for about 7 years and at one time considered him a close friend. I harbor no ill will towards him. I had only known Karen a short time, maybe a year or two when the following story took place.

 

After Skepti-Cal a group of us met at a local bar for drinks. Karen, myself, and my girlfriend at the  time were seated at one end of the group. At one point Karen said to me out of the blue that her boyfriend (now husband) would like to watch her and I having sex. Of course I  knew her boyfriend and considered him a good friend. I also knew there was little chance of such a thing ending well and so instead of saying “no way” I just made light of the proposition and attempted to carry on with the conversation. Karen was having none of it . She made a couple more remarks trying to persuade me but I just let them slide and tried to change the subject. The instant she realized I was not going to take her up on the offer she had made she became confrontational to say the least. She became visibly angry with me. I moved to another table to try and diffuse the situation. She then shouted names at me across the table several times. She was obviously pissed and I would assume a bit drunk.

Karen continued to grow more and more abusive towards me. At times she would get directly in my face to talk shit. Finally my girlfriend and Karen went outside to talk in hopes things could be smoothed out a bit . Instead Karen began accusing me of being abusive towards my girlfriend. This couldn’t have been further from the truth. My girlfriend confronted Karen about her claims denying there was any truth to them and was told by Karen to “Fuck off”

At this point Karen was completely out of control. She was fighting with Baxter on the phone, screaming shit at me, and it seemed no one could get her to chill the fuck out. Finally Karen approached us and informed us she was going to take off with someone else and said something to the effect of “you can go to hell”.  My interaction with Karen during this entire event was defending myself from her accusations and nothing more. I did not call her names get in her face or argue with her about any other subject.

The following day I called Baxter because I wanted to see if he could provide some insight into what the hell had happened and to make sure there was no misunderstanding about my part in things. During my phone call to Baxter I informed him it was my opinion that his girlfriend was a psycho and possibly an insane maniac. Baxter informed me that Karen had accused me of propositioning her and had pretty much gave me all the credit for the events the night before. I told Baxter that what Karen had told him was a complete lie and he told me he didn’t believe Karen’s version of events. He then went on to explain to me that Karen had some issues that needed to be dealt with. Some of these could best be treated with medication which Karen was not taking at the time. I assume this to be true since I have no reason to think Baxter would lie, he has no history of doing so. Baxter also told me he was trying to get Karen some help with her issues and wanted to work with her on their relationship.

Because Baxter was a good friend of mine I left the issue alone. He clearly had strong feelings for Karen and was optimistic they could work things out. Although I was pissed Karen had been blurting out bullshit about me and had attempted to turn my friend against me rather than accept the fact I was not willing to follow her directions I saw no need to keep the dispute going or publicly sharing my side of things. I told Baxter as long as Karen kept her mouth shut and no more lies were told I would drop it.

Since that evening Baxter has informed me Karen does not want him to have anything to do with me. If he does it causes an argument between them so we no longer keep in contact. Like I said there are no hard feelings between us. Although I am a bit disappointed in his involvement with Karen’s claim to be a “pure victim” and what appears to be an attempt to play a role for monetary gain.  Karen also has made no contact with my girlfriend or myself. She has never attempted to explain or apologize for any of the things she said or did. I find this very interesting as most people at least attempt to resolve or explain when they act out in such a way.

Baxter did contact me to ask about a link to Karen’s appearance on my podcast in May of 2010. I updated the podcast link so she could use it in her bio per his request. It has since been removed.

At this point I would like to make it clear I am in no way saying that Karen Stollznow or Ben Radford are innocent or guilty of anything involving their relationship. I wasn’t there, I don’t know anything about it.  All I am doing is sharing an experience I had with Karen Stollznow.

Having said that. Personally, I would question anything that Karen Stollznow says. She obviously has the ability to fabricate whatever story she needs to in order to avoid taking responsibility for her actions. She also does not deal well with rejection. It has in the past caused her to have a meltdown in public. I think it is safe to assume it was not the first time she has acted out in such a way. In my opinion, I find it hard to believe that Karen is an innocent victim of Ben Radford’s. I would find it more likely the other way around. I certainly did nothing to deserve the treatment I received from Karen. I was a victim of hers as were the others who had to deal with her tantrum.

If anyone needs to know, my main reasons for writing this are to

  • make clear my role in events and relationship to those involved
  • balance perspectives that may have been swayed by misrepresentation

It does not really matter to me which side wins the argument between Ben and Karen so anyone who wants to claim I am biased should keep that in mind. It bothers me to even need to write this because I would have rather just left it alone.

Edit 5/3/2014 

added comment

I was Reaps girlfriend at the time, and felt the need to speak up on his behalf. I was sitting with him through the entire conversation. I was the designated driver, so I noticed karen was tipsy, and from what I remember she was drinking hard cider. I remember her talking about her boyfriends fetish, and it seemed personal but I considered it was the alcohol talking. She became more vocal and agitated about her boyfriend, she is the one that told Reap that he was the person her boyfriend wanted her to be with. Reap said he wanted no part in it. She became more belligerent and wanting to end the discussion persuaded her to step outside. She never spoke of Reap having any sexual conversations with her at any time. She then announced he was an asshole, and left with another party. She was extremely intoxicated, and I feel her recollection is muddied due to alcohol.

 

Sidenote- I think it is safe to assume some individuals may take it upon themselves to twist this account into something that fits their preconceived notions about people without bothering to learn the facts first.  It is pathetic that I would need to have such a concern considering a majority of those people claim to be skeptics when the fact of the matter is they have become what they hate. In my opinion It would be more productive if they would focus on the common beliefs and values they have with others. If they would work to educate from a position of mutual respect built from a relationship based on those things we have in common instead of accusing and attacking without knowing any facts it would be far more productive. It would also display a level of maturity previously missing from the crusade to achieve “social justice” at any cost while waving the flag of ignorance and hypocrisy.  

No Towing Zone

Let’s add another bit of drama to my life. I have been having a bit of a problem (along with 50-75 other people who live near me) with a towing company, a security company (as of yet un-named) and the management staff of my complex.  After living here for 5 years suddenly they have decided to enforce the rules and gone about it in just about the most  inconsiderate and sneaky way possible. While the residents sleep the tow trucks sneak in around 2 am and slip away with vehicle after vehicle with a guarantee of at least $255.00 on each tow. Here is the letter I wrote to the company who manages the property after attempts to speak with the on site management proved to be a waste of time. I am posting this so that others can refer to it as needed.

