Boycott anything on Go-Mama-Hosting servers [Archive]

View Full Version : Boycott anything on Go-Mama-Hosting servers

PayToSurfTrauma

10th June 2004, 00:00

Rob

10th June 2004, 05:05

Do you not think that boycotting everything on Go-Mama-Hosting is a rather naive way of dealing with this problem?

Indeed, if you could provide us some program specific details, I'd be happy to follow this up.

Rob

PayToSurfTrauma

10th June 2004, 07:09

GMH is the most irresponsible host on the internet today. They knowingly host fraudulent websites and don't care about the legality of falisfied DNS entries of websites on their servers.

Scam after scam after scam is hosted by them and if there are any legitimate programs on there, well, they should know better. The only alternative is to take legal action and there just aint the motivation.

A blanket boycott of all GMH sites is the only way to make the point. Half measures will not do.

There are unofficial boycotts over here of Nestle products because of dodgy marketting techniques of baby milk in third world countries. They boycott *all* nestle products, not just the baby milk.

Supporting some of the GMH hosted sites would be analogous to 'I'm boycotting milk, but I'm still going to buy milky bars'. An ineffective cop-out, in other words...

I see no alternative course of action.

Rob

10th June 2004, 08:12

I am inclined to disagree because:

a) The concept that the host is responsible for monitoring the types of website which exist on their server, where the content is legal, is a new debate. The comparison between Nestle is unfounded; as they both act as purchaser of chocolate, and supplier of chocolate bars.

I am not condoning the fact Go-Mama-Hosting host these sites, but I don't believe it is their responsibility to ensure all the people who purchase a web hosting service from them are responsible people.

b) I do not subscribe to the notion that webmasters who run their program efficiently, legally and responsibly, yet host their site at Go-Mama-Hosting, "should know better". They purchase a service from Go-Mama-Hosting and nothing more. It is preposterous to think we should victimise these honest sites for merely choosing to host their site with a specific company, regardless of your opinion of that company.

I again invite you to post names of the dishonest websites hosted by this company.

Rob, GPTBoycott.Com

GMH is the most irresponsible host on the internet today. They knowingly host fraudulent websites and don't care about the legality of falisfied DNS entries of websites on their servers.

Scam after scam after scam is hosted by them and if there are any legitimate programs on there, well, they should know better. The only alternative is to take legal action and there just aint the motivation.

I see no alternative course of action.

lil crusader

10th June 2004, 09:43

I'm sure the argument could be made that less than reputable programs can also be found hosted by Lucidity, Get Paid Solutions, etc.

Why don't we just boycott everybody?

That'll show 'em!

kglaser

10th June 2004, 12:09

This is a rather large--ok, ludicrously large--blanket statement to make. I for one would need to see specific examples before taking your claim seriously.

CATWOMANSURF

10th June 2004, 15:44

The DNS Server-WHOIS information does have to be correct and have the right owner's name and information. Yes that is true. But why would the host have to be blamed? This topic is simply ridiculous. You can't blame the hosts for wanting a customer or two. We can't start boycotting all the hosts around here, plus all the paid to read sites, there won't be much of an internet left for us. Why not boycott all the randomizers, all the mlm sites, all the chocolate industry, all the food industry, everything and anything?? That's how dumb this topic is.

qcp

13th June 2004, 21:07

As an employee and representative of Turner Services(a hosting company) I will say that this is ridiculous!Go Mama is one of our competitors but they are a reputable company.They host some good companies and some bad ones.Bad-mouthing the good ones is wrong.

Q

Jaikula

15th June 2004, 02:49

Go-mama-hosting has knowingly hosted scam after scam for as long as can be remembered. I've been on and on and on at them for ages now and they admit they've had dealings with Paul Coonan in the past two.

In a nutshell, they dont care. The latest thing is a refusal to acknowledge falsified DNS registration information on their sites. It is a legal requirment that when registering a domain name, you use true and accurate information, yet still they let it pass.

If we boycott anything on go-mama-hosting, we'll get shot of most of the scams out there as other hosts tend to have even just a little bit of intelligence and a moral or two.

Ooooo.... Woooooow... They had dealings with Paul Coonan.... So what, he hosted with them.... Hosts only have to make sure the sites hosted with them comply with their terms AND the terms of the host's host....

