DMOZ editor publicly objects to recent rule changes

Yes, I think it does. If he had brought that particular concern to light while we were discussing the listing, it probably would not have been listed. Instead he argued over the wording of the description and neglected to point out that offensive link. Of course it can be looked at again and deleted now, but bringing this up internally when we were discussing it rather than waiting until now and doing it in an outside forum has allowed the listing to remain longer than necessary. So, in your opinion does it matter?

No, I never said that. I have said that about resource-zone but I think it's a myth to say that about the official dmoz forums. Resource-zone is not a part of DMOZ.

 

I realize that Resource Zone is not an official arm of DMOZ, although obviously it is run by, populated by, and even endorsed by DMOZ editors who represent a view within DMOZ.

I stand corrected. Perhaps you haven't said that internal DMOZ forums are intimidating. Others have said or implied that, however. I agree I shouldn't have attributed that feeling or opinion to either you or vulcano.

Could it not be that he became aware of it after the fact?

 

Annie, for the sake of it, when we were discussing the wording, I had read this article in total and got mad about the wording of the discription, I did not make it to the footnotes then, therefore I could not have pointed it out earlier. (Already posted it at the respective thread hours ago)

 

In my experience, reading the whole article would include reading the footnotes but maybe that's just me. For the sake of accuracy, as far as I can tell this is a one page article and all the links on it take you to different parts of the same page. Not one link goes off page or off site.

I don't see this link anywhere on that article. I do see some URLs in the footnotes, but they are not linked. Even if they were this is an old article and all those URLs are dead so I don't see how it's relevant.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I don't see what you're seeing.

 

Annie, you can call it link or url, truely nothing goes off page. I am missing what makes this article worth being listed. It is an absolutely positive, absolutely uncritical in "old" words "affirmative" view on pedophilea. When I imagine a pedophile finding and reading such an article in favor of this abnorm condition, being him I would appreciate the possibility to find more of the same, more material, chat, pictures and so on. This fpc.net is there, it takes them 10 seconds to get to tons of everything they need.

 

When I call it a link, I mean you can click on it and it goes someplace, in this case it's on the same page. I could call the URLs in the footnotes "dead links" if it clarifies what I'm saying. You can't click on them, but if you copy and paste them into your browser they take you to error pages. Whatever content they were citing is long gone.

A more productive question would be how do the guidelines allow us to delete this?

Like I aready said, if a link to fpc(.)net is there I don't see it. You've been asked where that link is both here and internally but you won't tell us. Wouldn't it be simpler for everyone if you'd just answer the question. We can't judge what we can't find. If an editor were to delete a listing based on what we imagine, that would be abuse and grounds for removal. See if you can make a connection between your imagination and the guidelines, and if you can then please present those facts internally so the listing can be dealt with.

I'm sorry your anger prevented you from reading the whole article 5 weeks ago when we were discussing it, but you really should have control of your own emotions. Now it's 5 weeks later and I've already left that thread and stoppped working on that project due to being the target of your anger. I can honestly say this is the only time anyone in the ODP has made me feel intimidated in internal forums. You have an admin and at least one editall willing to discuss this with you internally. I suggest you discuss it rationally with them and stop directing this battle toward me. I don't feel I can work with you, but others can.

This is a Holiday weekend and I choose not to get into another round of this with you at this time.

 

Both of these statements can't be true, you are contradicting yourself. From looking at the article, I believe your first statement is the truth so I wonder why you even brought this up? The fact that you support your dislike of the listing with false facts only persuades me to disregard anything else you might say.

 

What am I missing here? Either the reference to that site is there or it isn't. How can this be a matter of opinion?

Or are you just debating whether the link is a live link or not? ???

In his original post, vulcano said:

Regardless of the status of the fpcDOTnet link, is this not a pro-pedophilia aka "affirmative view" site? Why is it listed in DMOZ?

 

Minstrel, the link is not there, not dead, not live.

