decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Clarifying the Record on Blocking Comments on LBW & SCO Grabbing Docs Update
Tuesday, March 29 2005 @ 12:23 PM EST

I have gotten some email about something posted on LinuxBusinessWeek, which reads as follows:

We have been removing certain feedback entries and disabling feedback sections of LBW stories from time to time to honor Ms. Pamela Jones' direct requests to LBW editorial department. We will be more than happy to display all feedback on all stories which are currently disabled.

- LinuxBusinessWeek.com Off Hours Site Editor

Let me be clear. I never asked them to disable feedback sections. Never. There have been three occasions in the last few months when I have asked that one particular slanderous remark about me be removed. On the third occasion, I mentioned that I believed it was the same individual each time, and I suggested they block that particular individual or whoever they determined was responsible for the slander. I have never asked that all feedback to all the articles -- or to any of the articles -- be disabled. I wonder how many times I have had to correct the facts for these people? Too bad there is no equivalent to airline frequent flyer miles, but for fact corrections instead. I could fly to Paris. No, Australia.

Additionally, on the third occasion, someone left a comment mentioning that I had been asked by Sys-con to do a streaming video segment and that I had refused. While it is true that I declined the offer, as I decline all such offers, I never mentioned to a soul that I had been asked to do the interview. I therefore wrote to their editor, Jeremy Geelan, and asked how this person attacking me would know that I had been invited by Sys-con to do such an interview and had declined, since I had never mentioned the matter to anyone. Did they know this individual? Had they mentioned it to him? Mr. Geelan never answered my email.

You are free to draw your own conclusions, as I have mine.

SCO Grabbing Our Documents Update

By the way, SCO has now acknowledged to Stephen Shankland that in fact they did take documents from Groklaw and Tuxrocks to build their new legal webpage, just as we said they had. They might like to bring their DaimlerChrysler materials up to date. Here is where I have it all, and they can also just go to the court's docket sheet, where anyone and his momma can download all the documents filed in that case.


  


Clarifying the Record on Blocking Comments on LBW & SCO Grabbing Docs Update | 201 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Geelan Is A Spamvertiser
Authored by: dmscvc123 on Tuesday, March 29 2005 @ 12:41 PM EST
Geelan spams message boards with links to SYS-CON articles. He's been using the
MONTVALE1269 nym. Geelan is awfully pathetic for a "Group Publisher"
resorting to message board spamvertising, which hopefully SYS-CON's advertisers
will catch on that the hits generated are low quality hits and aren't worth
paying for, so they'll take their business elsewhere.

---
All of my comments on Groklaw are released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections
Authored by: Rann on Tuesday, March 29 2005 @ 12:45 PM EST
Please be specific...

[ Reply to This | # ]

An obvious distraction
Authored by: so23 on Tuesday, March 29 2005 @ 12:58 PM EST
It is clear that what they are trying to do here is to shift blame and create a
diversion by sparking another round of Grokwars. I rather hope that all of us,
on all sides of that rather pointless and unfortunate squabble, are intelligent
enough to see this tactic for what it is, and mature enough to avoid being
manipulated in this way by our mutuual enemies.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Clarifying the Record on Blocking Comments on LBW & SCO Grabbing Docs Update
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 29 2005 @ 12:59 PM EST
Just have a look on the sys-con web-page... There's a big banner advertising the
"Mareen O'Gara Show", entitled, "Do bloggers have the same
rights?" Quite frankly laughable.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT here, please
Authored by: overshoot on Tuesday, March 29 2005 @ 01:19 PM EST
Of course, making <a
href="http://www.example.com">links</a> clickable is always a
good thing.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Clarifying the Record on Blocking Comments on LBW & SCO Grabbing Docs Update
Authored by: belzecue on Tuesday, March 29 2005 @ 01:23 PM EST
What reputable reporting site allows unmoderated comments. Washington Post?
New York Times? No? Why not, pray tell?

Exactly. With absolute anonymity, any commenter can pretend to be anyone -- an
editor of LBW, say.

