Resigned -

I been gambling here abouts
for ten good solid years
If I told you all that went down
it would burn off both your ears

It goes to show you don't ever know
Watch each card you play
and play it slow
Wait until your deal come round
Don't you let that deal go down

Since you poured the wine for me
and tightend up my shoes
I hate to leave you sittin there
composin lonesome blues

It goes to show you don't ever know
Watch each card you play
and play it slow
Wait until your deal come round
Don't you let that deal go down
Don't you let that deal go down, no
Don't you let your deal go down

"Deal"
Words by Robert Hunter; music by Jerry Garcia
Copyright Ice Nine Publishing; used by permission.

 

Please, do tell!

 

33 pages of the same trolling....do you have any idea as to what your talking about any more, I've heard about beating a dead horse but you're either very board with no life to speak of or just a mule headed moron. I'm leaning toward both.
oh and thanks for using "few"...I appreciate it.
Go start a thread about corrupt Yahoo editors...it's really getting out of hand over there..hell they take ones 300 dollars and still not list their site...lets talk corruption, and I think Yahoo's behind it all.

 

It is funny how DMOZ editors sound very similar to each other and even use the same words in their posting in defense of "few" (irony for those who don't get it) corrupt editors.

It must some special seminar that they send all the [irony]"honest"[/irony] editors to learn how to defend the rights of editors to be corrupt.

The question still remains:

Why a procedure that can stop corruption is unacceptable to [irony]"honest"[/irony] DMOZ editors?

 

Well gw, here's the source of all your confusion. We DO NOT defend corrupt editors, never did, never will, never, ever! No sir. Not a chance. Ain't gonna happen. We kick them out and shun them. We won't even answer email from them. Not even personal email. They are slime. They give the rest of us a bad name. We don't like that. Why in the world would we defend that. Silly gw!

We defend the ODP because it is good. I believe there are two reasons we all sound the same to you. One is that there is a limited number of ways to tell the same truth. The other is that you don't listen, you skip over what we write and substitute blah, blah, blah. You said so yourself. In fact, the more you skip reading what we write and substitute blah, blah, blah the more repetitive it will get. For example:

brizzie said: blah, blah, blah
lmocr said: blah, blah, blah
compostannie said: blah, blah, blah
jimnoble said: blah, blah, blah
plantman said: blah, blah, blah
alucard said: blah, blah, blah
dustyg said: blah, blah, blah
macdesign said: blah, blah, blah
riz said: blah, blah, blah
Test-ok said: blah, blah, blah​

It gets old. Try something new, read the words we write rather than making your tired old blah, blah, blah substitution. If you go back and do that, the answer to every question you've asked has been answered many times. The knowledge is waiting for you, open your mind, make the effort to read the words.

Now, about those orphaned puppies, why are you avoiding that issue? Have you done something bad to them? Why won't you tell us, you must be hiding something.

 

Well minstrel, I don't care for nachos, and I've never had poutine so I'm at a disadvantage here. Could you please share your favorite recipe for poutine so I can try it?

Maybe the puppies would like some? Or is that one of the foods that cause puppies to release smelly emissions?

btw, my new puppy is 16 days old... I get to bring him home in late January, which will cause him to be separated from his mom and dad, making him an orphan. shhh...don't tell gworld

 

Actually, a couple of those in there are actual quotes

Puppy abuse is more widespread than most people realize. They are made to work for below minimum wage in dangerous conditions with no Workman's Compensation or medical and retirement benefits. I am given to understand that a lot of them are forced to work as DMOZ meta-editors..

 

compostannie

As you can see I ignore your postings since it seems to me you are mentally challenged (I hope this is Politically Correct word) and it seems you are obsessed with DMOZ because it gives you some kind of social standing (I am an Editor) in your life that you otherwise don't have.
May be your blind defense of DMOZ is not caused by corruption but by your need to protect the only thing that provide you with a sense of self importance.

How ever, what ever your reason is, you are making a fool of yourself by making postings that with your limited mental ability sounds like a good defense of corruption but for any intelligent person can easily be seen as what it is; a desperate and mindless attempt to justify the corruption.

If any of DMOZ editors have anthing reasonable to say about why any procedure that stops corruption is unacceptable to DMOZ editors then I would be glad to discuss it. If you are going to just repeat the offical DMOZ lines, you can be assured that the majority of people are not fooled by it.