 Hello
I am contacting you regarding the recent decision to enforce a zero-tolerance parking policy at Stevenson Place Apartments. I have lived at Stevenson Place for the last 5 years and never has there been any enforcement of the parking policy until a couple weeks ago. My vehicle was towed out of a spot that was allocated to me when I first moved in. That means my car was parked in that spot about 1800 days and there has never been a problem. I asked the leasing office staff who was being harmed by my car being parked in it’s assigned spot and the answer I got was “No one”.I can see towing me if I am in another persons spot but I wasn’t.  My permit was lost due to a car accident that broke my windshield and I have not had an extra $50.00 to spend on a 2″ square sticker with a number written on it in felt tip marker. The second time I was in an unmarked spot and had not been there for even an hour and my car was taken again. The time on the paperwork says 5 am but I have a witness who can attest to it being around 1:30-2 am. It should also be noted the only time cars are being removed is late-night while the residents are asleep. Never once have I seen a tow during the daytime for a parking violation. I think I know why. It’s because when you are taking advantage of people you don’t want anyone to see you doing it. It’s the same reason others commit crimes at night while people are asleep.  There are several reasons why this enforcement policy is unfair and/or illegal.You can find the Vehicle Code Section 22658 Removal From Private Property here- http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22658.htm
  • The code states (1) There is displayed, in plain view at all entrances to the property, a sign not less than 17 inches by 22 inches in size, with lettering not less than one inch in height, prohibiting public parking and indicating that vehicles will be removed at the owner’s expense, and containing the telephone number of the local traffic law enforcement agency and the name and telephone number of each towing company that is a party to a written general towing authorization agreement with the owner or person in lawful possession of the property. The sign may also indicate that a citation may also be issued for the violation.

The signage at the time my car was towed read “Resident Parking Only” I am a resident. That gives me authorization to park in the parking lot so long as I am not in a spot assigned to another resident w/o their permission, violating Fire code, or blocking an entrance. There was no sign indicating “parking by permit only”.  Since my car has been towed the signage has been changed to indicate the permit only rule.

Why change the signs unless they didn’t have the appropriate information?
 I spoke with the Manager of Stevenson Place and she insisted the “permit only” signs were always there. When I informed her that I had photos showing the signage had just been changed she claimed to have no knowledge of the change. When I asked her who was responsible for the signage she told me any signs would have to be ordered by her. I asked her if maybe she believed the signs had been changed using magic. She then told me she knew nothing about the signs. I don’t know if she was playing some sort of game or being serious but it was obvious she was not interested in having any  type of adult conversation with me.
    • The vehicle code states- (b) The tow truck operator removing the vehicle, if the operator knows or is able to ascertain from the property owner, person in lawful possession of the property, or the registration records of the Department of Motor Vehicles the name and address of the registered and legal owner of the vehicle, shall immediately give, or cause to be given, notice in writing to the registered and legal owner of the fact of the removal, the grounds for the removal, and indicate the place to which the vehicle has been removed. If the vehicle is stored in a storage facility, a copy of the notice shall be given to the proprietor of the storage facility. The notice provided for in this section shall include the amount of mileage on the vehicle at the time of removal and the time of the removal from the property. 
The manager of the property  or an agent of must authorize the tow and provide 
(B) The written authorization under subparagraph (A) shall include all of the following:
(i) The make, model, vehicle identification number, and license plate number of the removed vehicle.
(ii) The name, signature, job title, residential or business address and working telephone number of the person, described in subparagraph (A), authorizing the removal of the vehicle.
(iii) The grounds for the removal of the vehicle.
(iv) The time when the vehicle was first observed parked at the private property.
(v) The time that authorization to tow the vehicle was given.
 Despite being literally 20ft  from my front door I was given no notice of my vehicle being towed either time. There has been no problem leaving me any other notices about water being shut off or that my lease was being changed buy it isn’t possible to tell me my car is being towed away?
  • The vehicle code states – (E) (i) General authorization to remove or commence removal of a vehicle at the towing company’s discretion shall not be delegated to a towing company or its affiliates except in the case of a vehicle unlawfully parked within 15 feet of a fire hydrant or in a fire lane, or in a manner which interferes with an entrance to, or exit from, the private property.
I have spoken with the security company employees and they have told me they have never called Morris and Sons Towing and told them to tow a vehicle. They said the towing company is acting on their own to find violators and then calling security to be present at the time of the tow. Morris and Sons told myself and others the security was responsible for calling them out and they were just “fulfilling the contract” they had with Stevenson Place. There is only one reason for them to lie about this fact. They know what they are doing is wrong.
  • The vehicle code states- (n) A vehicle removed from private property pursuant to this section shall be stored in a facility that meets all of the following requirements:
(2) (A) Remains open during normal business hours and releases vehicles after normal business hours.
(C) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and for purposes of this paragraph, “normal business hours” are Monday to Friday, inclusive, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., inclusive, except state holidays.
(3) Has a public pay telephone in the office area that is open and accessible to the public.
 
