DMOZ Scandal of the YEAR

If you say that the quotes are out of context, then you MUST have read the thread. If you have not read the thread, then you have no concept of the context of the thread. If you have no concept of the context, how can you know if something within it is out?

Out of context? Out of context like harping on about how I say "forget to submit" but completely neglecting to mention that you fully agree with the other half of the saying? Submit and forget!

Out of context like I am continuously quoted for saying webmasters need to stand up and speak out about DMOZ as one?

Out of context like people keep saying I added my site and then left?

Yes, I guess it would take masters of posting out of context to understand the meaning of the words.

Though, most of the time when such an accusation is made the other party actually clears up the mis-information. It's rather odd that editors will keep on saying that the quotes are some how wrong yet will not seemingly clear things up.

It's like some people would rather sweep this all under a rug and forget it ever happened. Sadly it did happen, and even sadder is that it's been months and there has been no change, and what has happened can EASILY happen again.

Not talking about it is not going to make it go away, it only makes it fester till it happens again. In fact, how many times has it happened?

 

Oh, please. Talk about a last desperate attempt to discount the evidence.

1. I was not the only one or even the primary one quoting those threads.

2. Whatever you mean by "cherry picking", show me where any of the portions quoted here are not representative of the thread? Failure to do that is to follow in crowbar's footsteps: State that what's quoted isn't what was said and then run away when asked to back up the claim (or more accurately when I point out that it's a lie).

Oh, really? I have a whole week's worth of transcripts om my hard drive. Again, I challenge you to show us where anything quoted here in this thread is a misreputation.

One more time: The resurrection of this thread was in response to a statement that crowbar made in another thread. The statement he made was damaging to Annie's reputation. For you now to try to point the finger at any of us is pathetic.

See above. I am pointing out that first crowbar and now you are either mistaken or lying. And neither of you is able to dispute that. Who is helping Annie and who is (still) trying to discredit her?

More spin. Back up your scurrilous statements? Not likely since they are lies and you know damn well they are lies.

And yet here you are, claiming that what we have said in this thread is untrue or out of context. That's discussing the topic.

I'm sure you would. You don't like criticism of DMOZ actions and policies, especially when that criticism is dead on.

I'd be happier if you had omitted the phrase "on this thread" but I'm not surprised. Make a false statement and then run away like crowbar when challenged.

 

One final comment to you, Master Liar.

You changed the topic, because you couldn't answer a simple question with a simple answer, so you had to divert attention from it.

The Question still hangs in the air:

 

Who is the master liar? You made an accusation in another thread, where it was off-topic. You asked a question and I told you we already had a thread where that was answered - here. What have *I* lied about?

You on the other hand made a direct claim that the contents of the thread in internal forum were quoted out of context. THAT was a lie. And given the opportunity to bring forth any evidence whatsoever that it was NOT a lie, you're suddenly pleading "DMOZ confidentiality" and running for the hills - either because you know damn well it was a lie or because you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

So which is it, crowbar? Are you a liar or just plain ignorant?

Another blatant lie. I told you that your answer could be found in this thread. You're here, so obviously you found the thread. And you've just admitted above that you can't be bothered to read the thread.

That tells me pretty clearly that you don't want to hear the answer. And the reason for that is because you know full well that your statement in the other thread was a bold-faced lie.

One more time, crowbar: Put up or shut up. It's all laid out for you. What have you got?

Not a damn thing...

 

Don't call Minstrel a "master liar". He isn't really all THAT good at it.
His real forte is "baiting"... but I can see where using that coulda really sounded bad. :-P

If Chuck had asked me to shut down this conversation I'd have thought that sufficient. Y'all give it a rest.

 

Funny, if that truly was the case you'd not have said this:

And you are right, Minstrel really is a horrible liar. Though I'd certainly not mind you pointing any of his lies out. He's not really all that good at baiting either, as I see him ignored all the time. Though I must say that you are a master baiter.

I do wonder if you are willing to point out how your "quotes" in this thread are out of context...

 

You're slipping, rob... you've already used that adolescent attempt at humor. Did you get so many pats on the ass for it back at DMOZ that you thought you'd see if it would work for you again?

1. This isn't The Resourceless Zone. Save it for that delightful little cesspool. You don't make moderation decisions here.

2. It was one of your little fawners that re-opened the issue of the Annie debacle with a bare-faced lie. That was just before he tucked his tail between his shaking legs and ran back to daddy. How about you address any admonishments to him?

 

Annie's husband has requested very strongly that this discussion stop, on BOTH sides RIGHT NOW.

Whether moderator or not, I would hope that EVERYONE has the common decency to respect that wish.

 

Would you show the same concern for his request if he strongly asked that DMOZ explain why they fired her?

I am not going to discuss her case but it makes me sick when you and your friend crawler try to pretend that you are a decent human being.