On their website, Stargate claims that stargate.net was the second domain registered....

However....

From what I've been able to research, it was nordu.net, registered January 1, 1985. In second place is symbolics.com, which was registered on March 15, 1985.

Before stargate.com came along in August of 1986, numerous other domains were registered, and they also claim att.com was the first domain, but that's obviously wrong, since that domain didn't show up until April of that year.


I mean, I know this is trite, but it's just interesting trivia.


Why would Stargate make such claims if it's so obviously not true? Just wondering, not looking to attack Stargate or cause a fuss...

On their website, Stargate claims that stargate.net was the second domain registered....

However....

From what I've been able to research, it was nordu.net, registered January 1, 1985. In second place is symbolics.com, which was registered on March 15, 1985.

Before stargate.com came along in August of 1986, numerous other domains were registered, and they also claim att.com was the first domain, but that's obviously wrong, since that domain didn't show up until April of that year.


I mean, I know this is trite, but it's just interesting trivia.


Why would Stargate make such claims if it's so obviously not true? Just wondering, not looking to attack Stargate or cause a fuss...

I'm fairly certain this has been hashed out in other posts.

The history of stargate.com listed on our website is accurate.

On January 28, 1986 a meeting of representatives from the ARPANET, BITNET, CSNET, and UUCP net agreed to permit all four networks to register domain in the COM, EDU, GOV, MIL, NET, and ORG domains. This was the organizational foundation of the current Internet domain naming system. The UUCP Zone was formed, as a service of the UUCP Project. We registered UUCP-based Internet domain for $150, generating an outcry that has not been repeated since the INTERNIC began charging for domains. The first registered UUCP domain was att.com, Mark Horton's employer. The second was stargate.com, registered in 1986 for Stargate Information Services. This later became the ICANN registry.

-Tom

Then would you care to explain why there are NUMEROUS domains registered before yours? Many, actually. .nets, .coms and .edus.

There is no factual basis for you to say stargate.com was the second on the Internet, and certainly no basis to claim att.com was the first. Maybe you could say you were the first after that meeting, I don't know. That would certainly be more accurate.

It's okay to admit that you padded your site to make yourself more important than you really are, there's no shame in that. Maybe you thought no one would research it. I don't know. But if you're going to be dishonest about something as trivial as this, and then not admit when you've been exposed by facts and by the good ol' WHOIS database, methinks it may be wise to avoid your company altogether.

I am full aware of the 28 January 86 meeting, but I am also aware of many domains registered in 1985.

Again...

Care to explain?

Then would you care to explain why there are NUMEROUS domains registered before yours? Many, actually. .nets, .coms and .edus.

There is no factual basis for you to say stargate.com was the second on the Internet, and certainly no basis to claim att.com was the first. Maybe you could say you were the first after that meeting, I don't know. That would certainly be more accurate.

It's okay to admit that you padded your site to make yourself more important than you really are, there's no shame in that. Maybe you thought no one would research it. I don't know. But if you're going to be dishonest about something as trivial as this, and then not admit when you've been exposed by facts and by the good ol' WHOIS database, methinks it may be wise to avoid your company altogether.

I am full aware of the 28 January 86 meeting, but I am also aware of many domains registered in 1985.

Again...

Care to explain?

I am 100% confident in the facts and the way in which they are presented. Stargate.com and the history of the domain name come directly from some of the top people responsible for how the internet was formed.

For someone who said they did not want to cause a fuss, you sure seem ready to pick a fight. ;)

-Tom

Well I for one don't mind causing a fuss now and then :) I would really like to know the answer to the question of the OP. How is it that you have the second oldest domain name?

http://www.jottings.com/100-oldest-dot-com-domains.htm Says you're #20
http://www.whoisd.com/oldestcom.php <- Isn't numbered but I can tell you're not #2
http://thelongestlistofthelongeststuffatthelongestdomainnameatlonglast.com/first71.html (horrible site name, but it was on DIGG) <- Not #2


Now I did come across this link: http://www.webhostingtalk.com/archive/thread/453952-1.html which seems to be you hashing out the history as you started to do earlier in this thread, but all I get out of it is that stargate.com was the second domain name registered after that meeting, but not the first domain name registered.

Now going through quite a few different google search, many different pages, the only ones I can find that support your claim end up being on stargate.com or a post by you on webhostingtalk.com

In addition that archive post ended in:

That's a nice story, and cool to know, but to me, it doesn't explain why both HP and IBM appear to be registered before you according to the Whois database.

