So now you have accused me of being a liar but you fail to indicate specifically any lie. Aaaron, your conduct is called "defamation" in case you are unaware. The fact that you have now personally identified me makes your conduct even more egregious. Wow, you've spent a long time on an "obscure" web site for someone who couldn't care less. FYI, the law firm is in existence but may have its server down, I don't know. Have you finished trying to insult me and my site? Who has been abusive except for you, Aaron? So now submitters to DMOZ are nothing but dog poop to you? We are all "habitual liars" - a term you seem to use at will except in regard to yourself. You still have failed to answer a legitimate question about how you are able to have multiple links in the DMOZ directory when it states that submissions should be placed only once. As a result of your silence in responding to the validity of multiple entries at DMOZ such as you have, I plan on submitting my site to the same categories as you've been accepted. I sincerely hope that your disagreement here does not affect your "professionalism "or delay their approvals in a timely fashion or afforded no less than the same treatment as you've given to your site.
I dont think it\'s a fraud since i tried to contact them for paid submission and they said that No, We donot give paid submission service.
I stated that you misrepresented what happened. You did misrepresent what happened. You can't even keep your story straight within this thread, and now you're making silly implied threats. As for ad hominem, it's all you, baby.
Has he misrepresented the number of deep links to your own site? I haven't checked but if he has done it, it would be very easy for you to show that you don't have that many deep links to your own site in DMOZ.
It is a simple question, if he has misrepresent the number of deep links that you have, you just need to do a search with your domain and prove that you don't have it. May be I misunderstood you and he hasn't misrepresented the number of your deep links. The reason I am asking is because it seems Ivan was removed because of couple of deep links to his own site, is it different rules for Metas for how many deep links they can have to their own sites?
You'd think so, wouldn't you? So many of these DMOZ admins and metas seem to have trouble with simple questions though. Odd...
Thank you, minstrel, for that example of "neutralization". Well, I'm off to pick out invitations for my baby's birthday party. Sorry that you're not invited. Have a nice life.
How very uncharacteristic... arl left without answering the questions... The number of butts you have to kiss to keep your rank?
Yet again and in typical rude fashion, you fail to answer questions politely posed to you. Essentially you're pleading the fifth on how your site can have five entries in DMOZ. I didn't see any exceptions for meta admins at DMOZ but I'll look again. Additionally you failed to point to any fact that I have materially misrepresented. I'll take your continued silence on this topic as an admission of the truth - nothing has been misrepresented and your claim is outright defamation, libel if you prefer to use the legal doctrine. I think all of us have heard enough from you in order to formulate a good opinion about who you are and what is going on at DMOZ.
If he has only 5 links then it is not that "bad", another Meta had 24 deep link to one of the own sites that I checked in random. There is no official exception for Metas in DMOZ but ODP "senior" editors subscribe to Orwellian view of the world as described in animal farm. "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others."
You started out by copying a post by the most corrupt editor I ever came across in DMOZ and trying to connect it to a lack of a listing. When in fact the site had been listed by the same meta you were implying was guilty of misdeeds. The only reason you couldn't find it was that the DMOZ Search function has a time lag. Since you and he obviously don't see eye to eye yet he listed your site it rather goes to show that contrary to allegations that listings in DMOZ are fixed and competitors blocked, objectivity is shown regardless of personal feelings. More jumping to incorrect conclusions. So Aaron has 5 listings in DMOZ. Are the categories where they are listed appropriate, are the deeplinks as good as the other URLs listed, could your deeplinks get similar treatment if they are as good? If the answer is yes then no rules are broken. Has he declared the site? Yes, it is no secret. No rules are broken. There are over 460 deeplink listings of cia.gov - does that mean DMOZ is a secret weapon of the US Government? Quote of the year...
As the official apologist of DMOZ, you must know that there are links in DMOZ that are not connected to corruption and abuse in DMOZ but this doesn't mean that people should close their eyes to the systematic abuse by "senior" editors.