Just look at the category... just once!

It was my understanding that most of those listings were removed, although I didn't personally check. Also, the editor involved with that issue is not a meta, admin or editall. While it may look inappropriate, it technically isn't...I would prefer they didn't do that but it's not abuse, it's an accepted part of Adult that most editors would like to see changed, myself included.

Please tell me what this has to do with the meta that you keep bringing up? I've seen nothing specific at all about her. Ever. Why is that?

 

My previous response to nebuchadrezzar:

As you can see, I know the DMOZ mentality just too well and already predicted your posting.

Let's see what you can do with an editor before we start on a Meta.

 

You did not predict my posting, I never said that "corruption is norm and accepted practice in adult and doesn't count as abuse" ...I said "it may look inappropriate" ...but it isn't abuse under the current guidelines. I also said I don't like it. It's a fact that what you're presenting as abuse in this editor's case, is not abuse under the guidelines. And I think you know that.

You also know that I'm not going to go after an innocent editor. Now you use that as an excuse to make wild accusations against a meta without even saying what she has done wrong. Nothing on the meta? Is that the best you have?

 

We all know about your defenses of DMOZ which is a borderline ridiculous. What you have posted is just a rewording of what I predicted. Of course, you can not come up and post the truth and you need to make excuses, that is expected.

It reminds of the copyright discussion when I said some of title and description in DMOZ were copied and you said that it is not.
I showed, copied titles and you said but it is not description. I showed copied descriptions, and you posted but it is not title and description. I showed title and description combinations that were copied and you just disappeared from that thread.

By the way, is any of editors still claiming that there is a copyright for DMOZ content?

 

You know I don't defend DMOZ when I believe it's wrong, I speak my mind. I posted what I meant, not a rewording of what you predicted. It's not the same. What that editor was doing was not corrupt. I don't like it, but it's not corrupt. If it were corrupt it wouldn't be accepted.

Your memory is selective. I said we're supposed to write our own descriptions, and I said I write all of mine. It would be ridiculous for me to claim I've even read every description, let alone checked them all for originality. I didn't disappear, I read all of it but I only post when I have reason to. I feel no need repeat myself post after post, thread after thread, month after month... yawn!

As far as I know nothing has changed regarding the DMOZ claim to copyright. If you really meant to ask if any of the editors are still claiming there is a copyright, then I'd bet at least one is so the answer would be yes. Personally, I don't concern myself with that question. I know my descriptions are original, beyond that it's a concern for lawyers, not me. I'm not a lawyer.

If you seriously want to pursue your allegations of corruption in Adult please get on your icq and we can chat. You know how to find me...

 

So you call corruption, norm and accepted practices and then it is OK.

While we are at it, how about we start calling bank robbery, redistribution of wealth and make it legal?

 

Nope, not even close to what I said. Are you trolling? You can dangle all the bait you like, I'm not biting.