Domain Names to Suck More

A submitter writes: "MSNBC is running this article about a free speech lawyer who will be doling out sites with the word 'suck' in it for free. He and others are afraid that too many of these gripe sites have been taken away from their owners and given to the target companies and is willing to fight in court for these people." We posted about the VivendiUniversalSucks decision earlier.

Comments

What we want is a real test case

[gowen]

I suggest we set up a website to promote a lawsuit where the guidelines are more ambiguous. I recommend registering "www.hoovervacuumcleanersDONTsuck.com"

Re:What we want is a real test case

[Uttles]

Awesome. Great Idea!

Re:What we want is a real test case

[Anonymous Coward]

Kinda reminds me of this guy I know. He works for a company that makes what are, essentially, Swiss-army vacuum cleaners, with an attachment to do everything but unplug the kitchen sink, and he was sort of half-jokingly trying to sell us one. After coming up with dozens of obscure factoids ("Did you know that the human body sheds its weight in dead skin every 7 years?"), he finally says:

"Kirby sucks up to 3 times as much as any other vacuum."

And, speaking of sucking, I bring you: Grignr?

The single gap puckered repeatedly

Crow [falsetto]: "Come on, kiss your Aunt Ethel!"

emitting a ghastly sucking sound.

Tom [Perot]: "--as American jobs leave for Mexico!"

got one yet ?

[rednuhter]

I could not find any links that resulted in getting a free .comsucks. domain !

Re:got one yet ?

[Hater's Leaving, The]

http://freespeechcenter.org/portfolio/com.html

It is a _third level domain_ that you get.

They've registered almost all common non-national [TLD]sucks.[TLD] second level domain names, and therefore can hand out third level ones of whatever variety you want.

So you could create names like MSN.NETsucks.info if you like. (case of course being irrelevant).

Hope that's clear now.
THL.

Re:got one yet ?

[rednuhter]

I was expecting a form to fill out, I guess we mail bomb them

Hmm

[NiftyNews]

That's all well and good for free speech, but these stories always make me wish I had a piece of the Domain Name sales pie. The # of people that actually visit these X-sucks.com sites is slim to nil. Feel free to spend the money, I guess.

Re:Hmm

[rhost89]

Yeah and who would have ever thought that the hamster dance would have been a hit too ;9

Re:Hmm

[anthony_dipierro]

Since these are whatever.sucks.com (not whateversucks.com), register.com only gets $35/year out of the deal.

At least get it right

[DannyGene]

The summary should specify that the domains are "company.comsucks.net", not "companysucks.com" as the summary implies.

waste of time

[lukecs]

I doubt that this will affect in any way domains that have been legally bought. So.... I think its a good idea, although it seems to be a waste of time. Why can't people that lost their domain names just fight their own battles? Or perhaps this is because the lawyer wants a percentage of the profits from winning legal battles?

Re:waste of time

[Bobo_the_Chimp]

> Why can't people that lost their domain
> names just fight their own battles?

Ok, let me get this straight. Because I can't
afford to match legal dollars with GM, it means
that I don't have the right to free speach?

I'm sure the lawyer here is trying to make
a name in this arena, but I have no problem
with that - it's a win-win sitution. The people
who have lost their right to protest with
domains now can do so with sub-domains.

Re:waste of time

[lukecs]

Are you suggesting GM or large companys like it take over other comapnies to make web pages with suck on them?

Re:waste of time

[khuber]

>Why can't people that lost their domain names just fight their own battles?

United we stand, divided we fall?

-Kevin

Re:waste of time

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he's suggesting that if he has to go to court, that both sides should have equal amounts of resources (ie # of lawyers/money) so that the little guy isn't overwhelmed in a tsunami of briefs, motions, etc.

Re:waste of time

[SirSlud]

> Why can't people that lost their domain names just fight their own battles?

Like, why can't people who got beat up just beat the other guy up? Duh .. I think the idea is, there is a reason they lost in the first place, and that would be lack of support, lack of ammunition, lack of fighting supplies ($$s and lawyers in today-speak.) Companies have been notorious for threatening legal action against small domain owners who have no choice but to fold, given the enormous financial risk that legal defence imposes.

You remind me of those rabid free-market capitalists who keep asking, "So those people in countries with no money and food .. why can't they just build some shit and make money for food?" You know, sometimes you're so focused on the next meal (or not losing your life's savings in the case of the domainname holders) that you couldn't concentrate on the bigger plan (being the champion, the hero, the company killer with respect to the domain holders) even if you wanted to.

Would this be like...

[BlackGriffen]

Would this be like an ObGyn passing out condoms with holes in them?

BlackGriffen

New TLD

[bdoliver]

I think we just need to formalize it, there is a definate need for the TLD ".sucks"

Re:New TLD

[Hater's Leaving, The]

There is, if you use one of the alternative DNS roots!

However, if you use one of the roots that doesn't have .sucks them you can go through the cooperative .glue TLD which the alternative roots agreed would to use as a gateway. Funny, I'd have thought it was more of sniffs.glue rather than sucks.glue!

THL.
(yes, I know that's not how .glue works, but once I had the idea of sucks + glue I couldn't drop the idea. OK, I'll shut up now!)

Re:New TLD

[fmaxwell]

I think we just need to formalize it, there is a definate need for the TLD ".sucks"

Surely you aren't suggesting that .sucks could rival the popularity of the .museum, .coop, .pro, and .aero TLDs recently approved by ICANN!

My bet: Within 50ms of the .sucks TLD becoming available, someone would register ICANN.sucks. That's why they will never approve it.

Re:New TLD

[Anonymous Coward]

Well icannsucks.com is already taken ;-)

Re:New TLD

[Anonymous Coward]

The solution to too much free speech is mroe free speech. A .suck TLD would be great.

Re:New TLD

[fleener]

a definate need for the TLD ".sucks"

What good would it do? ICANN would give trademark holders first dibbs at registration and then every sucky company would own its own .sucks domain. Sounds more like a ploy to keep the registrars plump.

Re:New TLD

[DreadfulGrape]

You're right, of course, but that's too many chars, IMHO. Let's just make it .sux for the sake of simplicity.

Re:New TLD

[martyn s]

Well, I think the primary qualification for holding a x.sucks domain name would be that you *don't* hold a trademark for x. However, I don't see how they could possibly enforce that qualification.

primus sucks

[ender-iii]

primus knew what they were doing when they made thier home page primussuscks.com right from the begining.

Re:primus sucks

[daniel_isaacs]

primus knew what they were doing when they made thier home page primussuscks.com [primussuscks.com] right from the begining.

Or even PrimusSucks.com :)

Re:primus sucks

[ender-iii]

right, thanks, I suck.

Full disclosure

[Score0, Overrated]

I think it only fair that the existence of this site is disclosed while discussing this story.

Re:Full disclosure

[anthony_dipierro]

Damn, I really need to set something up for that site. I've been thinking of a slashdot parody site, but I don't have the time to actually do it. For now I squat, I guess.

Re:Full disclosure

[tempest303]

Too bad slashdotsucks.com sucks even worse that slashdot itself. ;p

Adequacy.org: Mildly-funny-at-best Humor for Assholes.

Re:Full disclosure

[jimmydigital]

So of course now we need slashdotsucks.sucks and on ad nauseum... To cope with this I suggest adding a .blows or .blowz.. This could lead to such nice names as slashdotsucksand.blows isn't that much better?

Why doesn't the sucks.com owner do this?

[Greyfox]

The sucks.com owner could lease out second level domains under his domain and make a tidy little chunk of change for himself. This would, at the very least, make it much more difficult to have domain names siezed and transferred to them, since they'd have to take the trademark dispute to court rather than some completely unaccountable international IP committee.

