Just cut the crap, sid. If you are truly who Annie thinks you are and not just some con-man pornmaster who has her buffaloed, just knock off the adolescent rebel-without-a-clue act - you're not doing yourself, DMOZ, or the cause any favors by pretending to be a fool. On the other hand, I'm still not convinced you're pretending.
I think Sid is too busy right now trying to delete the site that he was defending previously, after it was shown that is considered child porn even by porn industry, to answer.
I'll make you a deal. Admit that me, you, annie, and most other editors have been basically in full agreement in the child porn thread (ie, we all agree that the endless arguing about legality of sites by gworld and crew is pointless, a waste of time, and diverting attention from the real problem) and I'll...well, I'm not sure exactly what you want - but tell me what it is and I'll try to do it. You say I am doing a "rebel-without-a-clue act" when what I have been trying to do is get gworld and the sunshine gang to shut up about 2257 laws so that we can concentrate on the real matter at hand. I don't seem to remember defending the site in any way other than to attempt to explain to you that 2257 laws did not apply to it as it was hosted in Denmark. I'm at work right now, so I can't look at the site, but if I plan on looking into it when I get home and guarantee that I will be deleting the site if it has child pornography on it! You make it sound like it would be a bad thing for me to do? If you were sincere about getting rid of child pornography it seems that you would be encouraging me to delete it, not joking around about it...
No, it is not a bad thing but as we all now, a domain name only costs $8/year, so it won't be long before something similar will be added to the directory under a new domain. The problem is not about deleting 1 or 2 site after it has been exposed, the problem is that there is so much loop holes in adult guidelines that you can drive a truck through it. If you want to do something positive, support the changes in procedures and guidelines that makes it very difficult to list such sites, instead of working in clean up crew after it is exposed and the shit hits the fan.
Sid this is the problem I guess you must think that we are all idiots. The endless arguing as you put it is not a waste of time. I prefer to call it exposing Dmoz for what it is, not arguing, only certain Dmoz editors would call this arguing to try and throw smoke screens up and cloud the thread . This exposure brings to light the mentality that Dmoz has pro child porn. This is just one of many tools to use against Dmoz to fight those whom use Dmoz as a money pit to promote child porn. Based on your comments you seem to believe that all this is for nothing, but very soon my friend will you wake up and find that this thread will be one of many reasons that Dmoz no longer will exist.
LVH - I replied in http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=53712&page=98 in an attempt to keep this discussion in one place so that it is easier to follow.
All right, sidjf, I'll take you at face value and respond this way... Here's what I'm asking: Reportedly, you and I agree that, while clearly illegal sites should be deleted, that is not and never has been the primary issue. Instead of getting into endless silly debates as you and others have been doing, may I suggest this as a more appropriate and productive response? Modeled after my previous posts, including http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=891993&postcount=1891: Do that, avoid allowing yourself to perpetuate the endless debates on legal jurisdictions, etc., and keep to the issue as stated above, and I'll be both happy and grateful.