decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

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

Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal

User Functions



Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Monday, May 09 2005 @ 04:40 PM EDT

SCO and its minions can never again complain about Linux "zealots", not without being laughed right off the stage, because compared to them and their tactics, it's clear now who are the pros at intimidation and terror.

Darl McBride and Laura DiDio have complained bitterly about receiving nasty email and late-night phone calls. That's kid's stuff by comparison. Without commenting on the latest O'Gara article's contents, because I am considering legal action and can't comment directly at this time, think about this: Have Linux "zealots" ever put up personal info on how to find Darl McBride's mother, with pictures of her home and the number on her mailbox so any stalker can find her readily? That was O'Gara's intent. Has anyone published who DiDio calls from her landline phone? Can you imagine the press conference SCO would hold, and what names they would call the FOSS community, if anything like that happened?

Who are the "extremists" now? The "cyberterrorists"? The violators of the law and of all things decent? Who are the enablers of stalking and violence?

But the big picture is this: it's official now, not just a guess, that my readers simply don't care who I am or what I am. They really don't. Groklaw isn't about me, and my work stands on its own. Anyway, they know me by now as a person, because in my writing they see my inner person, how my brain works, my heart, my ethics. We're old friends by now, and you always stand by an old, true friend. That is exactly what has happened.

Groklaw is exactly what I told you from day one, a blog written by a paralegal who became a journalist. I do it myself. All by myself. Well. Me and the entire worldwide FOSS community. All the rest is just their paranoid ravings and imaginings. Literally thousands of members and readers contribute to Groklaw, and millions read what we present.

You know why? In part, because I never take the low road. Really. That's the secret to Groklaw's success. It's a place on the Internet where we can speak to each other as adults, in a civil atmosphere, without meanness or ad hominem attacks and work together with a common purpose, regardless of our varied backgrounds and preferences in other areas. Politics is off topic. So is religion. And so are insults. I don't even let comments remain if they attack people like Maureen O'Gara. I once wrote an article to ask people not to attack her verbally, when others did so on another website. (In that article I wrote that she was a good journalist. I take that part back. I tend to be too kind.)

I have been flooded with emails of support and donations. I'd say whatever the dark side's intent, it has boomeranged. And I also want to thank everyone for all the words of support and the donations. I will try to write to you all personally in time, but I couldn't wait to tell you how touched I am by the overwhelming number of good wishes. Thank you. It means everything to me that you responded as you have and have seen through this latest and most foul attempt at intimidation and character assassination. Did you notice? They only attack me as a person. What does that tell you about the integrity of Groklaw that they were forced to stoop to that?

On a personal note: I've heard from several who are seriously warning me that they think SCO is setting me up so that they can arrange my "suicide". You know, like Val Kreidel allegedly was so overwhelmed by what was printed about her by Maureen O'Gara and others that she ended it all?

I have no experience in such things, so I can't evaluate their warnings, but I have taken note that three persons on the SCOX Yahoo Finance board, one known to be a SCO supporter if not an insider, have already predicted my suicide, two of them since this article.

So I feel I should say this, just for the record, just in case, worst-case scenario: I don't believe in suicide, and I certainly don't care what Maureen O'Gara thinks about me. So if you hear about my "suicide", it isn't one. And you can take that to the bank. She has no power to touch the core of who I am or how I think of myself. No one does. I know who I am, and I'm proud of my work and my decisions in my life. Not that any of that is anyone's business. I never agreed to be a public person. I don't want to be, and I have a human and a legal right to privacy. Just because you decide to blog, it doesn't rob you of your rights as a private person.

I have contacted the proper authorities, federal and local, in the state where I really live, and asked their advice, specifically about the warnings, and I have taken reasonable steps to protect myself, in harmony with what they counseled me. One of the things they told me to do is to tell you about the warnings I have received and put it out there in public, and so I am.

Here's a sampling of the many, many hundreds of emails I am receiving today, published with the permission of the authors -- I never violate anyone's privacy myself, because I treasure my own, so nothing goes on Groklaw without permission:



What O'Gara, McBride, and others of their ilk fail to realize is that members of the Open Source Community are a discerning bunch. We are impressed by demonstrated merit, not by marketing spin and FUD. We know what we need to about PJ from the fabulous news site and blog that she maintains. Your character shines through in the integrity of your work. O'Gara's attempt to spin innocuous details of your private life into some sort of character smear would be laughable if it were not so despicably mean-spirited. I certainly hope it has not caused you any stress. Please be assured that your thousands of friends in the community stand behind you.

Thad Phetteplace



Just wanted to let you know how much I value your contribution of Groklaw to the world and that I wish you all the best in resisting the harassement MOG has launched against you.

I have never seen anything like your writing on the importance of culture, law, and software and how they relate to one another. I certainly didn't have anything like the appreciation I now do for the law before groklaw was around.

It's a shame that you have been targetted for harassement like you have. I hope it ends soon.

All the best,

Chris Marshall


Dear PJ, I just want to express my support on that article that O'Gara wrote about you. Whether the things she said are true or not is a completely secondary matter, Groklaw readers have been following your writing for a long time, and we judge you from what you have to say, and not any incidentals, but I'm sure that, whether it is true or not, it is not a nice thing to be spoken about in such a way... It is clear that O'Gara has no respect for truth, honesty and, more importantly, no respect for other people. I'm sorry that it came to this, and I want to thank you for all your Groklaw work, hoping you think it was worth it, even though it made you some unscrupulous and dishonourable enemies.

Of course, I do think it's worth it, and Groklaw will keep right on truckin'.


Intimidation | 1247 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here...
Authored by: sandelaphon on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 04:47 PM EDT
if any.

I hate sigs!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Offtopic here..
Authored by: sandelaphon on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 04:49 PM EDT
If you can think of anything crazier than this.

I hate sigs!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections here please
Authored by: WhiteFang on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 04:49 PM EDT
Not that PJ needs them this time!

Rock on PJ!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 04:52 PM EDT
I just can't believe that Ms. O'Gara failed to 'expose' PJ. Assuming that was
her mother listed in the article, and that certain things PJ has said to be
true, were true... it should have been reasonably easy to go one step further.

She's not even good at stalking people. Eeeh.
Stay safe, PJ.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: WhiteFang on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 04:52 PM EDT
I was waiting with bated breadth for PJ's response to MOG's infantile and
ultimately mean spirited attack.

PJ, Your response exceeded my expectations.

Thank you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 04:53 PM EDT
God bless you PJ!

It takes uncommon courage to stand in these insane times. I congratulate you
for your work, and I echo the sentiments of those before me in wishing you the

--steve from indiana, a reader

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Dave Lozier on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 04:54 PM EDT
Rock on PJ. MOG's latest outburst is nothing but a cowardly act on behalf of a
dieing company, SCO. Groklaw will be here long after hey are gone.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: stephenry on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 04:54 PM EDT
I shown my support for PJ by just donating $50.