When I tried to pick up my vehicle I called ahead and was informed they opened at 8 am the following day. When I arrived at 8 am no one was there. I called and was told someone would be there by 9 am. At 9:15am I called and was told someone would be there in approx 15 min. At 10:30am someone arrived to release my vehicle. the second time I called on a Friday at 3:45pm and was told  no one was on site but  they would meet me at 5pm.  When I arrived at 4:45 no one was there and an employee didn’t arrive until 6:30pm.  This was like adding insult to injury.
  • The vehicle code states (5) A person who violates this subdivision is civilly liable to the owner of the vehicle or his or her agent for four times the amount of the towing and storage charges.
  • Vehicle code 22953 states-  (a) An owner or person in lawful possession of private property that is held open to the public, or a discernible portion thereof, for parking of vehicles at no fee, or an employee or agent thereof, shall not tow or remove, or cause the towing or removal, of a vehicle within one hour of the vehicle being parked. 
I realize you are not directly responsible for some of the points I make here but you should be made aware of the business practices of those you have a contract with especially when they have such a strong impact on your tenants
The second time my vehicle was towed it had not even been parked for an hour in that space. I had just come home from shopping. I keep late hours.
Due to that fact I was able to meet up with the security for Stevenson Place on Jan 17 2014. It was during that conversation that he informed me the security company was not authorizing any of the tows. He said Morris and Son’s had told him to meet them there so they could tow more cars. He also told me they had towed between 50-75 cars during the past week or two.When I picked up my car the first time an employee at Morris and Sons Towing had told me they towed 22 cars on the same night mine was originally towed which supports the security guard’s information. That’s $5,600 minimum profit in one night for the tow company.
   While I was talking to the security two trucks from Morris and Son’s towing come pulling into the parking lot. They were driving really slow and had all the lights on their tucks turned off.  I have video of it happening. If everything is good and legal then why are the drivers sneaking in to tow cars at 2am? I asked the drivers how many cars they had towed the past week and was told  “We don’t have to tell you anything” which is true but a bit rude and defensive. It was clear they did not like the fact I had recorded them driving in.  To the best of my knowledge they have not been back since but the signage did change a couple of days after that.
    The second time I picked up my car the employee at Morris and Sons I attempted to tell the employee there was no signage  indicating  permit parking only at Stevenson Place entrance at that time there were not and I have photos to show that. The employee was not interested in anything I had to say. His only interest was in taking my money. When I told him I didn’t have the money to pay him a second time in the same week he was happy to keep my car and leave me with no means of transportation. All over $255. Are you comfortable with that?
      The biggest problem besides the lack of clear signage indicating the rules is the fact that the policy of the complex is to give 96 hours notice before towing. (see attached)
 The only answer the leasing office can give me when I ask about this is “it’s in your lease” No where in my lease does it say I will be towed without notice.
I have spoke with several other residents and they have told me they too were unclear on the policy or were never given any parking permit yet their cars were towed. One guy was towed because his permit had fell off the window. When it was pointed out they didn’t charge him  for the tow but he is still out the time and inconvenienced unnecessarily.
 Given the inconsistency of the manager to enforce the policy over a 5 year period or even to correctly provide and post the policy so that residents can have a clear understanding of it wouldn’t it have been better to have the security put a warning sticker on the cars who violated the policy so there could be no doubt those people knew they were in violation? How is it building a good relationship with the tenants when they wake up for work to find the apartment management has allowed their car to be towed from a spot they were told to use by that same management?
Another resident drove their car through the wall of my kitchen last year. At the time there were not units available for me to stay in temporarily.  Was I a jerk about it?  No, because it wasn’t your fault and things happen.  A couple years ago when I found kids tagging and breaking up the bathrooms at the pool area I addressed the problem to make sure it wouldn’t happen again. If I see something strange or unusual I will inquire and make sure nothing wrong is going on. I do those things because I live here and i want this to be a nice safe place for everyone. When the management has my car towed in the middle of the night 2x in 3 days and it costs me my time and $510.00 my attitude towards them is going to change.  When I go to the leasing office to have an adult conversation and they lie to me, it’s disrespectful and unprofessional. It makes me feel like I am talking to a young child who thinks if they repeat a lie enough times it will become truth.  That isn’t the feeling someone should get when dealing with a property manager.
 I’d like respectfully request to be reimbursed for the cost of my vehicle being towed. The total is $510.00 (receipts are attached)    I think I have presented a reasonable case for that. I would also suggest you contract a tow company who is a bit more honest in their business practices and inform security of the proper procedures to follow when having vehicles towed from the property. Since you own multiple complexes this could help prevent any issues in the future and it would minimize any resentment created from poorly communicated or inconsistently enforced polices.
Thank You for your time
Danny Paden
I’ll let you know what comes of my attempts to reason. Here’s some nice pictures
parking
signage1 signage3

Morris & Sons Towing from reap on Vimeo.

Singular Satanism

 heroworship

 I’ve told you about Magus Peter H. Gilmore’s criticism of atheists and other Satanists. I was hoping maybe he would chill out and go do his thing while leaving people who are interested in actually doing things to bring positive change alone.

I guess that isn’t the case.

In a recent post on the COS “newsfeed” titled “Satanic Monuments” Peter says some interesting things. The first thing I found interesting was the way Peter refers to Anton LaVey, it’s a lot like hero worship.

Peter is constantly talking about how Anton did this, Anton didn’t do that,  what would Anton do? I mean give the guy credit but damn. You are close to becoming what you hate. Does Peter want Satanism to be stuck in a single form that adheres to a single man’s instructions or beliefs? What if you don’t want to do things exactly the way Anton LaVey would want? You can’t be a Satanist? Really? That’s what it sounds like Peter is saying to me.

In another part Peter says-

“Our religion is young, but I suspect that if the philosophy can be communicated with clarity for years to come, that ever more wonderful things will be wrought.”

Didn’t Peter Gilmore tell us not long ago he frowns on evangelical satanism? Where is the difference between communicating and being evangelical? Did Anton tell all the Satanists about that too? Just like the problems Christians have with their bible and addressing subjects that never existed 2000 years ago it seems that Anton LaVey’s version of Satanism is stuck in the era in which it was created in some ways.

Then Peter says this

“These will stand as testaments to the value of Satanism in a powerful way, demonstrating well-lived lives, and that is the ultimate goal of every Satanist, and a fitting monument for the legacy of Anton Szandor LaVey.”

What? So Peter is against tangible monuments that represent a way of thinking but is okay with people living their lives as to represent a (albeit intangible) monument to a single man? i would be uncomfortable with doing that I would think Peter would be uncomfortable saying it.

Of course Peter also does something else I would advise him of not doing in the future for his own benefit…Quoting himself in articles he takes credit for writing. It really defines conceit and it makes you look silly and/or really creepy. It leaves me wondering if Peter talks like that to himself throughout the day. “Peter would like some coffee. Peter would be happy to get Peter some coffee. Peter Gilmore said Thank you. You’re welcome Peter” ugh, stop doing that!

While all of this is interesting to me it leads to this conclusion- Magus Peter Gilmore and The Church of Satan can do as it pleases. I hope they are very successful and I hope that they manage to communicate their philosophy despite being discouraged to do so most  times. More power to them. It would be nice if the spokesman for the COS would get the chip off his shoulder and quit acting like his organization owns satanism. It isn’t as if Anton LaVey coined the phrase. Is Peter expecting us to allow him to tell us what the definition of satanism is just like the Christians want to tell us what the definition of marriage is?  I’m beginning to think Peter should change his first name to  “Contradiction”

Reply to Church of Satan Part 2- What Is Your Favorite Position?

satanseenohearnospeakno

In a post on the Church of Satan website titled “Lets-You-And-Him-Fight” Peter Gilmore has voiced his opinion in a response to The Satanic Temple and it’s attempt to be an open active participant in society. I responded to part of that post here. This is the second part and my final thoughts on this matter.

Peter seems to be against anything that could be construed as proselytizing or promoting his church and that is beyond a doubt his choice to make. In fact there is little anyone can say about the way the CoS is managed. As long as they are not causing harm, violating any laws, or making any unfounded public statements that could damage the reputation and credibility of others they should be allowed to go about their business as they please. At the same time no one is above constructive criticism and in this case Peter has not found misrepresenting others beneath him. What you are reading here is a clarification of facts or “the other side of the story”. I am not attempting  to demand anything from anyone or to dictate how others run their organizations beyond the simple and fair expectation they are accurate when posting pubic assessments of others.

In his post Peter says the following-

Some atheists seem quite pleased by such actions since they take the attitude that it is fun to watch self-proclaimed “Satanists” mud-wrestling with Christians in a vain attempt at self-promotion in forums which by all rights should maintain religious neutrality.

There may be some atheists who are pleased by such confrontations. I will admit I have been part of such internet exchanges and it is good to see a self righteous apologetic put in their place. In my opinion I don’t care how a person identifies themselves, if they are reasonable and fair I will support them. If someone is promoting fantasy as reality and making claims about things  that have no factual basis then I will attempt to explain to them the flaws in their logic. There are countless places where I would like to see religion left out of the conversation but that is not how the world works. Since there are some people who want to insert religion into everything  there needs to be those who will reply to those attempts. We can not eliminate law enforcement and just say  “Police should not be attempting to catch criminals. People should stop breaking  the law.”  While that is true, people should not be breaking laws, simple making that point has not proved to be an effective deterrent to criminal behavior. If only policing the herd were so simple, eh Peter?.

