You must be kidding me, every one of your posts in this thread says that. Please also stop saying that this thread is serious. I know, it is and that is the reason I am trying to remove ALL sites that can have minors but when you say it then it translates to: "please don't poke at affiliate programs."
No, I am saying that but doing anything that causes a hinder to explotation of minors is good. We can try to stop it, it is not sure we will succeed every time but doing something is better than nothing. What is your suggestion? Make it as easy as possible and tell them they can get listed and get traffic from DMOZ and they shouldn't care about the laws because we don't.
I do not use drugs. I have given you numerous references in this very thread. How do you feel about supporting sites that "may" (we really don't know) exploit young persons? (because that is what you are defending, and you should think carefully about your position)
Exactly - you don't know. Can you guarantee that any site doesn't have child pornography on it? Humor me and show me one more then. Show me a site that is listed in the ODP that has child pornography on it. If you know of any, then please quit playing silly games and show it to us so that it can be removed and reported. It's disturbing to think that you know of such sites and refuse to point them out...
Is it correct to say that you rather to err on the side that lists a site which is illegal according to American law and possibly puts a minor in danger rather than not list such a site?
You wanted more examples: Here are "young teens...exploited for your pleasure" http://www.hotteenpictures.com/wannabemodelstricked/ http://dmoz.org/Adult/Image_Galleries/Teens/Hardcore/Oral/Free/
According to gworld this is a legal site - or didn't you see the 2257 statement at the bottom of the page?
gworld helps affirm a point I am trying to make. You don't know if they are underage, so the attitude is "who cares?" and "quit trolling". Well, we do care about child exploitation! I don't expect this issue to go away, and you can bet I will continue to make sure it is addressed on a continuing basis, because I have known some young people that were abused and exploited, and I will do my part to stop you from having a lackadaisical attitude about proving the age of the persons appearing on the site, and thereby allowing people to profit from exploiting teens. I am not saying you wish these things to happen. I am saying you allow these things to happen, as evidenced in many links and references in this thread.
I think he is talking about morality instead of legality but if you look at those sites that listed in DMOZ, you will notice that many lack 2257. On the other hand, I suppose both legality and morality are not really your concerns, so it won't make any difference for you in any case. I see as usual you need to cut the texts in the middle to justify yourself.
Okay, so once again you are defending this site's right to promote "young teens...exploited for your pleasure". What if it would have said "14 year olds exploited for your pleasure" but still contained the 2557? (what if it didn't say that but they were bought in some poor country and exploited?) You have no clue whatsoever! You just defend the right of the site to publish the material and profit. What do you really think people want we they search for "young teens" + an explitive? I just want to thank (sarcastic) DMOZ editors for helping people that are searching for Lolitas and young teens to exploit! And the owners of these sites thank you also for furthering their cause, and allowing them to grow their business and make more sites about young teens and lolitas, that may or may not be listed in dmoz, may or may not link from their sites to illegal material, and may or may not contain 2557 docs, and may or may not be honest about the age of their models. You just make the web so much better. Thanks so much!
In the name of all that's holy... I go to the office for a few hours and come back to find the DMOZ sycophants are STILL arguing about whether US lawe applies to a website outside the US? Look, lmocr, sidjf, and anyone else who doesn't yet get it: First, AOL and DMOZ are headquartered in the US and therefore bound by US law. I don't give a good god damn where the editors who listed those sites live, where the site owner lives, or where the site is hosted. That is totally irrelevant. Second and more importantly, only a very small part of the issue is about legality - what is far more important is the question of social and moral responsibility and the protection of potential victims! Underage victims!! Vulnerable victims!! Victims who have limited or no means to protect themselves and rely on responsible adults to stand up for them!!! Now: Are you going to be among those who stand up for them? Or are you going to be among those who exploit and injure them and/or protect people who exploit and injure them? Some of the DMOZ editors get that - clearly. Why do lmocr and sidjf and a few others have such a hard time understanding it? In the name of all that's decent and humane, either deal with the real issue or shut the hell up! Right at this very moment, there are children and young teens who are being victimized. Now. This moment. And DMOZ is endorsing and promoting websites that aid and abet those who are doing the victimizing. THAT is the issue. Do you comprehend? Or do you not WANT to comprehend?
