|
How One Human Should Talk to Another Human - A Groklaw Request |
|
Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 01:35 PM EDT
|
I've been thinking a great deal about civil speech. Recent events have brought the issue to the fore in a way that impels me to speak. And what I'd like to say is this: words are powerful and they can really hurt. The saying that sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me isn't true at all. Words do hurt. I don't want any mean-spirited comments on Groklaw. I remove them here, when I come to know of them, but on other sites especially, there seem no limits to what folks are willing to say to and about one another. I wish to say that I don't believe that such speech is helpful. I cringe when I turn on the TV and see how so-called news show hosts villify and attack their guests and one other. I guess it's the In thing, but I can't accept it as normal or acceptable human behavior. I don't want Groklaw to become like that.
To give you an example, let's look at the current flap about LinuxWorld and Maureen O'Gara's articles. I've just read the editorial and some of the comments being left there, and it is very distressing to me. I want to ask, is it not possible to express a different point of view without personal attacks on fellow humans? I am happy to say I didn't see any offensive comments from Groklaw folks, and I'm glad about that, because I simply don't approve of such speech. We are all imperfect, subject to making mistakes and sometimes doing the opposite of what we wished we had done, are we not?
I don't minimize the serious issues in this matter at all, obviously.
However, nothing makes it all right, in my view, to diminish the dignity of another human, to call them "trash", for example, as I saw someone do to the editor of LinuxWorld. How can that ever be all right? Does that inspire the editor to improve? Does it strengthen his resolve to stand for what he believes in? If he has made a mistake, does it make it easier for him to admit it or harder? As far as Ms. O'Gara is concerned, Groklaw has on more than one occasion written that she is a very good reporter. She is. That entire career doesn't get thrown overboard because of recent events, even if it turns out she made a mistake. She was the first reporter to tell the world that SCO had hired David Boies and that Linux was on their radar. I don't forget that, despite the most recent series of articles, and neither should you forget. As far as I'm concerned, if she wants to keep writing about SCO from her point of view, that is her right. I reserve the right to point it out if I see errors. And readers can validly ask if they wish to read her articles or if they now trust entities that publish her. All that is fair. But that is, in my view, the line. Even if we cast the most negative possible interpretation on what has happened, is she not still a fellow human worthy of the dignity we all should accord one another? Is she not trying to make it through the world in one piece, just like you are? Have Americans forgotten how to disagree without being disagreeable? I don't want Groklaw associated with anything like that. Most of us were not at the hearing. Eyewitness accounts are valuable, but not necessarily determinative. If you've ever been involved in a car accident, for example, you may have observed that not everyone sees the same things. That is why my article about this said that only a reading of the transcript someday can establish what did or did not occur in that courtroom. The issue I was addressing was that both LinuxWorld and Slashdot were presenting a point of view that to the best of our knowledge was not accurate. Also there is an issue as to where that information came from, in my opinion. We do have several eyewitnesses, including now some who were not Groklaw eyewitnesses, who disagree with what Ms. O'Gara wrote, and they didn't hear or see what she reported. But that doesn't, in my view, rule out altogether the possibility that they all missed something. It's less likely, but until the transcript is available, we don't know yet for sure. I don't think it's right to say more than you know. The simple truth is, we don't yet know 100% and we can't until the transcript is unsealed. Here's what I do know. If the transcript reveals that what Ms. O'Gara wrote was not accurate, she will absolutely report it honestly. I sincerely believe that. I would ask Groklaw folks, please help me to maintain a level of politeness and fellow feeling on Groklaw. Thank you. I'll try to do my part, and I know I can count on you to do yours.
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 08:53 PM EDT |
n/t [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: StLawrence on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 08:57 PM EDT |
Sounds like good advise to me. I shall take it to heart.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 08:59 PM EDT |
Well said! Humans should not be idiots to each other.
What's really disheartening is the depths to which political candidates will go
to villify each other to make themselves look acceptable by comparison. The
Bush and Kerry camps are especially bad, and it does the country no good to
polarize the electorate with negativity.
But I digress. In SCO's case, I think Darl actually wants Linux fans to write
this ill-tempered babble because it makes the well-reasoned folk that are out
there think that Linux users and developers are a bunch of unwashed malcontents
who shouldn't be trusted with Aunt Edna's computer, let alone a multi-million
dollar cluster.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 09:01 PM EDT |
I think Linux and the GPL are one way to make the world a
better place for us to live. I think PJ has just reminded
us of otherways that also deserve our best efforts. I am
very glad to read such views expressed so well.
lhomer@comcast.net [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: plungermonkey on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 09:06 PM EDT |
Truer words could not have been spoken...
Thanks PJ
---
An ignorant person knows no better, a stupid person knows better and still does
what is wrong. Which one are you?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- A bigger picture - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 08:55 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 09:10 PM EDT |
Most people have an axe to grind, and it's increasingly
clear to me that Groklaw isn't exempt.
While I agree that humans can (and should) treat each
other with basic respect, generalized platitudes for
wishing how people should share discourse is
insufficient. If you have guidelines for your site,
lay them out. Otherwise, PJ, you're also guilty
from your own comments on your own site.
Everyone takes literary license to make a point, to
let out steam, or cry out against the night (usually
from frustration and confusion). IMHO, the increasing
bent towards political and religeous fervor regarding
'open source' (lower-case intended) offered through
Groklaw leads to increased noise.
I liked the days when logic and analysis were front-
and-center, and when idealism, wishful thinking, and
zealotry were less pronounced. But, if you feed the
pigeons, they will come.
Yes, it's an accusation of pandering to the zealots,
leading to more emotional (non-logical) responses.
While SCO's idiocy and corporate suicide is a fairly
simple black-and-white case, few other 'real' issues
work like that. Yet, somehow, that's how I think
Groklaw wants to view the world.
It's your site. Do what you will. Just my $0.02.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Guidelines - Authored by: Ed L. on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 09:31 PM EDT
- I don't really get this - Authored by: Mike Steele on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 09:50 PM EDT
- Spewing flames? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 10:24 PM EDT
- Understanding. - Authored by: Brian S. on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 11:33 PM EDT
- Spewing flames? - Authored by: Denney on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 11:51 PM EDT
- My facts right? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 12:52 AM EDT
- My facts right? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 01:54 AM EDT
- My facts right? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 10:11 AM EDT
- My facts right? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 10:36 AM EDT
- My facts right? - Authored by: Denney on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 05:23 AM EDT
- My facts right? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 10:35 AM EDT
- My facts right? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 12:56 PM EDT
- My turn to apologise. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 28 2004 @ 01:27 AM EDT
- Spewing flames? - Authored by: ine on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 06:03 AM EDT
- Spewing flames? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 28 2004 @ 12:58 AM EDT
- Spewing flames? - Authored by: Pat Pending on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 09:00 AM EDT
- I don't really get this - Authored by: Tyro on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 02:11 PM EDT
- How One Human Should Talk to Another Human - A Groklaw Request - Authored by: k12linux on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 10:28 PM EDT
- How One Human Should Talk to Another Human - A Groklaw Request - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 10:39 PM EDT
- How One Human Should Talk to Another Human - A Groklaw Request - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 11:38 PM EDT
- How One Human Should Talk to Another Human - A Groklaw Request - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 12:11 AM EDT
- How One Human Should Talk to Another Human - A Groklaw Request - Authored by: jo_dan_zukiger on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 02:02 AM EDT
- Let he who is without sin cast the first stone .. - Authored by: cheros on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 08:19 PM EDT
|
Authored by: inode_buddha on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 09:12 PM EDT |
Just IMHO, broad brushes paint both ways. Nobody said it was fair, that's
just how people are. We cannot control other's actions or words on other
sites, etc. but we can be civil and still disagree here. Just IMHO anyway. PJ's
first two paragraphs said it all. --- "When we speak of free software,
we are referring to freedom, not price." -- Richard M. Stallman [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: TZak on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 09:12 PM EDT |
I wish that most people, including the incendiary cable "news" anchors
would read PJ's article, reflect on it and substitute "the world"
wherever they see "Groklaw".
We would all be much better off.
---
---------------------------------
show me the million lines of code[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 09:15 PM EDT |
Yay PJ! Having those guys from SCO hound you night and day cannot be good for
your ego and we want you to stay around for awhile.
Do what you have to do to remain sane first, and then do whatever you gotta do
after that. This is a community site and you get to decide who is contributing
to the community and who isn't.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Whiplash on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 09:17 PM EDT |
Whilst watching TV in the States, it has become more and more necessary to turn
down the volume on my TV. EVERYBODY YELLS LOUD TO MAKE SURE THEY GET THEIR POINT
ACROSS AND TO DROWN OUT THE OTHER PERSON AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE NOT HEARD
AND THE LOUDER I SPEAK THE MORE ___RIGHT___ I MUST BE!!
Debate has become a yell-fest and not rational. Politcal debate has become a
spin cycle of bought and sold comment. And whoever can yell the loudest wins.
And this is flowing down to workplaces workpractices and work ethics. And to
blogs, newsgroups etc.
At the end of the day it is much easier to call someone a "&^*&^
two-faced liar" than to counter an arguement with fact.
Look at Groklaw as a GOOD example. Groklaw uses facts to show why SCO is most
likely wrong. Groklaw uses facts to counter FUD. Groklaw doesn't rant (well most
of the time) and Groklaw works.
Next time your in an arguement, take a deep breath and counter with calm fact
not personal abuse.
Whiplash[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 09:22 PM EDT |
There is one simple rule to keep postings polite:
Never write something about a person that you would not tell the same person if
you met her or him in the real life among people you know.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tfield98 on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 09:22 PM EDT |
Thank you, PJ. Your compassion deserves applause and respect. Thank you for
giving voice to human values & dignity. And thank you for your service to
our community at large. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 09:26 PM EDT |
but Rob Enderle is still a tool. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 09:30 PM EDT |
Indeed. Well put.
