Ron Paul tweets on RonPaul.com Issue - and discussion

[PatriotOne]

Edit: A couple members on here have said they communicated with him to coordinate moneybombs.

I imagine through the "contact us" part of ronpaul.com. Which doesn't help identifying who you are contacting except, if I remember correctly, was the email address [email protected].

 

[PatriotOne]

That might explain the sudden whosis registration change as well as serving whosis. Doesn't ICANN require that information be somewhere?

I'm sure it does but it was masked to the public using the privacy service.

It could explain the whois reg change but the whole idea of this "Super Ron Paul supporter who has given up 5 yrs of his life for the cause" owner of the domain living in Panama and has a Corporation called JNR (that I can't even find one bit of info on googling it) doesn't smell right to me (I keep looking at the bottom of my shoes thinking I just stepped in dog crap).

 

[newbitech]

Why would a UN arbitrator even be any worse than a US arbitrator? That's got to be the most irrelevant argument of all times.

It sure was relevant when everyone was vehemently defending that Ron Paul didn't go to the UN. It sure was relevant when they called ronpaul.com liars for saying Ron Paul went to the UN.

What makes it relevant is not the fact of the arbitration. It is relevant because Ron Paul has denounced the UN as a law making entity for the United States saying it threatens our sovereignty. I agree. So why go to the UN? Well many people tried to make the claim that he was forced to (after they conceded how wrong they were for claiming ronpaul.com lied about the UN, saying Ron Paul did not go to the UN.) go to the UN. He wasn't he had another option.

So now it's all about so what if he went to the UN or not. Right? lol.. Yea so what. So stop trying to say ronpaul.com people lied when its Ron Paul's good buddy lew rockwell that posted the lie saying ron paul had no choice.

That is the argument. Now you are all caught up.

 

[sailingaway]

I'm sure it does but it was masked to the public using the privacy service.

It could explain the whois reg change but the whole idea of this "Super Ron Paul supporter who has given up 5 yrs of his life for the cause" owner of the domain living in Panama and has a Corporation called JNR (that I can't even find one bit of info on googling it) doesn't smell right to me (I keep looking at the bottom of my shoes thinking I just stepped in dog crap).

Yeah, I think a basement in Panama isn't exactly your typical Ron Paul supporter.

 

[newbitech]

I'd be willing to bet 99.99% of them are duplicates and are also on Ron Pauls 1,118,140 likes facebook page. Same with his mailing list.

I'm hardcore RP and honestly I never even knew ronpaul.com ever existed. Never been to the website or even heard of them until this domain dispute. But I'm pretty sure his subscribers don't live in a vacuum and think ronpaul.com was the whole of Ron Pauls world. Unless they are from Mars and the rest of the internet is firewalled off except ronpaul.com.

here's some more red meat for ya

http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

yeah it's german but whatever. proof of confusion.

 

[angelatc]

I'd also be interested in hearing what other people who run *ronpaul* domains have to say about this guy personally.

I think we heard from the Ron Paul Flix guy. I'm pretty sure I closed it when he started with the bunk UN defense we heard from Rockwell. But, i'd still like the feedback from ronpaul.com's peers in liberty.

I think a lot of them think "it can't happen here." Or they really would happily hand him their traffic if he would only just ask.

 

[newbitech]

here's some more red meat for ya

http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

yeah it's german but whatever. proof of confusion.

but look. I want to show you something.

http://www.npr.org/2010/12/13/132021734/the-nation-ron-paul-s-stand-for-transparency

thats an NPR article from dec. 2010.

if this domain was parked or sat out there doing nothing, or was being run with a big fan site disclaimer, NPR wouldn't have that link coming in.

That is called domain authority.

Now they are linking to the root of the site, which is good. If RP gets that domain, he won't lose that link. But this is a perfect example of Ron Paul NOT making the site what it is.

Yes its Ron Paul's name, but the guy running the site for Ron Paul got that link. Not Ron Paul. I can't explain that to you any better.

I am sure that is one of 100's of news links like that.

 

[sailingaway]

but look. I want to show you something.

http://www.npr.org/2010/12/13/132021734/the-nation-ron-paul-s-stand-for-transparency

thats an NPR article from dec. 2010.

if this domain was parked or sat out there doing nothing, or was being run with a big fan site disclaimer, NPR wouldn't have that link coming in.

That is called domain authority.

Now they are linking to the root of the site, which is good. If RP gets that domain, he won't lose that link. But this is a perfect example of Ron Paul NOT making the site what it is.

Yes its Ron Paul's name, but the guy running the site for Ron Paul got that link. Not Ron Paul. I can't explain that to you any better.

I am sure that is one of 100's of news links like that.

Don't you see that is a perfect example of the exact confusion the ICANN rules prohibit site use for? Here is a national media service confused that ronpauldotcom is RON's site.

So Ron's OWN site, didn't get that traffic. That is the kind of thing that really pissed me off about the site, that they wouldn't make it clear beyond doubt it wasn't his.

 

[jj-]

Don't you see that is a perfect example of the exact confusion the ICANN rules prohibit site use for? Here is a national media service confused that ronpauldotcom is RON's site.

