You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the word "probably".
I used it to indicate that this Katrina could be anyone, and is likely
to in fact be someone who wishes to advance the argument that editors
are corrupt, rather than a real editor.

An example of a person who would benefit from advancing such an
argument is you, so I would not therefore be at all surprised should it
be revealed that it was you. Hence my comment, which is therefore far
from absurd. This is of course not to say that it definitely was you,
just potentially you, or someone like you. I need no evidence to make
such a statement.

The burden of proof is on you to prove that this person is actually a
dmoz editor if you are going to use her statements as fact, and
furthermore to substantiate all the rest of your so called "proof" if
your evidence file is to have any gravitas.

If this is the weight of your legal and intellectual argument, then I
fully expect you to be laughed out of court. That is if this ever gets
to court, and is not just a load of bone headed bluster in a forum,
which is far more likely.

As far as handing out my address to some troll on a forum is concerned,
how exactly would that benefit either your or my argument? I have made
no claims in my previous post, I have merely pointed out the
tooth-achingly obvious failings of some of your more outlandish claims.

'You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the word
"probably". '

Oxford dictionary defination = adverb : 'almost certainly'

'The burden of proof is on you to prove that this person is actually a
dmoz editor'
For legal reasons we are unable to comment on an active legal case
except to state it is obviously not the 'weight' of our legal argument.
We refuse to get drawn into further debate on DMOZ which this forum has
more than adequately covered.
You have not contacted us with your true identity or address which
suggests you wish to remain anonymous to enable you to continue making
defamotory statements.

'As far as handing out my address to some troll on a forum is
concerned'

We never asked for your address to be handed out on a forum. We said
contact us which you can do by a page called Contact us at
www.silverstall.com. It is evident that you have difficulties reading
and Comprehending English so maybe you might wish to consider going to
school first before contacting us.

I would suggest you are the one in need of remedial education. I would
start with elementary spelling:

Probably can also mean "easy to believe on the basis of available
evidence", which equates to what I have already said.

As for difficulties reading English, the misunderstanding is yours: I
said "handing out my address to some troll on a forum", i.e. handing
out my address to a troll, who resides on a forum. It clearly does not
mean to the whole forum, it means the solely the troll.

And as far as defamatory is concerned, any comments I have made pale
into insignificance compared to the fustian you have recently erupted.

You have yet to give me any good reason why handing out my address
would serve any purpose other than to allow you the possibility of
sending threatening legal missives through my letterbox. Mind you if
they're anything like the guff you've already spouted then I have
little to fear.

'it means the solely the troll'
nice grammar!

i.e. handing out my address to a troll, who resides on a forum.
Even a 9 year old can see the introduction of a commar and the pronoun
'who' will change the meaning of a sentance.

LOL! It just gets worse!

You're just plain wrong about the comma issue. The meaning is
unchanged: it is merely an expansion of the original, which is frankly
blatantly obvious. Your poor attempt at nitpicking is only making you
look more foolish, not to mention taking this thread WAY off topic.

hey Wobs (or should i say seo101) get a life!! you sound like a typical
ranting dmoz editor.
why not visit real the dmoz at http://www.nmoz.com/

'Wobs wrote:
Paradigms intended to illustrate the banality of your reference to
incorrect spellings. (you would never understand)

'Your poor attempt at nitpicking'

and the purpose of your message was ...?

Taking this thread WAY off topic

True and we have succeeded.