And it is obvious you dont know anything about DNS, that has nothing to do with the registration of information reguarding the domain names. That is something completely different.

I'm betting that you are someone that was kicked off their hosting for running a site which wasnt allowed, or had a lot of complaints with.

Well well well, what have I found about this OP.

Firstly I dont think he should throw stones in glass house, specially when it all comes down to just HOW much he hates PTR. What is also amazing is that this SAME OP within his Yahoo group, tags on the iSAAF.com, guess what, that domain is INVALID when it comes to information, and guess what ELSE, it has Paul's name within it.

http://www.whois.sc/iSAAF.com

Then there is the following posts made on your yahoo group, dont bother Thomas, already retained screenshots of them. You are really against PTR arent you, there are a few threads there showing that you are.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PayToSurfTrauma/message/8?threaded=1
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PayToSurfTrauma/message/10

Yet here you are asking what the ideal PTR would be...

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PayToSurfTrauma/message/65?threaded=1

And look, you supporting the same site which was run by someone you yourself called a scammer:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PayToSurfTrauma/message/76?threaded=1

akhurley

15th June 2004, 11:18

I am going to do my BEST to keep this short.

First off what does knowing Paul have anything to do with anything? You know him too---so what? You seem to be a big supporter of his so why are you pointing at us for knowing him? A bit two-sided isn't it?

Now, for the hosting scam sites bit------

You failed to acknowledge all the hosting companies on the internet in your boycott report. We are not the only host here and certainly not the only hosts hosting PTR sites. Certainly you don't think it fair to sigle out one hosting company.

We provide a service to people who own websites and nothing more. We are not the internet police. We can not enter into any of our hosted sites without permission and even then we are only allowed to do what the owner asks: IE: fix a bug in scripts, fix a design issue. That is all we can do legally. There is absolutely no way we can guarantee a site has the money to pay members no more than we can guarantee a company is going to give you your pay check at the end of the week. Do you think a bank polices companies? It is the same principal. A bank provides a service same as we do. Why not boycott Pay Pal, E-Gold, MoneyBookers, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, etc. ? They are holding scammers money. Why aren't they included in your report?

I don't understand your insistant cause to continuously go after only GMH. You single GMH out. Why?

Here's a thought. Why not take this bottled up energy and put it to good use? Work on getting some legislation into this industry. Get out there and educate people the right way. Go after the real scammers instead of the scape-goats. Do something productive with all that energy. Get proof these sites are scams; screenshots of admin showing debt, screenshots of paypal/moneybookers/e-gold accounts showing they have no money to pay then turn those over to the local authorities to get those sites shut down.

Yes it ticks me off to see members scammed out of thier money but the only key in this is education. If it looks to good to be true IT IS!

Jaikula

15th June 2004, 18:43

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I must have hit a nerve, he's now made his Yahoo group messages only to be open to those that are members. I must have hit a nerve, well I still have the screenshots. If anyone wants to see them feel free to pm me and I'll get them uploaded and the links back to you.

pball86zx

15th June 2004, 23:58

PayToSurfTrauma

16th June 2004, 04:14

Rob writes:

---Quote---
The concept that the host is responsible for monitoring the types of website which exist on their server, where the content is legal, is a new debate
---Unquote---

We're talking about websites who are clearly not going pay and hence guilty of fraud. There's nothing legal about that.

---Quote---
I don't believe it is their responsibility to ensure all the people who purchase a web hosting service from them are responsible people.
---Unquote---

And a lot of them hold 'designed by go-mama-hosting' tags too while still being clear scams.

---Quote---
I again invite you to post names of the dishonest websites hosted by this company.
---Unquote---

Due to three system crashes in five days, I've lost the list several times over. I will compile once again and submit shortly.

catwomansurf writes:

---Quote---
Why not boycott all the randomizers
---Unquote---

They're pseudo legit ponzi schemes - why not boycott them?

Jaikula writes:

---Quote---
Ooooo.... Woooooow... They had dealings with Paul Coonan.... So what, he hosted with them.... Hosts only have to make sure the sites hosted with them comply with their terms AND the terms of the host's host....
---Unquote---

In context of sites on their servers, not hosting his - I don't beleive, and seriously doubt, he ever used them for hosting. I could - and probably should - have said 'the iSAAF' instead,

---Quote---
I'm betting that you are someone that was kicked off their hosting for running a site which wasnt allowed, or had a lot of complaints with.
---Unquote---

Actually, no. The only hosting firm I have ever used is Netfirms who still host me to this day.

