Thanks for proving the point about not actually backing up anything in favor of personal attacks. I'm sure that your posting history here has pulled in a lot of recruits to to editors.
Exactly. There's really little need to counter anything robjones says. His Resourceless Zone babbling says it all and he generates that all on his own, I think... unless he's getting sock-puppet coaching from one his meta cronies.
Well, you gotta admit, some of the stuff rob comes up with is pretty humorous. Of course, if you're on the receiving end it might not be so funny. It would be nice to get new editors, whether they're webmasters or not, as long as they're honest. I always hear a lot of complaints, but see few people who are willing to spend their free time working without pay, just for the fun of building something, and not for some kind of personal gain. And, of course, a lot of complaints about being careful to select those type of individuals as editors. lol, I like that one, good comeback, <G>.
You aren't exactly like Qryztufre on the topic of ODP... you're the only one here that actually knows less about it than him. [Quite an accomplishment under the circumstances]
Must be thinkin up a good one, Rob, taking a long time. Supper must be ready, the smoke alarm just went off.
I was more then honest, all my intentions were clear from the start even to a blind person but that would mean metas are tolerating abusive editors until they go public.
At lest you got that part right, I'm like Count of Monte Cristo living for revenge, now if I could only find hidden treasure and get even by buying DMOZ and making editor logs and meta forum public. Do you mean you can't back up your allegation? That seems to becoming a habit amongst senior staff, meta promotion must be waiting right behind the corner for you.
Yeah right. No doubt the cackling editors at the Resourceless Zone think it's all really funny too. I can guarantee that it's not funny for the poor saps who register there to ask a question and get gang-jumped.
Never seen it happen here... all I've seen is a band of bitter know-nothings jumping anyone that tries to provide anything but the line of misinformation and BS to which you dogmatically adhere. That's why a few who actually KNOW the topic decided to come over and run interference. Sorry to spoil the fun.
What do you "know" exactly, Rob? All I'm hearing so far is the same old party line crap we've always been handed by DMOZ.
I know when someone comes in with a question they aren't served by having it answered by someone like you who can't answer based on experience because he HAS none... so he parrots trash he's heard from others and adds his own suspicions. The reason the real editors stories are blandly similar is because unlike you we don't make up our own truth. If you don't like it go start your own directory. You're a big kid, no need to hang around the one you don't like.
I think they get upset because the answers to the same questions are always the same answers no matter where the questions get asked. Even when the questions are answered on the official blog, by AOL staff themselves, even that isn't good enough.
You are right, they are served with actual editors going in and trashing anything an ex-ed says, even when it's true. http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=515819 See just where the editors came in to start giving real answers. It was not until two non-editors answered that editors moved in, and then mainly to just trash the answers previously given, even those answers were not false. The list goes on and on here of the extreme lack of help that editors have given. Look at your own posting history here. You are the spokesman for the directory whether you like it or not, and as a spokesmen, you have what, maybe two posts that are not trolling or flaming? I must admit though I have more respect for you then Nebby or Anon, at least you have the guts to troll under your own username so people actually know who you are. Though, I guess if you don't like us talking all these lies, maybe you could put away your trolling nature and actually correct us when we've lied rather then calling on our edit counts to back up your claims. Till then, as long as we can back up what has been said, you are the one that looks like they are spreading false information, not us.
Look Q, I can't change the fact that you were a dillettante while there & that it pretty much removes your credibility. Is it my fault? I didnt even know you. Just bear in mind as soon as you start another BS post like your hillarious ode to the joy of hunting down sites to edit... you'll get called for it. If you wanted to be considered knowledgeable maybe you should have edited while you had the chance.
So what you are saying is that because I have a low edit count that Topix is not an affiliate of Skrenta, and it does not have 10,000 sites listed within the ODP even though Skrenta himself has acknowledged such things. And of course I was wrong when I said that there is no official appeals system and that the warning system is optional....even though those things are clearly stated within the rules. SEO professionals and link Builders can get paid for listings is a complete fallacy even though you agreed, in fact, you not only agreed, you proved it to me! I'm sorry, but you are going to have to use something other then edit counts to prove me wrong Mr. Jones. All you are doing now is making yourself look bad. How about posting something about my spelling again. That almost works. To date, your only defense against anything any one here has said was to make it personal. You've not once taken a true hit on anyone credibility accept for DMOZ , as I've and many others have backed up our points, and in many cases have even used the ODP as reference. Your main point in knocking any of us down has been to rely on how many sites we've added. How does my low edit count, or the fact that I am not an editor prove that there is not corruption at the very top of DMOZ? I'm sorry, but that argument is simply invalid.
Having answered every one of those tired allegations, none of which address the topic of the thread... I won't repeat myself (again).
Your only answers are personal attacks, so your answers are not needed I guess. Though, could you be so kind as to point out where you gave such answers. I can't seem to find any of them, accept the one where you proved to me that getting paid to list sites was OK within the guidelines. Though, it's funny that you call on topicality now... you never seemed to care about it before (even within this thread) kind of funny how your ethics shine through when you are put on the spot that you decide it would be a good time to follow topicality.
If I haven't already addressed Topix, your paid submissions drivel, etc... what do you think you were answering for a couple of weeks? Either you have the reading retention of the banjo kid in Deliverance or just didnt like the answers, but that isn't my problem.
You're a legend in your own mind, aren't you, robjones? What makes you think that no one but an editor or ex-editor has any idea about what's rotting DMOZ from the inside out? What makes you think that people outside the hallowed inner sanctum can't see what's wrong even more clearly than those who are still desperately clinging to probably the only title that gives them any credibility at all, even if it is limited only to other DMOZ editors? If you weren't so aggressively obnoxious, I might even have a certain amount of pity for you. As it is, you're a waste of my time.
Well, it's just like this thread. I say something, you say I'm wrong, I say prove it, you say something about my edit count, I say thats not proof, you say you already answered me. You've proven nothing accept you know my edit count (and editors can be paid to list sites).