I agree man, you have no idea what you are talking about either, obviously I am wasting time communicating with you, have fun man, just keep posting!
Why are you bothering to read these threads then? I stay the hell out of the politics and religion threads because I find them annoying. Obviously some people love them. Solution: I don't read them. As for the rest of your comments, may I respectfully suggest that you read some or all of the following before jumping into the middle of an ongoing debate and telling us we're all wrong? http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=53712 http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=85815 http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=74867 http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=80805 http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=77909 http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=98906 http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=97035 http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=74908 http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=67319 http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=65599
Thanks for the info but I do not have the time or desire to read those links or through 9 pages of post on the subject. I responded to the OP and the OP only. If you took that as a swipe at you or anyone else who's post I didn't read - I'm sorry. Furthermore having not read or directly responded to anyone else besides the OP and one other person (who I'm trying to figure out what they're talking about) I think I can hardly be labled as having told yall that yall are "all wrong" as you put it. Thanks for the info though.
You said in a previous post : " We love you man, but use common sense and jump in and present your case, but to say that the minds of those who read those descriptions are not damaged is outright wrong and a lie! " I asked you to tell me what you're talking about, you never did this. The OP touches on MANY subjects and MANY catagories. I wish I knew which one you're talking about because we probably agree. However you never tell me what you're talking about (fisting, rape, blood sucking, shit eating) so I'm forced to continue to press you for information (which you never provide). So don't pretend I'm the one having trouble communication. Thanks
You know what I am talking about but you are acting dumb, there are some smart people here that will get tired of playing games quickly, so if you want to make friends here, quit acting dumb man!
I don't play dumb, I am dumb. Why do you continue to post to me without clearly defining the subject matter while at the same time attacking me and/or calling me a liar ? Like I've said, the OP touches on MANY topics. Maybe you'd like to clear up which one you're trying to talk to me about instead of a) calling me a liar or b)accuse me of playing dumb.
Noobie, I've already told you how to find out what the issues under discussion are. Your response was that you couldn't be bothered to inform yourself. That pretty much says it all. Anything else is a waste of ammo.
I can see that you are going to be a long drawn out project for us that post here, so since we want to help you understand, I guess we will have to make an attempt to educate you! You said it was alright for those descriptions and links to be in DMOZ (it is not called OP) and I was saying that is is not fine. Just leave it at that, OK.
We got a little confusion, OP = original post / original poster. So we agree to disagree in general. I can live with that. Thanks for explaining.
It's not so much that "I can't be bothered", it's that I came here to reply to the original post/poster in specific. I'm sure alot of other people made comments that relate to the things I said in some way. I simply do not have the time or desire to enter into a protracted debate about DMOZ, sexual morality and the other subjects at hand. I'm really not trying to be disrespectful to you or any of the other people who posted here whos post I have not read. As I stated, my intent was simply to respond to the O.P. with my little two cents, not to step on the toes of all those who engaged in the other 9 pages (or whatever) of this thread. The only reason I engaged anthonycea was because they responded quickly and within a few post accused me of acting dumb and lying when I was merely trying to clear up was they were stating. Since then anthonycea and I have cleared up what they were referring to.
It's cool man, but in the future please read the threads first so you don't take the conversation backward, that is all Minstrel is saying, we want to value your contributions, just make an effort to understand the subject of the threads here so you don't make people angry!
There are two classes of sites involved and some deliberate or accidental cross purposes. Child porn - legalities vary and are ambiguous according to jurisdiction as I previously pointed out, DMOZ imposes an age limit matching US Federal law so there is no room in theory for accidents. The rule was always there, just that accidents had happened, perhaps because the rule was not prominent enough to follow or enforce. Pedophile "support forums" - not illegal on the face of it, it is just talk (hmmm) but nevertheless banned for appealing to prurient interests. It could be illegal depending on what people say inside. DMOZ has a normal legal guideline that says how to sites without specific targets being mentioned are OK. Not in the case of these pedophile chat rooms - facilitating sites - that rule was abandoned in favour of pro-active intolerance and whether the pressure was internal, external, both, it worked and the arguments won out but illegality was not what did it. Therefore there is precedent for taking a pro-active intolerance stance for other types of site and it is possible to get similar rulings depending on the strength of the arguments. There is clear movement away from a purely legalistic stance, which because of jurisdictional issues was more or less meaningless in the first place, as well as being overtly passive in its application. The 2257 legal aspect - it appears to me that DMOZ uses its standard passive approach to this part of the law. That approach is to leave it to the authorities to determine jurisdiction and take action - it the site is declared illegal then it will be removed. Until then its legality or otherwise is considered undetermined and DMOZ editors are not expected to make their own legal proclamations. They may refer it to AOL lawyers if they feel the need. Whether you like it or not, agree with the approach or not, that is the way it is at the current