I agree with you on this... your previous posts on this thread I don't agree with. How is the crew at ODP going to know who you are when you ask to be an editor. You don't send them your photo ID or other personal info, and if you totally lie about your name and everything how would they know?? You just have to give them evidence that you could help in the catagory you apply for.
I agree debunked - but I might not be able to spel but I can say if a website should belong in that category or not. It's all about ego
Yes, some of them are, and many of them are not. This is an obvious dodge. Oooo.... "libelous". That is a very meaningful word. Are they perhaps offering to sue me? Us? The entire Internet? In my experience, the DMOZ editorial team does not listen to any input, advise, criticism, or suggestion from outside their small social clique. In their defense, it is their web site and they should be allowed to run it as shoddily as they see fit.
I think that you will be surprised how much effort actually goes into finding and investigating abuse. I am not a meta so can't actually investigate or comment on abuse reports but I can say without any doubt whatsoever that editors do get removed if the need arises and there is a simple rule on abuse - zero tolerance. If you know of any 'report it' please! All reports get looked into and action taken if proven/necessary/justified.
He didn't start a discussion about what an evil muppet he is or is not, though... he started a discussion about DMOZ which got hijacked into a flame war about his alleged flaws as a muppet.
Actually, if you look back, he started that discussion with the post of: when I mentioned a possible reason as to why his sites were not included in the DMOZ directory. Perhaps you need to go back and re-read the thread. He hi-jacked the thread himself after being offended that someone discovered him.
I don't know who PRBot is or anything about him (or her) or whatever issue you have about him (or her) and I'm not trying to defend him (or her). I don't even care what issues the two of you have. It all just bores me. However, if this is an example of your idea of "evidence", it tends to sway me more in favor of whatever position you are arguing against. Maybe you should go back and re-read the thread, "dude" -- PRBot did not "start that discussion" or any discussion with the post you quote: which looks a lot like the first shot fired to me. It was only after YOUR personal attack on him that he responded with the quoted passage:
I suppose I really don't see it as a shot. That's an explanation. I didn't attack him in that post at all, I simply stated why he may not have been included. You are reading into it too far. I also don't use any personal language in it. It was directed towards anyone reading the thread. So, I can't follow your explanation as to how it was a personal attack. Maybe it was the first shot, but he took it as the first shot. It's one of those types of posts that would only be offensive to the one who was caught in his tracks.
Call it anything you like, dude -- after the first paragraph in that post, it was off topic and personal... that was my point and why I called it hijacking the thread. To post throughout this thread (and perhaps elsewhere) with the sigline you're using and then try to claim innocence with "what? it's nothing personal and I was only explaining why he wasn't listed in DMOZ" seems more than a little disingenuous, in my opinion.
Again, you read too far into things. How was I claiming innocence? When I originally posted that I never even had the link in my signature. Max has a history of spamming every forum he hits like a plague. It is not common for someone to register as the URL of their website; the website field simply isn't enough for him. You don't have to do any digging to find out more about him. Even check his first few posts on this forum for details! You are being blissfully ignorant of someone who has a wide history of spamming and illegal activities on the internet. If you don't like the explanation I gave, tough for you. And, if you wouldn't mind answering, if this is all so boring to you, why on earth do you keep replying? Furthermore, aren't you also doing what you are preaching against? You've taken this into personal territory--much more than you claim that I did in that first post of mine in this thread that you keep going back to. I suggest that if you want to take this any further, you PM me instead.
1. I'm responding to direct questions or comments from you to me 2. "taken this into personal territory" because I'm responding to direct questions or comments from you to me 3. as I've already said, I'm not defending Max -- I don't know anything about him and I don't care. It's not "blissful ignorance" --it's simply that I don't care. My original and continuing point was simply that I don't think any of this was an appropriate addition to a thread discussing DMOZ.
First off, my only intent was to let people know about the probable reason that he has seen so much misfortune with getting into DMOZ. When I saw that he was continuing his typical line of posting here instead of actually making changes in his character I posted the link in my signature. I feel that it's time that people know about him and beware. On one of the forums he was banned from, the administrator posted in his sig line: vB3dev.Com has been BANNED. Take his posts with a grain of salt. If you don't care, you probably shouldn't post here. It's as simple as that. The thread started out bogus when he was rejected by DMOZ. If he had posted valid reasons behind his rejection, this thread never would have degenerated in the first place.
Actually, that's good advice. You keep this thread to continue complaining about Max. I'll take myself off to another one where people are discussing something that matters.
Out of all the unneccessary remarks in this thread, that one was probably one of the most unneccessary. Though this entire thread has been built upon an unneccessary first post. Max knows why he wasn't indexed by DMOZ, and after my discovering of who he really is, this thread went severely downhill. If someone wants to start a new thread with rational arguments about why DMOZ isn't open/is biased, etc, go ahead!
See, to me it does matter. Newbies should be able see that this guy has no credibility in some of our eyes, and why that is so. He dontesnt seem to contribute much of value. He spams an awful lot from what I see.