Maybe you should too...

[ Reply to This | # ]

People are curious
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:01 PM EDT
I'm curious who you are. I even did a google search for
you once! Since it isn't anything more than idle
curiousity, I didn't look for more than a couple of
minutes and didn't find anything. I guess your name is a
little too commonplace ;-)

I think I'm speaking for a fair number of people when I
say that we are a little curious, but can understand and
respect your wish for privacy. I even think a lot of the
curiosity comes from you keeping your identity hidden ---
everyone loves a mystery. Having said that, I can
understand your decision and had long since stopped
thinking about it. Judging by the gradual decrease in
guessing posts, I am not the only one. After all, it
doesn't really matter who you are as long as your articles
are informative and well referenced, for which I thank

PS: Awful to hear about O'Gara publishing details about
your mother. I stopped reading O'Gara a long time ago,
but that is truly horrible :-(

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:02 PM EDT
Read a stupid article, presumably by O'Gara.

Would be really tempting to say ignore the piece of trash, should be given no
more credance than an article on Weekly World News, except I would not want to
insult that noble tabloid.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Intimidation - Maybe
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:02 PM EDT

PJ, from all of us to you, just wisper, and we will be proud to support any
legal fund you need to take this to court!


[ Reply to This | # ]

Further Precaution
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:02 PM EDT
If it hasn't already been done, the local police for the area in which your
mother lives also need to be alerted. It's sad, but there are precautions that
she and they will now have to take.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Intimidation---MOG and Darl get a life!
Authored by: drichards1953 on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:04 PM EDT
Sad as it appears the idea of free speech and the press are being suppressed
here in the USA, by a bunch of thugs. Why are PJ and the Groklaw blog such a
threat to MOG and the Board of SCO, especially Darl? Maybe we know they are full
of hot air, and know nothing but "smoke and mirrors." Maybe the real
threat is that those of us who post and read Groklaw smell a rat. The more we
find and observe the less likely there is any validity to SCO's claims.

There is NEVER any excuse for the comments of Darl and his buddies and MOG.
This is nothing short of making direct threats to the safety of PJ and I for one
will not tolerate it.

If PJ's remarks and the other posters on this blog make Darl, MOG and other
folks connected with SCO uncomfortable, too bad. That never gives anyone an
excuse for the type of comments that have been made to and about PJ.

PJ I am glad that you are protecting yourself. What goes through the minds of
these folks is just plain scary. When this is all over, and SCO is no more,
this will make a novel so strange that no one will believe it. Take care.


They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety.
---Benjamin Franklin

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: captmiddy on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:05 PM EDT
In my 12 years in the IT industry and my 13 years of Linux use I have see a lot
of abusive statements come from each side of the wall that is so stupidly raised
between us. This entire issue has gone completely beyond the norm and has
entered into the realm where no publication should go. I sincerely hope that PJ
takes legal action against LBN or whever their moniker is today. And I will
certainly donate to any legal funds necessary to fight this abuse of an
individual. I have read the articles on both sides, and see an increasingly
vicious and personal targetting of PJ as a person versus the material substance
of what is on her site. While I will say that at times PJ does go a little
overboard, nothing in what she has written, posted or allowed posted to her site
justifies the actions that have recently come to light. Getting someone's phone
records which are not public is just plain illegal.

It is sad that the merits of the discussion have been lost in this vicious
personal game played almost exclusively by the SCO team and the LBN publication.
There is important lessons for both sides in all the materials that have been
discussed over the last 2 years, but it is all lost in stupidity like this.

PJ I wish you well in your continued work, and I know that if you did decide to
walk away from this, that there are others who woudl simply step in to take your
place and probably without the level approach that you try to take, so for that
I hope you do continue to do this even with this horrible personal attack that
has come your way.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Never irk a paralegal
Authored by: WhiteFang on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:09 PM EDT

"Without commenting on the latest O'Gara article's contents, because I am considering legal action"

They usually know more than the lawyers do. After all, who does the original research the lawyers rely upon?

New quote for the day:

Behind every successful lawyer is a better paralegal.

And PJ is "Da Bestes!"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Jaywalk on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:10 PM EDT
But the big picture is this: it's official now, not just a guess, that my readers simply don't care who I am or what I am.
I wouldn't go that far. There are some things she could have said that, if true, would be relevant. For example, if she proved that the legal documents on Groklaw were fakes, that would be important. The problem is the woman appears to have completely lost track about what the story is about:
  1. Does SCO's case have merit?
  2. Will SCO win?
Even leaving aside the ethical issues, she simply doesn't have anything to say that's on-topic. The only issue I took away from the article is a mild curiosity as to whether MOG will still have a job at the end of the week. If she does, it indicates that there are some truly pathetic people out there who are willing to pay good money to read this trash.

===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: KenM on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:11 PM EDT
I have not read the article yet, but I wish I could say that I did not see it
coming. The normal methods were not working so they had to change tactics. This
too will fail.

SCO and its advocates have pushed me to Linux and Groklaw. It was not until I
took an interest in this case did I follow either. Now, not only do I follow
them, but have developed an interest in patents, the European Union, GPL, open
source and so on. Most importantly, I know who to trust and who to not.

PJ I trust you.
I thank you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Never irk a paralegal
Authored by: WhiteFang on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:11 PM EDT

"Without commenting on the latest O'Gara article's contents, because I am considering legal action"

They usually know more than the lawyers do. After all, who does the original research the lawyers rely upon?

New quote for the day:

Behind every successful lawyer is a better paralegal.

And PJ is "Da Bestes!"

[ Reply to This | # ]

it's going to be a long day
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:15 PM EDT
get ready for the onslaught of trolling...

in other news: keep up the good work pj. we know who you are to us, and that is
all that matters.

[ Reply to This | # ]

My Support and Respect.
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:20 PM EDT
You have, as always, my support and respect. I can't imagine having this kind of
vicious coordinated attack directed at me and my family, for no discernible

I simply don't know what else to say.

This whole sad story of greed and manipulation has already destroyed several
families, cost untold sums of money and shows no signs of abating.

My thoughts are with you and your family, whoever and wherever they may be.


"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]

Does it matter?
Authored by: davcefai on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:21 PM EDT
What does it matter who and what PJ is? MOG has a "shoot the
messenger" complex.

Do MOG and her backers think that they can regain any credibility by
discrediting PJ? I do believe that these are the cornered rats trying to fight
back the only way they know. The funny thing is that they have cornered
themselves by their lies and spin.

Show us the code!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:22 PM EDT
I am saddened and sickened that Maureen O'Gara would stoop so slow. I particularly shocked that she sees fit to publish personal details on this level, as well as somehow (presumably without a court order!) get access to a person's private telephone record.

I do hope that you, your family, and mother are okay. And you have my best wishes.