The rule I learned for debate is to attack the position, but never attack the
speaker. --Robert Krawitz, rlk@alum.mit.edu[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PeteBoton on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 09:31 PM EDT |
Well said, PJ.
One of the things that makes it so easy to post offensive remarks is the ability
to remain anonymous. I've decided not to be anonymous any more and to put my
name next to my words.
Do you think we should disallow anonymous posts in the future?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Anonymous Posters - Authored by: tredman on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 09:51 PM EDT
- disallow anonymous? - Authored by: Mike Steele on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 09:54 PM EDT
- Real Names - Authored by: spuluka on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 10:13 PM EDT
- Anonymous would just become pseudononymous - Authored by: snorpus on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 10:59 PM EDT
- How One Human Should Talk to Another Human - A Groklaw Request - Authored by: Groklaw Lurker on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 11:01 PM EDT
- That's not the answer. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 12:15 AM EDT
- But why not at least sign the post? - Authored by: Mike Steele on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 01:21 AM EDT
- How One Human Should Talk to Another Human - A Groklaw Request - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 02:30 AM EDT
- How One Human Should Talk to Another Human - A Groklaw Request - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 05:29 AM EDT
- So how would you handle this :-)? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 05:58 AM EDT
- On the web we are all ... - Authored by: ine on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 06:39 AM EDT
- What is anonymous? - Authored by: dracoverdi on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 06:37 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 09:32 PM EDT |
rig the software to automagically do it for you. I would
like to discern the poster/writer. --John Bacall
<john.unixen.org> [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Just sign up - Authored by: Jadeclaw on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 11:18 PM EDT
- Just sign up - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 28 2004 @ 07:37 PM EDT
|
Authored by: IrisScan on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 09:37 PM EDT |
.. is that "flaming" is such a massive waste of time
and energy . Now I'm happy to concede that other posters
may regard my posts as "a massive waste of time and energy"
but it does get a bit tedious to have to wade through dozens
of X is a Y posts . It needed saying , PJ , well said .[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: AliveAgain on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 09:38 PM EDT |
It seems to me that there are too few places where civility is expected - or
even wanted. These few places, however, are where I prefer to spend my time. I
have always felt that Groklaw was one of these rare places and so I have been
lurking here for a long time.
I feel strongly enough about this that I have finally registered as a user so
that I can say how much I support and agree with what PJ is saying.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 09:42 PM EDT |
I am glad you have spoken up about the need to civil. You are right, flame wars
don't accomplish anything.
However, I partly disagree with you about the O'Gara-LinuxWorld case. You are
right, many of the posters were uncivil.
However, O'Gara was not just making well-meaning mistakes in her article. She
violated some important journalistic principles. In particular, she got her
report about the hearing from someone else, presumably SCO, but did not make
this clear, and instead misleadingly presented it as undisputed fact.
If you would go back and look at the comments to the editorial, you will see
that James Turner, the LinuxWorld editor, says that the editorial staff has been
quite unhappy for some time with O'Gara's reporting. The only reason it
continues to be be published there is that their parent company, Sys-Con,
dictates what is published on the site, and so the LinuxWorld staff can't stop
her stories.
I think you got confused in this case because O'Gara does not have a bias in
favor of SCO and against Linux and IBM, and so you are willing to give her the
benefit of the doubt. However, it is clear that, whatever her lack of bias, she
is a sloppy, unprofessional, and often sensationalistic reporter. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ed L. on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 09:50 PM EDT |
Better late than never, and before we get too absorbed in
ourselves...
--- "Microsoft is like having a car where the bonnet is
welded shut" (Mohammad Sephery-Rad, Iran IT Minister)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: phill_wall on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 09:54 PM EDT |
Over the years I have developed (or been taught) a principle that my partner and
I now call the Pollyana rule (from the character in the old novels). This rule
is simple - if you dont have anything good or constructive to say...DONT SAY IT.
This doesn't mean that you cant point out errors etc.. but it does mean - no
personal attacks and no general bitchiness. Just keep to facts etc and dont get
lost in issues over personalities.
And sometimes - refusal to say anything - because there is nothing good or
constructive you CAN say - can be far more eloquent than fighting in the
mud.
Keeping the tone positive pays in the long run...
and lets not forget the old saw - empty vessels !
Good on you PJ..[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Re Pollyana - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 08:34 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 09:55 PM EDT |
Thanks PJ. I'm a 30+ year professional in the computer industry so I'm very
passionate about it. I believe very much in OpenSource and am happy that others
energeticly support it but none of this is worth one human being. Again I thank
you for your courageous stance in pointing this out.
Darrell Poteet[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: fLameDogg on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 10:14 PM EDT |
I very much respect what you are saying, PJ, and I do agree. There is one thing
that I wonder about, though:
"Have Americans forgotten how to disagree without being
disagreeable?"
Why `Americans'? Was there something US-centric about all this that I missed?
--
fD, an American[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: icebarron on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 10:16 PM EDT |
From an avid reader...A kind word spoken in due season is like a good
medicine.
I did not think it was possible for PJ to raise her level of
credibilty much higher than it already is now. I was wrong again.
Thank you
for setting an example for us all to aspire to in the
future.
Dan
When in the course of human events it becomes
necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected
them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and
equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a
decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the
causes which impel them to the separation.
Timeless and of great
worth...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 10:32 PM EDT |
commetn here... you know who thay are... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Mouse on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 10:35 PM EDT |
I know of another very popular web site which is full of opinions and discussion
and disagreements that are almost unfailingly civil and polite. This is possible
because of a community of people who are more interested in the subject at hand
than in scoring points of one another, and because of moderators who crack down
on insults and "mean-spirited comments" while allowing any amount of
disagreement and argument.
It might be harder to bring that level of civil
discussion to Groklaw, because a lot of posters here are angry at SCO, and
because PJ hasn’t been imposing heavy-handed moderation. But I think we can cut
out the insults and personal attacks if we try. And we should do so,
because Groklaw is an important source of news, information and
analysis.
You have my support, PJ.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: droth on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 10:46 PM EDT |
I'm glad to see you writing such things, PJ. It is so easy to slip into flame
language when you're conversing with someone that you cannot see.
When you engage in a heated discussion with someone else, whether it be in
person or on the Internet, I think most people have two competing urges: one
is to persuade the other person that you are right, and the other is just to
score points. The more heated the discussion becomes, the more (I think) we
tend to focus on the latter goal.
As others here have said, it's a good idea to think about how the receiving
party is going to receive your message. Yes, one might feel better for telling
Maureen O'Gara that's she's a hack and a failure as a human being - but when
she reads that, is she suddenly going to be inspired to be a better reporter?
Doubtful. If the outcome you really want is for her to be a better reporter,
then you should frame your comments as helpful criticism and exhort her to
do better.
But I'm still going to call Darl McBride names from time to time. I'm only
human.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: whoever57 on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 10:48 PM EDT |
I agree with the general point of addressing all people (whether we agree with
them or not) in a courteous manner.
However, in this specific case, I think a different interpretation can be put on
the facts as we know them:
1. MOG reported in an earlier article that IBM's right to use SCO code obtained
through Project Monterrey was limited to Intel platforms. Now unless there is
some other agreement than the one posted on Groklaw's legal docs page, this is
simply not true. In fact this information was available BEFORE MOG made the
claim.
2. MOG's reporting of Boies involvement has two 2 possible explanations: a)
That she is good at ferreting out inside information or b) that she is in some
fashion an insider.
Now, I don't think there is any formal agreement to FUD linux: more likely some
like-minded people working together and using MOG as a willing partner in the
scheme.
Perhaps I am wrong about this. We shall see. I will be very interested to see if
there is any hint of a retraction or apology from MOG if it seems that her
latest report was factually wrong. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jig on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 10:51 PM EDT |
the reason why people become crass and abusive is because they want a reaction.
sometimes it is out of simple frustration, other times it is just childish.
and it works. one person will spend an hour writing a reasoned argument to the
editor, and another will mouth off using minutes of tap tap typing, and the
mouther will get the response. why? well, i think it is for one reason.
responding to such posts is easy. just as easy as generating the flame. point
out they are being a jerk, and move on, usually neglecting the more articulate
opposition.
so, while i think it is important to be argumentative rather than only abusive,
and while i DO think that many posters forget to even argue a point in their
attempt to come up with a 'good one', i also think that a lack of civility has a
place in discourse. i'm not arguing that it should, just that it does.
i guess what i'm trying to say is: i know why pj wrote the above. i respect her
and almost everything that has come from her efforts immensely. it also makes me
angry when i think of the time she and mathfox spend trying to police useless
profane posts here. but the letter is overly sensitive. she, and the rest of us,
are stronger than that. that is my gut response.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 10:51 PM EDT |
You're my moral hero, PJ. /jeesh [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: newton on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 10:53 PM EDT |
Have Americans forgotten how to disagree without being
disagreeable?
This is, I believe, the crux of the issue.
The unfortunate answer to your question appears to be, "Yes."
I'm not
American. I'm immersed in a different culture with different values in a
different country; But, of course, like the rest of the world, American culture
is all over the TV, magazines, the Internet -- everywhere you look.
And the
one thing that comes through very clearly is that you Americans are a very
angry people.
I think some of you need to take a good hard look at
yourselves. You come across as loud, brash, self-confident, supremely
individualistic people, which is great until you're wrong (at which point you
just look stupid). Or until someone else who isn't as loud, brash and
self-confident exercises their own individualism by disagreeing with you (at
which point you look like loud-mouthed bullies).