Peter goes on to claim there is some attempt to trick satanists into fighting with others just to watch the fight and to avoid the blame for starting it. I don’t know how to answer that because I have never seen this happen. if it is occurring I would encourage people to ignore such childish and pointless activities. They certainly are not the norm and most every atheist I’ve ever met would find such activity immature and silly.

evan·ge·lize

: to try to convert (a group or area) to a different religion (especially Christianity)

Peter goes on to say-

We’ve seen others lifting passages from our literature, courting non-Satanist atheists to support their acts with a wink and a nod, meaning they likely really don’t want to be evangelizing Satanism, but do so to annoy the Christians and “make a point.” Of course, “Who gets the point?” is the real question. And, if the ulterior motives for such actions are made clear, then the disingenuousness of the actual proposed project (which might require funds that are lacking) may well be enough to negate the validity of such efforts.

Again I can’t see that any atheists are promoting Satanism purely to “annoy the Christians” or to “make a point” that is obviously meaningless. Maybe Peter doesn’t agree with the point but that doesn’t make it meaningless it simply makes it meaningless to Peter Gilmore. I’m not clear exactly what type of “point” Peter is referring to because he provides no examples. He then suggests some actions are disingenuous but this seems to be Peter’s default position and not one that one that comes from observation. Again this is difficult to know because there are no examples provided. It could be safe to assume Peter is talking about The Satanic Temple but there has been no indication that they lack funds for what they have proposed or that they are less than genuine. It would be fair to wait until someone actually does the thing  you are holding them accountable for before reprimanding them or concluding their motives are negative.

Next Peter makes it clear that-

The Church of Satan has an atheist philosophy and so we support the American ideal of separation of church and state, which is a means for the secularization of our society. The U.S. is a republic, not a democracy, and this is a wise device for maintaining a balance so that a majority does not force other minority positions into compliance with their values. We Satanists are against evangelizing and proselytizing (in any form) as we consider these to be intrusive, bullying acts that are antagonistic to free will. Having any religion foisted on unwilling people is not Satanic. Such deeds in a rational society should be deemed to be criminal. Laws that promote a majority religion’s beliefs which could hamper the civil rights of those outside that religion should be repealed where they exist.

i don’t disagree with most of this  but I have a problem with what Peter defines as “evangelizing and proselytizing (in any form)” Is simply telling someone what your beliefs are an example of this? The use of the word evangelizing is also problematic to me. If someone is promoting the use of logic, skepticism, and tolerance rather than expecting people to “have faith” and believe in incredible stories of magic and the dead coming back to life can they really be accused of evangelizing ?

Peter also says “we (CoS) support the American ideal of separation of church and state” I do not doubt this is true but I am disappointed in the way that support manifests itself. If you are supporting the separation of church and state then shouldn’t you support fair use by all religions of public space if there is to be any use at all?

In McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky. Justice Scalia writes in his dissenting opinion

“If religion in the public forum had to be entirely nondenominational, there could be no religion in the public forum at all. One cannot say the word “God,” or “the Almighty,” one cannot offer public supplication or thanksgiving, without contradicting the beliefs of some people that there are many gods, or that God or the gods pay no attention to human affairs. With respect to public acknowledgment of religious belief, it is entirely clear from our Nation’s historical practices that the Establishment Clause permits this disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities, just as it permits the disregard of devout atheists.

“The three most popular religions in the United States, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam–which combined account for 97.7% of all believers–are monotheistic . . .. All of them, moreover (Islam included), believe that the Ten Commandments were given by God to Moses, and are divine prescriptions for a virtuous life . . .. Publicly honoring the Ten Commandments is thus indistinguishable, insofar as discriminating against other religions is concerned, from publicly honoring God. Both practices are recognized across such a broad and diverse range of the population–from Christians to Muslims–that they cannot be reasonably understood as a government endorsement of a particular religious viewpoint.”

The above was written in 2005. We still have to fight in order to keep a wall of separation between church and state. No one instance can be allowed to “slip by” no matter how small because of the possibility of it being used to build a larger machine in order to tear down that wall. The only way to do that is to make sure there is no allowance of disregard of atheists or any other religious point of view. Being silent and unwilling to publicly represent your religious views leaves you open to the possibility of having those views dismissed.

Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit (He who is silent is taken to agree; he ought to have spoken when he was able to)

—Latin proverb

Is standing up for your religious view the same as trying to convert or proselytizing? A  reasonable person should be able to do so without giving an impression of trying to convert anyone.

Peter says that the CoS would

” enjoy the deletion of “In God We Trust” from our currency.”

But what would he do to help that happen? That’s a fair question I believe.

The  United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled: “It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency ‘In God We Trust’ has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise.”

Yet another way religious reference has snuck into our government. Another popular argument is “We have done it this way for so long it now has historic value and doesn’t really support any religion”  The reason it has been allowed for so long is because no one was willing to stand up against it. One possible reason could be they were afraid of “evangelizing and proselytizing” so afraid that they would rather allow that right to be dismissed by the courts than stand up for it’s right to be considered.

Despite all the claptrap about keeping opinions  to yourself Peter slips a little

Satanism is a newer religion, having been concretized as a coherent philosophy and spread by a global organization beginning in 1966. We have been faced with prejudice and misunderstanding because Anton LaVey purposely chose an iconoclastic paradigm, but in the almost five decades of our existence we’ve made headway into being taken seriously by scholars, historians and certain aware segments of the general populace.

First, Satanism is not a “newer religion”. The Church of Satan is a newer form of Satanism. I’m pleased he feels like the CoS is being taken seriously by historians (time will do that) and the public is becoming aware of them. There are others Satanists in the world too and they are entitled to the same consideration. At least they should be given the opportunity to prove they deserve it.  Now if he coulda just stopped there. Instead, this –

 

We don’t want to undercut this success by going for “cheap shots” meant to garner quick publicity when such could make Satanism seem like a position that is just as offensive as the spiritual religions clamoring for unearned attention, part of their agenda of hijacking society for their own belief systems. We support the secularization of society as do many others who value reason and free thought. You who believe in Gods or Devils are free to embrace your own religions, just don’t force them on those of us who are not interested or actively find them to be repugnant.

First, standing up for your rights, rights that have been granted to others is not a “cheap shot”. Next, public attention is EXACTLY what any group fighting to be treated in an equal and fair manner wants and needs. How are you ever going to gain public support if you don’t get people’s attention and educate them. NOT CONVERT…educate. Do you think that educating people about the fact gay men are not all child molesters as many used to believe has helped people to accept gays and treat them no different than anyone else? I think it probably played a part. People fear what they do not know and they discriminate based on ignorance and fear.