MOG/LBW's comments feature is a tool, much like MOG herself is a tool (Aussie's
know what I'm talkin' about). The comments are there to 1) be provocative and
2) add noise to the signal. A great deal of noise.

So, PJ -- when are you going to return the favour and invite MOG to be
interviewed for Groklaw? ;-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Clarifying the Record on Blocking Comments on LBW & SCO Grabbing Docs Update
Authored by: brooker on Tuesday, March 29 2005 @ 01:27 PM EST
From the article: "...the Groklaw site that frequently takes potshots at
SCO's claims."

Maybe it's just me, but the word "potshots" conjures up images of a
bunch of teenagers with guns randomely shooting holes in whatever catches their
attention (like abandoned buildings, highway markers, beer cans, etc.), just for
the sake of shooting holes in things.

On the other hand, Groklaw articles are more like well sharpened, precisely
pointed, carefully aimed arrows that fly straight to the target's bullseye every
time.

"Potshots" indeed...hmmmph!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Clarifying the Record on Blocking Comments on LBW & SCO Grabbing Docs Update
Authored by: producer on Tuesday, March 29 2005 @ 02:33 PM EST
Business as usual.
If MOG could get one third the number of hits Groklaw does in a day, she would
be Geelan's shinning star.
Keep dreaming, Mo'.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What we know...
Authored by: Latesigner on Tuesday, March 29 2005 @ 02:39 PM EST
That LBW is not to be believed, ever, without outside corroboration.
That they can't be ignored when they spread FUD.
That they'll use any opening they can get for character assassinasion.
That there will always be people out there ( the "grokwars" people at
the Yahoo board) who, for any/some reason, are willing to believe them.
If it were me the only one they'd ever talk to would be my lawyer, and he/she
would say "no".

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sys-Con thinks that PJ is the joke, not MOG
Authored by: sgtrock on Tuesday, March 29 2005 @ 02:40 PM EST
I apologize for the format of the following response that I got back from
SyS-Con. I'm very short for time at the moment, but thought you all would be
interested.

I wrote them a while back warning them that unless they reined in Maureen they
were going to lose a reader. This is the reply that I got. (My original email
is at the bottom)

=======================================================

Dear xxxxx,


Thank you very much for taking the time to share your opinions with us. We
publish 15 leading technology magazines, which are all independent entities. Two
of our Linux-related magazines are LinuxWorld and Linux Business Week. Ms.
O'Gara is the editor of Client Server News and also a contributor to Linux
Business Week.


The blog you are referring to in your email is not a publication or an official
media site, the operators of that blog is unknown so we can not make a comment
on that.


Ms. O'Gara is entitled to publish her opinions as well as all our LinuxWorld
writers and editors who all make their own content and opinion decisions on what
they want to say or publish. SYS-CON Media gives full freedom to all their
extremely qualified editorial teams. The company management does not impose any
restrictions or censorship on any opinion expressed in a variety of our world's
leading technology publications. Java and .NET editors work side by side. Ms.
O'Gara does not ask people who do not share her views to close their blogs. We
live in a free society, with free press and freedom of opinion. Unfortunately my
answer will be similar to what Howard Stern tells his listeners often, if you
don't like what you hear please tune out.


We did not receive one single negative comment from any of our hundreds of
advertisers who sponsor and support our magazines. Even though some of Ms.
O'Gara's opinions maybe interpreted by some as one sided, this fact remains as
the opinions of individuals. IBM is one of our top sponsors. We never heard
from IBM that they would discontinue their advertising support unless we stop
publishing a certain author.


So in conclusion we need to respect other peoples' opinions.


Thanks and again for sharing your feedback and best regards.





-----Original Message-----

From: xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.com
[mailto:xxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.com]

Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 11:52 PM

Subject: Maureen O'Gara is seriously damaging one of your magazine's reputation


To: Editorial -


xxxxxxxxxxx has sent you the following email


Sirs;


I have kept my mouth shut about this particular issue until now. However, I find
that I can no longer do so. Your magazine is very close to being dropped off my
list of "must read" publications because of Ms. O'Gara.