I have already taken the unusual step of commenting on Slashdot on Maureen's article, so will not repeat my full comments here. All I can say is that her article supposedly about you, apart from being offensive, is totally irrelevant to any real issues.

As I said on Slashdot, I would like to point out that Maureen O'Gara's most article seems to be part of a pattern:-

(Should any journalist want to follow this up properly, I am prepared to post links, as well as court docket numbers, make all of this verifiable. If you are such a journalist please indicate it, so I don't waste a lot of time posting links unnecessarily if it isn't necessary).
1. In January 2003, O'Gara published an article about SCO's plans to monetize their IP allegedly in Linux. This was two months before SCO sued IBM. This was six months before SCO announced their Linux IP licensing program. This was long before SCO had made any public statements about their plans for licensing Linux, or alleged infringements in Linux. So where did O'Gara get this information from?

2. On September 18th O'Gara published an article claiming that SCO would sue IBM for a fraud claim, in Monterey, by putting SVR4 code (as opposed to SVR3 code) into AIX5L. [Maureen O'Gara misnames the UNIX versions in her article).

At the time that this was written, the only court document that mentioned fraud, and the AIX 5L was *sealed*, SCO's supplemental memorandum on discovery. This was filed with the court, without permission apparently in August, and properly filed on 13 September 2004.

We have not seen this document, but we know that it exists, because IBM's reply memo has recently been unsealed (it was originally filed on 24 September 2004) and makes reference to the SCO document in footnote 4.

Based on this footnote, it turns out that SCO did *not* threaten to sue IBM for fraud, but rather SCO attempted to use a fraud argument to justify the late addition of a *copyright* claim about SVR4 code in AIX5L.

In other words, O'Gara's article appears to be a mangled/misinterpreteed version of SCO's 13 September 2004 filing.

So the question is how did O'Gara know what was in a SCO sealed filing?

3. In Fall 2004 (I think September), O'Gara wrote an article claiming that SCO would file a motion to unseal everything in the SCO v IBM case. SCO never filed such a motion.

However, approximately two months later, G2, O'Gara's company did!

4. In the most reference SCO teleconference (mid April 2005), Darl said he would attempt to expose PJ.

Darl has done no such thing.

However, less than one month later, O'Gara did.

On a further note of an additional possible pattern, an article on Linuxtoday at - seems to be alleging a possible connection between SCO, private investigators hired by SCO, and Maureen O'Gara's article. (I do not know whether such allegations are true or not).

And on one final note, IANAL, and even if I was, I couldn't advise you whether or not to take legal action or not - that's a decision you have to make. All I can say is that if it was me, I most certainly would.

Anyway, PJ you have my best wishes. It is probably little consolation, but Maureen's article is actually the strongest validation of Groklaw possible. Maureen and SCO can not win on the merits of their arguments - hence they resort to intimidation, name-calling, invasions of privacy, and similar low tactics.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: seanlynch on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:22 PM EDT

The only advice I can offer:

Be true to yourself.
Be true to your principles.
Be true to your beliefs.

I also pray that whoever had their addresses published by Maureen O'Gara do not
suffer too much from this incident. It would be better if they did not have to
suffer at all, but Maurenn O'Gara's actions have already caused anguish and
pain. Hopefully it will not lead to worse.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: nulleh on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:24 PM EDT
I'm sorry it has come to this PJ - no-one deserves this kind of treatment from
the press. I'm glad that your response is to keep going - Groklaw has become
compulsory reading for me over the last year. All I can say is

[ Reply to This | # ]

It was inevitable...
Authored by: greyhat on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:29 PM EDT
People say some stupid things like "You had it coming", and while
they're wrong about that, one thing is hard to deny. When you draw enough
public attention, something like this is inevitable. We all knew it would
happen eventually, and anyone who didn't think people would stoop this low, was
kidding himself.

But if it had to happen, we should all be glad that it took them this long to
sink to this point. Because by the time they did this, PJ had already
established herself unquestionably as a skilled professional and a respectable
journalist. So when their big bomb was dropped, all we heard was a loud
"thump" followed by a million people asking " just what
did you think that was going to do for you?"

It was inevitable, sure. But if it had to happen to someone, we should be glad
it had to happen to a strong, self-confident person who won't be afraid to stand
up for herself. We all know people who wouldn't be able to withstand such a
sickening personal attack, and thanks to Groklaw, we all know PJ is not one of
those people. She'll be strong, and she'll have unending support from people
who respect her work. O'Gara on the other hand will have to learn to deal with
the fact that her abuse of her position to exercise personal vendettas is now
obvious to everyone, not just the smarter few that paid attention all this time.

"Obviously Linux owes its heritage to UNIX, but not its code. We would not, nor
will not, make such a claim."
-- Darl McBride to Linux Journal, August 28, 2002

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: blacklight on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:30 PM EDT
"You know why? In part, because I never take the low road. Really."

Searching for the truth and telling the truth as it is - that's the high road to
me and that's why groklaw has the credibility that it has. Otherwise, I would
have been long gone from groklaw. What SCOG doesn't realize is that when one of
us is threatened, all of us are - and we will react.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:31 PM EDT
I can barely believe a (supposed) trade journalist would do such an article.
Things must be getting desperate. PJ, don't let them beat you down - you've got
all our support.

Rush, Hold Your Fire, Force 10

Tough times demand tough talk
demand tough hearts demand tough songs

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Wow - Authored by: inode_buddha on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 07:56 PM EDT
  • Wow - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 09:57 PM EDT
Yes, we do care...
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:31 PM EDT

We may not care who you are, what you are or where you are from; but we do care
about you and your well-being.

I believe I speak for all of Grokdom, we've got your back. When you need our
help...we'll be there!

"All for one. And one for all."

- Groketeer

[ Reply to This | # ]

Thanks again
Authored by: Tim Ransom on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:31 PM EDT
PJ, your dignity in the face of such a despicable intrusion is just more
evidence of why you are worthy of the respect and gratitude of all of us.

I have expressed my epithets in other forums, but suffice to say that the term
"yellow journalism" falls far short of describing the execrable
malevolence of O'Gara and her attempts at intimidation.

Well, of course it backfired.

Your words are how we know you. Your work says more about you than any random
detail the slime creatures might think they know.

And their work speaks volumes about them.

Not content with a mere footgun, O'Gara elected to employ a foot bazooka.

Carry on!

Thanks again,

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:33 PM EDT
So, who's going to step forward to offer coverage of the
upcoming Jones v. O'Gara case?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Don't be silly, PJ
Authored by: overshoot on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:35 PM EDT
it's official now, not just a guess, that my readers simply don't care who I am or what I am.

Of course we care. It's just that unlike the MOGs of the world we care who you are, not silly externalities like age and appearance.

We're still waiting for you to wear the red dress -- not because of any irrelevant illusions but because of what that red dress means. By all means take a picture -- even if we never see it we'll know.