Without a reply ever being given back. I'd like to reopen that request for some better understanding.

Well I for one don't mind causing a fuss now and then :) I would really like to know the answer to the question of the OP. How is it that you have the second oldest domain name?

http://www.jottings.com/100-oldest-dot-com-domains.htm Says you're #20
http://www.whoisd.com/oldestcom.php <- Isn't numbered but I can tell you're not #2
http://thelongestlistofthelongeststuffatthelongestdomainnameatlonglast.com/first71.html (horrible site name, but it was on DIGG) <- Not #2


Now I did come across this link: http://www.webhostingtalk.com/archive/thread/453952-1.html which seems to be you hashing out the history as you started to do earlier in this thread, but all I get out of it is that stargate.com was the second domain name registered after that meeting, but not the first domain name registered.

Now going through quite a few different google search, many different pages, the only ones I can find that support your claim end up being on stargate.com or a post by you on webhostingtalk.com

In addition that archive post ended in:



Without a reply ever being given back. I'd like to reopen that request for some better understanding.


I'm not sure how to explain it any more than I already have. That is the history of stargate.com as explained on our website. Take it or leave it.

-Tom

Well maybe a more direct set of questions would help in digging for the explanation. I honestly have a very limited knowledge of the history of the internet and I rely mainly upon my research.

(Borrowing for archived thread for a bit of easy on typing)

The dates listed below are all after January 28, 1986

HP.com - Created on..............: 1986-Mar-03.
IBM.com - Record created on 19-Mar-1986.
Stargate.com - 04-Aug-1986

Question: Why does both HP and IBM appear to be registered before you according to the Whois database.

Well, thats a very interesting question and the way Tom replied is even more interesting. ;)

"I'm not sure how to explain it any more than I already have. That is the history of stargate.com as explained on our website. Take it or leave it."

Well then I guess I'll just have to leave it ;) Makes very little difference to me, but nobody likes to see falsities of such a nature on what I would consider to be a large registrar ;)

Well then I guess I'll just have to leave it ;) Makes very little difference to me, but nobody likes to see falsities of such a nature on what I would consider to be a large registrar ;)

The same history appeared on the internet long before we took over the domain name.

http://web.archive.org/web/20001210223600/www.stargate.com/history.html

"Stargate registered the second UUCP Internet domain in 1986 as stargate.com. (The first was att.com, Mark Horton's employer.) Stargate Information Systems continued to provide community service until 1988. Neither activity was intended to generate a profit."

There is nothing false regarding this history.

-Tom

Again that link you provide is off of stargate.com, it would be much like me taking my own website and stating that it was the first domain name and then linking to where I wrote on my own site that it was the first domain name.

Something must be getting lost in translation here. I have honestly searched high and low to find something to support your claim and all I can find is from Stargate.com or an e-mail from somebody@stargate.com

Every link I have found states that you are not the second oldest .com domain out there, including this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.com from wikipedia.org which I would assume to be accurate as I would most certainly have corrected them if they got my domain name wrong.

I am not trying to be a huge jerk here, and this may come from a misunderstanding of UUCP, but when I search for anything relating to UUCP domains the best I can find is the .uucp extension. When looking up UUCP I find that it was a protocol, but nothing about it being used for .com registrations or anything of the sort. The best descriptions I can find about UUCP state that it is simply a ficle copy transfer protocol (much like current FTP).

I ask again:

**************************************
**************************************


The dates listed below are all after January 28, 1986

HP.com - Created on..............: 1986-Mar-03.
IBM.com - Record created on 19-Mar-1986.
Stargate.com - 04-Aug-1986

Question: Why does both HP and IBM appear to be registered before you according to the Whois database.

**************************************
**************************************

Sorry, guys, I'm going :topic:

So what? If Tom wants to do a little marketing fluff, so what?

I remember when it was JUST Stargateinc.com... and a MUCH better customer interface.

A much more important question for Tom to answer, is whether the switch to LogicBoxes has been working for the bottom line?. Because I don't even like to buy domains registered at Stargate anymore because of this interface.

Has this transition helped or hurt Stargate?

What you call marketing fluff I call lying. If Tom would have just ignored this post and not tried to backup their claims I would have no interest in investigating further as I would have already had my answer.

What you call marketing fluff I call lying.:uzi: Shoot me...

I jacked the thread and I'm guilty... Sorry, Guys, no excuse.

I'm not trying to defend them. But it is my understanding that Stargate purchased the domain name... they are probably relying upon the selling hype given them by the person who sold them the domain name.

Kind of like here in Southern California where every house is sold as "Paris Hilton slept here" ... on the other hand, maybe she did! :D

I'm not sure how to explain it any more than I already have. That is the history of stargate.com as explained on our website. Take it or leave it.

-Tom
Well, then I'd have to say you're either a liar, or you're ignorant.

The WHOIS database doesn't back your story up.

http://www.whois.sc/nordu.net 1/1/85

http://www.whois.sc/symbolics.net 3/15/85

http://www.whois.sc/rutgers.edu 4/5/85


Neither att.com nor stargate.com came along until 1986.

So, unfortunately, it looks as if Stargate is trying to make themselves more historically important than they really are. Clearly, the honor of the first domain name goes to nordu.net, and the second is symbolics.net.

It would have gone a lot easier for you if you had just admitting it.

If there's one thing I can't stand it's people who lie about their relevance in Internet history.

This is an obvious sign to avoid Stargate..if they can't even own up to this, why would I trust my server to them?

Stargate.Com now wants to backpedal and say he said it was the second UUCP domain name. BUT....

http://www.stargate.com/aboutus.asp

Here, you CLEARLY say:

"In fact, www.stargate.com was the second domain ever registered, the first being att.com".

You say nothing about being the second UUCP domain. You claim to be the second domain ever. And quite a few of us have proven that to not be the case, and it took nothing more than checking the whois database.

For shame, Stargate.

Sorry, guys, I'm going :topic:

So what? If Tom wants to do a little marketing fluff, so what?

I remember when it was JUST Stargateinc.com... and a MUCH better customer interface.

A much more important question for Tom to answer, is whether the switch to LogicBoxes has been working for the bottom line?. Because I don't even like to buy domains registered at Stargate anymore because of this interface.

Has this transition helped or hurt Stargate?

I would be interested in knowing what you don't like and what we can do to make the changes you need. In terms of the bottom line...we have been pleased with the backend and the logicboxes team. Certainly the initial migration was hard on customers, but I cannot remember the last time I have received a complaint about the interface. Actually, with some of the new updates, the interface should become more streamlined.

-Tom

Well, then I'd have to say you're either a liar, or you're ignorant.

The WHOIS database doesn't back your story up.

http://www.whois.sc/nordu.net 1/1/85

http://www.whois.sc/symbolics.net 3/15/85

http://www.whois.sc/rutgers.edu 4/5/85


Neither att.com nor stargate.com came along until 1986.

So, unfortunately, it looks as if Stargate is trying to make themselves more historically important than they really are. Clearly, the honor of the first domain name goes to nordu.net, and the second is symbolics.net.

It would have gone a lot easier for you if you had just admitting it.

If there's one thing I can't stand it's people who lie about their relevance in Internet history.

This is an obvious sign to avoid Stargate..if they can't even own up to this, why would I trust my server to them?

Stargate.Com now wants to backpedal and say he said it was the second UUCP domain name. BUT....

http://www.stargate.com/aboutus.asp

Here, you CLEARLY say:

"In fact, www.stargate.com was the second domain ever registered, the first being att.com".

You say nothing about being the second UUCP domain. You claim to be the second domain ever. And quite a few of us have proven that to not be the case, and it took nothing more than checking the whois database.

For shame, Stargate.


/sarcasm on/ You caught me...the world can sleep better now. /sarcasm off/

It's no wonder so few Registrar's post here. So much for just trying to be a part of the community.

-Tom

/sarcasm on/ You caught me...the world can sleep better now. /sarcasm off/

-Tom

Your attitude clearly shows your lack of business ethics.

Honestly, if you lie about this, (and you have) why would I as a customer believe anything your company says?

You have represented Stargate well.

/seriousness/

The dates listed below are all after January 28, 1986

HP.com - Created on..............: 1986-Mar-03.
IBM.com - Record created on 19-Mar-1986.
Stargate.com - 04-Aug-1986

Question: Why does both HP and IBM appear to be registered before you according to the Whois database?