---Quote---
Then there is the following posts made on your yahoo group, dont bother Thomas, already retained screenshots of them. You are really against PTR arent you, there are a few threads there showing that you are.
---Unquote---

Being disguted - and reporting - a site that claims to lose $538 per email sent before even taking referral bonus into account means I'm against PTR? This shows I'm against people being ripped off, not against PTR.

---Quote---
And look, you supporting the same site which was run by someone you yourself called a scammer
---Unquote---

I'd like to see any post I've ever made anywhere that was even slightly against anything to do with the iSAAF....

akhurley writes:

---Quote---
First off what does knowing Paul have anything to do with anything? You know him too---so what? You seem to be a big supporter of his so why are you pointing at us for knowing him? A bit two-sided isn't it?
---Unquote---

This was mentioned merely to point out how far back go-mama-hosting has been hosting scams. Feel free to replace Paul Coonan with iSAAF if that makes you feel better.

---Quote---
We are not the only host here and certainly not the only hosts hosting PTR sites.
---Unquote---

No, but you host a huge number of scams - a lot of which, at least claim to have even been, designed by you too.

---Quote---
We provide a service to people who own websites and nothing more. We are not the internet police. We can not enter into any of our hosted sites without permission and even then we are only allowed to do what the owner asks: IE: fix a bug in scripts, fix a design issue. That is all we can do legally.
---Unqote---

Your acceptable usage policy states that "Illegal Activities: Go-Mama-Hosting services may not be used for illegal purposes," and the TOS states that: "ACCOUNTS CAN BE REFUSED AND/OR DISCONTINUED AT GO-MAMA-HOSTINGS DISCRETION. Go-Mama-Hosting shall not be liable for loss of data under any circumstance.". A site blatantly commiting fraud is indeed, using go-mama-hosting services for illegal purposes - those of commiting fraud.

---Quote---
Do you think a bank polices companies? It is the same principal
---Unquote---

Actually, yes - if not entirely. If a bank invested in companies employing child and/or slave labour there would be an outcry so they don't do it. It's only a couple of years against the (albeit small scale) boycott of HSBC due to its unethical investing - they soon stopped doing it. Those accounts involved in money laundering are suspended and/or closed. If you read the ethical investing policy of most major banks, at least in this country, then yes, they police many, though not all, companies they are involved with.

Go to a bank and ask for a loan to start up an illegitimate company and they will refuse you. They don't cover everything, but at least they have *some* scruples.

---Quote---
I don't understand your insistant cause to continuously go after only GMH. You single GMH out. Why?
---Unquote---

Volume. The sheer number of illegitimate programs on your servers require special attention. Please wait on the list I will supply in responce to Robs post for confirmation of this.

Jaikula writes:

---Quote---
I must have hit a nerve, he's now made his Yahoo group messages only to be open to those that are members.
---Unquote---

Actually, the site has always been members only. The only time its been open to everybody has been the duration of the time it takes to send a trawler through to back up the archives and one instance while I was doing this and suffered a system crash when, for obvious reasons, I was unable to close it again for a couple of days.

It is still a forum open to all members of the public and as such, you are welcome to cut and paste anything from it.

SelfSupportive

16th June 2004, 06:02

PayToSurfTrauma, for one who expresses ambitions to be some sort of leading force in cleaning up the PTR industry, you seem to know remarkably little about it and the Internet technology/concepts that it is built around.

It is not a host's responsibility to monitor and control the content of the servers they rent out space on. That approach has been attempted by Governments without success - because it is completely unworkable. But you are suggesting that this particular host should be singled out and punished for not doing exactly that. So you say it IS their responsibility because they are hosting illegal sites, which is against their terms.

That would be fine if the sites were illegal. I'm quite sure if gomama knows a site is illegal, they would remove it immediately. But unfortunately the claims of some who say that "site X is illegal because they won't/can't pay their members" do not hold up at all legally. That is just an opinion, not a fact.

Believe me, I have put a great deal of time and effort into the fight against the unsustainable sites that I believe are ripping off everyone else in the industry. But I can't address it from a perspective of "these sites are illegal" - for them to be illegal, they need to be declared illegal with some sort of precedent by a government or a court. And that would just affect one country anyway. It would then take time before it spread to other countries, and maybe eventually accepted as an international standard.