Why should you care? After all, I'm just one reader, right? Maybe so, but I'm a
reader that your advertisers want to reach. I am an enterprise architect for a
company with over 50,000 desktops. My position requires me to help my company
make the correct choices for projects that are budgeted in tens of millions of
dollars. If you manage to alienate me and people like me, how long before your
customers, your advertisers, give up on you?


Look, I understand that you guys make money from page hits, and having
controversial columnists help to do that by getting people to read the columns
and respond in the Feedback forum. I don't even mind that Ms. O'Gara is taking a
very unpopular pro-SCO stand in the SCO v. IBM case. Someone needs to, after
all. However, it would be nice if she would get the facts right.


Her latest column,

http://www.linuxbusinessweek.com/story/48473.htm,

reports SCO's side of the latest series of motions in this incredibly complex
case.

Again, I have no problem with that. Where she fails miserably as even an Op-Ed
columnist is that it is clear that she has made zero effort to check whether or
not SCO's latest motion had any basis in fact. Instead, she has chosen to slam
Pamela Jones, the editor of the one site which is following this case most
closely. A site which has by far the most complete set of documents and the most
insightful analysis from a variety of people.


In addition, attempting to dismiss Pamela Jones of Groklaw as 'just' a paralegal
is ludicrous. A paralegal's job description includes exhaustive analytical
research of legal topics for the attorneys that she works for. Pamela has
chosen to apply her talents to this particular case, and has done so remarkably
well.


How well? She's done such a great job that attorneys from both sides of the case
and the judges have all referenced the site in court documents. The CEO of
Novell recently complimented her efforts in a very public forum. A quick one
word search of Groklaw on Google turns up over 200,000 hits.


Meanwhile, Maureen's name turns up only 15,000. Is it possible that Ms. O'Gara
is jealous?


I would like you to consider the damage to your credibility that Ms. O'Gara
causes every time she posts another one of these inaccurate, poorly researched
columns. Actually, to suggest that these columns of hers are poorly researched
implies that she at least tried to research them. I personally haven't seen any
evidence of that.


I strongly urge you to consider whether or not keeping Ms. O'Gara on your staff
to generate a short term increase in page hits is worth the longterm damage to
your reputation.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Slander or Libel?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 29 2005 @ 02:52 PM EST
I thought that slander was a spoken defamation, and libel a written defamation.
Do different rules apply to the web?

[ Reply to This | # ]

related posts
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 29 2005 @ 02:54 PM EST
i noted the disappearing feedback first in the ibm/compuware story they ran and commented about it here on groklaw.

after montvale1269 got outed on the yahoo scoxe boards, i noticed that someone had suggested montval1269 had posted about his actions in the missing feedback.

not sure of the value of this, but fwiw...

sum.zero

[ Reply to This | # ]

Clarifying the Record on Blocking Comments on LBW & SCO Grabbing Docs Update
Authored by: tbogart on Tuesday, March 29 2005 @ 03:13 PM EST
" You are free to draw your own conclusions, as I have mine."

Well, PJ, I have to say ' you brought this on yourself'.

If you think for a moment, I am sure you would agree.

By doing a pretty darn good job here you have found a following and now are the
subject of media as well as a providier.

If such 'yellow journalism' and some genuinely sleazy folks did not display this
type of behaviour THEN YOUR APPROACH WOULD NOT STAND OUT SO MUCH! Now, I you
aren't looking for 'notoriety', and would also guess you would agree that the
world would be a better place if such folks wither did not exist or at least
weren't so prevalent.

But can you deny the logic?

And here is a warning - keep up the good work and it will only get worse.

And I would bet reasonable money I know whether you will keep up the good work.
8-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Thanks for the clarification
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 29 2005 @ 03:53 PM EST
I was one of those who emailed you after I started seeing comments posted at
LinuxBusinessWeek and also on Yahoo Finance. At first glance, it didn't sound
authentic. Seriously, who would contact a publication to have an entire
feedback section removed? Also even more glaring, what company would remove an
entire feedback section based on a request from one person? I can see
disagreeing with a comment or submitting a correction. But to remove an entire
feedback section based on what was said, just didn't make any sense.