Linus Torvalds and Bill Gates have something in common: wherever they go, there are people willing to buy them a drink. The difference is why, and who. People buy Bill drinks because of what they want, they buy Linus drinks because of who he is.

Similarly, please don't let the shyness keep you from visiting your friends. You have us all over the world and it would be a shame to not drop by when you're in the neighborhood. You have contact information for most of us. Use it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hang in there, PJ
Authored by: talexb on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:36 PM EDT


Hmm, wondered why GrokLaw was slow this afternoon. I had to dig around to find the offending article, and having been through some excitement in my undergraduate days at Waterloo when I was a member of the Free Chevron (student newspaper, shut down by rabid anti-communists in the Student Council), I have to say this is truly bizarre behaviour. IANAL like many say here, but this certainly seems to be the most rank, detestable behaviour (I wouldn't stoop to call it journalism) I can imagine, both on the part of the writer (see previous comment) and the editor.

Hang in there, kiddo .. thousands of us are right behind you.

T. Alex Beamish Toronto, Ontario

[ Reply to This | # ]

Cosmo Kramer
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:36 PM EDT

Remember the Seinfeld episode where Kramer's full name (and his mother) was
finally revealed? Kramer's full identity was ==> Cosmo Kramer.

When that full name came out, it was a load off his chest, and he was *more*
beloved than before.

This is your situation, PJ...more beloved now. This has really back-fired on
MOG. We are with you PJ!

Just like Cosmo Kramer, we'll call you by your first name when we see you on the
street, and be happy that we can. You can walk tall.

- The Real Cosmo Kramer (only in my mind!)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:37 PM EDT
Well, I'm not going to comment on the private life of ms. o'gara, but I sure can
let her publishers know how I feel about a publication that chooses to pay her.
Something along the lines (grammar/style cleanup welcome, english is not my
first language)..
Dear sir/madam

I'm sorry to note that your publication chooses to associate with Ms. O'Gara.

While I never considered Ms. O'Gara a valid source of information, her latest
publications are a suffciient proof (to me, anyway) of a profound lack of

Effective immediately, I will no longer in any way support a publication,
printed or electronic, that chooses to associate with Ms. O'Gara. I have advised
of the same each and every of your advertisers.

now let's collect some email addresses....

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Intimidation - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:49 PM EDT
  • Intimidation - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:59 PM EDT
    • Intimidation - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:03 PM EDT
    • Useless - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 01:06 AM EDT
    • Intimidation - Authored by: limeyx on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 03:06 AM EDT
    Alternate view
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:37 PM EDT
    I dislike all of this for another reason: It's a distraction. I check Groklaw
    every day and don't care who PJ is. There's a tinge of curiosity, but I get
    enough dirty laundry glancing at the magazines in the checkout line to not need
    it here.

    I don't care about MOG. Don't care about the response. I even get a little
    annoyed whenever Groklaw ends up talking about itself (such as winning awards).

    Take it as backhanded compliment if you will, but I read Groklaw for the facts
    and analysis concerning SCO's lawsuits. Read it every day. Everything else is
    a distraction.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:37 PM EDT
    I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

    I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    • hurmph! - Authored by: hbo on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:31 AM EDT
    • hurmph! - Authored by: IRJustman on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:36 AM EDT
      • hurmph! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 07:30 AM EDT
    Authored by: Kilz on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:43 PM EDT
    Its truly sad that MOG had to stoop this low PJ. I hope that she sees that her
    actions are wrong some day. I also hope you remain safe despite posting personal
    informatioon on your family.
    MOG did this foolish thing to get attention. Hits for a bad backstabing web
    site. It seems the mre wacko the writing the more press she gets. The one thing
    we can all do to help is never to visit a site that has her working for it. I
    only read what she posted because someone at /. copied it there. I will never
    visit her site again.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Intimidation - PJ: You are not standing alone
    Authored by: stutchbury on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:44 PM EDT
    James Turner, Senior Editor of LinuxWorld Magazine, has this to say

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    To be continued?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:45 PM EDT

    As I recall, the MOG trashicle ended with a "to be continued" "teaser." Looking around the internet, people are outraged by the MOG trash, to the person, best I can tell, including even the stanchest of the BGE's on CKX. A telling indicator of just how dense Ms OG is will be whether the "continuation" proceeds down the current insane path, or tries to correct somehow for an obviously badly set course. In a certain odd way, I'm looking forward to MOG's next installment, as an assessment as to whether she is completely gone, or whether, given the pounding that is now going on, it is actually possible to pound the slightest bit of sanity into her thick skull.

    I'll guess that we'll see in due time

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Authored by: Turin on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:46 PM EDT
    Looks like you really got to them, didn't you? You should be proud of yourself.

    I don't doubt the second string is at work here - any bright person would
    realize that this kind of mudslinging is pointless in the end and
    counterproductive to the goals of the litigant. Then again, those running this
    case for SCOX have shown themseles to be bumbling fools on many occasions, this
    not least.

    I'm a fan of silly gags. If the descriptive material in the article has any
    merit at all, you should mail Darl a copy of the Watchtower for his trouble.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    • Well... - Authored by: Maserati on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:32 PM EDT
      • Well... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:51 PM EDT
        • Well... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:14 AM EDT
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:46 PM EDT
    This has gone way too far. MoG is a disgrace to the
    journalist profession and to the open-source world. So
    here's what I'm suggesting: set up an on-line petition,
    detailing some of the very unethical things she did, and
    asking for her resignation. This is not about vendetta -
    it's more like preventing a vicious snake from striking

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Authored by: blacklight on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:51 PM EDT
    "In that article I wrote that she [MOG] was a good journalist. I take that
    part back. I tend to be too kind" PJ

    PJ, when you called MOG a "good" journalist: first, you wee
    inaccurate. And now, you stand corrected by none other than MOG. With 20/20
    hindsight, I'd recommend that you be cautious about giving anyone the benefit of
    the doubt. Second, you were unfair to the genuinely good journalists such as Bob
    Mims, the reporters of the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal: if MOG is
    a "good" journalist, then you have devalued the meaning of the word

    I appreciate your desire to be kind, but you must not allow it to get in the way
    of the truth. Having said that, I recognize that none of us is perfect including
    me and that we all learn from our mistakes. I also recognize that you have done
    far more service to the truth than I ever will.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    • Intimidation - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 09:48 PM EDT
    Convienent Suicide
    Authored by: hanzie on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:51 PM EDT
    You know, like Val Kreidel allegedly was so overwhelmed by what was printed about her by Maureen O'Gara and others that she ended it all?

    Predictions on the Yahoo! board make me wonder if Val Kreidel really did suicide. A subponea to Yahoo! might be in order. You can't fax it in, it must be served in person.