In my opinion religious views such as the ones held by most Satanists and atheists have one thing going for them that other religions usually are lacking in some aspect, reality. This expectation that we leave fiction stories and imaginary friends out of the process we use to create laws and find truth is more than reasonable, it is vital. No one is ever judged or treated fairly when supernatural beliefs are involved because those have no place in a system made up of people who are limited to a world of logic,reason and science as the only way of determining what is likely true in our day to day interaction with the world around us. I’m not going to say that anyone should be forcing their views on anyone else but it should be made clear the answer to every question mankind has answered about the world so far has never been “magic” or “god did it” To me that is a important observation that people should take into consideration.

As I have said the CoS is free to run their organization any way they see fit. In light of that it seems that the CoS has dismissed itself from any need of consideration about it’s opinion on issues of church and state or any others for that matter, including Satanism. Their position is -They take no position. Can’t argue with that I suppose.

Up next…definitions are important

Reply to Church of Satan- The Many Uses For A Pitchfork

hell2

You may or may not know I have been a supporter of the Church of Satan. I’m not an official card carrying member but I know their belief system pretty well and am also aware they are largely misunderstood. To eliminate the ignorance people may have about satanism I have talked about the subject on my podcast, wrote about it on my blog, and interviewed guests who were knowledgeable about the subject. While I have agreed with much of  what Satanism represented I felt no pressing need to join into any group much less one that expected me to pay them so I could be an official club member. The base cost of getting a card and bragging rights from the Curch of Satan is $200.00.The COS website rationalizes the $200 ($208 if you use paypal) by claiming that-

“Most Christian churches will charge you a tithe that counts for 10% of your yearly income—membership in them is not free, as so many assume.”

Maybe I’m just naive cause I don’t get to church much these days but I have never heard of anyone being kicked out of their church or told they can’t love Jesus unless they pay the dues. Maybe some type of guilt trip or that “you will burn in hell someday” thing but a mandatory 10% or you cant be god’s kid anymore? Okay….

A little further down it reads

For those who think we ask too much, we suggest that you look to your other possessions and expenses as a comparison. Most people spend far more than this amount on general entertainment. We’ve discovered that most individuals can muster these funds if membership is something they truly desire. Bear in mind that our church has real people doing work, such as corresponding with individuals, and otherwise helping to run an international organization (postage, paper, computers, email accounts, and so on are not free). Our administrative staff’s time is precious—isn’t yours? Also, we are emphatically not altruists. We’re Satanists, so we expect to be compensated for our time and efforts.So, our reasoning is quite simple, and we think it is a bargain. If you disagree, then you don’t have to affiliate with us.

So they charge a membership fee, big deal, lots of groups do. I am uncomfortable with the reasoning. Why mislead people into  being comfortable about the cost by making it sound like all other religions? ironic thing is-They trick people into handing over their cash just like the other religions do. So be upfront about it at least.  Another thing that turned me off from actually becoming a part of the COS is the overall feeling I get from the above paragraph.  They really don’t care about anyone or anything. Find a way to get the money or too bad for you. A big point of the COS is individual belief, almost to a fault. I’m not the type to need other people to validate me or anything I do but I do realize that concern for others is important. I don’t have a problem reaching out a hand or into a pocket to help the best interest of the individual or the group so long as my help isn’t pissed away on things that are not helpful. It is probably safe to assume there are very few if any homeless and lower income people who are officially affiliated with the Church of Satan since saving up $200 is not a realistic goal for those people. The tactic is sometimes referred to as “pricing out the riffraff” The Church of Satan shows no concern about any Satanist who can’t put an extra $200 together.  I guess that’s why the traditional suggested donation to a church is 10% they don’t wanna miss out on even the smallest revenue generating possibility.

The application to become a member is also a bit too intrusive for my tastes. I mean 39 lines of questions to answer? I have a problem with Christians sticking their noses into my life already why would I invite more of it from another religious group? The fact that they are interested or concerned to such a degree about my preferences and personal habits is a red flag. Most of what they are asking really should have no bearing on whether I am a satanist. I assume some of these questions are to help recognize those who may be intent on using their affiliation with the Church of Satan as an opportunity to act out whatever warped suggestions their mental illness or hatred demands of them. I can understand that is probably a needed precaution. I also wonder what becomes of an applicant who answers question #29 “Kicking babies”

 It seems like the COS should simply be doing a background check on all members before allowing them in or would that be too herd-like?

One of the people I have had an opportunity to talk with about satanism and The Church of Satan is Peter Gilmore.  I enjoyed the conversation. Peter seemed to be a intelligent guy. He was easy to talk with.   We never really discussed other satanic groups during our talk so when I heard about a group called The Satanic Temple attempting to erect some sort of monument in Oklahoma near an existing ten commandments monument I wondered what Peter would think about that.

But before I did anything to find the answer to that question I contacted Lucien Greaves who goes by the title of Overlord at The Satanic Temple and is their spokesperson. I asked him if he would be interested in having a conversation with Al Stefanelli and myself about his request to the OK leadership that a satanic monument be allowed equal space as the ten commandments at the state capitol. He accepted and we spoke for an hour and a half about Satanism and his activism.

I came away from the conversation with a new perspective on Satanism. There was some of what I thought had been missing from the COS in The Satanic Temple approach to Satanism.

The Church of Satan requires that people accept “LaVey’s principles” before becoming members of the church. Anton Lavey’s Satanic Bible is a mix of various influences in his life and has been criticized by many for various reasons I’m not going to go into here because it isn’t as important as the end result of the entire text. I was not exposed to the Satanic Bible until my religious beliefs were very well established. After I read it I did not feel as though I needed to make any changes. I found Anton Lavey himself to be very interesting as an individual and the founding of the Church of Satan has had undeniable effects on society and the way many look at  religion.That however does not give it unquestionable  authority on Satanism. The Church of Satan can run it’s organization as it sees fit but it should be careful of not becoming what it hates.

After my conversation with Lucien I reached out to Peter Gilmore and the COS. here is what I received in reply-

On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 3:32 PM, Administration <administration@churchofsatan.com> wrote:
As always, look to our news feed. This should make our position clear:

http://news.churchofsatan.com/post/69495555098/lets-you-and-him-fight

We do not even think ³The Satanic Temple² has any legitimacy except as a
means for doing stunts to get them attention.

Sincerely,

Administration
Church of Satan
www.churchofsatan.com

First, I suggest you follow the above link and read the response Peter Gilmore has to many types of action/behavior by Satanists and atheists lately.

The post by Peter Gilmore troubles me for many reasons. One of those is the amount of strawmen in his post. I am disappointed at the end of reading because I had respected Peter Gilmore. I can understand and respect well supported disagreement on the issues but to belittle and misrepresent? Those are not acceptable and not deserved in my opinion.