You carry guns. You murder
each other. You threaten lawsuits to resolve minor disagreements which other
cultures would solve by sitting down over a cup of coffee and talking to each
other. You fight wars. You yell at each other as some kind of replacement for
public discourse. You set up dichotomies everywhere, where one side is a winner
and the other side is a loser. And you do all this with the over-arching
confidence that what you are doing is right, and what those you're always
fighting against are doing is wrong.
That's one of the reasons why
it's so easy to pick Americans out in a crowd when they're travelling
internationally (just look for the fat people with the loudest voices). And why
people from my country who spend extended periods of time in yours can't wait to
get back home again. "It's a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live
there. It's too intense, and everyone is too insecure!"
As a culture, you
people need to have a good hard look at yourselves, and work out whether being
angry is worth the grief you get from it. When you're faced with your
way and someone else's way it's possible to have a calm and reasoned
discussion to work out the differences instead of fighting all the time.
You don't need the courts to resolve differences. You don't need to raise your
voices. You don't need to protect yourselves. There is always another way,
even though you've spent your whole lives never realizing it because everyone
else around you carries on in the same way.
The whole SCO/IBM thing is
actually just another symptom of this. The United States of America is the only
country in the world where this saga could have been played out. Look at how
quickly they resolved it in Germany! That kind of responsiveness is
normal.
I know I'm going to get flamed for writing this -- of course
I am! The things I'm pointing out in this message will result in me being
vilified by exactly the kinds of people I'm talking about. But my hope is that
quieter and more reasoned readers will take what I have to say in the spirit in
which it has been said, and perform the self-examination that's so sorely needed
in the world today to turn it into a more civilized place.
- mark [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- An outsider's view of US culture - Authored by: BuggyFunBunny on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 11:14 PM EDT
- An outsider's view of US culture ... is accurate - Authored by: artp on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 11:26 PM EDT
- An outsider's view of US culture - Authored by: Philip Stephens on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 11:29 PM EDT
- An outsider's view of US culture - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 11:31 PM EDT
- Well said. - Authored by: Anthony on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 11:37 PM EDT
- I'm a neighbour to the north - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 11:44 PM EDT
- Just a quick observation - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 11:56 PM EDT
- An outsider's view of US culture - Authored by: Flower on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 12:35 AM EDT
- The sad thing is I am an American and I agree with Newton (N/T) - Authored by: Buddha Joe on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 12:56 AM EDT
- An outsider's view of US culture - Authored by: jumpman on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 01:23 AM EDT
- An outsider's view of US culture - Authored by: ubi on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 02:13 AM EDT
- I object to the tone - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 02:23 AM EDT
- An outsider's view of US culture - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 02:30 AM EDT
- Ain't it great? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 02:39 AM EDT
- An outsider's view of US culture - Authored by: Humphry on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 06:56 AM EDT
- Reminds me of a law suit. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 08:44 AM EDT
- An outsider's view of US culture - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 09:14 AM EDT
- If I may be so bold - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 10:08 AM EDT
- An outsider's view of US culture - Authored by: Toon Moene on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 04:35 PM EDT
- The US outside the inside - Authored by: cheros on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 08:40 PM EDT
- Another outsider's critique of that view - Authored by: vortex on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 04:00 PM EST
- I think your view is very narrow and judgemental - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 07:32 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 10:54 PM EDT |
Yes, PJ we can be hurt by words, particularly from those whom we admire and
respect.
May I gently and as gentilly as I know how, suggest not attributing ill will to
all participants in a long discussion with which one happens to disagree to your
covenants? Nor reading malice into strident arguments in unmoderated fora which
could never hope to reach the level of civility to which you here aspire?
-- TWZ
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bobmatnyc on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 10:54 PM EDT |
Agree completely. The whole troll/flame thing has gotten out of hand. The
words have no more meaning, and simply dehumanize everyone -- especially the
poster.
--b[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Groklaw Lurker on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 10:54 PM EDT |
It is sad that you should be impelled to publish such sound and fundamental
advice on conduct that each of us should adopt without thought upon any decision
to post here.
I am as guilty as any though as, from time to time, in spite of my best efforts
I find myself drawn into controversy with either a troll, or perhaps, some well
intentioned but uninformed soul.
Nevertheless, I do try not to malign anyone or debase myself by name calling.
Thanks PJ, for this well written article.
---
(GL) Groklaw Lurker
End the tyranny, abolish software patents.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 10:57 PM EDT |
I know I clown around too much but I saw a post the other
night that seemed quite threatening to you on here. It was
of course deleted soonest and my reply to that post was
short and silly and not mean spirited but I could easily
understand if others had been more defensive. Anyway, that's
the only one quite like it I've seen but I'm sure there are
many more I've missed, making what you say here that much
more remarkable, and admirable. I'll behave. I promise.
(Nice Alligator - pet pet)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 11:06 PM EDT |
Read the transcript of the Compuware v IBM hearing
A "can't find it" comment, does appear in that transcript of that
hearing (of course it's not about AIX but something else entirely)
I note that the eyewitness comments on the Wells hearing in SCO v IBM, don't
include any mention of a similar comment, so it seems to me highly plausible
that there was no such comment. Of course, I accept this is not definitive
(just plausible) without a transcript, which we may see someday or we may never
see.
Anyway here is a possible theory (grounded in nothing more than speculation) -
if we accept for a moment that there was no "can't find it" comment in
Wells' hearing for SCO v IBM.
Given Ms O'Gara's article talks about Compuware v IBM, as well as SCO v IBM - is
it possible that she, her source, or someplace along the line, the "can't
find it comment" got detached from her report of Compuware v IBM, and
somehow became attached to her report of SCO v IBM ?
One need not attribute any malice to Ms O'Gara for this theory to explain
events. It could simply be an error. It could be an error by her source. It
could be a failure in communication somewhere between her and her source, or
elsewhere along the line. etc
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 11:06 PM EDT |
I generally give people the benifit of the doubt. For example, I think Rob E,
and Daniel Lyons OK people. I recently defended Merkey on Groklaw.
But I over the years, MOG seems to me like a person without morals. She often
misrepresents the truth. She has hurt people badly and she never appologizes.
She is smart enough to understand how bad it is to tell lies but she still does
it.
My guess is that when the transcript comes out, her response will be "old
news."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 11:19 PM EDT |
Ode to American English
I was missing English one day, American, really,
with its pill-popping Hungarian goulash of everything
from Anglo-Saxon to Zulu, because British English
is not the same, if the paperback dictionary
I bought at Brentano's on the Avenue de l'Opera
is any indication, too cultured by half. Oh, the English
know their dahlias, but what about doowop, donuts,
Dick Tracy, Tricky Dick? With their elegant Oxfordian
accents, how could they understand my yearning for the hotrod,
hotdog, hot flash vocabulary of the U. S. of A.,
the fragmented fandango of Dagwood's everyday flattening
of Mr. Beasley on the sidewalk, fetuses floating
on billboards, drive-by monster hip-hop stereos shaking
the windows of my dining room like a 7.5 earthquake,
Ebonics, Spanglish, "you know" used as comma and period,
the inability of 90% of the population to get the past perfect:
I have went, I have saw, I have tooken Jesus into my heart,
the battle cry of the Bible Belt, but no one uses
the King James anymore, only plain-speak versions,
in which Jesus, raising Lazarus from the dead, says,
"Dude, wake up," and the L-man bolts up like a B-movie
mummy, "Whoa, I was toasted." Yes, ma'am,
I miss the mongrel plentitude of American English, its fall-guy,
rat-terrier, dog-pound neologisms, the bomb of it all,
the rushing River Jordan backwoods mutability of it, the low-rider,
boom-box cruise of it, from New Joisey to Ha-wah-ya
with its sly dog, malasada-scarfing beach blanket lingo
to the ubiquitous Valley Girl's like-like stuttering,
shopaholic rant. I miss its quotidian beauty, its querulous
back-biting righteous indignation, its preening rotgut
flag-waving cowardice. Suffering Succotash, sputters
Sylvester the Cat; sine die, say the pork-bellied legislators
of the swamps and plains. I miss all those guys, their Tweety-bird
resilience, their Doris Day optimism, the candid unguent
of utter unhappiness on every channel, the midnight televangelist
euphoric stew, the junk mail, voice mail vernacular.
On every boulevard and rue I miss the Tarzan cry of Johnny
Weismueller, Johnny Cash, Johnny B. Goode,
and all the smart-talking, gum-snapping hard-girl dialogue,
finger-popping x-rated street talk, sports babble,
Cheetoes, Cheerios, chili dog diatribes. Yeah, I miss them all,
sitting here on my sidewalk throne sipping champagne
verses lined up like hearses, metaphors juking, nouns zipping
in my head like Corvettes on Dexadrine, French verbs
slitting my throat, yearning for James Dean to jump my curb.
by Barbara Hamby, from Babel © University of Pittsburgh Press.
you can listen to this at: http://writersalmanac.publicradio.org/[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Flower on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 11:19 PM EDT |
We'll all band together in unity and brotherly love and forsake terms like
Didiot and Erduhle thus entering a new era where we take them to task on the
actual issues sans name calling? Honestly, isn't the factual pummelling
satisfying enough?
Yeah, I could get into that. Or have I gone too far....
And yes, I do admit it doesn't happen all that much here (the search for Didiot
proves that) but step onto the Yahoo discussions and I'm singing "It's
another content free.... web posting!" to Hakuna Matata. Well I do that on
/. too however there it happens so much my son and I start dancing to the tune.
But I believe that's more than any of you want to know.