    Subponeas can be served to Yahoo's address at:

    701 First Avenue
    Sunnyvale, CA 94089

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    DDOS against PJ's Mother
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:51 PM EDT
    I suspect that the biggest effect of MOG's stupidity, is that the person claimed
    as PJ's mom get's DDOS'd by an internet community worth of interflora

    Wouldn't that be a nice DDOS, PJ's mom unable to get into her apartment because
    of all the flowers delivered from the community in support of PJ...

    Is there any way to get a harrassment restraining order against MOG and her
    henchmen ? Surely an application from the lady who was doorstepped by mog is
    warranted, regardless of who she is ( related to pj or not )

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:55 PM EDT
    SCO reminds me of a dog in the latest stage of rabies. I hope Judge Kimball
    will quickly put it out of its misery.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    • Intimidation - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:54 PM EDT
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:55 PM EDT
    I'm not fan enough of groklaw to have bothered to register. My reasons are my
    own. But I am a frequent user and reader of the content here. But that said,
    hang in there PJ. You are doing the huge and valuable job for the community.

    This is incredibly low. I can't believe there aren't criminal laws to protect
    you from this kind of behaviour.

    And these people whine incessantly about a DDOS? Some linux fans may be childish
    enough to do that. Maybe not. But MOG is in a league of her own now. Once I post
    this I'll be writing to sys-con and other related sights.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Support from many quarters
    Authored by: brendthess on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:56 PM EDT
    Of course, there is an article on Slashdot discussing this horrid situation, but that is not the only article of note.

    The Managing Editor of LinuxToday, Brian Proffitt, has posted an editorial on this subject, and is absolutely appalled by MOG's utter dreck of shlock journalism article.

    But even more incisively, two different editors of the print magazine LinuxWorld (who are NOT the editors of the on-line version), Dee-Ann LeBlanc (Gaming editor) and James Turner (Senior Editor) have threatened to resign if Sys-Con does not cut its ties with MOG. And, since the editors of the print version are volunteers/unpaid, who would they get to replace them?

    To quote their blogs:

    (Dee-Ann): Either O'Gara is thrown out on her butt for being a vehicle of intimidation (which is the only reason for posting such information) or I'm gone.

    (Thomas): I call on Sys-Con to immediate terminate all business dealings with Ms. O'Gara, or I will find another outlet for my work.

    PJ: You have my support, and that of my housemates who understand the tech field, and that of my housemates who do not understand the tech field, but were appalled once they understood what MOG had done.

    Brendt Hess
    Vancouver, WA

    I am not even vaguely trained as a lawyer. Why are you listening to me?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:57 PM EDT

    mog and sco et al may wish to expose you, but they lack the

    understanding, that your readers have always "known" who you


    A lady of great honor and integrity, with the courage to

    fight for what is right.

    Bill Murphy

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Authored by: lamar on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:58 PM EDT
    Unbelievable! Maureen O'Gara has completely thrown away any legitimacy she may
    have actually had. In my 20-odd years off and on in journalism, I have never
    witnessed someone claiming to be a professional journalist perform such an
    egregiously unethical act as O'Gara did when she published her article about PJ.
    She has, in one simple act, destroyed her career.

    PJ, I don't always agree with your point of view or your opinions. Groklaw is a
    publication with a strong, clear point of view, a "bias," if you will.
    However, I always find that Groklaw is scrupulously fair even to its detractors
    and makes every possible effort to be accurate about its facts. No matter what
    school you come from, that is the mark of good, ethical journalism.

    O'Gara's ad hominem attack is not only unethical, not only unprofessional, but
    is also morally repugnant, and completely irrelevant to the issues at hand.

    I wish you the best. Take care.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Authored by: Nick_UK on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:58 PM EDT
    Pamela, you are the best.


    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:58 PM EDT

    Never have I seen anything on Groklaw that couldn't be backed up by documented
    facts, often provided by Darl and Co.

    Never have I seen anything as childish, along the lines of third grade childish
    as the trash MOG churned out.

    With that said, THANK YOU PJ, and best wishes.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:59 PM EDT

    As another follower of the whole SCO affair, I have come very much to respect
    your presentation of the facts, and your ability to explain same to legal laymen
    such as myself.
    I am a former CPA/Tax Practitioner, so I can appreciate the ability to explain
    legalese to non-practitioners.

    During this same time, I have come to regard Ms O'Gara in a slightly different
    manner (perveyor of dog poop comes to mind for some reason).

    Take heart - there are many out there that think Ms O'Gara has sunk to an
    all-time low with her recent writings.

    I have cancelled my subscriptions to Sys-Con publications in order to cast my
    vote in the only way that matters to some companies - voting with my checkbook.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Are you sure this is O'Gara?
    Authored by: Khym Chanur on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:59 PM EDT
    I don't mean to defend O'Gara, but this just seems so over the top that I can't help but think that someone broke into the Sys-Con site and put that article up just to get her into trouble. Seems to me that if she wanted to do a hatchet job on PJ, she could do a much better job. I mean, look at all the holes in the "expose":
    • How would she get hold of PJ's phone records?
    • If PJ has an unlisted phone number, and changes it very frequently, how would O'Gara know that?
    • Why would the police tell her anything about an ongoing investigation?

    Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute, but set him on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Paraphrased from Terry Pratchett)

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Email to Ms O'Gara
    Authored by: Galen on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:00 PM EDT
    I just emailed Ms O'Gara, I was going to copy it to the editor of the site, but
    to my suprise, she IS the editor(one of two listed).

    I am not sure that posting a copy of my email to Ms O'Gara here is appropriate,
    so if it is removed I will totally understand. But I felt like perhaps it may
    motivate others to consider expressing similar heartfelt opinions to Ms O'Gara
    about her article so here it is:

    I just read your article about Pamela Jones.

    It is amazing that you should seek to personally degrade someone.
    The article you wrote was obviously laden with emotion.
    What a shame that you felt so compelled to "target" the speaker
    instead of her message.

    At the end of the day, all your article shows is that you are meanspirited and
    Which undermines your own credibility, and lends more credence to Pamela's blog.

    As a frequent reader of groklaw, it doesn't matter to me in the least who Pamela
    Jones is. What matters is what she says, what matters is the validity of what
    she reports.

    The same would have been said by me about you, until I read your article on

    Now I would question your motivations in anything I read by you.

    It is clear based on your article about Pamela that you have a personal,
    emotional, and nonrational axe to grind.

    And it appears that you are more than willing to grind away, no matter who you
    hurt, including the family of someone you dissagree with.

    Will you feel proud of your article in a week, a month, a year, or will you look
    back some day down the road and wish you had been more mature, more responsible,
    more restrained?
    Maybe you should consider asking a friend to preview future articles, and be
    your substitute conscience.


    Again if the above is inappropriate for any reason, my appologies for posting it

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Authored by: TerryL on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:05 PM EDT
    PJ, Just a few (more) thoughts to provide moral support...

