4 ms·

I don't know any domainer in that position. You don't? By the look of your website's About Page you do: My Current Job(s): Working on my own startup - Still

by rooshdi 15y ago

I don't know any domainer in that position. You don't? By the look of your website's About Page you do: My Current Job(s): Working on my own startup - Still looking for a name, but I am working on a customer reviews startup. Writer at MO.com - I interview entrepreneurs. I've done ~80 interviews as of February 2011 including some big names like Alexis Ohanian (Reddit), Aaron Wall (SEOBook) and David Hauser (Grasshopper.com). Domain Investor (or Domainer) - I buy, sell, and develop domain names. I now see why you are so adamant in your defense of domain squatters.

ohashi 15y ago
I know exactly what you were hinting at, it wasn't subtle. It was pure ad hominem. However, it's outdated, sorry, you're still wrong :( My defense isn't of domain squatters, it's of a free market system that trillions of dollars have been invested in by many stakeholders around the globe. Trying to shift them in favor of one specific group (startups) is a joke. I am fairly certain you just want easier access to a better name without understanding the real impact of any proposed solution you have. I am done arguing with you, you are clearly unable to keep on topic.
- rooshdi 15y ago
  It was a pure Ad hominem. The ad hominem is normally described as a logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem We obviously have opposing views on the matter. We've made our arguments, let's just agree to disagree.
  - ohashi 15y ago
    No, we don't agree to disagree, you are wrong. You haven't made arguments with any value. You attacked character and it IS a logical fallacy in this case. >Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source). You aren't arguing about what is right or should be done. You are trying to imply I am wrong because of my business interests instead of any real issue. You've ignored solutions which fit within your arguments but you don't like the outcome (like a .startup TLD or using subdomains yourself). You clearly see the value in .com which everyone has recognized but want to monopolize it for yourself under the guise of the greater good. You may be new at this, but because of my history, I've heard each argument hundreds of times, you haven't come up with anything new; thousands of people have whined about domain names and not followed through on a real, workable solution to the system that does accommodate all stakeholders.
    - rooshdi 15y ago
      thousands of people have whined about domain names and not followed through on a real, workable solution to the system that does accommodate all stakeholders. I appreciate the dialogue. I admit my proposed solution may not be the best at this moment, and does not accommodate all stakeholders, especially domain squatters. It probably is already too late to implement my proposed solution anyway. The domain system in place right now has evolved to such a state that the .com domain has a monopoly over the domain system. The .com has been ingrained in the mindset of most internet users as the end-all be-all due to the unrestriction and initial web registration mind share. This is now being taken advantage of by domainers. They purchase thousands of domains, in the hopes of profiting off of a lucky few. Who gets hurt in all of this? The others. John can't get the name for his blog, Amy sees her cake business's name is taken, Kevin has to buy ICantFindADotComDomainNameSoIBoughtThis.ly. Why? Because domainers aren't thinking of the external effects of their actions and just want to make an easy buck for themselves, manipulating the system to their sole benefit. In short, Pure Greed. This supply shortage of decent .com names is only going to get worse as internet usage increases. My hope is, as this continues, that .com domains become of less value and internet users become more comfortable with alternative TLDs. Summary: Domainers are of no help to society. They must perish. =)
      - ohashi 15y ago
        Yawn. There is no shortage (36^63 combos). Everyone who keeps saying this just thinks they are entitled to the best option available. Again, you ignore the proposed solution which fits your goals but don't like where the result takes you. You're just ignorant and want to complain, you don't want a solution, you want to just be better off for yourself.
        rooshdi 15y ago
        No, I want a solution that deters domain squatters and is overall better for most people. Maybe, there should just be a cap on how many domains one can own at a time. But domainers would probably complain about that too and make some hypocritical remarks about how this restricts their internet rights, when what they do restricts the internet even worse. You're just ignorant and want to complain, you don't want a solution, you want to just be better off for yourself. I think this statement represents domainers such as you perfectly. May I ask, can you name one benefit domainers provide to people?

by rooshdi 15y ago

ohashi 15y ago

I know exactly what you were hinting at, it wasn't subtle. It was pure ad hominem. However, it's outdated, sorry, you're still wrong :( My defense isn't of domain squatters, it's of a free market system that trillions of dollars have been invested in by many stakeholders around the globe. Trying to shift them in favor of one specific group (startups) is a joke. I am fairly certain you just want easier access to a better name without understanding the real impact of any proposed solution you have. I am done arguing with you, you are clearly unable to keep on topic.

rooshdi 15y ago
It was a pure Ad hominem. The ad hominem is normally described as a logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem We obviously have opposing views on the matter. We've made our arguments, let's just agree to disagree.
- ohashi 15y ago
  No, we don't agree to disagree, you are wrong. You haven't made arguments with any value. You attacked character and it IS a logical fallacy in this case. >Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source). You aren't arguing about what is right or should be done. You are trying to imply I am wrong because of my business interests instead of any real issue. You've ignored solutions which fit within your arguments but you don't like the outcome (like a .startup TLD or using subdomains yourself). You clearly see the value in .com which everyone has recognized but want to monopolize it for yourself under the guise of the greater good. You may be new at this, but because of my history, I've heard each argument hundreds of times, you haven't come up with anything new; thousands of people have whined about domain names and not followed through on a real, workable solution to the system that does accommodate all stakeholders.
  - rooshdi 15y ago
    thousands of people have whined about domain names and not followed through on a real, workable solution to the system that does accommodate all stakeholders. I appreciate the dialogue. I admit my proposed solution may not be the best at this moment, and does not accommodate all stakeholders, especially domain squatters. It probably is already too late to implement my proposed solution anyway. The domain system in place right now has evolved to such a state that the .com domain has a monopoly over the domain system. The .com has been ingrained in the mindset of most internet users as the end-all be-all due to the unrestriction and initial web registration mind share. This is now being taken advantage of by domainers. They purchase thousands of domains, in the hopes of profiting off of a lucky few. Who gets hurt in all of this? The others. John can't get the name for his blog, Amy sees her cake business's name is taken, Kevin has to buy ICantFindADotComDomainNameSoIBoughtThis.ly. Why? Because domainers aren't thinking of the external effects of their actions and just want to make an easy buck for themselves, manipulating the system to their sole benefit. In short, Pure Greed. This supply shortage of decent .com names is only going to get worse as internet usage increases. My hope is, as this continues, that .com domains become of less value and internet users become more comfortable with alternative TLDs. Summary: Domainers are of no help to society. They must perish. =)
    - ohashi 15y ago
      Yawn. There is no shortage (36^63 combos). Everyone who keeps saying this just thinks they are entitled to the best option available. Again, you ignore the proposed solution which fits your goals but don't like where the result takes you. You're just ignorant and want to complain, you don't want a solution, you want to just be better off for yourself.
      - rooshdi 15y ago
        No, I want a solution that deters domain squatters and is overall better for most people. Maybe, there should just be a cap on how many domains one can own at a time. But domainers would probably complain about that too and make some hypocritical remarks about how this restricts their internet rights, when what they do restricts the internet even worse. You're just ignorant and want to complain, you don't want a solution, you want to just be better off for yourself. I think this statement represents domainers such as you perfectly. May I ask, can you name one benefit domainers provide to people?