Peter starts out by saying-

Their theory is that if Satanists demand the same irritating forms of public proselytizing as do certain Christian sects, then “people” will “wake up” and see how foolish the Christians are and so end their irksome displays. Would that raising consciousness in the herd were so simple.

pros·e·ly·tize:

to try to persuade people to join a religion, cause, or group

I’m not sure that requesting equal opportunity to display a monument is of itself an example of proselytizing. Does anyone think that a ten commandment display is going to convert anyone to become a  Christian anymore than a Satanic display is going to convert anyone to Satanism? I’m not sure if Peter agrees with me on this or not because on one hand he thinks simply having a monument in view  is an example of proselytizing. Then he reminds us a monument is not going to “wake up” anyone because (in condescending tone) “raising consciousness in the herd” is not so easily done. Doesn’t that mean it will be difficult for a monument to be considered persuasive just because it exists?

In an effort to clarify this for Peter I’ll explain the reasoning most are using when they voice opposition to religious displays.-

Having one display allowed and no others does suggest that there is one set of beliefs that are considered “better” or “more correct” by the state government in Oklahoma and that is not how the law works in this country. In our efforts to reach justice and/or truth we offer as much information as possible and then allow people to consider that information in order to find the truth or the closest thing possible. When it comes to something as personal as religion we have chose to leave those decisions up to the individual. Our laws dictate that we not include religious preference in the operation of our government. Some people have found ways to circumvent those laws in order to further their own agenda. That leaves a couple of choices.

1- Court battles over the display which do not always result in removal and can go on for extended periods.

2- The space be shared so that there is an opportunity for people to form their own opinion after being provided diverse viewpoints . At the same time the land is being shared among the people who own it, everyone. Sharing with others is a behavior taught at a very early age in this country. Adults should be able to grasp the concept easily

For Peter to dismiss the request by The Satanic Temple as “doing stunts to gain them attention” and leave it at that indicates a lack of  understanding about the implications of unchecked use of public areas by one group. When a person walks around in public areas and all they see are monuments representing one religious group THAT is public proselytizing

If Peter Gilmore and the members of the Church of Satan do not find it productive  to actively challenge groups that will/would/have limited freedoms by imposing their own religious beliefs on others then they should not do so.

They should also refrain from criticizing those who will take on such challenges since they benefit from the successes.

I’ll clear up some more of the straw Peter Gilmore left laying around in the next blog. Unless he wants to clean it up first (or at least put the pitchfork down) which is what I would prefer rather than spending time correcting people who I have more in common than differences with. It is a waste of time better spent, I hope we can agree on that.

Stop Using GoDaddy

godaddystop

I’m gonna tell you a story about something that happened to me in the hopes it will keep it from happening to you or prevent you from needing to deal with the same kind of stupid crap logic.

I purchased a domain name to use on a project I was working on. Someone had a problem with me owning the domain name because they thought it would negatively effect them. Whether that is true or not isn’t important really. This person filed a complaint with WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) over the right to the domain name which they have the right to do if they wish.

I had purchased identity protection from DomainsByProxy.com. As soon as the complaint was filed they cancelled my identity protection. Those clowns have no idea why a person has purchased their service why would they just drop it and leave a person exposed? In my case it wasn’t a huge deal but it still pissed me off. What if the customer had reasons for using their service that would result in possible harm if their identity was made public. I’m sure that is rarely the case but it is a valid possibility.

So if you purchase a service to protect your identity keep in mind it can be foiled by someone simply filing a dispute complaint against you. Anyone can do it and as soon as they do you lose any control over the domain you paid for until it is resolved. I can understand preserving evidence but that isn’t why they drop your service, nothing is preserved by that action. So that was10 bucks down the drain when I had done nothing wrong and no one had proved I did.

Then godaddy charges me $50 because of the dispute. Keep in mind no guilt had been proven to exist it had simply been a case of someone accusing me of being guilty. It could have been someone who had no real interest in the domain whatsoever. Godaddy and  DomainsByProxy.com had no factual data on which to base their actions. The dispute should have had no effect on me except that my domain became locked to prevent it from being transferred to another party or evidence being destroyed.

The only reason godaddy could automatically take $50 from my bank account was because I had auto payments set up to renew my webhosting accounts with godaddy. Those hosting accounts were for domains completely unconnected to the the domain name in dispute. Here is the email trail….

From sales@godaddy.com
Oct 16
Dear daniel paden,We recently received an inquiry related to your domain name, . The specific inquiry related to your domain name can be described as follows: 

B*******.NET 

We have received notification that a legal complaint on the domain name(s) has been filed through the World Intellectual Property Organization, http://www.wipo.int. Please contactdomaindisputes@godaddy.com with any questions.

In accordance with our registration agreement,http://www.godaddy.com/agreements/showdoc.aspx?pageid=REG_SA&prog_id=GoDaddy&isc=gdbb135, we have charged your credit card in the amount of $50.00 for our processing of this inquiry.  

If you have any questions concerning the above, please contact our customer service center.

Thank you for your continued business,
GoDaddy

To domaindisputes@godaddy.com
Oct 16
 I don’t know what gave you the idea it was okay to just take $50 from me over a dispute about a domain that hasn’t even been resolved yet.. You are violating a trust I had when allowing you to automatically bill me for CLEARLY AGREED UPON AUTHORIZED SERVICES. I did not knowingly okay automatic payments so that you could just withdraw whatever amount you wish for whatever reason.Why would anyone do that? Do not feed me any terms of service excuse as you must know any such excuse is weak and the charge was never made clear to me at the time I authorized automatic payments on SEVERAL of my accounts.What I found referring to domain disputes was repetitive and mentioned nothing about any $50.00 fee. The only dollar amounts mentioned are Redemption fees currently $80.00 USD and a $25.00 processing fee for all check payments. There is no other mention of specific costs. It would be reasonable for a person to assume no extra costs are involved otherwise the dollar amounts related would be posted just like the others.
 Another point is that I am being charged for actions that are out of my control. I had nothing to do with the complaint. The complaint is using misleading information to manipulate the fair use of common words. I am basically being billed by you because other people are idiots.
 The behavior and practices demonstrated here are the reason we will see more regulation on the internet. The violation of trust and the attempt to quiet dissent are pretty plain to see and it is disappointing especially from your company.We have had a good relationship up until now  
 
 I am respectfully requesting a credit for the $50. If you agree to this then I will be happy to continue my current hosting accounts with godaddy. If you balk at my request.It is going to cost you far more than $50 in lost revenue. Can we use some common sense? Also you may  want to amend your service agreement
 
Thanks
Daniel Paden
On Thursday, October 17, 2013 12:14 PM, disputes <disputes@godaddy.com> wrote:
Dear Daniel Paden,
 
Thank you for contacting us. The domain name B*******.NET has been named in a domain dispute filed through the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO.int). As a result, the domain name has been placed on registrar-lock and will remain locked until we are directed otherwise by WIPO.
 