 

A huge lie, and you know it.

Your postings are the ranting of a troll talking to himself. You know what you would do if you were an editor, so you assume we have the same lack of character.

You clearly don't read anything we post. There's no point in discussing anything with a brick wall.

 

Sounds like someone has been looking in the mirror too much.

 

Mentally challenged person ranting. IGNORED.

 

This thread is getting too silly for me...

 

Page 34 and this is the most sensible post so far.

What I find most amusing is that the original poster put up a screenshot of the day's threads in post #22 that actually had some pretty interesting stuff in it... But no one even noticed because they were too busy looking for abuse. Don't bother looking now, the poster removed the image when he/she realized what they were showing. hehe

 

I find the secrecy and corruption in DMOZ is very similar to the current US government administration. Anyone want to bet on which one will go down first?
hehe

In both cases, it is such a joke, yet so serious at the same time.

 

Sorry dvduval, I wasn't very clear. The interesting stuff I was referring to was all good. Very good things are happening behind the scenes. Nothing ready to show yet, but the original poster provided a brief peek. No one looked.

 

and a few that did seemed like they don't understand English...so why try and discuss anything with those few? Talk about a waste of time...

 

Compostannie -

There is a very large difference between being forced into being an ex-editor, and ceasing to edit upon ones own free will based on moral principals.
So your comparison of myself to the "many ex-editors" who have done wrong was unwarranted, so please refrain from lumping me in with them.

Also, I have not removed any images, or altered the links contained in my posts in any way. The images were not taken down by my request.



I've been busy making contacts since I last posted. I've prepared a wealth of information in regards to how easy it is to obtain and abuse a DMOZ editor account. I am taking action in regards to my original post. It's a case study if you will. The information will be escalated to a contact that I have made above DMOZ's normal chain of command, who is interested in hearing about how the system is being exploited so that the gaps can be sealed.

The primary focus of the study is to minimize the amount of people who get into the program with the intent of self promotion and/or unethical personal gain. It is far too easy for someone to obtain one, or many editor accounts for the sole purpose of self promotion and/or unethical bardering. I have successfully documented how simple it is to obtain 10 or more DMOZ editor accounts - AND successfully documented how one can use these numerous accounts to gain a considerable amount of control over the DMOZ index single-handedly. I think that a phone interview should be done with applicants... it would be a good start at any rate.

I will not post any of this information, nor will I distribute it in any way - so please don't ask.

It has been made very clear in my communications with the person internally who will be receiving the information I have gathered - that I intend to be taken seriously. I am not an editor that has been rejected from another category, I am not a disgruntled ex editor who got caught abusing the system, and I am not out to get DMOZ. I sincerely appreciate the VALUE of a human edited directory in a time where automation rules the world.

Whever someone like myself speaks about internal corruption of any kind, the general consensus of DMOZ editors is to "ignore" the person, and to automatically assume that the person has done wrong - and is seeking revenge. While I am sure that there are editors who do just that, and it may be hard to differentiate between someone out for revenge and someone genuinely disgruntled and concerned about the state of the directory - it is IMPERATIVE to take these accuasations seriously. When they are not taken seriously - they feel betrayed, and can quickly turn to enemies. The last enemy you want is someone who knows how the system works...

I have been advised that I will not be kept in the loop in regards to what is done with the information I am providing and I am fine with that, in fact I prefer it. I am just happy that I finally reached a set of ears internally that is willing to listen with an open mind, rather than immediately going into defense mode. Someone who is blindly on the defensive cannot be reasoned with, as illustrated by this very thread.

 

Spend
Obviously you are an editor, you posted internal threads where the corruption was being discussed, did you join in on any of those internal discussions with this information you have? I'm thinking not, or you wouldn't have brought it here.

 

Why would I join a thread where any person involved could be a potential fraudster? You don't seem to understand that I don't feel comfortable bringing the problems at hand to the attention of just any DMOZ editor. I obviously have trust issues with the DMOZ editor community at large, and I am not willing to identify myself as a potential whistle-blower in a forum where corrupt editors are free to roam. (and I'm sure they all read the threads related to corruption, as it applies to them)

 

At least you only need to deal with the fact that they are reading it in internal forum, we have to deal with them coming here and defending it.

Stopping corruption in DMOZ is an easy task with proper procedures but as DMOZ editors have mentioned before in this thread; any such procedure is unacceptable to them.