All right. Maybe they aren't the same person. It doesn't really matter anyway. Pagode/pvgool/aquarius has already demonstrated his capacity for dishonesty and the issue has already created enough of a distraction from the original point of this thread. To remind you, that point is that "DMOZ/ODP Adult is still promoting pro-pedophilia websites".
April 23rd: March 7th, 1,5 months before the above postings: The natural conclusion must be that either I have magical power and can see and predict the future OR this course of action was decided on even before the removal of affirmative view category.
Welcome back, gworld! I for one missed you. Now just stay out of those political threads for a while - they're bad for your blood pressure. Interesting coincidence: The last DP link I clicked on before I received the notification of your post sent me here: Coincidence? You be the judge.
Yep, I got that message too. I should've known it was gworld breaking back into the forum. Welcome back, I missed you too. (shhh...don't tell anybody I said that) hugs
There is a country called Belgium, located next to Holland. Some times the border line passes in the middle of a village, so one house is in Belgium and next house is in Holland and some times it even passes through middle of a house, so different rooms are in different countries. Two big cities of Belgium , Brussels and Antwerp are only 20 minutes by car from each other but people in Brussels are French speaking while people in Antwerp speak Dutch. I think you can understand that there is nothing unusual about a person being fluent in both Dutch and French. If we take away your reasoning about language problem, the only thing we are left with is 2 editor profile, did you expect that if a person makes a new editor account, copy his old editor profile to new one? I don't know if these are the same person or not but the important fact is that it is possible. The review of different listing by different editors is an excuse that is very often used to prove that there was no abuse but now we can all agree that these different editors can be the same person.
Even when true, I hope you don't think that this is the only forum where you happen to be confronted with the same. Welcome back on board, gworld.
I think that person should use a better excuse than what was posted by Annie in a page before your posting. It seems original thoughts are not a strong characteristics of some of the editors, unless he is jimnoble too.
Obviously it is possible - you are the proof. But in this case it is highly unlikely. And in the context of the origin of this thread the individual involved is to be commended not condemned IMO. It is not in the interests of anyone at a high level in DMOZ or in AOL for these sites to be retained. And they could prevent their removal very easily by issuing a ruling to prevent it or being more subtle in their redistribution. Conspiracy theories are more exciting sometimes, other times they are simply tedious. Let's face it, there was no chance any attempt at redistribution was ever going to work and it would be stupid to try. It is a nasty vile section of the directory that few will go near - typical DMOZ reaction is to re-review sites and remove ones that offend rather than what I would consider to be common sense which is to remove the lot and only put back the ones that don't offend. So what has happened doesn't surprise me in the least though it does disappoint. At the same time I wouldn't assign any conspiracy to it. Many years ago I resigned from another organisation because they would not put prevention of this type of material as top priority and preferred to concentrate resources on less difficult subjects. It convinced me I was no longer in the organisation I signed up for and I left the comfort of a decent salary and comfortable pension in disgust. Many have followed since. What I am saying is that most people would prefer to put their head in the sand and pretend this does not exist, or that it is not their problem. If they have to face up to its existence and do something positive about it then it makes them very uncomfortable. So they don't. Maybe minstrel can explain that one. But I do know that those willing to speak up let alone actually do something about it are fewer than you might imagine but that doesn't mean those who run away or keep quiet are conspiracists in support of it.
Did I say that this is in the interest of DMOZ or AOL? What will be the interest of DMOZ or AOL to list affiliate pages for porn sites, does AOL collect commissions on the sales? Of course not. DMOZ is a headless organization that permits different editors to act as it suits their needs. The problem is that in many situation the interest of editors and DMOZ as organization are in collision course but nobody can really do anything because of organizational problems. It was not long ago that an editor was attacked in internal forum for just inquiring about DMOZ organizational structure, the same organization that he works for as volunteer. Obviously the lack of clarity about organizational structure and procedures are favorable for some editors.
No way! That thread has a little confusion and a lot of joking but no one was attacked. Gworld, were you talking about that thread or was there another one.
I haven't looked at the thread again but if it is the same thread, you will notice that a senior editor had to jump in and remind people that DMOZ actually is not CIA or MI6 and people can ask question about these things.
You mean like pro-pedophilia, pro-anorexia, and pro-self-injury sites? Sorta makes you wonder how DMOZ defines "end-user".