---
You make me out to be responsible for your self-inflicted misery. - "Faceless"
Godsmack[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sleadley on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 11:23 PM EDT |
It's your house PJ (and crew). The Groklaw party that you are hosting is an
wonderful contribution to Linux and FOSS. Watching and learning as uncertainty
is uprooted with facts and intelligent commentary makes this party worth
attending. So far most of the guests have been well behaved. Please continue to
insist that people attending the party be civil. You may have to repeat yourself
when large waves of newcomers arrive.
My own appeal is for every poster
to behave like we were face-to-face at a real party. Enraged screaming and knife
brandishing (or the online equivalent) seriously diminishes your social appeal
and ruins the party for everyone around you. Don't do it. If you truly must
insult someone, please do it with class. For example, don't just call Senator
Hatch a drooling idiot, use the senatorial form and commiserate on the
day-to-day trials associated with the distinguished Senior Senator from Utah's
spongiform encephalopathy symptoms. Add a pun or literary reference. Amuse the
rest of us while you get that weight off your chest.
--- Scott Leadley [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bobn on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 11:23 PM EDT |
Even if we cast the most negative possible interpretation on what has
happened, is she not still a fellow human worthy of the dignity we all should
accord one another?
Maybe this applies to MOG, tho I doubt it. What she
wrote was very wrong-headed. But lets look at a different case: are we required
to accord Darl or Sontag or Stowell or Hatch or K. McBride "the dignity we all
should accord one another"? I think not. Most on the SCO side are incredibly
dishonest. And I think that MOG may well be on that side, tho I concede it's
still not certain.
Not everybody deserves our respect no matter what the
dialog. I don't want to break Godwin's corollary, but you know what I mean, and
I rate the SCO-scum up in the same realm of dishonesty, if not the
horror. --- IRC: irc://irc.fdfnet.net/groklaw
the groklaw channels in IRC are not affiliated with, and not endorsed by,
either GrokLaw.net or PJ. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: etmax on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 11:49 PM EDT |
According to US statisticians around 10-30% (average) of everything we do (while
doing something we do daily!!) is an error causing mishap and/or injury.
That is a frighteningly large error rate, and warrants serious consideration by
us all. Good on you PJ for reminding us.
I am however very saddened by the additional fact that many people will state
something verbally that they actually KNOW is incorrect and will farm it off as
fact/truth for no other reason than to support their arguments/ends.
How easy life would be if we had a lightglobe on our foreheads that flashed
everytime the latter applied.
We don't have a lightglobe, so in it's absence let's remain civil giving others
the benefit of doubt, and continuing to publish the truth, so that only the
truth and mistakes remain.
SHOUT THE TRUTH so that the whispers of lies are no longer heard.
That's my bit of philosophy for today.
---
Max - Melbourne Australia[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: caliboss on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 12:05 AM EDT |
Jerry Maguire's Mission
Statement
Worth a read. It wasn't read in it's entirety in the movie,
but Cameron Crowe did write it - probably as background. Even though it's
fiction, it's still interesting and truth-giving.
Is PJ=Don
Quixote?
Maybe. The trend on websites is in the other direction. The
incivility and rudeness of the Internet seems to reflect modern society...and
not just the USA. You could call war as being the extreme endpoint of
incivility....the ultimate uncivil behavior.
PJ's right, solid on target
with this article. It was a real wake-up call for me. We CAN be civil AND
disagree. We just don't try hard and are not called on it when we aren't. Rude
begets rude, flames beget flames. Neither begets truth, solutions or
resolution.
Don't get me wrong. We should call them as we seem them. but
even umpires don't say "Strike Three You Idiot".
I don't think I have ever
come across something like this before and it was ..... darn
refreshing...bracing ... inspiring.
Thank you.
--- Grok the Law /
Rock the World [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bliss on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 12:19 AM EDT |
I am starting to think PJ is a secret time traveler from
the Victorian era.
The desire for decorum is noble but in the land of Jerry
Springer, Howard Stern, and Janet Jackson's right breast I
think it is a lost cause.
Social observation aside, I'd like to talk about the
nonhuman aspect of this whole situation.
What we're really dealing with here are symbols SCOX,
MSFT, IBM, RHAT, NOVL, and maybe SUNW and some others
before this all plays through to the end.
These symbols represent companies. Each has a corporate
character which is the sum of the behaviors of its
management, board, stockholders, and so forth. Each is
born, lives for some period of time, and then perishes by
a variety of methods. The thing all publically held
companies have in common is that they are slaves to the
clock, producing certain results quarterly, or they cease
to exist. This compels them to behave in a fashion best
described as sociopathic.
Sociopaths have no regard for the well being of others.
It may suit their purposes to present as charming in a
given quarter, they may do things that appear to be
charitable and altruistic, but observation over a long
period of time will always show at best a distinct pattern
of disinterest in the well being of others and more
commonly actively malignant activity.
Publically held companies are artificial people and
they've achieved this status because they're allowed to
vote in the United States. I don't mean that SCOX or IBM
has an actual ballot; they and their kin vote via
financial pressure delivered to the U.S. Congress through
political action committees.
What party ideology do these artificial people follow?
Some would jump and say "Republican" but I think this is a
true human institution and it is merely an accident that
the Republican party better serves their goals at the
moment. The artificial corporate people vote the party
line of sociopathic behavior and their quarterly slavery,
slowly eroding civil liberty, piling on crushing
workloads, and attempting to convert all humans into
slaves.
The seminal thought behind this is someone else's and
I've not paid close enough attention to know whom to
credit, but lets take this argument at face value and
extend our consideration to Groklaw, the Yahoo stock
board, and other venues where parties interested in SCOX
vs the world gather to discuss the situation at hand.
We know there is a professional astroturf campaign afoot.
Sometimes we see blatant trolls, other times we see
seemingly reasonable arguments that are persistently and
subtly wrong, and some times trolls suddenly take on the
guise of someone reasonable and thoughtful. All of these
creatures are proxies for the voiceless, sociopathic
corporation. Are they human in the sense of deserving the
consideration PJ tells us should characterize our
interaction with others?
We know there are FOSS loyalists on the loose. Their
position is different than their corporate slave
counterpart but their behavior is no better. As a
loathesome FOSS troll on Yahoo I feel I have the right to
make this statement :-) Am I, when pursuing various SCOX
shills with my razor sharp pen, deserving of this human
treatment that PJ values so highly?
How is the FOSS community and its institutions different
than the corporate sociopathic personalities? This is the
seed crystal I wish to cast into the Groklaw solution. I
know my answer to this query but I desire to find out if
I'm having a vision or merely a hallucination.
-bliss
---
Information becomes fragmented, knowledge does not. What causes fragmentation in
information is scholasticism - Ramitani[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 12:31 AM EDT |
Well, like Rodney King, why can't we just all get along? It doesn't mean you
give up getting along, but you can't be blinkered, either. Sometimes the fight
is forced upon you. Here are two examples.
(1) In my state, during the Republican Party primary for the U.S. Senate this
year, one Republican candidate accused his Republican opponent, completely
without basis, of being a part of the "radical homosexual agenda." It
worked. The polls turned, and the opponent was defeated. Yet the opponent was
also one of the U.S. House managers who led the effort to impeach Clinton, and
the opponent isn't gay.
(2) A former co-worker of mine is a lesbian. Good hearted and a near genius IQ.
She was falsely accused of sexual harassment by another woman. She was placed
under covert surveillance in the office for several months, but no evidence
supporting the accusation was found. Her unbalanced accuser was eventually
fired. However, my former co-worker has since been enduring attempted sabotage
of her work. She has been told by the company's top executives, to her face,
that they believed the accusations against her, even though no evidence could be
found. They hadn't known she was gay. They also pretend to be Christians. Some
people have since told her they are praying for her to get right with God. So
far she has survived, but she is taking a psychological pounding. If she
complains, they tell her she is being "negative." I'm a straight male,
and I'm all she's got. The love of her life was killed some years ago, and she's
still mourning that, so she has no gay friends to fall back on. Recently she
called me, from a pay phone, after the end of her work week on a Saturday
afternoon, and she talked, standing at that pay phone, for 10 hours.
Sorry, I'm not in the mood to be civil to people who deliberately inflict this
kind of pain. And I see the personality of Darl McBride in all of these
perpetrators.
You can afford to be civil when a Judge Kimball is around. When there isn't,
you'd better be ready.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Rather naive - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 03:06 AM EDT
- Rather naive - Authored by: Rudisaurus on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 03:48 AM EDT
- Interesting post - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 09:17 AM EDT
|
Authored by: llanitedave on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 12:43 AM EDT |
I know I need one from time to time.
---
Of course we need to communicate -- that goes without saying![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: chris_bloke on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 12:58 AM EDT |
Sadly I don't have time to write very much, asides from a
resounding
"hear hear!".
Taking a purely utilitarian view I believe that
the more emotional an argument becomes the less likely
anyone is going to
change their opinion. They feel they
(or their fellow like-minded people) are
being attacked
and that makes them want to stick together even more
strongly.
Chris, Melbourne, Vic, AU, Earth, Sol System, Postcode 42.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Buddha Joe on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 12:59 AM EDT |
DMCA DEALT
SERIOUS BLOW BY SIXTH CIRCUIT APPEALS COURT --- The only stupid
question is the one never asked [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: codswallop on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 01:15 AM EDT |
A large part of the recent unpleasantness arose from some possibly spurious Jeff
Merkey posts. We'll never know the truth of this, but if he was impersonated, he
has a right to be angry.
To prevent this sort of thing from happening again, I propose that any anonymous
(or otherwise questionable) post supposedly from a controversial figure be
deleted along with its children. Replacing it would be a message saying such a
post was received, but site policy required deletion, and the author should
submit comments by some authenticated procedure (whatever PJ wants to use).
The idea of this is to avoid charges of censoring opposing views, while
preventing malicious impersonations. I'm afraid otherwise this mess will give
trolls a new way to cause trouble.