Re:Why doesn't the sucks.com owner do this?

[Hater's Leaving, The]

You're forgetting the gay.com story. (or whatever the site was)
The server used PHP to answer every
your-mate's-name-here.is.gay.com
request with a faux news page revealing the fact that
Your Mate's Name Here was in fact gay.

For some bizarre and stupid reason the site was pulled because a senator (kennedy?!?) put his own name in the URL box of his browser, and didn't like what he saw.

i.e. If you are responsible for the 2LD (or 3LD in the case of countries with .ac/.co etc. 2LDs), then you are responsible for everything under your 2LD.

THL.

Re:Why doesn't the sucks.com owner do this?

[Score0, Overrated]

You're still in denial!

Re:Why doesn't the sucks.com owner do this?

[Hater's Leaving, The]

Oooh huggy huggies - you're a dear, I can never thank you enough!

xxx
THL

No need to complain

[Evanrude]

Why complain about having a *sucs.com site named after you. Use it as a tool to fix your problems? Or just be flattered that someone took the time to develop a website dedicated to telling the world how much your company sucks. Isn't the irony there pretty thick already?

Re:No need to complain

[Sodium Attack]

The type of people who tend to register *sucks.com sites are generally not those who are interested in providing constructive criticism to a company in the hopes of improving it. No, they're the type who will be upset with that company no matter how much they've done to improve. (Otherwise, there could come a point where they'd have to say, "Yeah, X sucked three years ago, but they've improved a lot and don't suck anymore. We're shutting our site down." Who could see that happening?)

Don't get me wrong; I'm all in favor of allowing *sucks.com sites. But I don't pretend that they're any more objective than the company site itself.

Re:No need to complain

[haruharaharu]

The type of people who tend to register *sucks.com sites are generally not those who are interested in providing constructive criticism to a company in the hopes of improving it.

So what? Do I only get freedom to criticize a corp if it's constructive?

Re:No need to complain

[Sodium Attack]

No, but you do only get freedom to criticize my post if you actually take the time to read the whole thing, rather than just reading the first sentence and making knee-jerk assumptions about the rest of it. Sheesh.

Re:No need to complain

[geekoid]

I hate it when people do that.
Sodium Attack? is that some sort of triffed reference?

So we can get

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdotsucks.com?

I prefer the title JonKatzsucks.com

Free speech should be protected.

[Em Emalb]

I don't necessarily agree with the so and so sucks.com mentality, but it is a freedom of expression issue. Just because I hate everything the KKK stands for, doesn't mean I won't defend their right to assemble, etc. This is, IMO, similar. Hopefully this is a small step for the online community towards a more democratic society.

Re:Free speech should be protected.

[lukecs]

Really you think the KKK shou have the right to assemble? I think sometimes Free Speech goes to far. Its like writing child porn stories... Should this be considered free speech? Did you know Chapters has banned Mein Kampf in their stores.

I think free speech can go both ways. Some people use it to much and some people restrict it to much.

Re:Free speech should be protected.

[Em Emalb]

"Really you think the KKK shou have the right to assemble?" Actually yes I do, for otherwise, a lot of people would have died in vain protecting this right they so often abuse. For the record, I ABHOR everything the KK stands for. I personally would be glad if they never existed. But, just because I disagree with their views, doesn't mean they don't have the right to do what they wish. (within the laws of course)

Re:Free speech should be protected.

[InsaneGeek]

God, what was the point of that post? Watch me cut and paste comments posted a million time before on slashdot.

Re:Free speech should be protected.

[maddman75]

If nothing else, allowing groups like the KKK to assemble is an easy way to find out who all the loons are :)

Re:Free speech should be protected.

[Em Emalb]

Rant time: Cut and paste? I think not my friend. I served in the Marine Corps for 5 years. I have been all over the world, and have seen what kind of conditions other people live in. You have no idea how good you have it. People like ME have defended that right since this country was founded. Hundreds of thousands have died for this right. If you disagree with it, fine, but don't try to slam me for something you don't have a fucking clue about. Damn, now you got me all pissed off...

Re:Free speech should be protected.

[NGTV13]

Exactly, I believe that, as long as these sites don't break any laws (slander and the like) and keep everything, albeit probably negative, true. These sites should be able to remain. What happens if I want to make a page called USAsucks.gov or something to that extent, to show my protest of certain policies that america has.... will I be arrested? Should i be arrested? The right to question the policies of anybody is protected in the constitution. Granted, they should do so tastefully (IMO of course) but hey, that's not written in the law... According to the constitution, they could write "MICROSOFTSUCKSBIGDONKEYBALLS.com" and it would be legal, so long as it was used in the metaphorical sense (because, if it were meant to be literal, they'd be lying... i think anyways...

Re:Free speech should be protected.

[InsaneGeek]

So? My father was a Marine guard at the American embasy in Moscow during late 60's; back when it was a big fucking deal (i.e. Cuban Missle Crisis). Does that make you better or worse? Who actually gives a shit.

I wasn't arguing that free speach is something to be defended. Now if you actually look at my post you'll see that it's your parotting of the hundred posts previous to yours that parotted the hundred posts before them of the exact same phrases, that I dislike; you can think for yourself and say something original can't you (at least jumble up the words or something).

Note: Yes, my father was really an embasy guard (I am being truthful), of course he said that he did it because after doing a couple of years there you got to pretty much pick which embassy you wanted to go. He met my Swiss mother there who was a nanny for some diplomats, and well the rest is how you say history. So I have a very firm grasp as to defending this country, and have a very large fucking clue about it.

Re:Free speech should be protected.

[Rude Turnip]

Yeah, let's drive the klan into the underground and no one will know what devious things they're up to. Al-KKKaida anyone? Speech must be kept free and open if only to "keep you friends close and your enemies closer."

Re:Free speech should be protected.

[Em Emalb]

"Now if you actually look at my post you'll see that it's your parotting of the hundred posts previous to yours that parotted the hundred posts before them of the exact same phrases, that I dislike; you can think for yourself and say something original can't you (at least jumble up the words or something). "

Ok, if you think I am just parroting crap, that's your opinion and you are absolutely entitled to it. However, if we are to be productive and think before we respond as you request, then rather than slam me for what I had to say, wouldn't it be better to ignore it and post something enlightening?

I can concede you have a point in that it is harped up a bit here. I was not trying to beat a dead horse, merely making a statement.

Fair enough?

Black List

[lukecs]

Maybe they should just give their sucks list to Australia who can add it to their BLACK LIST. It seems like everyone is getting into the list industry.

I want this domain name

[Anonymous Coward]

TrollsOnSlashdotSuck

Damn, I shoulda waited

[gvonk]

Before I paid to set up RiverMillSucks.com
*sigh*
ya gotta love a bunch of college kids bitching about their landlord. That's really the essence of life.

Or mine, anyway...

MOD Parent UP!

[SpookComix]

It's TRUE!

--SC

The domain to get now is...

[dhamsaic]

VivendiUniversalReallyReallyReallySucks.com

or

VivendiUniversalSucksButt.com

or, to show you're not looking for money...

seineeWerAsreenignElasrevinUidneviV.org

(pardon the silliness. this post composed umop apisdn)

obviously

[jjeffries]

We need a .sucks top-level domain. To save time the
registrar could send the owner the date of his/her trademark infringement suit as soon as the first payment was made!

arbitrary tld's

[Mighty-Troll]

There are two important things we need for domain names.

1) We must be able to put any fucking thing we want, regardless if it's a companies name or not.