/seriousness off/

-Mike

Stargate,

You can save the melodrama for someone who falls for it. Why would anyone want a liar as a part of their community?

You have proven yourself a liar and a coward.

You can't even own up when caught. This isn't a flame; it's an apt observation.

No wonder your billing department messes up people's credit cards. Is that part of the community thing too?

Would just like to suggest this gets closed as from the last line in the last post I get the impression that ptesite has had a bad experience with stargate and this is aimed as being more of a flame than anything else.

Would just like to suggest this gets closed as from the last line in the last post I get the impression that ptesite has had a bad experience with stargate and this is aimed as being more of a flame than anything else.

And the Stargate staffers jump to the rescue.

No, I never had a bad experience with them, but a customer of mine did, and thankfully I picked up some business from Stargate.

No, It just torques me off to see people lie about their place in Internet history.

Especially Al Gore.

Would just like to suggest this gets closed as from the last line in the last post I get the impression that ptesite has had a bad experience with stargate and this is aimed as being more of a flame than anything else.

Just click the report thread button, the mods will close it if it really needs to be closed. Just because somebody has had a bad experience with a host doesn't mean the thread shouldn't be on WHT (even though that doesn't seem to be the case here). Do a search and look at the thousands of threads about bad experiences with a provider.

stargate staffers, feel free to email my personal email address and i will reply with my own company name, have no affiliations with stargate and to be honest with you I couldnt care less about there history, just your post looked like it was turning into a flame and it was a suggestion so I would be careful with your acqusations!!!

Just click the report thread button, the mods will close it if it really needs to be closed. Just because somebody has had a bad experience with a host doesn't mean the thread shouldn't be on WHT (even though that doesn't seem to be the case here). Do a search and look at the thousands of threads about bad experiences with a provider.

Not saying it shouldnt be here let it be here by all means it just seems like its turning into a bit of a flame.

Stargate,

You can save the melodrama for someone who falls for it. Why would anyone want a liar as a part of their community?

You have proven yourself a liar and a coward.

You can't even own up when caught. This isn't a flame; it's an apt observation.If you look at my long ago past posts, you will see that I haven't been the biggest Stargate fan... my recommendations always lean towards others.

But I think we have reached the limit of community rudeness here. Calling someone names is:

Not proving your case.
Not resolving the matter.
Definitely, a major violation of the forum rules pertaining to being polite.

No wonder your billing department messes up people's credit cards. Is that part of the community thing too?And now we are resorting to unsubstantiated general claims?

Whether Stargate.com was or was not one the the first domains registered doesn't matter to me, personally.

Whether we are all polite and respect one another is.

I agree (4solutions) but I must say Stargate has lost the respect for sure!

I remember registering my first ever domain with them back in 1999/2000

smartsurti.com ( Maybe they can check theirr DB cause the domain is available right now )

Later I lost the domain because of some issues but yeah Stargate was my first registrar.

Hope they can start accepting the facts shown in this thread!

I agree (4solutions) but I must say Stargate has lost the respect for sure!

I remember registering my first ever domain with them back in 1999/2000...Thank you, for your opinion, my old friend. I actually registered and then lost several (about 25) domains through Stargate because of customer support issues way back when.

So, if anyone should be downright upset with them, it should be me.

I just think that this thread is getting a bit rude and nasty... and BTW... who is ptesite to accuse anyone of being a plant?

Does ptesite work for GoDaddy, or NetSol, or Register.com, or ?

We don't know...


P.S. - Good to hear from CSDesk ;)

Speaking of benig careful of accusations, I don't work for any registrar. ESPECIALLY not Go Daddy. I'd just as soon work scraping up roadkill than work for Bob.

I only got rude and nasty because I know the details of how Stargate treated my customer AND even when confronted with evidence, the rep STILL lies.

And again, if he can't be honest about something as trivial as dates of domain registraton, then how can the company be trusted?

That's not being rude, that's asking a perfectly legitimate question.

... ESPECIALLY not Go Daddy. I'd just as soon work scraping up roadkill than work for Bob.STOP IT...
I'm starting to like you now ;)

Stargate,

You can save the melodrama for someone who falls for it. Why would anyone want a liar as a part of their community?

You have proven yourself a liar and a coward.

You can't even own up when caught. This isn't a flame; it's an apt observation.

No wonder your billing department messes up people's credit cards. Is that part of the community thing too?


dude chill out, they seem like they are trying to help out