Actually, sites hosted in the US that contain porn are required to be 2257 compliant no matter what the models look like.
Is she practicing it in state of California? I thought she was in UK. if you look at the title of the page that you linked to, you will see that it says Medical Board of California. Can you show us any US law that says practicing midwifery in UK is illegal according to US law? Now can you show us anywhere that 2257 regulation limits itself to US only and mentions that you can publish illegal porn if you locate your server outside of USA? It is very strange, how far a supposed middle age women will go to protect the publication of some illegal porn sites but we all know DMOZ really doesn't make any control about the identity of it's editors. If you are really a grand mother, you are certainly a unique one since I have never seen some one like you in real life.
This is the same one who not long ago was saying she doesn't see anything wrong with pro-anorexia and pro-suicide sites listed in DMOZ and wouldn't mind her grandchildren visiting those sites. At least she's consistent about that.
I honestly can't see how it would be required of directories to keep 2257 info of the models in the sites that are linked to from the directory. I don't see *any* directories doing this. Take for example xxxsexhub(.)com (oddly enough, again connected to gentlemenworld(.)com according to the whois records). They link to such sites as "Teenie Orgasm" (with a very young looking model), "Perverted Grannies", and "Anal Sex Virgin" - yet xxxsexhub(.)com itself does not have and 2257 info on it. Off the topic of this thread (maybe better in the child pornography thread?), but the model in "Teenie Orgasm" (http://www(.)sunnygalleries(.)com/teenieorgasm/index.php?q=1552,2,1,1,today,0,0,0,0,0) appears a lot younger than the picture of the girl from lolitasex(.)com that gworld posted in the other thread IMO.
It means that you have the 2257 info posted on the website, which the site I linked to did not have at the time I made the post. Don't be a hypocrite minstrel - If someone else had posted that link and it had belonged to an editor instead, you'd be on it faster than the blink of an eye.
Let him finish, I want him to use all his ammunition before I crush him and his friends. He is not even half as good as people who tried before him. Anything more Sid? I just want to see how far you go? orlady also mentioned the danger of physical violence in a previous post in other thread? Any plan regarding that part in order to protect the illegal sites?
I have no idea what you are talking about...seriously... I'm just using these sites as examples of sites that are and are not 2257 compliant. They may, or may not be connected to you (I obviously have no way to know for sure and it's entirely possible that they aren't), but I think the evidence is compelling that you have some connection to these sites.
I am sure you don't, you are just little good soldier protecting those sites. http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=794101&postcount=25 May be I am mistaken but it seems the porn listings in DMOZ are so valuable that some criminal elements can resort to physical violence to protect it. But don't let this stop the little soldier in his little task, please continue but may I suggest that you read the previous postings of other editors that tried the same thing, so you can learn and improve your attacks. It is always more fun to crush a worthy opponent.
Excuse me? How does discussing a potential change to the guidelines to prevent the listing of questionable Adult sites translate into protecting the publication of illegal porn sites? Only in the twisted mind of someone who has never met an intelligent grandmother, I guess. Most Europeans who live (or lived) in Las Vegas would know that US laws do not apply outside of the US (unless they are adopted by a foreign government), why don't you? I don't know why your sites, which are hosted in the US, owned by someone in the US, registered in the US - don't comply with US laws - but I'm pretty sure that's not why your site isn't listed in the ODP (no matter how many time's its been submitted to so many categories). But it does explain, in some small measure, why you're so vehement in your condemnation of everything ODP. Minstrel - so sorry for the incorrect translation in my previous response - the exact words you said to me were "Shut Up" - so right back atcha buddy. The anorexia sites I looked at provided information that could be used to detect anorexia - if you don't want that information available to parents, I really don't know what to say other than I disagree. Those sites do not even begin to compare to one's like the site sidjf deleted. I guess no one is really interested in discussing a proposal for a guideline - it looks like we'd rather hurl insults back and forth, twist words, and use loaded questions instead.