2) Top level domains should be anything you want. As in .foo, .jkfajsk, .fuck.you, .whatever

Re:arbitrary tld's

[a random streaker]

Yeah, there should be some sort of...internet keyword system.

Ooh ooh, I want this one!

[Uttles]

http://slashdot.orgsuck.com

That's a mouthful!

Re:Ooh ooh, I want this one!

[Anonymous Coward]

With all due respect, "suck" and "mouthful" don't belong in the same post. ;)

.sucks?

[MoceanWorker]

how bout OpenNIC and/or New.net work on creating a .sucks TLD :-)

Re:.sucks?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or a .sux TLD

This article Sucks

[gomerbud]

How happy would freespeechcenter.org be if I registered freespeechcentersucks.org?

Re:This article Sucks

[BaldGhoti]

They probably wouldn't appreciate it very much, but I doubt they'd sue you.

And if they did, then they aren't very pro-free-speech, are they?

usuck.com

[dimer0]

I tried to do the something similiar last year. I set up a subdomain redirection site so you could assign microsoft.usuck.com to wherever you wanted, etc. (Actually, that site pointed HERE - and I didn't do it). I had over 70,000 domains being redirected.

After the spam community started using my domain service for their own good, Verio threatened to pull the plug, so I stopped that service. What a pity.

It was so fun, though. Getting emails from parents saying their kids were going to drop out of school because people had set up redirections from (example) johnsmith.usuck.com that ended up redirecting to gay porn sites.

doesn't address the real problem

[nzhavok]

This is sort of a good thing in that you can (at least in the future) get your VivendiUniversal.comsucks.com address for free (?) but it doesn't address the underlying issue that these "suck" domains shouldn't have been taken away in the first place. So kudos Ed Harvilla for the idea but it's a workaround for the problem not a solution to it.

Personally if I were to create a parody site in the future I'm going to learn from Jay Sallen's mistake and NOT create a sucks domain. Think: VivendiUniversalBlowsGoats.com how's the WIPO going to award that to them? Actually, perhaps I shouldn't have asked that question...

Re:doesn't address the real problem

[eAndroid]

Obviously once he wins a few cases there will be precedent that should stop suck domains from being taken away. This isn't a workaround at all, unless you have a time machine and can travel back to the 90s and repair the damage there.

Re:doesn't address the real problem

[kindbud]

I'd rather see VivendiUniversalBlowsWIPO.com go into a dispute. Now who's passing off what?

Re:doesn't address the real problem

[nzhavok]

not neccesarily, remember there are many places that businesses can go for a hearing of the dispute, WIPO (heard in Switzerland) is a popular one for them because it makes decisions along the lines of: it's possible that a company would like sucks in its domain name, ergo vivendi universal has some claim to the *sucks domain; The owner said he might consider selling the domain, ergo he has given up his right to free speech.

Precedents are only going to work in aa system which is prepared to enforce them. Given the previous outcomes and rediculous arguments made for them I can imagine the court side-stepping the precedent for equally stupid resons, with no recourse for the accused.

Re:doesn't address the real problem

[nzhavok]

Yes, a more accurate name, however the problem with this is it might be shown to be true ;-)

Will they defend me if I register

[Anonymous Coward]

www.EdHarvilla.comsucks.com ???... ;-)

This is DANGEROUS!

[SpookComix]

Everyone rallies behind the great lawyers who "defend" your speech, but did you ever consider that by doing so, you might go to HELL?

Think about this: You defend the rights for someone to have SUCK in their URL, and someone might make a site like www.JesusSUCKS.com. What will you do then? Where will your liberties be THEN?

Don't even get me started on sites like www.TheHolySpiritSucks.com. That's blasphemy - the UNForgivibale SIN! The person who makes that site, registers the domain, hosts it, and even LOOKS at it is in DANGER of going to Hell!

Is your freedom here on this temporaral Earth worth your eternal SOUL?

Think, PEOPLE! I know I'll get modded down for this, but I'm tired of seeing articles like this that don't take into consideration the DANGER that is involved by GOD-Hating Anti-Americans!

--SC

Re:This is DANGEROUS!

[Anonymous Coward]

You could relate anything to being evil if you're that religious. I think there's a lot more things to worry about when it comes to god-hating than domain names. Get a grip..

Re:This is DANGEROUS!

[a random streaker]

How soon we forget alt.fuck.the.skull.of.jesus, eh?

Re:This is DANGEROUS!

[TheRowk]

I don't know if you're a troll, trying to be funny or actually serious with this post but regardless of which I'm using it to respond with my own bit of my own constitutional rights. And I do not mean free speech.

First I'll let you know right off that in the spirit of America hating America is alright. Think about what this country would be like ( and many in this world are ) if you didn't have the right to express Anti-American ( politics, economy, foreign policy ) sentiment.

More importantly however is that I'm fully capable of being an American without being Christian. As I've so noticed especially with our God bless everything president we have right now what most people interpret Freedom of Religion to be freedom to choose your christian sect. Which admittadely is what our founding fathers meant when they wrote the constitution.

So if you actually were serious with your post and not a troll or just not funny, stick it in your ear.

I'm proud to be an American.
I'm proud to be atheist.

-TheRowk

Re:This is DANGEROUS!

[SpookComix]

People DON'T have the right to practice other religions that are WRONG, because they have the potential to get ME into trouble. Let's say, for instance, that someone who worships SATAN is having illicit sexual relations in their car while driving down the highway. I try to pass them (going the speed limit or less, of course), and he jerks and side-swipes me! Even my dashboard Christ can't save me then!

He ends up going to HELL, sure, but what about ME? I could be hurt! I'm not ready to visit Jesus in Heaven yet.

People who don't worship right should be put somewhere else so they can't hurt the rest of us who know THE TRUTH!

And if you don't think there's a HELL now, you will, buddy, you WILL.

--SC

Re:This is DANGEROUS!

[SpookComix]

I'm afraid you're on the verge of going to HELL for that, man. Look to the sky and beg JESUS to forgive you, and do it QUICK!

--SC

Re:This is DANGEROUS!

[SpookComix]

How proud will you be when you die and go to Hell, man? C'mon, the EVIDENCE of God and Jesus and Heaven and Hell are ALL around you!

I might not agree with Bush's ham-handed lack of TRUE religion either, but I do know this: At least he's trying, and he probably won't go to HELL with all the athiests.

--SC

Re:This is DANGEROUS!

[gowen]

the EVIDENCE of God and Jesus and Heaven and Hell are ALL around you!

Surely you mean "The evidence ... IS all around you" (unless of course you are PUNCTUATING IN TONGUES.)

Re:This is DANGEROUS!

[gomerbud]

Ever seen fuck-the-skull-of-jesus.mit.edu?

Re:This is DANGEROUS!

[SpookComix]

I Pray in toungues, but I don't punctuate in them. I was really caught up in what I was saying. It's very personal to me.

Also, be careful. Mocking the gift of Toungues is blasphemy, and unforgivable too. The Holy Spirit is like a fragile butterfly, and when you mock him, he gets scared and flies away, never to return.

Be careful!

--SC

Re:This is DANGEROUS!

[gowen]

be careful!

I am careful. I'm careful not to give any creedence to god-bothering trolls.

Re:This is DANGEROUS!

[SpookComix]

I'm sure I would bother God if I were a troll, but I'M NOT. Just because I can tell a blasphemer, and a blaspheming situation when I see one, EVEN ONLINE (God is not mocked, my friend), that makes me a Troll?

I think NOT!

--SC

Re:This is DANGEROUS!