We have also charged a $50 fee for processing the legal dispute. You may wish to review our Registration Agreement for more information regarding administrative fees at
 
 
This fee is refundable only if the decision is found in your favor.
 
Kindest Regards,
 
David Castano
Disputes Administrator
GoDaddy
918221
 
To godaddy disputes
 
Oct 17
That is fine. You keep the $50 and also keep in mind that it is going to cost your company more in lost revenue. It is a bad policy which is hidden in a sea of repetitive policies/procedures in the agreement. If you would pass this along to whoever is responsible for the wording maybe it would be helpful in the future so you can be a bit more transparent and up front about the circumstances in which you will take someones money. How hard is it to put a line in addressing this obviously routine fee in this circumstance. It feels as though godaddy has placed a wager on my innocence or guilt in a system that is unfamiliar to me. i have no funds for a lawyer yet I am battling the legal team for a million dollar company. The same company that has screwed me and many others out of a job. I am currently looking for work and I seriously doubt that godaddy needs my $50 more than I do. I have kept my accounts here while my income is limited because I thought it was money well spent now it turns out I would be better off not dealing with you. I expected more than “too bad for you” but  it is the best you can offer so I have little choice but to act accordingly. Thanks for the support (fyi- sarcasm)
 
Danny Paden 


———- Original Message ———-
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 4:30 PM
Subject: Domains By Proxy Media InquiryFirst name: Reap

Last name: Paden

Email address: ourlord_darwin@yahoo.com

Phone number: 5*******

Message: You cancelled my service because of a dispute. I have not even been found in violation of anything.  I am going to talk about my experience with your company on all  of my podcasts as well as on my blog. I will also be posting about this failure on my twitter and facebook. I will also ask for all of my co-hosts to do the same. Any opportunity to inform people to avoid your service will be taken advantage of. Your poor service will cost you. Pass this along since the procedure for contacting anyone there who isn’t a mindless idiot doesn’t seem to exist.

 
 
 I must have yelled loud enough cause the CEO replies-The Office of The CEO GoDaddyTo Me
 Oct 17
Dear Mr. Paden,Your concerns have been shared with the Office of the CEO.

The cancellation of your DomainsByProxy.com service was not the result of a violation, nor are we saying you are guilty of anything.  The service was canceled to comply with ICANN’s Dispute Resolution Policy.  For further information on when the service may be canceled, please review the Domain Name Proxy Agreement located at https://www.domainsbyproxy.com/policy/ShowDoc.aspx?pageid=domain_nameproxy.

Best Regards,

Todd Cluff
Office of the CEO – GoDaddy
CEOTeam@GoDaddy.com
1***5 N. Hayden Rd. Suite ***
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
(480) 505-**** Phone
(480) 275-**** Fax

Me

To The Office of The CEO GoDaddy
Oct 17
You can inform me of policy all day long. You must know there is a reason I purchased the service in the first place. I figured unless there was a court order I would have no need to worry. This entire process is a joke. I have also been billed $50 that I can get back if  WIPO finds in my favor? So you are placing a wager with my own money? I am up against the lawyers for a large chain of companies. I have no funds for a lawyer due to the fact this same company put me out of a job. Many others have also had long careers cut short with no notice and no compensation or compassion. With no legal representation how can I be expected to defend myself on a level that will make it even fair? The internet has made it possible for a wronged individual to answer large entities when they do harm. No longer must a person just accept that the fate handed to them by a group of overpaid corporate CEOs (no offense) . This process seems to be skewed and work against that concept. To be honest your polices and the way you have some of those policies hidden in a sea of repetitive babble only makes this entire ordeal more unfair and difficult as I now have to take time to address this crap when I could be learning about a process I know nothing about. I’m not telling lies about anyone, quite the opposite and while I know you have no concern for my cause I would hope maybe you would consider some of my points and make changes that at least better inform the customer what they can expect and exactly how little it takes to lose the service they paid for. Your company is going to lose revenue because of this policy. It’s not going to break you but why keep a policy that costs you money and is in fact based on an assumption of guilt? The terms of service or service agreement does not change the facts it has no such power. The entire process was set in motion by an accusation made by another party how can any negative effects on me not be from an assumption of guilt? You are not preserving evidence you are punishing me based on an accusation you don’t know to be true supported by a process that appears at least on the surface be biased.  How hard is that to understand? 
Thanks for your time. I know business is business, trust me. I have heard the phrase plenty over the last 3 months. I have also learned that it does not excuse any and all behaviors.
 
Danny Paden  
So I went to paypal and told them my story and explained about godaddy and their bullshit. Turns out they agreed with me
service@paypal.com

To Me
Nov 14
Hello D Paden,We’ve finished reviewing your unauthorized activity claim and you’ll
receive a refund for the transaction amount. It may take up to 5 business
days for the funds to appear in your account.

———————————–
Details of Disputed Transaction
———————————–

Seller’s Name: GoDaddy.com, LLC
Seller’s Email: paypal@godaddy.com
Seller’s Transaction ID: 6

Transaction Date: Oct 16, 2013
Transaction Amount: -$50.00 USD
Invoice ID: USD_5000
Your Transaction ID:
Case Number:

Buyer’s Transaction ID: 0

So consider yourself educated about godaddy and it’s CEO who doesn’t grasp the concept of innocent until proven guilty and likes to gamble with customers money. Although I assume the same thing will or could probably happen no matter who you buy a domain with. The system is flawed and needs to be fixed so that it better reflects the basic rights we should have and have come to expect as Americans.
 I’ll wrap this up by saying- Fuck You godaddy you lose and you lost my business too

The Zombie Atheist Movement

zombiea

I’m back but I’m not a zombie

My friend Vjack  over at Atheist Revolution has a post titled “The Day The Atheist Movement Died”. In case you haven’t noticed I’ve been absent from this blog, that has been due to another issue that need to be addressed. Now, as I bring my attention back to the atheist/skeptical community what do I see?  The EXACT SAME bullshit as when I stopped paying attention to it months ago. Stephanie Zvan is still complaining about the evil slymepit and acting as if when she has a bowel movement the world is showered with the aroma of rose petals. Rebecca Watson is still milking her claim that she is the primary target of all internet misogynists and gets a majority of the hate that exists on the net. I guess she still feels there is some doubt as to her motives. By now it’s pretty clear you prefer to have the spotlight pointed at you Rebecca, not only do you prefer it but you need it. Hide behind your lame snark and belittle as many critics as you like I find it sad you can’t see past the little crowd that support your hobby of self interest and realize how much respect you’ve lost among a larger portion. Those people don’t bother to even say anything to you so it’s easy to be unaware. It’s not like anyone has tried to bring this to your attention.

Ophelia Benson is still getting things wrong and then trying to play it off as though there is nothing that could prove her to be mistaken. She just twists her points into something else like someone making a balloon animal and then with a squeak and a twist turning it into something else every time the kids point out the shape looks nothing like any animal.