I suspect someone was having some fun at your expense, which is sad that people
go to such lengths.

Thank you again for the clarification.

I realize it's probably a nusance having to deal with such things.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Clarifying the Record on Blocking Comments on LBW & SCO Grabbing Docs Update
Authored by: jumpman on Tuesday, March 29 2005 @ 04:05 PM EST
Unfortunately PJ, you have found the dark side of fame.

People will exploit and turn every phrase you say to give it a meaning that
suits them when you are famous.

And let's face it, you are now a leading member of the Linux Community. And as
such your actions will now have policital weight. Any interview you give or
regect will garner the attention of the community. As such any magazine would
be almost foolish not to find out and to write a story about it.

(donning Tin Foil Hat)And extrapolating from that, I would imagine that anybody
that has any information concerning your actions would be willing to volunteer
it to a reporter, for a small donation of course.


Heck I am surprised there isn't anybody scrambling for a picture of you while
you were at the linux convention a couple of months ago.

Unfortunately, PJ, you are going to have to get used to misquotes and your
negotiations with other companies/people made public. And God forbid the press
ever finsd out where you live or what you look like. I don't think they will
leave you alone for a good long time.

But those that really matter, those that listen, will know the truth. And they
will trust your words and not some ratings hungry magazine/news agency.

(removing Tin Foil Hat)

In all seriousness, PJ, don't worry about low ball attacks. You are better than
that, you know it and everybody that matters knows it. Rise above the noise,
correct wrong statements when they occur, but don't let it get under your skin.

Cheers,
CMF

[ Reply to This | # ]

VARBusiness 5-Star Rating for SCO
Authored by: AintGotMoBody on Tuesday, March 29 2005 @ 04:57 PM EST
When I perused the LBW website I saw this Maureen article about SCO's 5-Star Partner Rating from VARBusiness.
It is a very brief synopsis of a SCO press release.
Okay, Ms. O'Gara quotes press releases. This is not very original or in-depth reporting, but it is just a "news tidbit." The title of her article is "Well, Somebody Out There Likes SCO" which is a sentiment, stated incredoulously, I could have made!
So, who is this "somebody?" From the press release:
"We applaud vendors like SCO for their overall channel commitment and channel innovation," said VARBusiness Publisher Robert C. DeMarzo.

I don't take this as a ringing endorsement. Does he "applaud" SCO? Or just "vendors like SCO." This is the kind of statement I'd expect from a lawyer. :) (no offense to the JP's out there.)
What did Mr DeMarzo say about SCO a few months ago, in VARBusin ess in Oct. 2004?
Meanwhile, SCO should spend more time working on its Unix products and less time in litigation. It received the survey's lowest score for product innovation, some 30 points lower than Samsung, which had the highest. Oh, I almost forgot--SCO was slapped with a sad 60 for the product innovation subcategory. Across the board, SCO is doing little to impress partners. It should be ashamed it received the lowest score in the survey for richness of features and innovation. (If Darl McBride's lawyer calls, tell him I'm not in.)

What does this mean? If I were a journalist I would interview Mr DeMarzo and ask what a 5-Star rating means? How did SCO get this "rating?" Have they turned around their business since October? Have the complaints mentioned then been addressed? How? Was there a new survey? Was it a scientific process? Well, you get the idea.
Please, Ms O'Gara - follow up and let us know what Mr Demarzo has learned in the last couple months so that we can "like" SCO, too.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Clarifying the Record on Blocking Comments on LBW & SCO Grabbing Docs Update
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 29 2005 @ 05:49 PM EST
Dear PJ,

My sincere apologies. While I was able to link to the Stephen Shankland
report, when I attempted to link to the SCO IP web site, for some strange
reason, every time I placed my mouse pointer over the link, I had an
un-controllable twitch, that moved the mouse just before I was able to click.
Likewise when I attempted to place the pointer over the LinuxBusinessWeek link.