[gowen]

OK troll. Quote chapter and verse where it mentions that "mocking speaking in tongues" is blasphemy?

Re:This is DANGEROUS!

[SpookComix]

Try this on for size, blasphemer:

Matt 12:30-39 "He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad. "Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. "Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.

The Gift of Tounges is from the HOLY SPIRIT, so if you talk bad about them, you BLASHPHEME the SPIRIT! It's all there in red, white and black, my friend.

--SC

Re:This is DANGEROUS!

[gowen]

> but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven

Thats fair enough. (I guess. I thought the penitent had all their sins forgiven. I was brought up a Catholic, and thats what the told me. Surely I wasn't lied to by a church? All those confessions for nothing! "Hail Mary, mother of god..." See, just thinking about it has caused the old programming to kick back in. But I digress).

> The Gift of Tounges is from the HOLY SPIRIT, so if you talk bad about them, you BLASHPHEME the SPIRIT!

And thats just your interpretation. Theres nothing up there that says that mockery=blasphemy. Bzzzt, thanks for playing, troll. Now remember, I want chapter and verse where I'm told that mocking the holy spirit is blasphemy.

Re:This is DANGEROUS!

[SpookComix]

I already gave you chapter and verse. You're mocking me, now, calling me a Troll just to insight me. I won't fall into that trap.

Like I said earlier, Jesus said I would be called a Troll when he said I would be persecuted for his name's sake. When you call me a Troll, you are CONFIRMING his PROPHESY! Think about THAT!

--SC

Re:This is DANGEROUS!

[gowen]

>I already gave you chapter and verse.

No, you gave me C&V saying I wouldn't be forgiven if I blasphemed the spirit. You then told me that mockery was blasphemy, but you didn't back it up with scripture. Tell me why you believe mockery is blasphemy.

Re:This is DANGEROUS!

[Shade, The]

So you're trying to get a *reasonable* reply from this guy? Good luck in your quest but I doubt you'll have much luck.

(Going off on a tangent for a moment...)

As for God, there seems no more evidence for the existance of him than not. I try to remain as open-minded as I can manage. So God may/may not exist, and it seems foolish to me to adhere to any rules that it is debatable whether they are true - especially when there are lots of other, conflicting rules.

Am I eternally damned if I mock God? Or if I eat pork? Or if I don't cover myself below my waist? Or if I don't follow a certain religious zealot? I can't decide. Therefore objeying any religious verse just because it's there is impossible for me - obey one and I'll have to obey them all, just to be fair.

What I do follow is what I believe is right. Whether this carries any more or less weight than anything else is irrelevant to me; it is what seems right to me. Altruism is generally what I believe is right; people helping others. Logically the only reason I can offer for this being right is that the opposite tends to bring ruin and poverty.

Just my own philosophy in life. (Which I'd be happy to change if someone can convince me their way is better. Not wanting to bait anyone, that's just the way I feel.)

Re:This is DANGEROUS!

[gowen]

>I try to remain as open-minded as I can manage. So God may/may not exist,

You're a man (or woman) after my own heart. Although I am agnostic I have a lot of respect for a great many religious people, from Desmond Tutu to Johnny Cash. For my sins (and want of a better phrase) I do occasionally allow myself a game of "bait the fundamentalist".

Re:This is DANGEROUS!

[Tellalian]

And your point is? The debate over the existence of God aside, of the thousands of religions around the globe, several state that disbelievers will be sent to hell. Therefore, since everyone is not a member of at least one of these religions, technically everyone will "go to hell".

Have a nice day.

Re:This is DANGEROUS!

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, next time I troll, I think I'm going to start my message with TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! and finish it with THE PRECEDING MESSAGE WAS A TROLL. IF YOU REPLY TO IT, YOU'RE AN IMBECILE. I'd bet half the people who replied to you'll reply to that one, too.

pr0n and revenges

[inerte]

How about:

http://jennajameson.sucks.com

Or:

http://mylast_girlfriend_name.sucks.com

That would be welcome.

Re:pr0n and revenges

[CynicTheHedgehog]

http://jennajameson.sucks.com

That could actually be perceived as a promotional website...

EdHarvillaSucks.com

[DrSkwid]

is still available!

www.MSNBC.comsucks.net

[Zillatron]

Oddly there's an obvious choice not yet taken...

you know...

[ender-iii]

you know, if the people who have *sucks.com sites named after them too it as advice as to how to make thier company and products better, then they would just put those sites out of existance and then they would have nothing left to bitch about.

(how is that for a run on sentance?)

He's not defending just anyone's "sucks" site...

[Java Pimp]

He's not going to defend the owner of microsoftsucks.com, but he will give you microsoft.comsucks.net for free. Which he will defend since he owns the comsucks.net domain. He would be a brave sole to defend all the "sucks" sites out there for free...

Question though, the article states that "Harvilla promises to fight the owner's case in court. '...and we have the resources to fight a case, where (siteowners) don't...' but I didn't see where it said he would do that for free... I assume (like everyone else here) that he would since he is the true owner of the name but where's he getting the $$$ to do this? Wouldn't he be to preoccupied making the cash with other cases to devote productive free time to this cause?

No, you need to be trickier...

[FortKnox]

If you don't like the DMCA and want to make a 'suck' site from it, you should go grab:
DMCARules.com

Then make it a suck site. That way, instead of just making a suck site that hardly anyone will go to, you make a site where the trolls are your friends!

put him to the test:

[Hish]

LawyersSuck.com

I AM NOT!

[SpookComix]

Great, so I get slapped for expressing my views on this open forum? That's just where this is all going. First, you can't say SUCK in an URL. Then you can, but you're in danger of HELL. Then, the one person speaking The Truth gets called a Troll!

What is wrong with you people! Slashdot has gone downhill!

--SC

Re:I AM NOT!

[snoozerdss]

You know what I love about people like you? You come here telling EVERYONE they are going to hell, they are going to burn, blah blah blah. And you do so in quite a rude way I might add. Then you CRY when people attack you for attacking them in the first place. I happy you've found god or whatever you call it but DO NOT shove it in everyone else's face and then cry when they bite back. Your worse then the everyday troll. YOU think you are better then everyone else.

Ok I think I'm ready to be modded down even though I don't think I deserve it.

Re:I AM NOT!

[SpookComix]

I wasn't being RUDE to anyone! I am warning people not to endorse ham-fisted laws like letting you put SUCK in your URL, because it can be DANGEROUS, and even send you to HELL if used wrong.

I'm on Your Side! I don't want you to go to HELL!

I don't mind being called a Troll. Jesus said that I would be mocked and persecuted for HIS NAME'S SAKE. When you call me a Troll, you are just confirming JESUS'S PROPHESY.

--SC

How about...

[ppetru]

freespechcentersucks.org?

:)

Don't forget about...

[Anonymous Coward]

www.fuckedcompany.com !
That website really sucks; they have no respect for companies at all (even the ones who did good job).

Re:Don't forget about...

[Anonymous Coward]

but what about www.fuckedcompanysucks.com?

The "net" effect is?

[tomstdenis]

What effect does buying

bizsucks.biz

have on anything whatsoever? Retard e-business types will still buy .info,.biz,.com,.museum,.org,.net,etc... for their business anyways.

I think while the dude has good intentions he is just wasting time and effort.

If you really want to protest form a new sort of DNS system and make it popular. Then when people stop using closed DNS systems where registration is monopolized you won't have to be a dork and buy

bizsucks.com
bizsucks.net
bizsucks.org
...etc...

Tom

Re:The "net" effect is?

