DMOZ Supports Child Porn?

ahahhaahahhhaahahahaa

"fuck you"

where do you people come up with this stuff?!??!

 

Aww BamaStangGuy, you disappoint me, and just when I thought you understood. Let me try again, not because I think it will help, but because this is important and it can't hurt.

Minstrel wasn't being insulting when he suggested you read the entire thread, he was agreeing that it is important to read this entire thread to fully understand the gravity of the issue. I could be wrong since this is just a wild guess based on your posting style, but you seem young. By young, I mean no more than twenty-something and without children. Someday you may have children and this thread is about making the Internet a safer place for them. It's also about making the real world safer for all children by depriving pedophiles the implied acceptance that they may feel from allowing websites that "normalize" pedophilia to be treated as equals of all other sites.

It's about the children, and reading the entire thread would be a worthwhile use of your time. Once you understand it fully, maybe you can even go back and add some comments to your own digg to clarify the issue. (I don't know anything about digg personally.) If not, then perhaps you can write a new digg that would properly explain the issue and its importance.

Solving problems is a better use of your time than going from thread to thread complaining about everything. If you don't like something, work to fix it. We all have to share the same world, there are no options.

 

Dr. Minstrel,

Has DMOZ corrected this issue or is this forgoing under free speech?

 

My understanding is that some progress has been made but the issue is not yet resolved, in my opinion.

Sorry. I'm not sure what this part means...

 

What needs to be resolved?

 

Read compostannie's posts (and posts by one or two other editors) back a couple of pages. It appears that there has been some restructuring of the categories and some progress made toward revising the rules for Adult listings. There have also been some websites removed from public view. My perception of what has been done so far is that it is a start but I'm not convinced that it is sufficient to prevent Adult editors from returning the types of sites when the "heat' dies down a bit, or that any thing has really changed regarding the multiple listings of Adult sites, which is contrary to pilicies in other sections of DMOZ.

 

Child pornography is unlawful and disgusting and should not be tolerated under any circumstances. It is a scourge on humanity and those who violate a child’s life in this diabolical way deserve hells wrath.

 

Well, if you've got a few minutes, read through the other 83 pages of this thread. You'll find many who agree with you and a few counter arguments claiming the right to promote child-rape in the name of free speech. That, and the glacial pace of DMOZ Admins, is the reason we are now on page 84.

 

I think what peeves me to a degree,,,,,, is the blaming of DMOZ as a whole rather than a few (the corrupt) as usually is the case in society. Yes this issue at hand needs immediate attention and resolution needs to be immediately carried out. This particular issue however, should not be the underlying flame of those who are disillusioned by OPD’s practices as a legitimate directory and the good participants of that directory.

 

Why do you people refuse to read the thread before making comments that have nothing to do with the topic? Despite the name of the thread (which is obviously all some of you read before posting), the discussion is actually about sites that are pro-pedophilia. That's not child porn. Dmoz does not list child porn. They don't list sites that are legal but have pictures of children in "provocative" poses either. Coming in here after a month of discussion making a random comment that is off topic means 1 of 2 things (or maybe both).

1) You're too lazy to find out what's really being discussed.
2) You're not smart enough to find out what's really being discussed.

Either way...

 

A message sent to me by ********

Don't we know that already ? I am not even in favor of that crap. The best for you is to read the 83 pages and learn from it. That might give you an educational experience and achieve an equivalent Top Degree.

 

Perhaps you should feel honored. The message he sent me was only two words.

I think he likes you more than me...

 

Now you guys are making me jealous...

 

I apologize both publically and privately for the comments I made. Yesterday was a bad day for me and I took some of popotalks posts as attacks on my and my site when I shouldn't have and was wrong to do the digg.

 

Now thats a sprit start. The problem with other DMOZ editors is they are too serious. Especially when you climb that rank. ( I have them on my Top Ten list)
Your a nice guy sidjf if ever you climb that step up listen to some of the guys here. They have very nice advices.

 

Am i the only getting sick of seeing the thread being bumped?

 

I certainly hope so, we wouldn't want this to be forgotten before the job is done.

 

Yes.

Next time you get a notification, click where it says "Unsubscribe".

 

Excuse me everyone. I am not replying to her post but from her continued contributions and efforts to the cause of this thread...

May you have more Birthdays to Come. A very Happy One.

Sincerely,
myself

 

Does anyone still want to defend "affirmative views" pro-pedophile chat rooms?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11839832/

Does anyone still want to endorse or promote the "theory" (aka rationalization or neutralization technique) that sex with children is not harmful to them? or to facilitate the promotion of that viewpoint by anyone else?