---
IANAL This is not a legal opinion.
SCO is not a party to the APA.
Discovery relevance is to claims, not to sanity.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: geoff lane on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 01:34 AM EDT |
A lot of the apparent problem comes from the example of broadcast news. It
seems that good TV and radio consists of two or more people with fixed ideas
screaming at each other. This drives out more reasonable discussion which could
actually cause the viewer/listener to think.
On the net, we miss all of the visual clues that help moderate conversations and
the result can be a discussion that drifts into irrational name calling and
rants.
As for our favourite pundits, hate the sin, love the sinner, is a pretty good
starting point.
---
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 01:47 AM EDT |
I couldn't agree more !
Even the most henious villains believe they are doing what they must. They may
require legal response, and even jail time, but they are still human. Thank you
sweet PJ for spreading truth and love ! Reasonable humans like you remain the
only thing between us and anarchy.
djp[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 01:47 AM EDT |
Thank you PJ for reminding us (even applies to us non-us citisens tho) that we
are and should be representative of the good side; not vilianize ourselves
through our sharp togues; I for one am sick of reading articles pointing to
existing zealotry in our comunity (even though its minimal). This is a bad image
we need to shake off like a dead skin. WE need to come across as the
calculated, reasonable individuals that we shure all are.
Thanks again
Pierre[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ShawnX on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 01:52 AM EDT |
I really hope we can see you in that red dress soon :-)
perhaps when we get closer to the end of this fiaSCO, you
can take a picture of the red dress (I'm thinking its
shimmering in sparkles :-)
Shawn. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Pat Pending on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 02:04 AM EDT |
A little humour, if it's not crude or cruel? I live to lampoon.
---
Thanks again,[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- What about - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 04:15 AM EDT
- You mean... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 07:05 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Greebo on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 02:06 AM EDT |
I agree completely PJ. Thanks for reminding us all.
I wouldn't try
suggesting this on Slashdot though!
:)
Greebo. --- -----------------------------------------
Recent Linux Convert and Scared Cat Owner [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: voxclamatis on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 02:15 AM EDT |
I am posting 12 hours after PJ published this screed, and I am so proud
of us all. Those who were annoyed, put-off or in disagreement were
able to express themselves in complete English sentences, with nary an
ad hominem attack on PJ or other posters. See? We can do this. And it
actually clarifies points, refines our understanding of each other, and
leaves us more open to learning a nuanced truth in the future.
Well done, folks!
-vox[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Scriptwriter on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 02:28 AM EDT |
When I was hanging out on baseball boards, where emotions tend to run high at
times, I would occasionally dispense a couple of pieces of wisdom, which were
usually ignored:
"Keep your words short and sweet, in case you have to eat them
later."
"Be kind to the people you meet as you're going up the ladder. They'll be
the ones in position to step on your toes on your way down."
and
"Be careful what you say. Once you say something, you can never un-say
it."
---
Eat a live toad first thing every morning and nothing worse will happen to
either of you all day.
irc.fdfnet.net #groklaw -- RIP Moogy 1951-2004[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 02:55 AM EDT |
Full support from here. Name-calling isn't any use - for either part. Tempting
as it may be, acting out anger primarily digs trenches.
Removing wrathful
comments and keeping a good style makes Groklaw a better read. Keep up the
editorial line, PJ!
-Henrik [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: CraigRinger on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 03:14 AM EDT |
I would find your comments a little easier to take
seriously if not for your articles on Sun a while ago. In
my opinion they were over the top and simply not
appropriate, so seeing this story posted is ...
interesting.
I'm increasingly puzzled by Groklaw. On one hand, the
banner says:
"IANAL. I am a journalist with a paralegal background..."
and many of the stories are written in journalistic style
- mentioning references, making a clear distinction
between opinion and "fact"[1], etc.
On the other hand, some stories seem to me to be pure
personal opinion, sometimes very strongly stated personal
opinion, and little is done to distinguish these from the
more technically styled articles. While I would expect any
intelligent person to be able to do so, it would be
preferable not to have to.
Some articles also mix news presentation with personal
opinion. Again, any person with a decent amount of common
sense should be able to tell the difference.
Unfortunately, it seems many people can't[2], and given
the wide readership Groklaw has these days it seems wise
to make things clear-cut where possible.
Any decent newspaper[3], recognizing that it is seen as a
reputable and authoritative source of information[4],
marks opinion pieces as just that.
Of course, any news story is opinion to some extent. The
day I see a journalist who doesn't have any conscious or
unconscious personal bias, I think I'll die of shock. The
mark of a good journalist, in my opinion, is a decent
ability to separate opinion from "fact" or news while
recognizing that there's rarely a clear line between the
two.
What I'm getting at here is that I'd be more comfortable
personally if Groklaw chose to clearly mark opinion pieces
and separate opinion from news where possible. The Sun
pieces are in my opinion illustrative of where that was
missing and why it's important.
--
Craig Ringer
[1] Whatever that's supposed to mean
[2] Comments such as "The only common thing about common
sense is the common lack of it" [paraphrased] come to
mind. If anybody knows the authorative form and source of
said quote, I'd be delighted to hear it. I've seen that
and similar quotes attributed to Mark Twain, Voltaire, and
several others but was unable to locate any authorative
source.
[3] They exist. Really. I think I've found three. I'm not
counting the one I work at - it's not too bad, but hardly
serious quality.
[4] Whether this perception is sensible or accurate is not
relevant - the perception exists and is widespread, so
good papers act accordingly. Some people have apparently
never learned that one should not believe everything one
reads. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 03:17 AM EDT |
"Here's what I do know. If the transcript reveals that what Ms. O'Gara
wrote was not accurate, she will absolutely report it honestly. I sincerely
believe that."
hehe.. hey PJ, nice set up. :D[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 03:22 AM EDT |
Pamela,
I am for the new civility as long as you hold yourself to the same standard you
wish everyone else to follow. You can point out the inconsistancies in Darl
McBride's claims and foibles in his ongoing case against IBM, et al., and
disagree with every FUD published by SCO Group, Microsoft, Forbes, etcetera, but
you cannot you, yourself, cannot use language that debases any of these muckey
mucks and their patsies just because they may have a point of view which can be
highly irritating, extremely debatable, utterly and ridiculously contemptable,
downright infuriating, seemingly moronic or even merely detestable.
Yes, many of of us in the community have pretty much made up our minds about all
the players in this ever widening wildfire which refuses to extinguish itself
nor be satisfied with mere self containment, spreading or popping up into other
fields hitherto feared or as yet unimagined like hot ashes or smoldering embers
carried by the wind away from the main conflagration and become flashpoints in
and of themselves. Civility is practically a defenstrated custom in our feckless
and media sated society. The supreme irony of which I relish in at this moment
is that the touchstone of uncivility and crass and bawdy behaviour in US
culture, radio morning shoe broadcaster Howard Stern, is complaining heavily
about all the trash talking on the internet community bulletin board on his
website, so much that he has to censor and delete postings and ban people from
the site because of their behaviour. Yes, behaviour is a problem, and trying to
curb problamitic uncourteous dialogue on forums such as these is trying. Many of
us will comply with your wishes, dear Pamela, but there will always be the
unwashed few who have not a damper switch within, and will spew forth what is
immediately on their minds forthwith, damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!
Taking the high road and continuing the debate in an acceptable perceived
civilised manner will win more converts than the invective insults and low
comments from ultra zealots, paranoid basement dwellers and perfectly normal
stable regular citizenry who in the passion of the moment let fly the emotional
epithet that drags the ongoing debate from the enlightened table to the topless
mud wrestling arena of the rest of the unwashed internet community.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 03:37 AM EDT |
I remember seeing a comment on the internet an its endless opportunities for
anonymity - can't remeber the source though:
"They're not exercising their right to freedom of speech - they're taking
advantage of the opportunity to say whatever they want without getting smacked
in the face."
Sums it up rather nicely, I think - certainly explains a lot about the noise
level at /. and Yahoo. In a way, it's similar to the one tribe in "Lord of
the Flies": As soon as the boys started donning masks, they could commit
the most atrocious acts with impunity. Ah, anonymity...
:-) *pnd*
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ak on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 03:51 AM EDT |
I don't want any mean-spirited comments on Groklaw. ... I wish to
say that I don't believe that such speech is helpful.
I do agree
with that.
However, nothing makes it all right, in my view, to
diminish the dignity of another human, to call them "trash", for example, as I
saw someone do to the editor of LinuxWorld.
Sorry, but that
comment is absolutely not representative for the comments which were left
on the LinuxWorld website. Most of the comments were very civil regarding the
content of the article published under the name of Maureen O'Gara.
The editors
have not reacted to critisism in the past. They had months to prevent
further slanderous articles by Maureen O'Gara from beeing published on their
website and they either did not use that time or the situation at SYS-CON is
hopeless.
As far as Ms. O'Gara is concerned, Groklaw has on more
than one occasion written that she is a very good reporter. She
is.
I strongly disagree with that opinion. She has repeatedly
published wrong accusations and has not withdrawn them or apologised. I do not
believe anything she writes.
As long as it is not proven I do not even
believe that she asked the court to unseal the transcript. The reason is simple:
if it is unsealed it can not prove her position because the reading of the
sealed mail would be redacted.
She was the first reporter to tell
the world that SCO had hired David Boies and that Linux was on their
radar.
So what? Maybe she was the first SCO-shill. That is hardly
an accomplishment. Probably she has had relations with SCO for a long
time.
As far as I'm concerned, if she wants to keep writing about
SCO from her point of view, that is her right.
This is not about
her "point of view" but about her ignorance of facts.
