3 ms·

I don't think the issues is two URL's, I think the issue is two separate corporations.

• mark-r 10y ago
  Right. What I meant to say was that the early domain registration isn't evidence of a pre-existing corporation.
  • RIMR 10y ago
    Ahem... I don't think the issues is two URL's, I think the issue is two separate corporations. If you read the article, you would see that the fact that the corporation was registered in 2012, and then a new company by the same name with the same owner was registered in 2015. This is the smoking gun.
    • mark-r 10y ago
      I don't understand why I'm being downvoted. I'm not disagreeing! Certainly there were two different corporations, and certainly the web site was passed from one to the other. But the whois data presented in the post is not evidence of that. You need to look elsewhere for that evidence. That's the only point I was trying to make.