    I 1st saw a comment on LinuxToday by Brian Proffitt slamming M.O'G and the publishers for putting out the article. Usually I avoid giving them the hits but I was intrigued by what could have made a journalist so vehemently attack M.O'G and was truely appalled by her article - she was possitively gloating over having tried (and failed) to take a hatchet to you and Groklaw.

    M.O'G used the term harridan about you, but I think she was probably looking in the mirror at the time mistaking it fr a photo of you.

    I am confused by why she thinks being 61 (hey, at 52 I can see it on the horrizon myself, I have the countdown extension to Firefox counting down the days, hours, minutes until I'm 60 and retire) has anything to do with the quality of your work (I wish I could do such a good job at 52). And the only gripe I have with Jehovahs Witnesses is when the ring my bell and try and save/convert me (I'm a confirmed aetheist) on a Sunday morning, but that's what door intercomms are for, so I can tell them to [redacted to comply with Groklaw's rules] without having to brave fresh air too early in the afternoon.

    I envy you your genteel shabby appartment, and M.O'G can stuff her interior decorator style - genteel shabby sounds so much more comfortable and live-able with. When I retire I shall be getting my own decor upgraded to Genteel shabby if I can afford it.

    I am intrigued by how they managed to get from a mobile phone number to your flat, surely as a paranoid (hey, just because you are paranoid DOESN'T mean they aren't out to get you) you kept the number ex-directory. I do hope that any means they used to reverse look-up your address from the number was legal and that your phone company hasn't been handing out private details that they shouldn't.

    M.O'G should be ashamed of herself for harrassing an old lady like your mother, if anyone did that to my mother (coming up 78 and drives me up the wall, but that's her right as a mother) I'd be out make sitting down a very painful experience for them for the next month or two.

    The rest of it, who cares?????? None of the above affects what you and Groklaw have done, you do opinion pieces but they are backed up by evidence, links to facts, documents, people who were there when it was happening. Whatever the do they can't change that, no matter how they try to obscure it with mud of their own stirring, the info you dig up stands.

    If the info you have turned up was wrong, false or made-up they have the legal right to get it put right if they can prove it wrong, false or made-up, but they haven't.

    If what you have published was biased and only half the story, why don't they hire a good paralegal of their own (they must be cheaper than lawyers) and set them on digging out the missing or contradictory side?

    No, they don't seem able to do either of those things which leads me (and I assume most others) to the conclusions that the facts presented are true, correct and real and that there isn't another side to be found.

    PJ, you and Groklaw, are something new and un-expected and invaluable in the world of legal journalism. You are the 'translator' that us mere mortals need to sweep away the obscurity that the legal profession has shrouded themselves in and behind which shysters and tricksters have been able to hide for far too long.

    One last thing, I saw somewhere someone suggesting doing the same to M.O'G (finding where she lives and publishing all her private info) - please, no one do that. Just because you see a sow enjoying wallowing in the muck doesn't mean it's a good idea for a human to get down and roll in it too.

    Keep up the good work PJ, you race, creed, age, orientation, height, weight, eye-colour, hair colour or favourite toothpaste don't matter as long as you stick to the principles you espouse and backing what you say up with verifiable facts and information.

    Terry Love, London, UK

    All comment and ideas expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of any other idiot...

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Authored by: senectus on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:05 PM EDT
    I just managed to dig up the article in question.
    PJ, My initial reaction to reading that "article" was utter
    It makes me sick to my stomach that someone would do that, the absolute height
    of indecent "journalism".
    I'll never go to or ever again not even by accident,
    I'm going to put false pointers into all the DNS server I have access to.
    Good luck PJ, and sue their collective cake holes off!

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Legal action?
    Authored by: Khym Chanur on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:06 PM EDT
    Again, I'm not trying to defend O'Gara (assuming it was her that put up that
    "expose"), but I'm wondering what sort of legal action you could take
    against her. For libel, don't you have to prove damages? I would think that
    anyone who would believe the trash that O'Gara published would be in no position
    to cause you any sort of financial harm. As for publishing your mother's
    address: while it's obvious this was done with the intent to enable harrassers,
    is that "obviousness" enough to find her guilty in a court of law?

    Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute, but set him on fire, and
    he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Paraphrased from Terry Pratchett)

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:07 PM EDT
    Had to go searching for the O'Gara article, and I can see now why you didn't
    link to it. "elusive harridan" indeed!

    Just remember - ad hominem attacks are first resort of the incompetent. THe fact
    that they attack you personally just demonstrates that they have nothing to
    counter the facts you've posted.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    • Intimidation - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:14 PM EDT
    Authored by: blacklight on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:07 PM EDT
    If anything happens to PJ and her family, then both MOG and SCOG are at the
    minimum accessories to it. IANAL but I would speculate that the activities of
    SCOG's private detectives amount to stalking.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Authored by: Joris on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:08 PM EDT
    The article as written by Maureen O'Gara tells us a lot more about her and the
    people she represents than it does about PJ.

    Just keep on writing PJ and I will keep on reading. This site still contains the
    best and most factual information about the people that
    "claim-to-own-linux". Try and keep it that way do not let them drag
    you down to their level.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    A call to all in Linux Business
    Authored by: chribo on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:08 PM EDT
    It is for sure that engineers and executives of all in Linux businesses are
    reading Groklaw.
    Quite a few of this enterprises and shops having advertisements in LBN.

    I think it is time to stop the advertisments in LBN. With M$ ads only LBN won't
    survive and MOG looses his prominent plattform.

    Thank you PJ for all you have done!

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Another group letter
    Authored by: BigTex on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:09 PM EDT
    I am so enraged by this last article by MOG and LBN that I think the Groklaw
    community must answer and hit LBN where it hurts most...their advertising
    revenue. There are IT purchasing folks here, CEO's and other IT budget wielding
    or influencing folks that are part of this community.

    I propose that like the 1st letter we sent to Darl and SCO, we write one to ALL
    of the sponsors/advertisers on LBN expressing our displeasure of MOG and LBN and
    our intent to boycott their products or services unless they pull their ads for

    Thoughts? I am working on a draft now.


    One PO'd President

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    A "me too" for the support...
    Authored by: eamacnaghten on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:10 PM EDT
    PJ: Please add my name to those who are publically supporting you.

    The scoop MOG came up with was that the girl who claimed to be a paralegal come journalist turned out to be, well, a girl who is a paralegal come journalist! All that article was here was pure vindictiveness. It had no meaningful content whatsoever.

    When you first drew our atention to MOG's inconsistancies with fact (a few months ago) I suggested that you may be overreacting. You were not, she has no honour whatsoever. My apologies for being so wrong.

    I am very pleased that her article has had the oposite effect of what was intended by it.

    My Best regards...

    Web Sig: Eddy Currents

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:10 PM EDT
    In the truest spirit of open-source, what matters is the quality of your work;
    not your age, education, religion, ethnicity, and whatever other attributes
    people use to discriminate against others.

