A suicide mission for gworld to post it because they'd ban his editor's account. That wouldn't necessarily be an expected consequence if someone was just relaying a message...
Maybe they would ban one of his accounts, maybe they wouldn't. The point is, he has said he has multiple accounts so why should he worry about sacrificing one for a good cause? I only have one account, by making the offer I did to gworld I have already put more on the line than he ever will. All vs one-of-many... yet he doesn't have the courtesy to respond... Well, other than to give me red rep. I happen to be pleased with the proposed guideline changes so why should I let myself be used by someone with multiple accounts who is acting like a coward? Why should I argue against what I believe to be a good thing? It wouldn't make a bit of sense. Gworld can convince me and I'll argue his/our point, or he can meet me half way like I asked, or he can stop barking and chasing his tail. It just looks silly and we all know he won't do anything other than complain here. Talk is cheap... Do something if you want to be taken seriously!
Is this again the same story that I attacked you in PM which obviously was not true? I did not give anyone a red rep even the only editor who was brave enough to sign his name to the red rep he gave me (1 in 8 total). I think you should look among the usual ass kissers for the one who gave you red rep.
Hey, no problem with the red, I sign mine too. Some cowards like to sign other names. Did I say you attacked me in PM, I don't recall. If I said it, you can be sure it was true. I know you posted your PMs and I didn't post mine... you can post my PMs if you want to, I just didn't see the point. You started this thread, I've given you some options if you want my help in posting. All I expect is the courtesy of a reply. Come on, at least try to stay a little bit on topic in your own thread. Or was this merely a rant? Do you want to do it, or not? It's a simple question.
If you see sites listed in dmoz Adult that you recognize as doorway pages to affiliate programs and you truly want those sites to be deleted, please tell us (the dmoz meta community) about those sites. Contrary to urban legends frequently quoted here, few dmoz senior editors are adult webmasters, so we have not developed a finely honed ability to identify adult affiliate programs (but we are delighted to delete adult affiliate doorway sites when we can identify them). I think it's best to notify us in private, via an anonymous abuse report or private e-mail. I understand and support you in your reluctance to identify the sites here or in the dmoz forums, as retaliation is possible (and I'm not talking about denial of dmoz editorship). Based on statements you have made about my cluelessness regarding matters that are important to you, I'm sure you have already determined that I have no connections with the Adult web business (and therefore can be trusted with an abuse report).
Here it is: More fun with DMOZ. More fun with DMOZ, II Just a few. You can also do a search on post by Gworld and doorway page as keyword and find many others that I have posted about.
Actually what is important to me, is the integrity and public image of DMOZ as an organization and not the adult listings by itself. I hope as an Admin, the same things are important for you. The present problems of DMOZ are not difficult to fix, if there is a will to do it.
Been a while since I posted, but I couldn't pass this great thread up. First, it's "AFFILIATE DOORWAY". Please use the term correctly people. Second, if you aren't abusing the ODP gworld, then you will not get removed for posting in the internal forums. If you are abusing the directory, then that sheds a lot of light on your posts here in DP. Third, LOL! Oh man, please stop! ...laughing too hard...can't breath... This from a person that is apparently (?) an abusive editor. Tell me more about integrity.
Glad to be of service and make you laugh since it seems you and meta have been crying rivers over discussion about removal of deep links. By the way, any answer to my previous post about if you just don't understand the Guideline or you don't WANT to understand it since those links that you were defending has been removed?
I think what gworld is being so woosy about saying... Is that perhaps those in charge of adult at the top 'may' have 'vested interests' in keeping the guidleines as they are. And that perhaps such discussions are so long and drawn out, (ie pointless) as so many adult editors.. who lets face it must, even if not a webmaster on joining as an editor, must be tempted buy how easy it is to get listed there according to those current guidelines. I hope the redefining of the guidelines goes well, I haven't been following things the last few weeks, and mabye I am talking out my bum..(feel free to say so . But I think that is what Gworld is getting at is that those at the top of the tree may have 'interests' to protect. Do they ? You know who I am sid, if I get booted I'll know why.
1. Frankly, I'm fairly insulted that you would even say that. 2. If you aren't abusing your editor account, why are you worried?
I apologise in that case. No personal offence intended. But pussyfooting and 'eggbashing' around the issues are getting me personally a bit jaded by the whole thing. Gworld just say what you mean.. you usually have no problems otherwise.
Any editor can look at the editor notes on those sites and see how idiotic and inane your posts are. There are three choices here: 1) gworld is didn't do his homework before posting and just messed it all up as usual. 2) gworld is a pathological liar. 3) gwolrd is mentally handi-capped and this is the best he can do. To be honest, at this point I'm not sure which of these is correct...most likely it's a combination of all three.
I really don't care what you call me but I think even you understand that this game is lost and every honest editor with an ounce of intelligence knows the real purpose of those deep links and the fact that those listings are against the guidelines and have no place in DMOZ. The best solution will be to remove those abusive listings since the truth is already out.
If you can see the editor notes on those listings, then you know the truth gworld. You know who removed them and why, and it makes all of your non-sense about them look even more like non-sense than it already did. I can't say here what's in those editor notes because, unlike you, I actually care about the guidelines that the ODP has in place. You may be able to convince some of the dimmer people here that something sinister has taken place, but people that are editors and people that have common sense will be able to determine the truth - and the truth is that you are about chin deep in BS my friend. Keep on spinning buddy.
Both my post and your post in defense of those listings are here in DP, so everybody can read and make their own conclusion. Since you have joined this discussion again, I will gladly give you a chance to explain your position in this matter again. Do you still believe that affiliate doorway pages are according to guideline and should be listed in DMOZ or do you think that such affiliate pages are against the guideline in DMOZ and only REAL sites with QUALITY, UNIQUE content should be listed? Do you think that DMOZ should serve as marketing arm for adult webmasters and adjust the guideline to what is best for them or do you think that DMOZ should list real web sites that are useful for the users?