[Anonymous Coward]

he's not protesting the tld's, he's registered those domains so that people can set up subdomains within them, such as microsloth.bizsucks.biz

Re:The "net" effect is?

[tomstdenis]

ah rock on. Thanks for the info.

Tom

nothing beats an original ...

[beanerspace]

These domain names are fun, but nothing beats and original like WebPagesThatSuck.com ...

or a better yet .... nothing says suck like grabbing your nemises domain name before they did original owner of PETA.Com ... here are some examples via WPTS : Domain Names

Another /. Fuck Up

[LighthouseJ]

2002-01-22 02:27:46 Free sucks.com Subdomains (articles,news) (rejected)

goddamn slashdot.

The obvious solution...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why we should just have a ".atemyballs"
domain. 8^)

...Sean.

Question

[dh003i]

Can someone explain to me how:

1. Assinite corporations can force a US citizen, who, for example, lives in NY to defend his right to the domain-name site www.fordsucks.com in Switzerland, or some other foreign country, or even some other state? If I live in NY, and have all of my resources in NY, how can they force me to appear before a court in another state/country? And if all my resources are here, and the server hosting my site is here, what coersive force do they have?

2. How a WIPO court, or any court outside of NY state (aside from a US Federal Court) has jurisdiction over a NY-state citizen?

Re:Question

[TheConfusedOne]

First, you're attempting to apply logic to the situation. Never a good idea when legal matters are involved. Second, you should probably read all the fine print when you sign up for a domain name. Hell, read the fine print on that toaster you bought.

There's lots of language in these things about the applicable laws, regulations, and the right to choose venues (where any trial might take place). If you recall the UCITA had some particularly odious language about venue choice and gave all the power to the vendors.

Finally, *THE INTERNET ISN'T A LOCATION*. While you may live in NY, where is the server that's hosting your site? Maybe it's in your basement, or a local ISP, but maybe it's somewhere else in the US or the World. Second, where are the resources used to find and access your site? The distributed nature of the Internet laughs at national borders (though nations are trying to erect borders).

The WIPO and ICANN are organizations created by international treaties. Mainly they exist to exert US laws on the rest of the world, so we shouldn't complain (if we're "greedy blood-sucking RIAA-spawn corporations") about the rules they impose on us.

So, remember when you sign up for that domain name, read the fine print.

Re:Question

[dh003i]

There's lots of language in these things about the applicable laws, regulations, and the right to choose venues (where any trial might take place). If you recall the UCITA had some particularly odious language about venue choice and gave all the power to the vendors.

Yes, they might have that right on paper, big deal. How can they force me to go anywhere? Besides, I get my online space from an ISP, and the ISP wouldn't have issues w/ fordsucks.com. But even if my ISP vendors agree w/ Ford that the trial should be held in zimbabwee, how can they force me there? The server's here in NY, my state.

Finally, *THE INTERNET ISN'T A LOCATION*. While you may live in NY, where is the server that's hosting your site? Maybe it's in your basement, or a local ISP, but maybe it's somewhere else in the US or the World. Second, where are the resources used to find and access your site? The distributed nature of the Internet laughs at national borders (though nations are trying to erect borders).

Most ppl get servers in their own state, so again, how can anyone force me to defend it out of state? As for the "resources used to access my site" no one can effectively prevent access to my site...large search engines like Google will have anything, whether the courts want or not...but even w/o that, there are engines capable of searching the invisible net.

great crusade

[Anonymous Coward]

I am all for defending peoples right to liberty and personal freedoms. I am all for defending those I don't agree with, simply because I believe in their right to believe (and express their opinion) in whatever they want to. I am a bit curious as to how this preemptive attack is going to do anything but piss people off and end up causing more problems.

I guess I am amazed how people will champion causes that are foul, in the name of freedom of speech, yet when it comes to some quit, meek church going family that wishes to restrict what they see as harmful from their very own children (in their own home), they are usually ignored or berated by these same 'champions of freedom'. Such inconsistent applications of protection serve only to fuel the fire of those who are against it in the first place. What we see in the end are several 'sides', where each side only see's their own views as being worthy of protection. One side blames the other for being closed-minded, yet they themselves practice more censoring, restricting and generalizing than their 'enemy' does on their worst day.

I very rarely see anyone warm to the ideas presented by such groups. And those that do, it is obvious that they did not come to any conclusion from the application of critical thought, logic and reason. Rather, they where sold by particular catch phrases, clothes (or lack thereof :) or any other emotional eliciting pitch by the weasels that wish to manipulate, deceive and control others rather than educate, enlighten and lead

Joke: What really sucks

[dh003i]

How about a domain name incorporating everything that really really sucks:

http://www.riaa-mpaa-bsa-wipo-wto-ms-apple-govt-fu cking-sucks.org

Any suggested additions?

I'm still having a hard time...

[Brendan Byrd]

...figuring out whether he's be sarcastic or serious...

Re:I'm still having a hard time...

[SpookComix]

WHY? You know, I've lost 7 of my Karma on this one thread, all because I stood up for what I believed in. Is that American? Is that Christian?

Call me a Troll if you will, but I'll stand up for what is RIGHT every chance I get!!!

--SC

Re:I'm still having a hard time...

[Anonymous Coward]

>Call me a Troll if you will, but I'll stand up for what is RIGHT every chance I get!!!

Or until you get called on it. Which ever comes first.

Restricted TLD for trademarks

[Garry Anderson]

I have been communicating with US and UK Government (and lawyers) about these problems for some time now.

The authorities know the solution - restricted TLD for trademarks.

ICANN President Stuart Lynn and Chairman Vint Cerf made admission about restricted top-level domains to Reuters.

"More people I talk to think it's the more likely direction," said Llyn.

I wonder why UN WIPO or US DOC did not tell them - (not).

WIPO took these domains, saying they were "confusingly similar" to the company's actual name.

This is just SPIN and PROPAGANDA - they know the solution.

Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Zeta or Aardvark to Zulu, most many times over.

MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country.

For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) shares its initials with six trademarks - in the U.S. alone.

The authorities allow this conflict to continue, for reasons stated on my site and in comments to WIPO.

Domains could be made unique and totally distinctive, as the LAW requires trademarks to be.

The solution was ratified by honest attorneys - including the honourable G. Gervaise Davis III, himself a UN WIPO panellist judge.

Please visit WIPO.org.uk to see it.

Nothing to do with the United Nations Organization - WIPO.org ;-)

new horrible domains

[Perdo]

.tob
.eor
.not
.tob
.eth
.ati
.sth
.equ
.est
.ion

Non-Engish speakers

[bsd-mon]

>the Panel has found that non-English speaking Internet users would be
>likely to attach no significance to the appended word 'sucks' and would
>therefore regard the disputed domain name as conveying an association with
>the Complainant

So then vivendiuniversalCHUPA.co.(mx|ar|es....) would be okay??

sometimes

[www.sorehands.com]

Sometimes it is the lack of money and lawyers. Sometimes lawyers don't see the advantage of it, ie. no money in it for them. Sometimes, people are just too scared to fight. Or, they think you can't win against a large corporation.

I have one

[freakyfreak]

I actually own a sucks.com. I recently registered www.subwaysucks.com for my brother and I. I am a former employee(One week) and he has worked there for 4 years. We are going to blow open the Jared conspiracy and others. We have no real problems with subway we are just doing it in fun and mean no harm to them. I still eat there every day.

these also pose a problem to politicians

[DontCallMeShirley]

The Bush campaign registered every derogatory domain name they could think of, to keep people from having websites that would post negative info about him. I'm sure other politicians have done or will do the same, it is a race to get them before someone else does. I wonder why they even bother - if someone thinks they suck, and wanna have a site to say so, why not just let them. Isn't that what freedom of speech is mainly about? Being able to express our pleasure/displeasure the government?

