Monthly Archives: December 2013

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…..