PZ Myer’s is of course doing the same old shit. Who expects any change from that tired old broken record? He is doomed to sitting in a room isolated from the real world except when someone who knows no better asks him to regurgitate some of his rambling  basic knowledge and un-witty wit at a conference. Even the general public can debate and make their points better than PZ these days so the need for him to point out the obvious will grow less and less as time passes.

Anthony what’s-his-name Brownian is STILL blaming me because he is too stupid to understand how facebook works or how the alphabet is not a super secret spy code people have to decipher before they can understand it lots of people can figure it out in their heads…..amazing! I’m afraid that idiot is determined to cry himself to death over the claim I dox’ed him. Or maybe he is hoping he can get a pity fuck out of it if he whines long enough. Pretty obvious he could use it cause that dude screams uptight virgin.

Social Justice Warriors are still finding new ways to claim (cry) that the world (men) is out to get them. Unfortunately for them there has been no real change in anything except the public awareness that they are not worthy of notice. They have now reached the point where if any real problem were to arise they wouldn’t be effective in bringing attention to it because of the past history of bullshit which follows them.

i wonder if any of these people took a few months off as I did and then came back if maybe, just maybe they would realize how little effectiveness they have on anything except to cause people to waste time pointing out how/why they are misguided.

Of course Jennifer McCreight  took some time off and still thinks she can make declarations about skeptics atheists or any other damn thing and be considered an authority despite the fact she has removed herself. PZ Myers Rebecca Watson and many others have told us they want nothing to do with or have no place in the atheist/skeptical movement yet they continue to comment on it and criticize it as though they are an active part. They are like skeptic/atheist zombies limping along grumbling about shit no one can understand as people scramble to get away from the stench and negative attitude. One thing does work in our favor, these zombies are also cannibals and that has been the most effective way of getting rid of them to date.

I guess something have changed a little. I see people much more quick to call the SJWs and certain feminists on their bullshit and not so afraid of the McCarthy Feminist Patrol (also known as skepchick)  That’s a good sign. And I see the good old slymepit is still happily smacking down the crap as it comes to the surfac… or are those rose petals? Brains…..

Stupid And The Daily Beast

OR...you could watch FOX News

OR…you could watch FOX News

In this wonderful age of technology it is possible to share your insightful wisdom with the entire planet with just a few clicks. Got some good relationship advice? Want to help people avoid making the same ignorant mistakes you did? Know a funny story that may brighten someone’s day? You can make sure countless people can have the opportunity to soak in the positive and helpful contribution you provide.

Wanna misrepresent someone’s position, accuse them of being a rapist, or just help promote bullshit gossip because you are too stupid to read and unable to comprehend anything even if you could? Unfortunately you can share that with people just as easy. As a bonus you will be acting as a kind of  sexual organ that helps breed stupidity my fucking the minds of people who read your words. Reproduction!

The Daily Beast offered the following headline on Sept 10th-

Richard Dawkins: Pedophilia’s OK

it links to a Salon article by  titled-

Richard Dawkins defends “mild pedophilia,” says it does not cause “lasting harm”

I’m not sure why Katie picked the title she did or why The Daily Beast decided to ramp it up even more but it would be nice if they would knock it the fuck off already. Isn’t Dawkins name enough of a draw? Even include the word “pedophilia” if you must but leave out the misleading parts, they aren’t doing you or anyone else any favors.

Despite the fact that Katie probably thinks she has an opinion that is bulletproof and can not be called into question that is seldom the case and when you are going to chain a ball of pedophilia to someones leg you should be sure you can do it with facts and an unbiased view.

If you read the article Richard Dawkins says

I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today,”

He makes it pretty clear his current position is to condemn those behaviors. He defends people’s past ignorance of those behaviors. I wonder if Katie has a problem with the pictures of slave owners on our currency.  Shouldn’t we be pissed at people who owned slaves in the past? Are we crazy or something?! We put their faces on our money?!  Katie get on this right away please and when you are done there we have about a zillion parents who need to be condemned for spanking their children. To think I haven’t even held my parents accountable for all those spankings!  After that we need to go after the public school systems for allowing corporal punishment all those years. It’s like we are supporting child abuse by not shutting those sick bastards down.

Good thing we are born knowing this is harmful

Good thing we are born knowing this is harmful

Now that I think about it my parents used to allow my little sister and me to ride in the back of our pickup truck all the time WITH NO SEAT BELTS! Wait a minute….that truck didn’t even have seat belts in the cab! Put the auto industry on the list too.

deep breath…10..9….8…7…6…5…4..3….2…1..ok

People did stupid shit in the past.   I know it is hard to understand but they sometimes didn’t know any better. Are we going to condemn them for their ignorance? We learn things as individuals and we learn things as a society. If we hold everyone accountable for past  behaviors we now find unacceptable that is going to have some serious effects on how we portray many people currently held in high regard.

Katie also provides another quote-

As noted by the Religion News Service, Peter Watt, director of child protection at the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, called Dawkins’ defense of sexual assault “a terrible slight” to victims of such abuse.

“Mr. Dawkins seems to think that because a crime was committed a long time ago we should judge it in a different way,” Watt continued. “But we know that the victims of sexual abuse suffer the same effects whether it was 50 years ago or yesterday.”

Don’t we have manslaughter or negligent homicide laws? Why is it we have those laws? Why don’t we just lump any killing of a human by another human as straight murder? Because intent matters. The knowledge of how an act will effect another person, the acceptance of behaviors by society, or the motivation all matter.

 We didn’t even have any real studies on child molestation until the 1920s. We didn’t pass the  Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act until 1974. No one knew what kind of damage could be done until we learned from studying the effects.

in 1986 Congress passed the Child Abuse Victims’ Rights Act. Why do you think it took so long to pass an act on behalf of children? Was there a large portion of the population that was interested in allowing children to continue being abused? No, we were stupid and we lagged. Even today I hear about laws being passed and think “What the hell? We didn’t already tell people that wasn’t okay?”

It really doesn’t seem to matter if we think a behavior should have obviously been considered wrong since the beginning of time, many many times this hasn’t been the case. (see; hindsight 20/20)

I know some things people have considered acceptable in the past are horrible and harmful. No one is denying that, Richard Dawkins included. Richard was speaking about his own experiences and observations. Just as we should accept when victims tell us about how they have been negatively effected we should also accept when victims talk about not feeling harmed without accusing them of slighting others. Do we want people to start telling lies? Should Richard say he was caused long-lasting harm because if he tells the truth it means others are lying?

I’m shocked at the number of skeptics who can’t apply logic evenly or follow their thoughts to the conclusion when that logic is applied. Yes there are terrible, terrible things that happen in the world. Some of those things were allowed because of ignorance. You can do your part by minimizing the amount of ignorance not spreading it or worse yet growing it yourself. You know better.