It doesn't say it's Ron's site.

 

[sailingaway]

It doesn't say it's Ron's site.

Other ones say that. This one clearly links in that context, it uses his name to direct there. Others specifically say it.

 

[sailingaway]

I think a lot of them think "it can't happen here." Or they really would happily hand him their traffic if he would only just ask.

Right now he is only asking for his name domain which apparently was leased out and then put for sale after the campaign. He wants to do business under his own name, and that site was often confused as his, see above.

The one he is going after is his exact name, often expected to be that person's site. Other names with just his name as part of it would be different situations.

 

[jj-]

So Ron's OWN site, didn't get that traffic.

So what was Ron's site at this time? This was before he even announced for 2012.

That is the kind of thing that really pissed me off about the site, that they wouldn't make it clear beyond doubt it wasn't his.

The "fan site" image that was there at the time made it clear beyond doubt. You could only see "fan site" and not realize it is a fan site if you're an idiot. You're getting pissed off at the wrong people. If anyone, you should be getting pissed off at the idiots who go to a site that prominently displays "fan site" and don't realize that it is a fan site.

 

[jj-]

Other ones say that. This one clearly links in that context, it uses his name to direct there. Others specifically say it.

I disagree. Sometimes one could just link to an informative website. For example, people linking to the wikipedia page. That doesn't imply that the wikipedia page is the person's own site. Same thing with a site that displays "fan site" prominently.

 

[sailingaway]

I disagree. Sometimes one could just link to an informative website. For example, people linking to the wikipedia page. That doesn't imply that the wikipedia page is the person's own site. Same thing with a site that displays "fan site" prominently.

Good luck with that, this is one of many that link there and many say it is his site.

 

[Danan]

It sure was relevant when everyone was vehemently defending that Ron Paul didn't go to the UN. It sure was relevant when they called ronpaul.com liars for saying Ron Paul went to the UN.

What makes it relevant is not the fact of the arbitration. It is relevant because Ron Paul has denounced the UN as a law making entity for the United States saying it threatens our sovereignty. I agree. So why go to the UN? Well many people tried to make the claim that he was forced to (after they conceded how wrong they were for claiming ronpaul.com lied about the UN, saying Ron Paul did not go to the UN.) go to the UN. He wasn't he had another option.

So now it's all about so what if he went to the UN or not. Right? lol.. Yea so what. So stop trying to say ronpaul.com people lied when its Ron Paul's good buddy lew rockwell that posted the lie saying ron paul had no choice.

That is the argument. Now you are all caught up.

I've never claimed anybody lied.

I still don't see why the choice of the arbitrator matters. It's not as if the UN arbitrator claims to have sovereignty over internet domains. They are just one out of many options for anyone filing a complaint to arbitrate the case. ICANN obviously has no problem with the way this arbitrator settles disputes, or else they wouldn't be using them. The owner of the homepage currently linked to through ronpaul.com agreed to specific conditions and to the arbitration system (including the chance of being judged by an UN-affiliated organization), in case anyone claims that ICANN's rules are violated. What property rights are violated because Ron Paul makes the case that ronpaul.com doesn't follow ICANN's rules?

I'll admit that I'm not an expert, but it seems to me that most/all internet providers, OS developers, etc. voluntarily agree to do name resolution based on ICANN's standards. So in this case the standard libertarian argument "if you don't like it, go make you own [insert whatever - in this case 'internet']!" applies. I'm sure the internet is not as clear-cut free market as any of us wanted it to be, but sadly that's true for every market out there. We can't always make the argument, "well it's not 100% how we wanted it to be, so none of the usual arguments apply!"

 

[newbitech]

Don't you see that is a perfect example of the exact confusion the ICANN rules prohibit site use for? Here is a national media service confused that ronpauldotcom is RON's site.

So Ron's OWN site, didn't get that traffic. That is the kind of thing that really pissed me off about the site, that they wouldn't make it clear beyond doubt it wasn't his.

thing is, one day it will be. and i contend the guy who bought that site knew that and set it up that way, believing that Ron Paul couldn't afford the 25k at the time it was legitimately sold by the legitimate trademark Ron Paul, due to Ron Paul trying desperately get his campaign funded. Clearly Ron Paul and campaign didn't want to spend the grassroots donated money on, although encouraged to do so.

You all think he purposely did it just to profit, but Ron Paul didn't even believe in his wildest dreams he'd get that popular, so... yeah.

I understand, I posted an example.

 

[jj-]

Good luck with that, this is one of many that link there and many say it is his site.

Good luck with that?

 

[angelatc]

It makes sense if they were really fans of Ron Paul. I and many here have also donated time and money to the campaign. Their contrition to Ron Paul was keeping that site up with information about Ron. Ron should be grateful about it, not taking action like this, it is a disgrace.

INdeed. Does anybody think Josh makes a bunch of money off of this site? I don't. And yet here it is.

 

[sailingaway]

Good luck with that?

that argument.

 

[sailingaway]

INdeed. Does anybody think Josh makes a bunch of money off of this site? I don't. And yet here it is.

what do you think about the statement in the complaint saying it was leased out, and the domain registrant Ron was negotiating with just took an income stream?