Re:these also pose a problem to politicians

[overunderunderdone]

I wonder why they even bother - if someone thinks they suck, and wanna have a site to say so, why not just let them.

Well, at least the politicians aren't suing the owners of parody sites (they KNOW as public figures they can't win). I really don't mind them taking all the *sucks domains they can think of - Just because your free to buy a domain and say whatever crap you wan't about me doesn't mean I'm not free to try and take all the "good" domains for myself.

Actually, it would be interesting to see them actually USE those domains to do a little self-parody. After all they all have (or are forced to have) a good attitude towards their parodies on SNL & the Tonight show. It might be an effective method of 'guerilla' campaigning. Steal the thunder of your opponents by making the jokes about yourself first (and obviously a little more gently.) They lose traffic to their sites and you get to shape even the "negative" spin on your campaign.

Re:these also pose a problem to politicians

[ethereal]

Actually, I disagree with that. Would it be OK for a company to buy up all the words in the English language so that you couldn't complain about them? How can it be OK for them to buy up all the derogatory domain names, then? Granted, you can still criticise them with a different domain name, but having a -sucks.com address does heighten your visibility.

The problem is that people just aren't used to criticism of any variety, not realizing that criticism blocked just becomes that much more virulent.

Re:these also pose a problem to politicians

[Kamel Jockey]

The Bush campaign registered every derogatory domain name they could think of

In an ironic twist, Hillary did not register hillary2000.com, which ended up in the hands of a group of people who were strongly against her candidacy.

The funny part was that people from Hillary's campaign would post messages on the hillary2000.com site saying things like:

• Its illegal for you to use this site!
• We're going to sue you!

So much for free speech!

Re:these also pose a problem to politicians

[overunderunderdone]

Would it be OK for a company to buy up all the words in the English language so that you couldn't complain about them?

If I understand your meaning - and I apologise if I'm missunderstanding - this is just a silly fantasy hypothetical situation. A company can't buy words and then forbid you from using it to criticise them.

How can it be OK for them to buy up all the derogatory domain names, then?

Because unlike words domain names are a commodity that CAN be bought and sold. Turn the question on it's head - how can it be OK for someone (the government?) to STOP the company from buying the domain names it wants? Aren't the individuals who own the company afforded the same freedoms of speech and property that their detractors are?

Granted, you can still criticise them with a different domain name, but having a -sucks.com address does heighten your visibility.

This is actually a pet peeve of mine. The confusion over freedom of speech. You have the right to freedom of speech which you can use to criticize the company. You do not however have a RIGHT to a soapbox! You have every right to buy, rent or borrow a soapbox from whoever might be selling. But you do not have a right to compel them to sell or to speak on your behalf. You do not have a right to air time on TV or Radio, in print, or to any particular web domain you don't already own. The government choosing to deny your NEA grant, the paper refusing to print your editorial, the *sucks.com domain the company you hate already bought - none of these scenarios is an abridgement of your freedoms of speech or property!!

Besides even this is an unrealistic hypothetical. Any creativity at all will suggest domains the company never would have thought of. Apple could buy Applesucks.com (they didn't but they could have) but they would most likely have missed crapple.com. If someone want their own domain as a soapbox but can't think of ONE the company didn't think of... well, if that's the case they're probably better off with a geoshanties site anyway.

Re:these also pose a problem to politicians

[ethereal]

If I understand your meaning - and I apologise if I'm missunderstanding - this is just a silly fantasy hypothetical situation. A company can't buy words and then forbid you from using it to criticise them.

That was exactly my meaning, and while it is silly, I'm drawing a parallel with the domain name situation through a bit of hyperbole. To me, I don't see the two situations as being that dissimilar.

Because unlike words domain names are a commodity that CAN be bought and sold. Turn the question on it's head - how can it be OK for someone (the government?) to STOP the company from buying the domain names it wants? Aren't the individuals who own the company afforded the same freedoms of speech and property that their detractors are?

It's true that there are a limited amount of domain names, and thus we seem to need the buying and selling in order to distribute these scarce goods. But I will also point out that there is an equivalently limited set of English words (even if both sets are infinite, the cardinality is the same), and so you really could say that those words are a commodity and should be bought and sold, or at least paid for, prior to use. We don't, of course, because that would hinder communictation. And that's the reason that I'm opposed to people buying up all of the -sucks sites to prevent criticism on them.

I agree that it would be difficult to prevent companies from buying such sites, because I don't want to take that freedom away. I don't have a 100% brilliant idea to solve this at the moment. Here's one thought: trademark law considers the market when arbitrating trademark disputes, so that two entities can use the same mark if they are found to be in reasonably different markets so that there is no consumer confusion. In a similar manner, it should be possible to judge -sucks site registrations and say "is it reasonable to say that the registering entity really believes that so-and-so sucks?" In essence this would be building an entitlement for criticism into the system, just like trademark law builds an entitlement for mark recognition into the law. A disinterested third party would be able to determine "of course George W. Bush doesn't have a legitimate interest in bushsucks.com, since it would be self-derogatory and since he hasn't put anything up on the site". And then the site could be handed over to a plaintiff with presumably more critical things to say.

This would be a big step, from allowing criticism to encouraging it, and I throw it out here as more of a thought experiment than anything. I think our society could do with more encouragement to be critical, but I'm not sure what Constitutional grounds that would stand on.

This is actually a pet peeve of mine. The confusion over freedom of speech. You have the right to freedom of speech which you can use to criticize the company. You do not however have a RIGHT to a soapbox! You have every right to buy, rent or borrow a soapbox from whoever might be selling. But you do not have a right to compel them to sell or to speak on your behalf. You do not have a right to air time on TV or Radio, in print, or to any particular web domain you don't already own. The government choosing to deny your NEA grant, the paper refusing to print your editorial, the *sucks.com domain the company you hate already bought - none of these scenarios is an abridgement of your freedoms of speech or property!!

It's true that you could criticise from a different site; you don't have to have the -sucks domain to be effective. And you don't have a right to criticise for free. But I think it is also incumbent on the entities worthy of criticism in our society to not unfairly preclude such criticism by buying up all of the soapboxes in the city, so to speak. By effectively monopolizing domain names which might be critical of them, those entities are overstepping the bounds of freedom of speech IMHO.

I agree that it's not the end of the world and that this won't silence criticism very effectively. But it offends my sense of "fair play", so to speak, for an entity to buy up a scarce resource for the sole purpose of preventing the use of that resource by another who has an arguably more legitimate claim to it.

Besides even this is an unrealistic hypothetical. Any creativity at all will suggest domains the company never would have thought of. Apple could buy Applesucks.com (they didn't but they could have) but they would most likely have missed crapple.com. If someone want their own domain as a soapbox but can't think of ONE the company didn't think of... well, if that's the case they're probably better off with a geoshanties site anyway.

Happily granted - protest will never be quieted by just buying up domain names.

Re:these also pose a problem to politicians

[anthony_dipierro]

But I will also point out that there is an equivalently limited set of English words

Wait a second here. When I use a word, that by no means stops someone else from using that same word. When I use a domain name to identify my web page, no one else can use that domain name. That is the difference.

Re:these also pose a problem to politicians

[ethereal]

All right, so maybe it wasn't the best example, or I haven't explained where I'm drawing the parallel. What I'm saying is that if it were the case that the English language were as limited a resource as domain names are, and someone bought up all the words that could be used to criticise them, we would find this to be antithetical to the higher purpose of communication. And that is the argument that I'm making for the domain names - in fact, since domain names are a scarcer resource than English words, it is even more unethical to buy them up just to prevent criticism of yourself.