Unfortunately, for now, they are not illegal. And I for one don't have the time and money to force it into a courtroom where something might happen. If you do - great! Pick a program that has ripped you off, get together with others who also have been, and take 'em to court.

There is also the fact that for GoMama to dishonor the business agreements they have entered into with sites such as site X (which you claim is illegal but actually isn't) would itself be breaking the law. They can't do that even if they did want to :!: So you are proposing to boycott someone for something that is really out of their control.

Sorry to be blunt, but you just don't have a clue. :\

akhurley

16th June 2004, 12:06

No, but you host a huge number of scams - a lot of which, at least claim to have even been, designed by you too.

At the bottom of the GENERIC CC SCRIPT TEMPLATE it says Designed by GMH-----because we designed the GENERIC template that every Tom, **** and Hairy uses.

Your acceptable usage policy states that "Illegal Activities: Go-Mama-Hosting services may not be used for illegal purposes," and the TOS states that: "ACCOUNTS CAN BE REFUSED AND/OR DISCONTINUED AT GO-MAMA-HOSTINGS DISCRETION. Go-Mama-Hosting shall not be liable for loss of data under any circumstance.". A site blatantly commiting fraud is indeed, using go-mama-hosting services for illegal purposes - those of commiting fraud.

We need all proof in black and white attached with a court order stating the site is illegal or each site you claim is doing this on our servers. Upon reciept of such court orders we will shut said site(s) down. Paid To Read has NOT been deemed Illegal Activities. If you have proof otherwise please provide such proof.

Please provide us with notorized bank account statements and accounting records to show they are doing this; again, for each site you claim is doing this on our servers.

You see, same as a company firing an employee or a Landlord evicting you, there are LEGAL messures that MUST be put in place FIRST!

Actually, yes - if not entirely. If a bank invested in companies employing child and/or slave labour there would be an outcry so they don't do it. It's only a couple of years against the (albeit small scale) boycott of HSBC due to its unethical investing - they soon stopped doing it. Those accounts involved in money laundering are suspended and/or closed. If you read the ethical investing policy of most major banks, at least in this country, then yes, they police many, though not all, companies they are involved with.

Uuuummm since when did Paid To Read become illegal?

And just how do they go about "Policing" companies they are involved in? Did they "police" Enron? Martha Stewart? Kathy Lee Gifford? Guess not. I don't believe banks have the legal authority to police anyone and even if they did any action taken by any bank would have to go through all of the legal red tape; you can't just go "oh, that's illegal" and shut someone down. The Law does not work that way. If it did we'd live in a governed 3rd world country as opposed to having freedom.

Volume. The sheer number of illegitimate programs on your servers require special attention. Please wait on the list I will supply in responce to Robs post for confirmation of this.

Providing a list does nothing. You need court orders providing proof these sites/companies are indeed illegal/illegitimate and proof must be provided for each one.

While I do commend you for fighting against sites who may turn out to be scams you need to realize the legalities here. Try doing something about sites you feel are scams the legal way. We can sit here and hash this out until the cows come home but the result/bottom line will be the same; We by LAW can not just shut down a site because it "appears" to be set up to scam. Scams are all over the internet as well as in the offline world, there is no way to rid them. Educating people is the only way to put a limit on them.

Jaikula

16th June 2004, 22:20

Jaikula writes:
---Quote---
Ooooo.... Woooooow... They had dealings with Paul Coonan.... So what, he hosted with them.... Hosts only have to make sure the sites hosted with them comply with their terms AND the terms of the host's host....
---Unquote---

In context of sites on their servers, not hosting his - I don't beleive, and seriously doubt, he ever used them for hosting. I could - and probably should - have said 'the iSAAF' instead,

YOU yourself said that they, being Go Mama, had had dealings with Paul Coonan, he is the PREVIOUS owner of iSAAF, therefore you imply by that statement of yours that Paul is a crook.

---Quote---
Then there is the following posts made on your yahoo group, dont bother Thomas, already retained screenshots of them. You are really against PTR arent you, there are a few threads there showing that you are.
---Unquote---

Being disguted - and reporting - a site that claims to lose $538 per email sent before even taking referral bonus into account means I'm against PTR? This shows I'm against people being ripped off, not against PTR.

That was why you hid your group's messages when I posted the links.

---Quote---
And look, you supporting the same site which was run by someone you yourself called a scammer
---Unquote---

I'd like to see any post I've ever made anywhere that was even slightly against anything to do with the iSAAF....
As I said further up, by YOU saying that Paul had dealings WITH Go Mama you are therefore IMPLYING that Paul is a scammer since according to you Do Mama hosts scam sites.

akhurley writes:

---Quote---
First off what does knowing Paul have anything to do with anything? You know him too---so what? You seem to be a big supporter of his so why are you pointing at us for knowing him? A bit two-sided isn't it?
---Unquote---

This was mentioned merely to point out how far back go-mama-hosting has been hosting scams. Feel free to replace Paul Coonan with iSAAF if that makes you feel better.

Wow, they have been hosting scams... The horror of it all...

---Quote---
We are not the only host here and certainly not the only hosts hosting PTR sites.
---Unquote---

No, but you host a huge number of scams - a lot of which, at least claim to have even been, designed by you too.

So what they host them, they are running a business, something which I dont see you doing Thomas. And the design is a generic design, goto this link here and you will find the demo site for the scripts creators.

http://cashcrusader.myecom.net/pages/

---Quote---
We provide a service to people who own websites and nothing more. We are not the internet police. We can not enter into any of our hosted sites without permission and even then we are only allowed to do what the owner asks: IE: fix a bug in scripts, fix a design issue. That is all we can do legally.
---Unqote---

Your acceptable usage policy states that "Illegal Activities: Go-Mama-Hosting services may not be used for illegal purposes," and the TOS states that: "ACCOUNTS CAN BE REFUSED AND/OR DISCONTINUED AT GO-MAMA-HOSTINGS DISCRETION. Go-Mama-Hosting shall not be liable for loss of data under any circumstance.". A site blatantly commiting fraud is indeed, using go-mama-hosting services for illegal purposes - those of commiting fraud.

Hey Thomas, why dont you go and get PROOF that there is ILLEGAL activities happening. YOU stop being full of hot air and get such proof, get your 'friends' in Washington to help...

Jaikula writes:

---Quote---
I must have hit a nerve, he's now made his Yahoo group messages only to be open to those that are members.
---Unquote---

Actually, the site has always been members only. The only time its been open to everybody has been the duration of the time it takes to send a trawler through to back up the archives and one instance while I was doing this and suffered a system crash when, for obvious reasons, I was unable to close it again for a couple of days.

It is still a forum open to all members of the public and as such, you are welcome to cut and paste anything from it.

Now that is BS and you know it Thomas, FULLY BS!!! I have at least ONE witness who is NOT a member of that group who was ABLE to read the messages of there. If it was MEMBERS ONLY as YOU claim it was and you had crashed and couldnt do anything, then it is rather interesting that that happened between my first post in this thread and my second post. Since you have given me permission to show my screenshots I have I am going to post them up. I will also post a screenshot of my explorer window showing the save dates of the original PSP files so you cant say that I took them when I was a 'member' which of course was before I made up a false yahoo account in order to get some other information like the last screenshot.

http://www.skamptr.com/evidence/PtST-explorer.gif
The timestamps there are for Adelaide, Australia where the CURRENT time is 11:45am approx June 17 2004

http://www.skamptr.com/evidence/PtST-isaaf.gif

http://www.skamptr.com/evidence/PtST-msgidx.gif
No way you could have crashed there Thomas, not by your judgement of time.

http://www.skamptr.com/evidence/PtST-message10-1.gif
http://www.skamptr.com/evidence/PtST-message10-2.gif

http://www.skamptr.com/evidence/PtST-message65-1.gif
http://www.skamptr.com/evidence/PtST-message65-2.gif

I'm not even going to comment on the above because YOU obviously have NO IDEA on just HOW things are run.

http://www.skamptr.com/evidence/PtST-message76.gif

http://www.skamptr.com/evidence/PtST-message8-1.gif
http://www.skamptr.com/evidence/PtST-message8-2.gif

http://www.skamptr.com/evidence/PtST-message9.gif

Take note in msg 76 on how he says Washington is aware of iSAAF, I dont believe a word of that, infact I dont think they are AWARE of the GPT industry at all because no one has taken the time to talk to someone there in reguards to it. A lot tend to be blow hards, full of hot all doing all talk and no action.