IMO Vulcano is picking up where he left off 5 weeks ago... He got abusive toward me so I quit working in that area, he apologized and said it wasn't his intention to be abusive but I never went back. Now he seems to want to pull me back in, but I have plans with my family this weekend and I'm not playing his silly game. There are other editors there who will discuss this with him, but he's addressing me personally.

Because of vulcano's past attempts to harass and bully me, I don't feel I can work with him. I told him that a month ago, I told him that yesterday, and I'm saying it again. If a more experienced editor did this it would be considered communications abuse, but vulcano is a new editor and is being given more latitude as he learns. There are other editors who are trying to discuss this with him but so far he has not responded anywhere but here and to no one but me.

That article does not contain the link vulcano says is there. He admits it's not there, but he also says it is... how can both be true? I don't care if that listing stays or is deleted, but I'm not editing there anymore since I'm not willing to put up with vulcano's harassment.

 

On the DMOZ listed site vulcano mentions, I find this:

From the Abstract of that listed article:

If this isn't pro-pedophilia, what the hell is?

 

While we're at it, look at some of the other listings contained at http://www.dmoz.org/Adult/Society/Sexuality/Activities_and_Practices/Pedophilia/ :

This doesn't look at all encouraging for those who are hoping DMOZ was going to clean up the pro-pediphilia sites, does it?

Advocates of protecting victims of child sexual abuse: 0
Advocates of DMOZ endorsing pro-pedophilia views: 1+

 

That is because DMOZ is big defender of freedom of speech and listing everything possible when it comes to pedophilia, bestiality and 100 links for the same porn web site but God help the poor bastards who has an Amazon shop or a Realtor agent web site who fails any of the 100 tests that is performed on the web site.

 

Another point to consider:

The DMOZ pro-pedophilia category gets 42 listings (as of today).

The DMOZ anti-pedophilia category has 22 listings as of today.

Who do you think is winning the anti-pedophilia vs. pro-pedophilia debate in DMOZ Adult? And why?

Even those who want to (immorally and irrationally) justify listing pro-pedophilia sites on the grounds of free speech should also be able to justify listing more than 22 pages pointing out why such sites are dangerous to the lives and well-being of our children.

 

I personally quit working on that category a little over a month ago because I couldn't take vulcano/matri's personal attacks and abuse. If we didn't make as much progress as we had hoped, you can thank vulcano/matri for derailing that effort.

When he started on me here, DP members jumped on me as well without even knowing or caring about the facts. Sorry, but I'm not doing that again.

Minstrel, check the listings in the category you call pro-pedophilia. It's not a pro-pedophilia category, it's a much more general category.

 

# On Boys and Boylovers - A scholarly article by Benjamin Jarod regarding the phenomenon of boy love. The paper attempts to refute commonly held beliefs and explore alternative aspects of man-boy relations. (January 1, 1997)

references:
Meade, A. (1997). Paedophiles set nets in cyberspace to catch boys. The Australian. February 28, 1997. Available May 1997, http://www(.)fpc(.)net/main/pages/tygyr/paper.html

Now, I am wondering whether a pedophile who sets "nets in cyberspace to catch boys", is too stupid opening the main fpc-site in his browser, where is the problem?

 

It is one thing criticizing some words in a description, from there on your accusations are getting rediculous. Let us put things on the table and clarify for all times to come, where I personally attacked and abused you. If this is what you beleave, I am curious to get to know these facts.

 

Well, I have no idea what transpired between the two of you in an internal DMOZ forum or private communications and personally I don't think I need to know. What matters is that there is an ongoing situation in DMOZ which needs action and three months after David Duval began his thread we are still seeing a problem.

It doesn't matter one whit to me whether the category has been renamed or revamped to eb a more general category. What matters is that DMOZ is still listing - and therefore promoting and endorsing, whether you like it or not - pro-pedophilia aka "affirmative views" websites.