I honestly don't get this. This site provides very good information IMHO. I see no where that anyone is being attacked, or any malicious content or implications.
Please explain this rating WOT. I have your logo on my web site, and was proud of it.
I see no poor ratings, so why the warning ?
This might be why, not
Sat Oct 31 05:16:17 2009 od cconniejeanThis might be why, not sure.
LISTED IN BLACKLIST!
postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org
abuse.rfc-ignorant.or
http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/tools/lookup.php?domai...
http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/tools/lookup.php?domai...
Also you state "I see no
Sat Oct 31 05:18:00 2009 od cconniejeanAlso you state "I see no poor ratings", it's comments that you don't see.
re: god.com
Sat Oct 31 12:02:05 2009 od g7wI find it interesting that "god" requires the use of registration privacy services in the whois. - what does "god" have to hide?
god.com ("God") is a domain controlled by two nameservers at thegospelmedianetwork.com. They are on different IP networks. Incoming mail for god.com is handled by one mailserver at hitfarm.com. god.com has one IP number , but the reverse is moim.us. http://www.god.com, mail.moim.us, onlineaba.com, camphowdyelc.com and sheepcheesecanada.com point to the same IP. heaven.com, armageddon.com and thegospelmedianetwork.com share both nameservers and mailservers with this domain. moim.us and devil.com share nameservers with this domain. trinity.com share mailservers with this domain. my.god.com, http://www.god.com, null.god.com and infonavid.god.com are subdomains to this hostname. god.com is ranked #240796 world wide and is hosted on a server in Canada. Trustworthiness, vendor reliability, privacy and child safety of this site is poor. (more on reputation).
Would make an interesting dig...
thegospelmedianetwork.com
-------
WOT Services Ltd. - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
Thank you all
- G7W
One time before
Sat Oct 31 22:18:39 2009 od BobJamI seem to remember this site being discussed in this forum before, but searches on god.com and thegospelmedianetwork.com were negative (except for this thread). Must've been one of the other domain names I guess. The site looked familiar . . .
But I can't remember what the discussion was . . . think it may have been something similar to what's in this thread. Have to look around some more . . . curiosity has the better of me now.
ditto
Sun Nov 1 01:38:41 2009 od g7wI had that same feeling... that the domain was discussed before and searched with negative results other than this thread.
Would be interested in your findings.
-------
WOT Services Ltd. - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
Thank you all
- G7W
Still no results
Sun Nov 1 14:50:02 2009 od BobJamTried: heaven.com, trinity.com, armageddon.com, devil.com, camphowdyelc.com, sheepcheesecanada.com, and my.god.com, but nothing.
I did get a hit on heaven.com, but it was a thread on hell.com, and the heaven.com was just a joke about it being the opposite of hell.com, nothing more.
camphowdyelc.com and sheepcheesecanada.com sounded familiar, so I tried sheepcheese.com and camphowdy.com, but still nothing.
Geeezzz . . . this is really getting to me. Am sure I've seen the site before, and it was because there was some thread on it.
Any other ideas?
God knows... ;-)
Sun Nov 1 16:25:52 2009 od phantazmMaybe you meant hell.com..?
www.mywot.com/en/search/node/hell.com
Or perhaps one of the many pages created
by the lunatics of Westboro Baptist Church:
http://www.GodHatesFags.com
http://www.godhatessweden.com
http://www.godhatescanada.com
etc,,,
Hm, what happened to 'love thy enemy'..?
re love thy enemie
Sun Nov 1 17:35:59 2009 od g7wMore profit in hate than there is in love...
Take for example, war
-------
WOT Services Ltd. - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
Thank you all
- G7W
Guess I put it the wrong way
Mon Nov 2 20:06:59 2009 od BobJam@phantazm,
Indeed, I did mean hell.com . . . I just stated it a little twisted. The "joke" I was referring to was in fact your post in that thread.