I have learned to walk away from the computer when I get so pissed that I might tell someone to do something that is anatomically impossible. Now, having said that, let me make this one point perfectly clear - if you had even one iota of a thought that the f***ing link you posted was child pornography - you wouldn't have posted it. You would have been scrambling all over yourself to find the number to the FBI (or other law enforcement agency).
lmocr, read this. Then read it again. Several times. Keep doing that until you really understand it. In the meantime, promise yourself you won't post any more until you fully understand what this is really about. It will save you from further embarrassing yourself. One day you'll thank me.
I'm starting to hate DMOZ more and more. Can't believe they allow that crap - they make me sick. It is bad enough that they seem to remove my expired domains from their listings..... now this!!
You have every right to be angry at me and at the situation. Unfortunately, the situation hasn't changed. I don't mean harm to any DMOZ editor. Truly, peace be with you! But don't be mistaken, exploitation of minors is a serious matter, and I will not let up, and I'm glad there are others that also feel the same way. I cannot prove if a site is depicting minors, and you can't either. And what makes it worse is DMOZ allows the use of "selling words" like Lolita and Young Teens. Now let's suppose you were the "Lolita" that was "exploited for ... pleasure". How would you feel?
Sid again my friend there is help, its coming have patience. No it is not a moot point and I am in hopes Dmoz will be finding this out soon. Dmoz is a portal/host for these type sites and according to US LAW as I interpet it. Dmoz is required to carry the 2257s on file for any site it list in the adult section. I pointed this out to John Ensign as well..he has more power than I do to get others involved. Back to my other statement about Google and Dmoz. Because of this Google will be facing legal issues it will have to deal with because of its association with Dmoz and porn. I promise this will be brought out in a lawsuit against Google. Any attorney worth their weight will dig in to this. I already feel the federal goverment may be looking in to it. If this is the case who do you think all this illegal activity is going to fall back on. Who do you think AOL is going to point figures at to cover their a$$. Doesnt Shite roll down hill. Those editors in power at Dmoz will have a rude awaking here very soon I feel. This thread is not about whos site didnt get listed or why it takes so dam long for an editor to list a site. This is a major issue and one that IMHO is being operated illegally by Dmoz. As I suspect there are plenty of webmasters who are already upset with Dmoz for whatever reason and will use this as a tool to seek the demise of Dmoz for good. There is power in numbers and the numbers are growing my friend, it is only a matter of time. Just wait till some of the other groups against child porn get a hold of this thread and its content. The numbers and outcry grow even larger. One of the best statements on this thread..remember this one if you are a Dmoz editor who supports the adult section.
Isn't it amazing how much these self-professed dedicated antiporn crusaders who profess to be so horrified by dmoz (I refer to gworld, dvduval, Las Vegas Homes, and minstrel, among others) claim to know about the legalities and inner workings of the porn-on-the-internet industry? Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
So why don't you do something useful about it instead of playing games with words? Instead of posting here, and acting like a troll, why don't you become involved with some of the organizations that have been pointed out. There is a significant difference between pornography and child pornography - the only thing you've pointed out in this thread is the former. If you really want to make a difference - this is not the place to be doing it. The only thing that's going to happen with this thread is arguments back and forth - and who is that going to help? Write AOL, write your congressman, write google, write the senators. There is real filth out there - and what's been brought up isn't even in the same category. What's been brought up here is legitimate pornography - if you're opposed to it, more power to you - I'm not (and neither is gworld no matter what he might have you think - http://www(.)gentlemenworld(.)com/). Of course there is one major difference between gworld and I (other than his being a troll and a corrupt editor) - I don't own a porn site.
Its called research. Something several Dmoz editors should do before opening their mouths, but they have become so use to speaking before researching. This is what made the RZ such a joke. One single question on RZ could get hundreds of different answers. This leads me to believe because of the fly by night guidelines most of the editors were quoting the last hours guidelines Your ODP guidelines change by the hour for webmasters and your policies reflect narrow minded views of the powers that be within ODP. I dont blame you however, I would be scared as well orlady knowing that within a very short time your money pits and jobs will come crashing down on you and the lucky few who are not prosecuted because of the issues with child porn on Dmoz will be sitting at their computers wondering what went wrong.