... that she is still waiting to be told the sites she and other "senior editors" have listed abusively, as accused by gworld and others. Talking about a "DMOZ submission queue" is completely pointless, because it simply doesn't exist, as explained many times. If you can't grasp that simple concept, that is a shame, but hardly worth asking about again and again. Instead of repeating the same boring question, how about coming up with that long list of "senior editor" sites, eh? Or just the ones you've repeatedly accused me of listing abusively, if you can't "remember" any others. We are all still waiting ...
I have given many examples of sites owned by senior editors in my previous posts, if you are too lazy to find it it is not my fault. I am posting here as volunteer and have no obligation to do anything that you ask.
It's nice to know that DMOZ is still accepting entries. I have been trying unsuccessfully for 5 years to get listed.
But my experience so far with DMOZ had been very bad... I don't think you can meet the DMOZ editor ( though here are some ...) I tried adding sites many times, but didn't find the link to do it- there is link .. but can't add still...
I assume from this that you both have submitted more than once? Can I ask you both - how do you think any directory (not just DMOZ) should treat those who can not follow the guidelines that they agreed to when they submit?
I suspect that it's really hard for many people to follow or even understand the meaning behind the guidelines when the meaning of the words expressed in such guidelines do not fit the general definitions of the rest of the world. By the standards expressed of late by the editors it's clear that SUBMIT ONCE could very well mean something entirely different
of course there are! Editors are people just like you and me, they don't have any paranormal abilities I'm one of them, for example
Some I think do... those over in Society: Religion and Spirituality: Esoteric and Occult at least like to think they do I know, I used to be one... Others editors seemingly use crystal balls (search for the term here on DP and you'll see it's mentioned a lot).
Oh dear, you really are in a pickle, aren't you. Despite all our requests, you are still unable to post a single, solitary URL to back up your repeated accusations that I have repeatedly abused my position as an editor. If all you can do is point to the same tired old examples from years ago, all of them completely unrelated to me, then kindly cease your scurrilous accusations and apologise! Otherwise, we are all still waiting for you to show that you are anything but a ridiculous troll.
Er no, many people have asked you to provide even one of these sites you keep droning on about. Still can't do it eh?
Still Too lazy, to read. Too corrupt, to acknowledge the facts. Too low IQ to understand the meaning of completed transaction and positive feed backs. You choose which one best describes you.
Still ducking and diving eh? Many people have pointed out that your tired old examples are wayyyy out of date, which is why nobody bothers to read through ancient posts. How about something a little more up to date than irrelevant stuff from years ago? Surely you would like to try and rescue your plummetting credibility by answering these simple questions: Which sites have I listed abusively? And what evidence do you have of my corruption? (Of course we all know that you can't answer, but we are waiting for you to admit it. Until then, you are simply a laughing stock, I'm afraid.)