May be knowing you, I am 99% sure that nothing good will come out of any change that you suggest. Do grand mothers also get involved in physical violence against those who oppose the listings in DMOZ or leave that to younger ones?
I already showed you that. Here let me repeat it again I even added the rest of the paragraph. Now - if you'll just read it and think while you're reading it, instead of trying to twist it to say what you want it to say. In a nutshell - the foreign part in the quote says - American porn webmasters who buy photos from foreigners need to keep documentation too. It DOES NOT say that Foreign porn webmasters have to follow US law and keep documentation. Unless you take a word here and a word there and string them together out of context - but then it still wouldn't fly in court. As to the practicing midwifery in the UK not being controlled by the US - duh. Neither are the producers of websites in Sweden (or wherever) controlled by the US. Poor gworld - I guess porn has melted your brain to the point where you can't extrapolate from one application of law to another.
Nice twist. I think it's quite obvious to anyone who is willing to think about it that she was not implying physical harm. Nice try buddy.
Nice try, lmocr, but we both know that is total BS. The sites in question were the ones I identified in my blog story - proanorexia and pro-self-injury sites, as in sites promoting and encouraging and validating those activities. To remind you: We're not talking about informational sites or sites about the dangers of eating disorders or cutting here. We're talking about sites that encourage others and even compete to see who can get to the lowest body weight or how to conceal self-injury so others don't know you're doing it, how to draw the most blood or cut the deeepest, etc. These were the sites you said you wouldn't mind your granddaughters visiting. So, either (1) you were just spouting off and grandstanding again, or (2) you have once again completely missed the point and just wanted to hear yourself debate pointlessly, or (3) you really are a grandmother who wouldn't be bothered at all if her grandchildren were "thinspirationally" anorexic or cutting themselves daily.
Since you've obviously forgotten what I said about the PROanorexia sites - here are the links to the comments I made at that time. (See I know how to use the bold key too ). http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=863316&postcount=25 http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=863388&postcount=27
I haven't forgotten at all: You claim to have visited these pro-anorexia and pro-self-injury sites yet you seem blissfully unaware that these sites are promoting and encouraging and even providing hints and tips on anorexia and bulimia, self-starvation, body dysmorphic disorder, all disorders which kill many young people every year and seriously endanger the physical and psychological health of even more - and you wouldn't mind your daughter or grandchildren having easy access to those sites? and you see nothing wrong with DMOZ promoting and endorsing those sites? you see "an upside" to those sites? If what you posted is representative of your actual opinions and not just the usual debate and argue for the sake of debating and arguing, you seriously need to get a clue, lmocr.
Well done. Sounds like a summary of the current position gworld. Not a surprise if things go wrong is it. Now how about we try and change that by doing something constructive. Starting with a nice watertight definition of "child pornography" that can be applied universally within DMOZ. If we can't even do that then why would you expect editors to do likewise internally. Show them that DP can be constructive in these matters.
Here is a start: 1- Any site that uses models under age of 18 or older (according to local laws) is considered child porn 2- All porn sites should obey by all their local laws, this means that any American site must have a 2257 declaration. 3- Any site that has it's domain owner or server located in USA is considered American site 4- All sites that are not considered American, must have a clear description on the site that all models are 18 or older. Ambiguous descriptions such as age of consent is not accepted. 5- DMOZ is not a listing service and there is no duty to list all sites, if there are enough listings with 2257 declaration for a category, list those sites before listing a site without it. 6- All sites must have an email address for contact which is not a free, disposable email address such as hotmail, Gmail, Yahoo or.... 7- If there is any doubt in your mind that models is under 18, don't list it unless you contact the site owner and they can provide you with legal age verification document. 8- If in doubt don't list, any editor that list an illegal site, will be dismissed, no if, but or I didn't know is accepted. It is not a long, circular, ambiguous guideline as DMOZ guidelines usually are but I think this will be a good start, What do you think?