To the best of my knowledge, there is no problem with your web page, but I
have been unable to pinpoint exactly the cause of the twitch.

I realize you put a lot of effort into your web page, and it seems a shame
I can't make full use of all your work. I will continue to work on the problem,
but quite frankly I am running out of options, and don't hold much hope.

(I have even tried typing in the url in my browser, but all I get are garbled
characters. I don't have this problem with other web pages. It remains a
mystery to me.)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Clarifying the Record on Blocking Comments on LBW & SCO Grabbing Docs Update
Authored by: etmax on Tuesday, March 29 2005 @ 06:50 PM EST
Why is it called "Linux Business Weekly"??

Wouldn't "SCO FUD Weekly" be more appropriate??

Perhaps "Below The Belt Weekly"??

These people make me sick!!

I wish I had the money to mount a legal campaign against them.

---
Max - Melbourne Australia

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Grabbing Our Documents Update
Authored by: splicer on Tuesday, March 29 2005 @ 07:02 PM EST
Perhaps it's just me, but it looks like SCO is already starting to add a bit of spin to their use of Groklaw and Tuxrocks documents:

Some of the legal documents came from Groklaw and another site that details the legal case, Tuxrocks. Stowell acknowledged that the rival sites supplied some of the documents. [emphasis added]
Then again, since it isn't represented as a direct quote, perhaps this particular and unfortunate phrasing was chosen by Mr. Shankland.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What's the deal?
Authored by: El_Heffe on Tuesday, March 29 2005 @ 07:07 PM EST
What's the deal with LBW? Why would something called "Linux Business
Week" be so blatantly anti-Linux / anti-Open Source? Is the name just some
sort of scam to attract readers who think they will get real information about
Linux/Open source software?



---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it" - anonynmous

[ Reply to This | # ]

Jeremy Geelan - is it old age?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 29 2005 @ 07:48 PM EST

.............Jeremy Geelan joined SYS-CON Media in early 2000, and assumed the responsibilities of editorial director later that year. Prior to joining SYS-CON Media, Geelan spent 22 years in the international publishing and broadcasting industries, including long spells with both BBC Radio and BBC Television in London, followed by a 10-year association with the Greenwood Publishing Group in Westport, CT. Most recently, he devoted himself to chairing The 21st Century Group, a loose federation of forward-looking companies devoted to exploring alternative social, economic, political, and educational futures. Prior to that, he was joint managing director of The Vision Project, in London, and editorial director of Adamantine Press, in Copenhagen. He launched his very first magazine while still at Cambridge University, at the age of 20. "Jeremy's breadth of experience in dealing with software professionals at the most senior levels of the i-technology industry makes him the perfect executive for this strategic position in our organization," said Fuat Kircaali, founder and CEO of SYS-CON Media. "He not only understands the industry's critical issues, but regularly represents SYS-CON at conferences and tradeshows, speaking to technology audiences both in North America and overseas. He has been an integral decision maker in every new launch since 2000 and each of our own i-technology conferences and expos. We are delighted that he will now be a torchbearer for SYS-CON's next aggressive wave of............. and more at a Marketwire Sys-Con Press Release

..............My warm thanks go to Jeremy Geelan who asked me to publish in this Adamantine series.......... Cached HTML version of a book his firm published in 1998

BEYOND THE DEPENDENCY CULTURE
People, Power And Responsibility In The 2Ist Century
James Robertson

It's impressive stuff.

Why Sys-Con????

Money????

Brian S.

[ Reply to This | # ]

No No No, it's not about access, it's about the work
Authored by: kawabago on Tuesday, March 29 2005 @ 07:54 PM EST
The trolls at SCO don't want to do the work, they just want to claim credit for
it, just like they've been claiming credit for Linux when in fact their
contribution is almost insignificant. So you do the work, then they come and
take it. That's how it works. Understand now?


