it is not relatively rare
It is relatively rare that it happens to an innocent party!
I wish you had initially answered my post, then this thread wouldn't have been necessary. You are easier to talk to.
LOL. On a different day you might well have got the same answer from me - I've used that line more than once. Let me try and explain.
I haven't looked at the site but it is clear you submitted one that to us falls into the bracket of prohibited sites, worse, spam (spam to us that is, according to the way we look at things). We expect people to read the submission guidelines so they don't submit that sort of site. But OK they do. We spend half our editing lives rejecting them from every nook and cranny.
Next the submitter comes here and asks for a status check. What kokopeli gave you was spot on. Don't submit again, but you did. At this point, the site has been rejected, you've been told that, and not to submit again, but you do. An editor has to spend time, their own time for which they're not being paid, removing it over again. At this point patience is wearing a little thin.
We can't tell you the specifics of why the site has been rejected - in our experience that site, and a few thousand others offered by the lurkers in this forum, would probably resurface with the offending specifics well and truly hidden from view under a different URL and we'd face another pile of spam cluttering up the place. So we go as far as pointing you in the general direction of why sites are rejected - most times I won't go that far. I just say "rejected". We expect most savvy webmaster types at this point to realise they have been found out - 99% of them know full well they have submitted a prohibited site and why it is prohibited - they only want to know how we spotted it so they don't make the same mistake next time.
So when someone persists, we are in a bit of a trap. We can't explain specifics of a rejection as I am sure you can understand now. We can only tell them, one way or another, to go away and don't submit the site again. And there isn't really a polite way of saying that. It sounds like you fall into the 1% who didn't actually know that they were committing, in DMOZ terms, a heinous offence for which hanging and quartering is too good a punishment! Most of those who receive a short sharp reply are well aware of what they have done - to them its a game of beat the editor to list the spam. Some fake indignation - it is quite funny sometimes if you can see their record. Then you have the intelligent webmaster, such as yourself, who truly doesn't get it. Truth is we really can't help you to understand, at least not too well, and because of experience we really do have to look on your questions and actions with an awful lot of suspicion. Even if we did want to help you personally to understand, we couldn't because others would use any insights for their own purposes. In private we would have to trust you not to share the information - trust someone who submits what to us is spam? Unlikely!
So if you truly have been misjudged it is regrettable that you think you have been treated unjustly. But I hope you can understand why editors can become impatient and abrupt from time to time.
Now you really can help us if you can suggest a way of saying "go away and don't submit the site again regardless of whether you understand why or not" politely!!! Seriously - if you can think of some words to that effect I am sure editors would consider using them.
Best of luck.