Re:these also pose a problem to politicians

[anthony_dipierro]

it is even more unethical to buy them up just to prevent criticism of yourself.

But even buying a million domain names doesn't prevent people from criticising you. Really, who goes on the internet and types in firestonesucks.com to find out about what the problems are with firestone tires? You'll get much better results by going to google and typing in "firestone sucks".

Re:these also pose a problem to politicians

[ethereal]

True, you and I both know that. But,

• Your Joe Sixpack computer user may not
• and, more importantly, it's a lot easier to remember and communicate "firestonesucks.com" than "angelfire.com/some/random/url/path/firestonesucks /".

  This sort of action doesn't preclude all criticism, but it does lessen the strength of that criticism as well as how that criticism spreads. And even if it didn't, I would still find it, in my mind, to be unfair. Consuming a scarce resource that you're not going to really use just seems wrong to me.

Re:these also pose a problem to politicians

[anthony_dipierro]

Your Joe Sixpack computer user may not

Joe Sixpack isn't going to think to type in firestonesucks.com either. He'll type "firestone sucks" (without the quotes) into his IE address bar which will take him to a search.

it's a lot easier to remember and communicate "firestonesucks.com" than "angelfire.com/some/random/url/path/firestonesucks /"

But it's just as easy to remember rollingover.com as it is to remember firestonesucks.com. Besides, if you already have a channel to communicate your website address, why not just tell them why firestone sucks right there.

and in 100ms.

[www.sorehands.com]

And in 100ms, there will be porn sites registered as mywife.sucks, mytwolesbiangirlfriendsandI.sucks.

The problem here is by making a distinction between .sucks and .com or you don't get people getting the same information on the same searches. There may be a stigmatism from the information being on the .sucks tld, it is someone who is just complaining. Then you will have the issue of domain battles for barbie.sucks, because people will fight over who thinks barbie sucks more.

Re:and in 100ms.

[Art Tatum]

Heh. Nice way to bring Barbie into this, considering your past. :-)

Sigh.

[Anonymous Coward]

yadda yadda yadda First Amendment yadda yadda yadda. I still find "suck" to be a vulgarism. I know that most people will never be literate, but it's sad to see so many supposedly-intelligent folks embrace the lowbrow way. ("No other word will do, d00d!", yeah right)

I know we won't be Truly Free(tm) until everything is completely allowed with no social stigmas attached. But please allow me this short nostalgia. There was once a time when the majority of folks used their brains to creatively insult things.

...

Okay, flame away all you ACLUians.

Re:Sigh.

[Tuckdogg]

I think the important thing to keep in mind here (for First Amendment purposes) is not what the domain name is, but rather what is one the site itself. I doubt most of these sites take you to a page that simply says, "Micro$oft $ux$, d00dz!!!!!!!" To be sure, there are certainly a bunch of illiterate trolls out there that do just that. However, with the vast majority of these sites, they are operated by people with an IQ higher than 4 that just want a place to vent. Or in the case of the Universalsucks.com guy who has all the *sucks.com sites, you get to go to a message board to vent about them yourself. It's this type of public debate about public issues (both political and commercial) that, if nothing else, the First Amendment certainly protects.

As to your argument that "sucks" is a vulgarity, I have three responses.

1.) Get over it. There are no bad words. Bad thoughts? Yes. Bad intentions? Certainly. But bad words? Words are simply what you make of them. Suck can be used in a bad way. "Hey baby, why don't you suck my ****???" Certainly would be considered, at the very least, crude and insensitive. However, saying, "Microsoft sucks, and here's why..." is neither crude nor insensitive. It is a spark for intelligent public debate. Plus, the word has force.

"Microsoft is not a good company."
"Microsoft sucks."

Which of those two sentences more accurately portrays my utter lack of respect for their worthless institution? Obviously the second one, and it's a hell of a lot more concise than the explanation sentence following it.

2. *sucks.com domains use the word sucks because it's easy. You want to find out what people who hate M$ have to say? Try going to "Microsoftsucks.com" How about AOL? Maybe AOLsucks.com. It is simply an easy way to make your gripe site found. What's the alternative? "Microsoftisabadanevilbunchofwussies.com"? Is that something that people are honestly going to think of to type in? We need to keep this simple; there's a lot of stupid people out there.

3. UR just j3@lou$ th@t uz W@R3Z d00dz i$ c0013r than U!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! M1CR0$OF7 $UCK$!!!!!!!

Hope that cleared things up.

Re:Sigh.

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Actually you didn't clear up a single thing. You strike me as the type of person who goes around spouting off believing that you've helped, but you've really just taken up other folks time.

1. In the context, "sucks" is a vulgarism. It is short for "sucks my {insert slang word for penis}". It's just been shorted and integrated into popular culture. Now don't get me wrong. I'm all for oral sex, but it annoys me that people like you drone on and on and on about why it's okay to relax any and all rules for polite society ("It's all so antiquated. Why don't you just become modern like me?" yeah, right). Sure "sucks" can be non-vulgar in the context of calves and babies, but I don't think that's the intention here.

As for getting over it. I have gotten over it. I realize that all voluntary restrictions on speech (aka politeness) will soon be gone. Witness the fact that I can no longer tell a telemarketer, "Not interested, sorry". Nope. I've got to slam the receiver down. I'm over that, but don't you find it annoying that that simple polite conversation is no longer possible? Probably not. Very few people do. But I believe I asked forgiveness in my original post for this quirk.

2. Yeah. .sucks is easy. We agree with that. So is calling up people in the middle of the night -- "easy" doesn't make "right". Replacements? Hmmm. I suppose "bad" and "evil" would draw just as many detractors. How about making up a word? -- no wait, that would be creative.

3. You've got me there. I could never match the Tolkienese quality of 3l337 5p34k. I'm just bitter.

Hope that cleared things up for you. (but I doubt it)

Re:Sigh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Polite society is a bit of a social facade, rather than hanging around people who must adhere to social rules to keep social interactions pleasant, why not just hang around pleasant people who say what they mean and mean what they say?

Sure nobody is pleasant *all* the time, but you at least know where you stand. I'm not trying to say that polite society is wrong (associate with whoever you please), just that it is wrong *for me* and you shouldn't think that the decline of polite society is necessarily bad, or a decline of society (I know you didn't explicitly say that, but you read like that).

For someone who criticizes the lack of literacy in others, you have an odd grasp of language. Language is an evolving beasty - the history of a word does not define it, usage is what defines it. When I say "Microsoft sucks", I do not mean in any way, shape, or form "Microsoft can go suck my ...", the semantics are not even similar. If "sucks" was once vulgar as you claim, it is the language that has changed, not social standards, nor literacy levels.

The whole point of literacy is communication. Those unwashed illiterate masses have a word that has come to convey exactly the sentiment they feel and is universally understood. You on the other hand advocate the invention of a new word because the obscure history of the current one doesn't fit into your social facade. This is not literacy.

Is that a strawman?

PS As telemarketting is business rather than pleasure, it is governed by the rules of capitalism rather than etiquette and does not reflect the nature of social interactions today. In a sense, telemarketting is capitalism deliberately abusing the rules of polite society for its own advantage over those who adhere to them.

Re:Sigh.

[Tuckdogg]

Since it seems as though you missed the point on all three of my points, I will reiterate them.