---
Life is funnier from the far end.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO V Novell "IP"
Authored by: jim Reiter on Tuesday, March 29 2005 @ 08:16 PM EST


The TSG people say......

"On September 19, 1995, The Santa Cruz Operation purchased specific
intellectual property assets from Novell; specifically,

"All rights and ownership of UNIX and UnixWare, including but not
limited to all versions of UNIX and UnixWare and all copies of UNIX and UnixWare
(including revisions and updates in process), and all technical, design,
development, installation, operation and maintenance information concerning Unix
and UnixWare, including source code, source documentation, source listings and
annotations, appropriate engineering notebooks, test data and test results, as
well as all reference manuals and support materials normally distributed by
Seller to end-users and potential end-users in connection with the distribution
of UNIX and UnixWare,..."
(Schedule 1.1(a), Assets, Page 1 of 4, section I)

These documents describe that purchase and itemize the intellectual property
purchased."

What TSG leaves out is the sale of whatever by Santa Cruz Operations, Inc. to
Caldera and the significant documentation that goes with that.

This still appears to be a major weakness in TSG's case.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Actually...
Authored by: inode_buddha on Tuesday, March 29 2005 @ 09:13 PM EST
Actually, I had *no* idea that any of this was going on. I put LBW on my
"banned" list way back when, it had to be a couple of years ago. I
haven't looked at it since, nor given them any hits, so all the news I get about
them is second-hand.

/me stands surprised and taken aback.

---
-inode_buddha
Copyright info in bio

"When we speak of free software,
we are referring to freedom, not price"
-- Richard M. Stallman

[ Reply to This | # ]

Clarifying the Record on Blocking Comments on LBW & SCO Grabbing Docs Update
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 29 2005 @ 09:16 PM EST
Great! Does that mean if I call up LBW and ask them to, that they'll block all
the MOG articles, too? Can I ask LBW to remove themselves from DNS as well?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Don't worry about the MOGster
Authored by: GrueMaster on Tuesday, March 29 2005 @ 10:27 PM EST
I wouldn't worry about her too much. I managed to crack her during one of her live shows, by asking why she keeps slamming groklaw and you personally, PJ. My letter was read on air, and she answered that "she has never written anything demeaning about PJ or Groklaw". I then sent another email while the show was live, with quotes and links to her article where she said "what do you expect from a paralegal". There were a few choice quotes there. These were also read live, but she was having phone trouble and lost the connection with the guy running the show. Hmmmm.

Here's the email:

Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 11:25:11 -0800 (PST)

From: "GrueMaster"

Subject: Question for Maureen

To: tv@sys-con.com

Why do you constantly berate Pamela Jones? All she is doing, is publishing the publicly accessable court documents online, and then interpreting them.

One fact that hasn't been disputed is that SCO still has not produced any infringing code. Even Judge Kimball has noted it in one of his recent rulings.

And after my question was read aloud:

Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 12:21:11 -0800 (PST)

From: "GrueMaster"

Subject: Re: Question for Maureen

To: tv@sys-con.com

I asked this question and it was the first one answered. You stated that you don't berate PJ or Groklaw on your posts.

I have now caught you in a lie. In your article from 3/6/05 (SCO Wants Court To Block Any IBM Escape Hatches From Discovery Order), you called Groklaw a propaganda site, when in fact it actually fights against propaganda. Here is a direct quote from your article: "Ah, well, that's the best you can expect from a paralegal."

Why do you keep working to jepordize your credibility? When will you start reporting based on factual information?

And, no, I am not a Groklaw zealot. I do have some experience interpreting legal documents, having helped in my dad's law office after school for several years, and spent time in the courtroom with him.

I also corrected them in that they incorrectly "guessed" that I was from Ohio, when in fact I am in Oregon.

GrueMaster

---
You've entered a dark place. You are likely to be eaten by a Grue!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Clarifying the Record on Blocking Comments on LBW & SCO Grabbing Docs Update
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 30 2005 @ 07:51 AM EST
Pity you don't get those flyer points PJ - we'd welcome you here on the beaches
of Australia.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )