DMOZ Supports Child Porn?

You almost understood the unofficial goal of DMOZ but not quite right.

The correct formulation should be:

"Dedicated to promoting whatever sites our editors feel like promoting and profiting from".

 

Apparently it is well known fact that such sites called “honey pots” exist and have been mentioned in main stream media.

DustyG, look in the mirror.

 

It is not only God who knows:

here is couple of other suggestion that is normal according to editors:

sex with corps, autopsy photos, sex with animals, spanking naked boys and let's not forget torture.

 

Yummy. I'm getting aroused just by reading that, Gworld. Maybe I should be a DMOZ editor?

 

I noticed some of the powers to be in DMOZ reading this thread. May be you can apply in this thread instead of filling the official application. Just mention what you posted and also mention that you have no sense of right and wrong and you will go along with what ever they say.

 

Just to clarify: Is that Peace Corps?

 

Just received a PM. They want me in the club. I am scheduled to undergo brainwashing at 0600 hours tomorrow morning.

 

Not that the truth should get in the way, but what I support is DMOZ's right to include legal Adult topics and for DMOZ to list sites according to DMOZ guidelines. If you want to project that to mean it is promoting pornography, by all means let your delusions continue.

I'll even defend your right to twist what people say to support your delusions. But one thing I will not deal with is how you believe DMOZ should operate under laws you wish to impose upon it. If you don't like a topic, fine and dandy no one is making you look at it, but quite frankly who are you to decide what others should be allowed to do, think, view or pursue. Seriously, who anointed you god?

But at least let's be clear on the facts. I don't edit in the Adult branch in the normal course of my editing duties. I started looking into the site, cherryboys, because people, at the start of this thread, said cherryboys had child porn on it. Outraged that a site had been listed with child porn on it, I immediately went over to remove it, but what I discovered was the claims of child porn on cherryboys was incorrect. Since then my time has been spent chasing other false assertions about cherryboys (as I've already pointed out). Only to have my efforts twisted to mean that somehow I'm supporting child pornography!

Man, some of you people are master manipulators.

Different topic than what caused this to be looked at. There is nothing in any of DMOZ guidelines that say multiple sites with the same owners can not be listed. What matters is the content of the site and that the site adds to the category topic. General motors has a listing, Chevy has a listing, Pontiac has a listing. Nothing wrong with owning multiple sites, so long as the content is of a depth that adds value to a category. Same goes for other companies and topics.

Adult has a set of guidelines to deal with issues specific to the branch. Currently (heck brizzie you started much of it), various issues related to the Adult branch are being discussed. Doesn't mean it will change, or not change. No one knows the outcome of something that is yet to be concluded. And briz, you know things take time.

It's pointless for me to continue to chase false allegations present in this or any other DP thread. In the future, if you see a problem report it to R-Z or through the channels provided by DMOZ. I for one am not going to bother with DP, because it will only come back to burn me as demonstrated by this thread.

But if you guys continually crucify editors that are willing to listen and try correct any real problems you happen to stumble upon, you will eventually have no one willing to look into whatever you are bitching about. You've already lost the support of many editors and it looks like this trend will continue... nothing like stoning the people with the power to actually change things.

Have fun!

 

So are you now saying you do NOT support the use of DMOZ to endorse and promote pornographic websites, DustyG?

Did we stone Alucard or brizzie?

And what is it again that you have the power to change, DustyG? Supplementary question: What is it that you are actually changing?

 

Good luck, I think Anthony wanted to make some money and quit his day job too. May be you can approve his application after you are in.

 

At this point is has nothing to do with what editors think, we want to put heat on AOL to dump this crap and that is the goal as well as getting them to fire a few of you!

 

DMOZ has a right to list whatever the hell it wants. But if you are going to say that "We won't list child pornography because it's illegal," then you need to remove about half the adult category. As previously stated, having sex with dogs, goats, and horses is illegal where I live. Is it illegal where you live DustyG? (Answer most likely YES) Having sex with dead people is illegal where I live. Is it illegal where you live DustyG? (Answer most likely YES) The recreational use of marijuana, cocaine, heroin, meth, LSD, and presciption drugs is illegal where I live. Is it illegal where you live DustyG? (Answer most likely YES)

 

I can get Anthony into the club...for a price.

 

cherryboys = General motors

Finally a truth in DustyG posting. I think the bold part is DustyG conscious that is telling the truth without DustyG noticing.

Can you tell us, short of being the actual photographer and knowing that you have only used these photos once on this particular web site, how can you be certain of this?

 

Simple. Just visit the other sites which are listed in that category.
Keep in mind DustyG only said "These site are listed, at this point their content is not available on other sites listed on the topic that can be found and the content adds to the category."
We don't care if the content is available on other sites as long as these other sites are not listed in DMOZ.

 

UGAS is listed, I noticed on their site they have hundreds of sites listed and since they provide free fresh content every month as they claim, do you mean that DustyG with a digital scanner that is built in his brain first scanned all the pictures in cherryboys and then did an automatic scan and pattern recognition on hundreds of thousand pictures that UGAS and other sites have and came to conclusion that these are unique?

Pagode, a simple question; has anyone ever been fooled by these type of explanation that DMOZ editors provide? Or do you think that users in DP are extra stupid? I am just wondering.

 

Oh jeez. I predict some names are about to get thrown around in response to that question, gworld. I thought we were about loves and hugs here at DP.

 

You were the one who was complaining about my positive attitude, plus my bro brizzie has joined the conspiracy nuts and posts about small group that won't let things change and doesn't respond to my posts, so I can't give him love and hug anymore.

But no problem, I am still positive. Here is some love and hug for you, bro.

edit- In fact, I am so positive that love and hug to all DMOZ editors and their small and big mistakes.

 

I don't know. Can someone be fooled by the truth?

Hmm. Someway I think it doens't matter which answer I will give on this question I will get red repped for it.
But let's try.
No, I don't think that people here are stupid.
But I do think that some people are manipulative and vicious.

As DustyG already wrote

As it seems I'm the last DMOZ editor left here that is willing to help people at DP.

 

Minstrel, Gworld and I are some of the kindest people on the forum circuit