It's less
likely, but until the transcript is available, we don't know yet for sure. I
don't think it's right to say more than you know. The simple truth is, we don't
yet know 100% and we can't until the transcript is
unsealed.
Maureen O'Gara has written that the hearing was about a
"Third Amended Complaint". We already know 100% that this is wrong. Let
me point out that your position now is very similar to the position put forward
by Darl McBride. He also is refering to sealed documents which allegedly prove
that Linux violates the rights of SCO.
While I am convinced that Darl McBride's
intentions are fraudulent I have no doubt that you have good
intentions.
Here's what I do know. If the transcript reveals that
what Ms. O'Gara wrote was not accurate, she will absolutely report it honestly.
I sincerely believe that.
There is no basis for that assumption.
She has been proven wrong in the past and has not reported that.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 04:01 AM EDT |
Of course you are right that abusing another person is a bad thing to do.
But
there is a danger that your comments will lead to mealy-mouthed, wishy-washy,
muddied discourse.
It is wrong to call your opponent an idiot. But if what
your opponent has said is nonsense, it is perfectly in order to call it
nonsense, and to state why.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 04:32 AM EDT |
is so much more useful and has so much more style that a club.
I think responses should take an argument apart like a scalple possibly with
rapier like wit.
JayDee not logged in.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 05:49 AM EDT |
What about Groklaw's recent article "Satan to Launch Own
Website - A Parody" (in response to SCO's plans to put up
their own propaganda site to "counter" Groklaw)? Even
though it was clearly labeled parody, it struck me as
offensive. It reminds me of the old Godwin's law from
usenet where anyone who brought up Hitler or the Nazis
automatically was considered to have lost the argument. I
would put a comparison to Satan in the same category?
OT - I just had an interesting thought. I wonder if
Godwin's law is recursive. That is, by even mentioning
it, does one invoke it and thereby invalidate one's
argument? Does anyone know of any discussion-group "case
law" on the subject? ;) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 06:09 AM EDT |
Reckoned she might. Given the trash you've been spouting about her and SCO
employees, it was only a matter of time before someone called your bluff.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Hydra on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 06:27 AM EDT |
Since the sub-thread contained more than just the initial comment on Merkey,
not to mention some of the posters of that sub-thread may wonder where it
went...
See here: How One Human Should Talk to A
Merkey.
(Of course, if the disappearance of said thread was a result
of moderation, then this post can be deleted as well. Given the fact that the
posts are still available, I assume this not to be the case. I do not mean to
overrule you in any way PJ.)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 06:58 AM EDT |
... that knows no bounds... Absolutely revolting.
When I read this
"request" of hers I wanted to get sick all over the floor.
It's ok for HER
to label a devoutly religious man (and, whatever you or I might think of Darl,
he has said numerous times that he is, in fact, a devoutly religious Mormon) as
Satan
and call it "parody" instead of one of the meanest spirited things I have ever
read on the Internet.
Hey, PJ, it's your website. Just don't demand a level
of civility or maturity from others that you yourself refuse to or are unable to
show.
Oh, by the way, I am not affiliated with SCO in any sense of the word
and happen to think that what they are doing is disgusting, too... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 07:00 AM EDT |
Like it or not there are different classes of society.
Numerous different classes besides the traditional high, middle, and low. But!
That definition does suffice for this discussion.
Generally one may consider that the high went to elite schools and learned one
set of social pose including vocabulary and grammar.
The middle went to state sponsored schools learning a different set.
While the low learned street jive.
Now if one wants to talk to Joe Truck-Driver then one is going to have to speak
the language of Joe Truck-Driver which the high brows of elitism will certainly
find offensive.
If on the other hand one uses the appropriate language for socially debutants
then one is going to find that Joe Truck-Driver is not going to understand a
word that is said.
Thus for a site like this where all three classes are mixed in an equalitarian
form one would expect that the language to be a lot more dynamitic and offensive
than has traditionally existed here.
Mostly likely the reason is that PJ deletes the Slashdot level 4 and 5 as being
to rude for presentation.
As far as changing the situation consider that the upper cultural class most
likely constitutes 1 to 2% of population, the middle 20 to 30% leaving at least
70% in the lower class.
If one thinks that 1 to 2% of population or even 20 to 30% is going to control
70% then one is making as big a social blunder as the European monarchs did in
the 19Th century and we can see where there heads wound up.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: blacklight on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 07:18 AM EDT |
My attitude is that of course words are important and have meaning and impact:
you motivate people to go to war using words. You instill your convictions in
others using words. And you get at the truth using words.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: blacklight on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 07:47 AM EDT |
I have participated in forums where anything goes: my attitude is that I don't
care who gets hurts, whose tender ego gets smashed and whose agenda is shredded
as long as we get to the truth. I am not going to cater to the sensibilities of
every ninny or winnie whose roughest experience was being a member of his or her
high school debating team. There are a lot more obscene things in the world that
we take for granted on an every day basis, such as people dying of starvation
and disease, such as people killing, maiming and torturing others over religion
and whatnot.
We are not a high school debating society, and we are dealing with unscrupulous
corporate types who will do and say anything to further their agenda - as they
have demonstrated time and again. This is the real world: this is not the world
of "Cleaver" and "My Father Knows Best". In the real world,
you don't win merely because you are in the right: if you want to win, then you
must fight like it or not and at times you must fight like a junkyard dog. We
have been fair, and we are fair: that's what any human being is entitled to. And
that must be enough, because I am not willing to give anything more.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 07:57 AM EDT |
Moin, moin
Sticks and stones
Will break my bones
But words will break my heart.
SiW
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 08:19 AM EDT |
I agree that there is no point in insults. But, it may not hurt to have our eyes
open to the fact that some people really do have an agenda to mislead.
I do not think Maureen O'Gara is a good reporter, and I do not trust her at all.
These were not Maureen's first grossly misleading statements. In fact, grossly
misleading may be an understatement, these may be deliberate, and hurtful,
outright lies.
Why is Maureen not being honest? Simple bias, and mistakes. I don't think so.
There is a pattern here.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: shareme on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 08:47 AM EDT |
I should add this note..
When the first article by Maureen with all the fact errors appeared I started a
polite and diplomatic email conversation with Maureen asking what legal court
documents and the exact paragraphs are that support her factual statement inthe
article..
Given the bofuscated resposne from Maureen I do not belive the Hpoe by PJ is a
valid one..
not to put Maureen's reporting skills in bad light ..but you have to remember
that Maureen got her start in Unix reporting when it was cool to pit one company
against the other in print... that is not the case now especially with Linux
companies working together towards common goals while making money..its a
different style of competition entirely..and most Journalists do not understand
it..
---
Sharing and thinking is only a crime in those societies where freedom doesn't
exist.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 09:51 AM EDT |
Personally I think that discusion devolves into personal attacks when one side
disagrees with the point of contention, but can not think of a argument to prove
there side. So attacking the other person is doing something. In the end it is
pointless as it does not make yopur side any more valid.
This is one of the things I dislike about politics, they will attack the
character of the other side because they can't find logical fault with there
platfomr. This may be because all the candidates platforms are so close to
gether you can't tell one from the other. They seem to think that by having
simular platforms it comes down to a popularity contest and media spin aposed to
real discusion on real issues.
The other thing that I have noticed in canadian politics is the media tends to
cover national politics from the point of view of the region they are reporting
in. So the issues get slanted to be favorable to the region that it is brodcast
in, is this fair and unbiased reporting? or just another case of marketing at
work to provide the largest viewer ship posible?
-----------
Robert Babiak
Blog.codesmyth.com[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: blacklight on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 10:23 AM EDT |
"Have Americans forgotten how to disagree without being disagreeable?"
PJ
Thomas Jefferson, to his credit, made sure that freedom of the press was a fact
of life in America even though he was vilified in the press on a daily basis in
terms that we would not use today. The anti-slavery debate in this country was
conducted with enough rancor to end in our Civil War, to this day the deadliest
war to Americans that Americans ever fought. The question is not whether we
Americans have ever forgotten but whether we had ever learned in the first place
- and also whether to disagree without being disagreable is always a realistic
option under all circumstances. My attitude is that the question is rethorical
and pointless.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 10:36 AM EDT |
The problem is that in these days of 24/7 reporting, people have forgotten to
"sleep on it". You should never write something when you're upset,
angry, whatever. And even if you write it, do not send/publish it until the next
day - this will give you time to cool down, relax, and put your arguments
together much better. It will usually also result in a much more civil reply.
I realize that this may mean a story or reply will not be "first seen on
this site", but I for one don't mind waiting a bit longer if it means the
reply is civilized and well argued.
Thank you for pointing out that we should all be civilized - I hope everyone
will take it to heart, and continue to argue the case/facts instead of letting
their emotions run wild. This site is great, and although I too think that
you've sometimes let your emotions get the best of you, it's a mistake we all
make sometimes. The very best anyone can do is to realize it, and try to not let
it happen again :).
To PJ and all the Groklaw voulenteers - keep up the excellent work :) ![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: blacklight on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 10:42 AM EDT |
"Have Americans forgotten how to disagree without being disagreeable?"
PJ
Darl the Snarl has called us "Linux thieves" and "Linux
bandits", even as he is trying to steal that which does not belong to him.
Is there a way to disagree with people who call us thieves and bandits without
being disagreable? Even posing the question sounds loony![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 10:49 AM EDT |
I am human and as such do not think I may know when I step over the line each
time. PJ may also err at some point. PJ will listen to reason and if any of us
feel that unfairly treated is free to start our own blog.