    Your work speaks for itself ... if there was a problem with it then the
    detractors would be attacking that instead of you ... in a way this is a scary
    ad-hominem attack.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Not much new information
    Authored by: droth on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:14 PM EDT
    This whole episode has only brought to light a little new information. Now we
    all know just how depraved Ms. O'Gara is.

    PJ's honesty, eloquence and integrity are exactly where they were before.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    O'Gara trying to provoke PJ.
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:16 PM EDT
    I really wish people would read between the lines. As with SCO, you have to read
    whats not there to get O'Gara's intentions.

    This time she is trying to provoke PJ out in to the open.

    And whats the best way to get accurate info on PJ .... Court documents ...
    sheesh, can't you see the cunning fox at work here?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:16 PM EDT
    I usually never comment, although I read groklaw daily, but this is a special
    situation so I want to post my support as well, don't let this get you down PJ.


    Jamie Conlon.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Who cares?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:18 PM EDT
    MOG's article hit a new low for spite and downright nastiness, but I have to
    wonder why she bothered.

    Even if what she said was true, who cares? How many readers of Groklaw would be
    likely to meet PJ, let alone get to know her, even if she didn't want to keep
    her privacy?

    PJ is a writer. What matters is what she writes: How accurate it is, how clear
    it is, and how timely it is. PJ's writing is what we know. Her personality,
    habits, and beliefs are irrelevant.

    Why anyone would imagine that personal details, real or invented, would have any
    bearing on how people react to PJ or Groklaw is beyond me.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    It does not make sens
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:19 PM EDT
    In this kind of situation I always try to put aside the emotional part to just
    focus on the meaning of things. And really I dont get it.

    1/ I dont get what O'Gara was expecting but what is happening: everybody
    realizing she is a bad person and PJ a victim.

    2/ I dont get the argument in the ad-hominem attack. How the fact that PJ is
    older than expected and member of a church reduces the quality of her research
    and writings ? Still from an ad hominem perspective it actually has the opposite
    effect for me (so she is not some naive teen nerd ?)


    [ Reply to This | # ]

    On your side on this one
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:19 PM EDT

    I stopped posting on Groklaw a while ago, due to disagreeing with many of your

    But I am certain that I speak for most of the Groklaw Exiles when I say that MOG
    has gone too far, and that we are on your side on this one.

    The only reason to do what she did was to harass and intimidate. I encourage you
    to fight back, but stay safe.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Should we do anything?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:20 PM EDT

    I don't mean MOG tactics, but what about:

    1) Writing companies that advertise on sys-con. Tell them you will buy or
    advocate their products, as long as they support MOG.

    2) Increase public awareness. Maybe see if some other journalists would be
    interested in the story. Be sure they know that msft is behind the entire

    Anything like that?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Intimidation, backfired in an amplified way...
    Authored by: Hydra on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:20 PM EDT

    First I wonder why the groklaw site is slow. Then I read PJ's long statement on the intimidation business.

    Then, I know, I know, bad bad, I want to read with my own eyes this gargantuan even-better-than-textbook-example of shooting oneself in the foot...

    Hmmmm, can't seem to find it, at first. But whoahhh! the site, (you know, the LWM site, yes, that one) is really slow. AND they disabled the search, apparently. And the article is nowhere to be seen, initially.

    It's still there, a link will be visible if another reply is posted. At least that's how I found it. I read it. In a twisted sort of way, the damage already inflicted, pandorra's box now well and truly open, the item of MOG actually made me feel better. How? Well, in the the way that if someone makes a big fool out of him/herself, and you know you are better, you feel good because of the acknowledgement of said fact.

    PJ, you've shown you don't let the bastards grind you down. I applaud you for it. I hope you can drag MOG into court and make her pay. Because as much as the over-the-top bizarreness of the piece made me smile awkwardly, it represents something that makes me retch. And retch more.

    So, not only was this a shot in the foot, the foot is blown away with the equivalent of a 10 kiloton tactical nuclear warhead. This particular fall-out isn't nuclear but it's killer nonetheless. There are, at the moment of writing, at least 2 LWM bloggers who have gone on record with "Maureen out, or I'm out!"

    Surely someone must have mentioned this already, during the time I was writing my post. Well, then live with the duplication :)

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Authored by: phands on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:21 PM EDT
    I just sent this to G2 and a load of people on the Sys-Con directory, changed to
    suit the, a variation goes to advertisers using Sys-Con as a
    vector - companies like Raritan, Scalix, JadeLiquid/webrenderer, and Monarch.

    To whom it may concern,

    Your columnist, Maureen O'Gara has fostered a reputation for being a
    controversial, and often biased, individual. She has often parroted what is
    obvious propaganda for companies such The SCO Group Inc, and Microsoft Inc,
    under the guise of journalistic reportage. When questioned, or corrected, she
    ignores such input, however phrased or delivered, and continues in the face of

    However, her recent attack on Pamela Jones, the Groklaw blogger, dives to depths
    of unprofessional conduct unparalleled in supposedly professional, technical
    journalism. The article was an unveiled attempt to character assassinate it's
    target, and used the basest of tactics: religious intolerance, innuendo and
    outright falsehoods to do so.

    Who Pamela Jones is, what her religion may be, and where she lives are
    completely irrelevant to the matter to which O'Gara was referring - the attempt
    by The SCO Group Inc to show that they own IP in Linux, and to charge licensing
    fees for it's use. This case is in court, and no decisions look likely in the
    short, and perhaps medium term. O'Gara writes as if it's a conclusive SCO
    victory, taking her cue from that company's officers - hardly an unbiased

    As of the date of this communication, I will not reward anyone employing O'Gara
    with web, or other traffic ("clicks"). Further, I will send a copy of
    this communication to any advertisers using G2 as a presentation medium, urging
    them to withdraw their business until such time as O'Gara is no longer published
    by G2.

    I note with wry amusement, that as I write this, about 3 inches below this
    editor window is the line " The Very Independent Observer of Industry
    Standard Systems, Servers and Storage. Microsoft Windows XP/2000/NT and

    O'Gara can hardly be judged an independent observer when she is clearly so

    Yours etc,

    Paul Hands

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    • Intimidation - Authored by: Tyro on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 09:16 PM EDT
    • Intimidation - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 09:30 AM EDT
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:22 PM EDT
    That you [PJ] have chosen to stay away from the publicity that you could so
    easily have taken is most admirable. It serves to confirm that you are doing all
    of this for absolutely the right reasons.

    Thank you


    [ Reply to This | # ]

    MOG Give Away
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:24 PM EDT
    It's really interesting to see what kind of things people
    say about others. You can learn a lot about a person from
    how they treat others. Of course some will never see the
    forest for the trees, or even vaguely realize how easy it
    is to see straight through them.

    I visited MOG's page and I know that I will never use
    any of those related publications to make any
    announcements for our releases.

    These guys are just too obvious. The only ones who fall
    for their transparent nonsense must be somewhat, eh...
    challenged. It is soo obvious what is going on!