1. You actually made my point here by acknowledging that some usages of the word are non-vulgar. Don't make me some poster child for relaxation of politeness rules. It's not being impolite for me to tell you that something else is not quite my cup of tea. Nor is it so to tell you that something sucks. If I told you that you suck, your company sucks, your car sucks, etc., that would probably be impolite. Not because I'm using the word "sucks", but because I would be insulting you. I'm not insulting you, and neither is anyone else. They are, however, insulting Microsoft, Universal, etc.

BTW, you don't have to be rude to telemarketers. You don't have to slam the phone down either. Tell them as soon as they call to put your name on their "Do Not Call" list. They are all required by federal regulations to maintain one. And they are required to not remove names from it. Don't ask to be "taken off their list", that just removes you from the DO CALL list, which is renewed every few days and you'll be back on again. However, once you get on the "Do Not Call" list, you probably won't get anymore calls. I just got one last week, and it's the first telemarketer in two years to call me.

2. Perhaps I didn't make my second point sufficiently clear. I wasn't saying that sucks is easy to type. I was saying that it's something that's easy to think of and easy to find. Like I said before, if you want to find a page that's anti-Microsoft, you could type in as a starting point "Microsoftsucks.com". This is easy for someone to think of and it would probably be the first thing they think of. So, having the word is great for the webmaster of the site (since, after all, he/she probably would want people to find the page) and probably increases the unique hits on the site. It's an easy draw for webmasters. Not because the word is somehow "evil", but because it's something easy to think of for someone seeking that kind of page. That's why "bad" and "evil" don't quit work. Microsoftbad.com? Not quite the first thing that comes to my mind if I was looking for something like that.

3. Some people call these things jokes. A few of them also laugh at them from time to time. Since you apparently didn't get it, I'll explain it to you. You requested flaming from all the "ACLU-ers" out there. The manner in which you did it seemed to imply that you felt as though we are all illiterate trolls that have to be "l33t" whenever we post. So, in order to satisfy your request, I decided to comply. Next time, I will signal the joke before I post it.

new TLD needed

[scirocco]

Perhaps we need a top level domain .suck whose only requirement is that the company involved is NOT allowed the name. Would be fun to have a protected space for commentary and would inherently undermine the confusion argument if it was well nown that .suck domains are commentary on the parent name by outsiders.

I got mine!

[Anonymous Coward]

slashdot.orgsucks.net

Isn't that domain already taken?

[Rude Turnip]

I thought Comsucks was for Comcast's new "high speed" cable modem service.

Re:Isn't that domain already taken?

[sharkey]

I thought Comsucks was for Comcast's new "high speed" cable modem service.

No, you're thinking of "Comstipated.net".

How about ;-)

[Anonymous Coward]

WIPO.Decisions.Suck.com

From the article, looks like there could be plenty of material to post there.

Sucks domains

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft hasn't bothered be about xbox-sucks.com yet.. :)

msnbc sucks !, what are they doing ?

[sh0rtie]

if i visit that msnbc site linked in the topic
(http://www.msnbc.com/news/691648.asp)
it instantly redirects me to

http://msid.msn.com/mps_id_sharing/redirect.asp? ww w.msnbc.com/news/create_p1.asp?URL=www.msnbc.com/n ews/691648.asp

seems like they suck too with their user tracking domain poisoning too

Re:msnbc sucks !, what are they doing ?

[sh0rtie]

Ok after a bit of investigation i found

http://www.pc-help.org/privacy/ms_guid.htm

i want the first microsoftcansuck.com domain off the line :)

Think .cx instead

[yerricde]

Think: VivendiUniversalBlowsGoats.com how's the WIPO going to award that to them?

Better yet: VivendiUniversalBlowsGoatse.cx and redirect it to Goatse.cx (don't click it; it's gay porn).

What's worse than a troll?

[jvance]

A clueless troll.

And the only things worse than a clueless troll are the mouth-breathing idiots who take the bait. Click on User Info. Look at posting history. Duh.

The-MPAA-And-RIAA-Suck.com

[JamesSharman]

If you registered it presumably the MPAA would (sooner or later) womp out the lawyers and claim the domain for themselves, of course at some point the RIAA would also notice it...

Nature abhors a paradox

We can but dream

linuxsucks.com!

[serial frame]

I'm quite surprised Torvalds hasn't talked with this guy yet ;)

Here's what we need

[Bohnanza]

A new TLD - .sux

Heheheh...been a while

[Anonymous Coward]

FLAMEWAR!!!!
Luser gets modded way down....all the way down.....to Hell.........

;-)

Aren't I the lucky one!

[TrentTheThief]

I own thingsthatsuck.com ...

I have an idea

[Anonymous Coward]

We need a new TLD, namely the "sucks" .TLD

Now everyone who wants to make a sucks site would only have to go and buy .sucks domain. Indeed no company in their sane mind would sue anyone over a .sucks domain because they believe they own the name and it should belong to them :)

.comsucks?

[rs79]

Somebody set up the tld servers for .comsucks and I'll add it ot the ORSC root zone. I have working registry software too, if needed...

R. Sexton.
You can find me

Actually, that's not it.

[mbauser2]

Just to be pedantic: ICANN makes all new gTLDs "block" a special set of reserved names that can't be registered by normal joes off the street. Of course, they include "icann" in the list, thus protecting us from the potential horrors of "icann.museum".

For example, here's the reserved domain list from the .pro agreement. It's the same list they stick all the new gTLDs with.

Included in the list, by the way, are all the other ICANN gTLDs, so there will never be a "gov.sucks", even it there is a ".sucks" domain.

He tried this! It didn't work.

[mbauser2]

Or rather, the original registrant of sucks.com, Zbig Tyrlik, tried it back around 1994. (I believe he was also the original registrant of "suck.com", selling it to the Automatic Media gang when he realized there's no money in subdomains.) He did get alt.fan.zbig-tyrlik newsgroup out of the deal, though.

Here, found a old Usenet article mentioning Zbig's folly. Didn't find anything by Zbig himself. If I recall correctly, he did most of his advertising in the oh.* and cle.* netnews hiearchies. That was probably part of his sales problem right there....

Big Business and Lawyers

[Garry Anderson]

By attacking these sites, Big Business wish to muffle criticism.

They also wish to have sole control of these WORDS - have PRIORITY over others using the same words as them.

Like I say - MOST share the same words with others.

e.g. Why should Dell Computers have priority over others using the word Dell?

This one from the year 1943 - filing Date October 27, 1958 - don't they have precedence?

Word Mark DELL - US Serial Number 72061365

Goods and Services IC 016. US 038. G & S: PAPERBACK BOOKS AND PERIODICAL PUBLICATIONS. FIRST USE: 19430500. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19430500

Lawyers are making a loads of money from Big Business clients attacking these sucks sites.

These are reasons why they both do not want a solution to this problem - they are CORRUPT.

The moderator of my previous post was being disingenuous - the contents was on topic - so is either moron, lawyer or in Big Business.

Free Speech is a right - not a privilege. Americans - check out the First Amendment: they abridge what words you can use.

Ed Harvilla

[Alsee]

Will Ed Harvilla give me the site EdHarvillaSucks.com for free?

-

"silence that individual"

[Garry Anderson]

I will draw your attention to my posting below, with reference to the following quote from your link:

"Presumably these Nazi Moderators think it's more important to burn a user's existing karma, to silence that individual for the future, than to use the moderation system for what it's meant for : identifying "good" and "bad" posts (Notice how nearly all oppressive governments in the past and present do the same thing : marking individuals as bad and untrustworthy because they have conflicting opinions, instead of engaging in a public discussion about these opinions)"

I want http://www.georgewbush.sux

[way2muchsense]

9/11 didn't change diddly-squat.