This is censorship, with an aim to remove the effects of destructive emotions,
in an effort to promote civility and reduce the facts to truth. These are
worthy aims, although the price of civility must often be paid in blood. I
applaud PJ efforts to husband civility through discourse that preserves
civility.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 11:17 AM EDT |
Hopefully there are others besides 'Hawks' and 'Pigeons', like the Gnu : minding
it's own business, but when sufficiently provoked capable of doing serious
damage to an attacking predator. (Okay, so maybe a waterbuffalo is a better
example, but I just couldn't resist this one ;-)
Alex_s (forgot password, grrr)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Dave Cattran on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 01:29 PM EDT |
When I read this request from PJ, I was reminded of an article from ArsTechnica
(which itself references a more detailed article):
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20040924-4230.html
It talks about how non-mainstream news and advocacy sites tend to use people's
full names a lot more, as part of a strategy, whether conscious or unconcious in
their attack, whereas the newspaper tradition tends to use the last names only.
I think there is some power in a person's first name - it makes the things you
say about them more personal somehow. I don't know if that's good or bad, but I
think you'll see that it is true in PJ's posts on this site as well. Is it a
form of attack, or is it just a means of reminding us that people are personally
responsible for their actions? I'm not sure, but it does seem to distinguish
the types of reports seen on this website and many others from the colder, and
seemingly more factual (professional?) It makes me wonder if writing the
original posts in a little more detached style would help to set the tone away
from personal attacks even more.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 01:32 PM EDT |
I totally agree.
I also think it's wise to keep in mind that people to get very angry when
evidence surfaces (it hasn't in this instance, to my knowledge) that an
editorial opinion was bought, and the truth was hidden. I know I do, and I
sometimes find it difficult to maintain civility.
It's good to be reminded.
Thank you PJ![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Tyro on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 01:53 PM EDT |
That *could* be information showing that she's a good reporter, but there are
also other, less flattering, interpretations. E.g., it could show that she was
close to someone on the inside as SCO. This wouldn't make it any less news, but
it would clearly explain some of the bias that her "reporting" has
shown. (I put reporting in quotes because to me it has frequently seemed more
like PR work.)
OTOH, even if I accept that THAT is merely a good reporter taking advantage of
chance circumstances (and carefully not revealing their reason for bias), there
comes the matter of "reporting" on the contents of sealed documents.
I don't necessarily consider that a bad thing, by the way. There is much
evidence that documents are frequently sealed for political reasons. But that's
not what appears to be happening here, and she has given us no reason to suppose
that that is what's happening, even were we to believe her.
OTOH, the state of typical on-line reporting is such that I'm about as willing
to trust a comment on Slashdot as a story in the electronic media. So she's not
THAT far out of line with the times.
P.S.: I'm not really picking on the on-line media, it's just that they are
easier to check on. Whenever I've been able to check a story in the print media
(say I was on-site where the event being reported on happened) I have found the
media report to be so garbled as to be hardly recognizeable. Usually it seemed
to be carefully processed for entertainment value. (Look! San Francisco has
been flattened by an earthquake! [That was a shot of downtown Saratoga, if I
remember properly. Possibly somewhere close to it but smaller.]) And I'm not
just talking about disaster reporting, but the other cases you'll not have
remembered.
So reporter in general have earned a very low amount of respect in my book.
They don't worry much about accuracy, but only about how much things will sell.
(It may not be the reporters, but the editors, or someone else. I don't have
any inside information.)
Still, I've dropped my subscription to LinuxWorld, and I will not either
patronize or recommend any of their publications. They've proven a bit too
untrustworthy and biased. (And appearently it is more Sys-Con's fault than the
editors...though I only have their word on that.)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 01:57 PM EDT |
I had a comment pulled.
I called a BOOK "MBA jerk off material" because the BOOK was a list of
assets that Microsoft has. I used the availability of the item as evidence of a
web sites microsoft bias, because this book was the only one they offerred on
their front page.
I do not think that calling a BOOK "MBA jerk off material" is in any
way offensive. I now know that I was swept up in some kind of knee jerk
overreaction to ad hominem attacks in earlier posts in that article.
If calling a book "MBA jerk off material" will be censored in my
future posts, just let me know and I will take my donations and time else where.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: fred fleenblat on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 02:54 PM EDT |
Groklaw has gotten quite a bit more popular and attracted a different crowd of
people than it used to have. Articles have gone from having a few dozen comments
in the early days to sometimes close to 300 now. So, I think it would be
reasonable for PJ to start delegating some of the moderation duties to others.
This would allow her to put more time into her articles and research, and
perhaps reduce her dealing-with-annoying-trolls grief level a little bit.
Just a thought.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dirkoid on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 03:07 PM EDT |
PJ - I just wanted to say you're really cool.
Thanks for all your work![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 03:35 PM EDT |
Let me get this straight, it is okay to use terms like "didiot" but not call
reporters certain things like trash?
Madame, you jest.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Hmm - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 05:10 PM EDT
|
Authored by: RPN on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 04:17 PM EDT |
I agree with the comments on civility and language. This is tricky for what
offends one will not offend another but I feel on the whole this balance is
reasonable on Groklaw. In fact I have to say that I came to Groklaw about the
time I started doing much with forums at all and of quite a few I've given some
time to this is the only one I've kept with. The subject matter is the biggest
reason but I have to say its generally civil character is also a very big
reason.
Thinks to PJ for the opportunity and guidance and thanks to everyone else for at
least trying. On the whole we do maintain civil discourse and reasoned argument.
I will try to do my best to at least sustain that, hopefully build on it.
Richard
PS Silence, sometimes, is golden.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 07:41 PM EDT |
...there are times to call a spade a spade.
While I totally agree that the general level of discourse in a post should
provide some degree of enlightenment, there are times when questioning someones
motives is called for. While it is also generally understood that simply calling
someone names is simply "playground" tactics, providing supporting
evidence for an attack on a person is sometimes warranted.
Ms. O'Gara's article on the latest court proceedings showed very little evidence
of journalistic integrity. Questioning her motives and integrity is therefore
warranted. In fact Ms. O'Gara has shown very little desire to act in a
professional matter regarding this story. As a journalist I would expect that
she would take the time to personally check the "facts" she was given.
If she wasn't there, how is it that she "reported" on the proceedings
at all? It's also obvious that she reads Groklaw so she should have known where
to look for getting an "eye-witness" report. She could have contacted
PJ and asked for contact information for the eye-witnesses and interviewed them.
She didn't. She "reported" on something she had no personal knowledge
of and didn't look further than the information she was conveniently spoon fed.
In summary, at a certain level it is easy to have an agreeable disagreement with
someone. I do it all the time. However, sometimes a person expects a certain
level of professionalism especially when it occurs in a commercial setting(a
journalist). When that professionalism is nonexistant, questioning the motives
and integrity of the messager is a valid form of disagreement and argument. But
as I said at the beginning, calling someone names or attacking the messenger
without supporting evidence simply adds to the darkness not the light.
Gerald Gryschuk[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 08:04 PM EDT |
There's a depressingly real example of the loss of civility that PJ is
discussing at:
http://www.dailyrecycler.com/blog/2004/10/breakdown.html
Personally, I'm surprised MSNBC's host didn't order Lawrence O'Donnell's
camera and microphone shut down. It was that bad.
--Mike Perry,
Inkling blog , Seattle [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 08:14 PM EDT |
My initial reaction to this article is one of skepticism. I hope I am
proved
wrong. I have several problems with what was said.
Before starting, though,
I suspect that I should indicate one
component of my value system that is
perhaps different than PJ's. In
particular, I find it much more acceptable to
"insult" someone who can
be expected to see what I say and who has the
opportunity to respond
than I find it acceptable to insult someone who
essentially is "not
present." For example, here on Groklaw, I would find it more
acceptable
to denounce PJ than I would find it acceptable to denounce Bill
Gates
(for the same offense, that is - admittedly, though, it would be hard
to
find comparable offenses), because PJ is here to defend herself, and
Bill
Gates is not. I think that this view might be different than what
PJ would say -
although I don't think she spoke directly to the
question, one might conclude
that it is no big deal to call Bill Gates a
[whatever] here at Groklaw, because
Gates (let's presume) doesn't read
Groklaw, would never see the insult, and
hence would not have his
"feelings hurt."
Some specific points:
- To
the extent that the issue is "hurting people's feelings," I think
that the
emphasis on "bad language" is largely misplaced and is a
distraction from the
real issues. Language is largely a question of
class and ethnicity. Many folks
nowadays are raised in environments, and
have role models, where the norm is
language that some of us more
traditional folks might find to be way
out-of-bounds - just think of
"rappers" as role models, for example. I don't
think that one ought to
judge people based on the background that they are from.
While many may
have not found it easy, I think mainstream America has in large
part
accommodated this phenomena and people have found it in their hearts to
not
judge people on these grounds. I wish Groklaw would do the same.
While making a
request to refrain from profanity is fine and should be
respected by those who
find themselves capable of doing so, I don't
think that it makes sense to claim
that Groklaw will have tanked if and
when even a significant amount of profanity
survives PJ's delete key. I
also don't think that Groklaw shows any great
respect for the individual
when it chooses to delete a person's thoughts for a
slip-up in this
area.
- In my experience, people's feelings are hurt a
great deal more by
being treated with sarcasm or ridicule, or by being written
off and
ignored, than they are by being called names. Being called a name
is
easily discounted, and is rarely interpreted as meaning anything other
than
that two people are angry with one another. Sarcasm and ridicule,
on the other
hand, typically exploit people vunerabilities.
Insinuating or declaring
people to be "shills" of various institutions
is also popular here, including in
PJ's writings, I believe. That is a
very large attack on someone's character. If
I were a journalist, I
would be far more offended by such a claim than being
labeled by any
profanity term than I can think of. AdTI's Ken Brown, Dr.
Kooths,
Enderle, Didio, Lyons (and even the Forbes, the magazine deemed
by
Groklaw as a "porn" magazine for hosting him) come to mind,
among
others.