time. This seems to be true - that can and is the result of a passive approach to legality of sites. Nevertheless, as with the pedophile facilitation sites, there is now precedent to make arguments for a more pro-active approach in some areas. I cannot see that being extended too far down the line of sites that might cause offence to someone somewhere. An element of legal factoring must come into play but not to the extent of getting expert counsel. For example a debate on beastiality might consider that the act is illegal in say 95% of the USA and in a significant number of other countries. It would not take into account that Ruritania excludes the sheep for personal use only or any legalistic arguments about whether the activity is illegal but displaying photos of it is not. It is unworkable to list or not list based on a pure legal definition and it allows sites through on loopholes. Instead you say that since the act is illegal most places we will not list any sites containing beastiality porn - simple and easy to understand. Though that decision is entirely up to editors, Admins, and ultimately AOL. I think you might encounter some argument that there is a conflicting ethic against censorship when it relates to matters that are wholly and indisputably legal in most places. I think you might have some support for change where matters are wholly and indisputably illegal in most places away from a passive approach towards a pro-active one. Then there is a grey area inbetween where the passive approach to legality that DMOZ adopts is probably, by and large, the only practical course of action. That is utter nonsense. DMOZ is a global directory with global content and cannot be constrained by Californian laws that relate to the types of site it lists wherever they may be hosted or owned. DMOZ must obviously comply with Californian/US Federal law itself and if you believe that listing sites with no 2257 declaration is an illegal act then do your duty and report it. Clearly DMOZ does not think so and neither do AOL lawyers or they would have prevented it. A website hosted and owned in Costa Rica is not subject to Californian or US law and is therefore not illegal in California or the rest of the US. Ergo, it is listable if the barrier is whether the site is legal in California. Your theory does not work and in the absence of DMOZ creating its own prohibitions it would let the Portuguese site with 14 years old through - your "Timbuktu Syndrome". I pointed out before how this would become ridiculous - trying to judge UK real estate sites against Californian real estate regulations for example. And you can't pick and choose and say this type of site must comply with Californian law but not that site - "Timbuktu Syndrome" all over again and this time enshrined in guidelines. It doesn't matter how many times you say that it is simple, it just isn't. The only practical answers are (a) the passive approach to legality DMOZ currently employs generally across the board, strenthened by (b) a pro-active approach to a limited number of types of site where the legal principles if not the exact terms are more or less universal. If there is a will to extend the current classes of site subject to pro-active approaches then that is the debate to have.
NoobieDoobieDo I think you're just wonderful, what a breath of fresh air. I'd like to know this too. And just what qualifies those that want to put people into little stereotypical boxes who don't pass their own 'personal' moral judgements and view others as 'troubled individuals'. I see what you mean I think it's this actually. There are those that compeletly understand their own sexuality and are in a position to 'judge'... and then there are those of us who aren't completely understanding of their own sexuality, and somehow just might be swayed by clicking on anything other than sites promoting anything apart from married heterosexual couples 'promoting' the missionary position in the dark with the lights out on his birthday ? I agree 100%. Still no-one actually will take you on and actually answer anything you have to say directly, I've been trying for nine pages or so.. but fair play to you to laying it out on the table. Oh and don't let Minstrel et al bully you out of here with sayings like 'who the hell are you ?' and 'how dare you have an opinion or post here'. They kind of think they own the Dmoz section here and anyone who disagrees should be hounded out of it one way or another ? Par for the forum. Best to ignore that attitude generally ( in a public forum) and post your own opinion no matter anyway. And cue flaming and insults..
I think that is kind of rude to Minstrel ShyGirl, after all he has contributed to the Digital Point DMOZ forum before it became popular and way before all the DMOZ editors joined here, so he has a right to give an opinion on what you all post here. I think it is the editors that want to run him out and take over the forum, not as you describe it and that is a real shame because he is one of the few honest and objective voices out here! Minstrel has welcomed you editors with open arms and has discussed issues objectively with all of you and if you all had integrity, the DMOZ administrators would consider Minstrel as a future administrator because he actually understands the issues and could help with direction. Unfortunately the administration of DMOZ is too proud to see that he could actually help you people over there! So don't try to run him out of here, he is one of the pillars of the DMOZ forum here. Thanks for listening!
Thats nice for Minstrel I guess. I like him actually, I just wish he wouldn't keep saying to anyone new here who posts..'and who the HELL are you'. Like they shouldn't be here ? ( Do check if you want). From personal experience no that's not at all what happened when I started posting here. He knows full well what my welcome here was as a newbie poster. I have no wish to character assasinate anyone here so thats all I have to say about that. I agreed with NoobieDoobieDo, so I said so and could see him being ganged up on a little by those that didn't. Thats all.
Oh? Did I in fact say that to Noobie? Where did you see that, shygirl? Ignoring the spelling errors for a moment, my first thought about that comment is that at least you have a sense of humor Never mind. Total waste of ammo.
Really guys, you want to make a devil out of Minstrel when he is fighting for what is right, that is fine, go ahead and bad mouth him and let the readers be the judge, I'm willing to live with that! Go ahead and keep laughing as this is all a joke and make a vain attempt to discredit his work on the DMOZ issue!