And, for it's "commentary" at least, Groklaw is nothing
if it isn't
sarcasm and ridicule. Sarcasm and ridicule are the major components
of
PJ's legendary "humor," I think.
- Ascribing the "troll" attribute to
people/posts is also a big
problem here. I know of no site that is as vicious in
its treatment of
"trolls," and where "trolls" frequently are simply dehumanized,
as is
the case here. Nor do I know of one that is so careless about
the
definition of who/what is called a troll, and where such "ganging up"
on
perceived "trolls" occurs. (These comments don't usually apply to
the
"trolls" section which now occur with most articles - in this section,
the
treatment is usually pretty good natured.) PJ is frequently
dismissive of nearly
all Groklaw critics as "trolls," and I don't think
that she has never bothered
to define what she means by the word. If a
definition is picked on the basis who
the term is applied to, it would
seem to encompass anyone who is critical of
something Groklaw says. By
frequent use of the term without ever defining it, PJ
implicitly
endorses this kind of definition.
From a how "humans treat
humans" point of view, I find the treatment of
"trolls" here to be about as bad
as anything that I have seen anywhere.
And, although it's possible that PJ has
deleted some "response to
trolls" posts, I have never actually been able to
detect such a
deletion, and there are certainly a large number of vicious
and
insulting responses that survive PJ's delete key even when it is clear
that
PJ has "been in the vicinity" because of comments by her or by
other deletions
in the area.
- I also don't think that Groklaw can be excused for put
downs simply
because the target is an abstraction of some sort. Things
like
corporations, Sun, Microsoft, and "proprietary software" are
disparaged
here by PJ on a fairly regular basis. People working at
corporations,
including Sun and Microsoft, and/or who have jobs that
involve
proprietary software, are not immune to such comments, and it
seems
obvious that a very large number of such people must fall victim to
the
insults generated here. And, criticizing Microsoft's business practices
is
one thing, but insisting that they have never done anything of
value and
that all of their work is simply terrible is
quite
another.
Although I applaud a discussion of treating people
as people, I still
think that focusing on profanity and "language" doesn't bring
all that
much to bear on the real problem. If the mistreatment of people
is
indeed the issue, then I think PJ needs to give a great deal more
thought to
mechanisms other than pejorative "name calling" - techniques
which are at least
equally potent in terms of hurtfulness - and must
make an effort to curtail
those as well, both in her writing and in her
use of the delete key (which, if
this issue is to be taken seriously,
needs to frequently be used even on posts
done by people who are
obviously pro-Groklaw).
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 08:30 PM EDT |
Extremely well said! We have become a very uncivil nation and the web and it's
anonymity have created a boldness in our uncivil attitudes. I am glad to see
you attempting to reign in the insulting.
Now, how would you like to take on the political campaigns :o) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: brian-from-fl on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 10:17 PM EDT |
Well, PJ, you created yet another a masterpiece. Your plea follows the first
part of this very good advice, and does so remarkably eloquently.
The second part of this very good advice is Truth, and your efforts ensure that
Groklaw follows that part also.
And so even though the Groklaw community gets a bit out of hand at times,
Groklaw is still the best example of how an on-line community can indeed talk
softly and carry a big and remarkably effective stick.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 28 2004 @ 01:51 AM EDT |
Civility is important, I agree.
However I see no basis for your defense of Maureen O'Gara.
A journalist who doesn't place facts before there own opinion has no value
whatsoever.
If Maureen O'Gara wasn't at the court, and completely mis-characterised the
hearing, then she should certainly lose her job, and indeed her career.
Who could trust her again?
We're very lucky with Groklaw that we have a network of people willing to ensure
the veracity of press reports. In any other case that a Maureen O'Gara might
report, the public doesn't have that wonderful luxury.
A lying reporter has absolutely no future, regardless of their deeds in the
past.
It might be scary to contemplate that you may have cost this person their
career, but the other option: to go softly on the worst crime a journalist can
commit?
The moral choice seems obvious to me, and in reporting these lies you've done
the right thing.
People should keep their cool, but the level of outrage seems entirely
appropriate to me.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 28 2004 @ 05:03 PM EDT |
Hear, hear! I wish the politicians felt the same way. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 29 2004 @ 08:24 AM EDT |
As someone who has been the recipient of a lot of less-than-kind comments just
by virtue of having a public face in the community, thank you for drawing that
line. Sometimes people engage in less-than-stellar rhetoric because they really
don't have a case---and if they do have a case and still engage in such
rhetoric, the rhetoric frequently obscures the case. That's not something that
should happen in the case of SCO (or any other issue we care about).... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 29 2004 @ 11:41 AM EDT |
As someone who has been the recipient of a lot of less-than-kind comments just
by virtue of having a public face in the community, thank you for drawing that
line. Sometimes people engage in less-than-stellar rhetoric because they really
don't have a case---and if they do have a case and still engage in such
rhetoric, the rhetoric frequently obscures the case. That's not something that
should happen in the case of SCO (or any other issue we care about).... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 29 2004 @ 11:44 AM EDT |
Apologies for the accidental repost! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 29 2004 @ 04:35 PM EDT |
When I choose to criticize, I characterize what was done, instead of
characterizing who did it.
It gives the doer a chance to fix mistakes. It acknowledges that learning and
reconciliation can take place even after the fact.
Some say people change, others say people never change. Avoid the whole issue
and address the acts, not the people. We can choose always to offer
reconciliation and hope our offer is accepted.
Ghandi went a long, long way with such a policy.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 29 2004 @ 05:10 PM EDT |
I've been reading Groklaw since just after week one, and this is only my second
time posting. I contribute so little to the community I have never felt it
neccessary to register for an account. This may change. One thing that I am
pleasantly surprised at the amount of information and the tireless (or is that
sleepless?) work that PJ and others have done to build the Groklaw databases.
For this, I must say thank you.
We owe PJ, the entire Groklaw community, and even those annoying trolls the
courtesy of following her request. At the same time, we must remember that the
forum we enjoy would not exist.
Thank you for reminding some of us to be civil, PJ. I will do my best to follow
your request.
I am just an
-Obnoxious Twit[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 29 2004 @ 07:37 PM EDT |
First let me say that I respect the acumen and ability that you have
demonstrated in building and maintaining this site. Even if I were not a Linux
advocate, I think that your efforts would be commendable. Even your opponents
would likely admit that a great deal of professionalism has been demonstrated in
your research, originally as a paralegal, and now as a web-based journalist. Or
rather, they would if they could set aside the emotions that your efforts stir
in them.
And that is why I tend to disagree. Your statement displays a naivete about the
importance of emotions in everything that we do. That naivete might be
intentional. However, "Why can't we all just get along?" is a old
question with only one answer. "We" don't want to. No matter how
many people think that a cool and rational discussion is the best course, there
are others that don't agree. Emotions are powerful weapons. "Right"
and "win" are emotionally charged words that work even when there is
no intellectual content to back them up. NOBODY has the patience to start from
"will it matter in a thousand years who wins?" or, even, "success
is not an option" and build up coldly and intellectually from there.
Living in a world where you don't matter and I don't matter, only the group
matters, is a life for ants and termites, not people. We live in that world any
way, we just never LOOK at it. That intentional blindness is necessary.
"Sticks and stones..." is a way of saying what should be, because the
way those words cause harm is to convince you to hurt yourself. If the same
ideas were expressed in a language you don't comprehend, there would be no harm.
"Sticks and stones..." is intended for children. Adults might be
better off considering that if the emotionally-charged accusation is true, then
we should accept it, and not be upset about it. If it false, then a
mean-spirited lie is contemptible, and should be brushed aside, or even
prosecuted (threats and slander are actionable).
None of which applies precisely to the situation in which these things occur,
however. After all, this is debate and rhetoric, which are emotional games, not
logic puzzles. Logical fallacies are the standard tools in these
"disciplines". The ad hominem attack is one of the most used because
it's triple edged. If you ignore it, the audience can jump to the conclusion
that if you don't deny it, then you admit it, and if you deny it, then at best
you get off-topic and waste time and energy arguing an irrelevancy. If it true,
you are completely discredited by a meaningless bit of trivia, just because it
is emotionally charged. The fact that you are a bad person does not mean that
you can't have good arguments, but you and your arguments have been thrown into
the same mental dumpster by the audience that you hoped to convince.
Finally, though this may all be too late, and too far down the list of comments
to elicit any response, I would like to offer this suggestion: rather that
deleting the posts that contain these offensive techniques, perhaps they should
be edited for content, leaving just the bare, and perhaps vacuous comment (along
with a notice that it has been edited), on the web-site. After all, I think
that one of the most important aspects of Groklaw is the community within a
community that it fosters. None of us could live in a community where emotion
didn't exist, we couldn't even live where emotion doesn't rule, but perhaps with
enough pressure from the community members, we can pass an ammendment that
adjusts the checks and balances between emotion, intellect, and plain, stubborn
fact.
DEaBla
Posted anonymously to make me easier to ignore. Heck, most of the time *I*
don't pay attention to what I say.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dirkoid on Saturday, October 30 2004 @ 12:49 PM EDT |
When I read your posting I thought they had only dumped Ms. O'Gara but it seems
as if they will not supply any content now. Hopefully this means the editors at
Linux World still have the choice to run articles from their sister pub, if not
perhaps we've done a disservice to the Linux community.
It would be sad indeed to have Ms. O'Gara change her viewpoint and then be
banned from publication, or to miss out on other articles because they caved in
on this issue.
Apparently I had the mistaken impression the first ammendment covered freedom of
speech and of the press. I hadn't realized it meant freedom only for what the
majority want to hear. What was that about the Dixie Chicks?
Sigh...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|