    MOG calls PJ's stories diatribe! Haha! Man could she use a
    mirror... Asking yourself Who would hire, let alone let
    them publish this nonsense tells a big tale about their

    I really don't care what anyone says about PJ. I've spoken
    with her, read her blog. She's one of those valuable
    beings you'd defend just because she promotes higher
    standards of living. She also does it by setting a good
    example. Anyone would be lucky to call her a friend. And I
    dare say unlike some, we can do just that!

    Steve Szmidt

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Intimidation, I am distgusted
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:25 PM EDT

    I cannot believe they wrote an article like that. After reading your story, I
    hunted down the alleged article, and my draw dropped. I hardly ever write on
    these bloggs, but for this one occasion, I believe I had to write and send my
    regards to yourself and Family to have to deal with such evil people.

    But hey, remember one thing, I think you are winning, because when people have
    to stoop to such low acts, they are desperate, and desperate people take
    desperate measures.

    Jason, Australia.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Authored by: ExcludedMiddle on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:25 PM EDT
    PJ, you are a treasure and a resource for all of us. Your work stands on its own
    as being incredibly valuable, well-researched, and amazingly in-depth. I'm sure
    I'm not the only one to pledge you personal support, on top of the intellectual
    support of your ideas behind this site.

    Ms. O'Gara has shockingly abused her position as a journalist. After reading her
    article, I am disgusted at her, as well as the organization that employs her. If
    you were to decide to file a lawsuit, and a lawyer advised you that you had a
    good case, I have a feeling that your legal expenses would be well-funded by
    your supporters, should you ask. I would certainly donate.

    If you've ever needed a sign that you've succeeded, Ms. O'Gara has delivered one
    for you. Ad Hominem attacks are always the final refuge of those who cannot
    defend their ideas. Since you have most soundly eviscerated their arguments, and
    have exposed their obfuscations and misdirections, they are left with only the
    most personal of attacks. It was a poorly written, rather ineffective attack at
    that. My first thought after reading the article was: "Is THAT all they
    could dig up?" As you have proven in this particular article, it was
    unlikely that they would be able to intimidate you into quitting. And we're
    immensely glad that you will continue.

    Finally, at this point, let's see what the score is, shall we. The claim on the
    last conference call that "Not everything is as it seems in Groklaw
    land" is untrue. None of what they have printed, whether true or false,
    seems to affect what you have published in the past. If they had, for example,
    done an expose` on a series of payments that you had received from IBM that you
    hadn't disclosed, it would certainly be worthy of noting. Heck, if they even had
    found out that your dad had worked at IBM it would have been of very moderate
    interest, not that it would have meant anything meaningful. But since you back
    up most of your analysis with original source material, it's hard to see how
    they could tar you that way either. And if they had that information, one would
    think that they would have published it already. In the end, this only
    vindicates you even further.

    On the other side, I would assume that this means nothing but trouble for Ms.
    O'Gara and Sys-Con. What they have done is truly reprehensible, and I believe
    that both will regret printing this kind of thing in the end. This high level of
    negativity and personal attacks are no way to run a business. They usually don't
    succeed in the end. The companies that they advertise at Sys-Con will probably
    be hearing from a lot of people.

    I know that this attack from them is somewhat disconcerting. Certainly, please
    take care of yourself. I want to add my voice of support with the others in
    order to reassure you that you are not alone. And, finally, don't let them scare
    you. Keep on truckin', and know that we're behind you.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    I'm in shock
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:27 PM EDT
    What in the world were the LBN editors thinking? Running Maureen's article was
    a worse decision than letting Justin Timberlake expose Janet Jackson in front of
    millions. Didn't it dawn on the editors that this article contains nothing but
    voyeurism? If Ms. O'Gara keeps her job, I will lose all faith in the tech news

    PJ, after your countless volunteer hours, you deserve so much better than this.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Sys-Con advertisers
    Authored by: Carter on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:30 PM EDT
    Posted earlier today on Yahoo's SCOX message board:

    Here's an incomplete list of Maureen's advertisers. Let's get organized and
    collect some information so we can start contacting them to let them know what
    kind of scum they are being associated with. Maybe just e-mailing them a link to
    MOG's latest article will be enough.

    Please note that some of these may be product names rather than company names.

    Revelation Software
    Monarch Computer
    Data Direct Technologies
    Gluecode Software
    Devon IT /
    Wily Technologies
    Global Knowledge

    I didn't bother listing MS and EV1.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    JW's for PJ
    Authored by: n8osapi on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:32 PM EDT
    So this must mean that PJ gets on the list of famous Jehovah's Witnesses.

    I noticed that there was no thread started for people to say:
    "Hey I'm One Too"

    So here it is...

    I've been a Witness for my whole life (28 years).
    How many others live at groklaw?
    PJ might like to know.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    • JW's for PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:50 PM EDT
    • JW's for PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 09:18 PM EDT
    Disturbing thought...
    Authored by: Hydra on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:32 PM EDT

    OK, who else has had the following nagging question?

    What would happen to PJ's (now non-public) identity, if PJ would press charges against MOG / drag her to court?

    First I asked myself why anyone would do something this utterly stupid. The United States of America being (in the cliche eyes of a european, NOFI) Litigation Nation, it'd seem like asking for a court case.

    Could it be that MOG went ahead and pulled off this "stunt" knowing that she would A) be able to get away with it, or B) draw PJ out in the open, her true identity no longer private?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:33 PM EDT
    Nobody's said it yet, so I will...
    "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"

    Can everyone say "Ralph Nader"?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    In Ms O'Gara's defense ...
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:33 PM EDT

    Well, it seems that Ms O'Gara is coming under attack from all sides. So, it seems that someone ought to defend her, and I thought I would take a stab at it.

    Hm. I seem to be out of ideas. There is no defense.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:35 PM EDT
    The entire Linux community needs to condemn Sys-Con for this thuggish behavior.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Good God!
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:37 PM EDT
    I don't think in all my years that I've read anything as vile or frightening as MOG's article. I admire the priniples of the other posters, and PJ herself, in not posting a URL for the article. No-one should be exposed the that sort of malicous, outragous, rubbish. Rarely do we find ourselves in the presence of pure evil. This scares me in a way that terrorists and madmen never will. At least they act from a twisted sense of right and wrong - MOG appears to act from pure malice. Thus evil is unmasked. She claims this is "to be continued". Now linux world has it's final chance to show what it's really made of. Let us all hope she is never published again. Darren.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:38 PM EDT
    I've followed Groklaw silently for some time. This is my first post. PJ, I
    hope you understand that your work is very much appreciated, even by those like
    myself who watch from the sidelines. SCO, and the vile and disgusting actions
    of their associates can't take that away. Ever. Please know that your
    credibility, earned solely through your actions, is beyond anything they can say
    or do. Many, many, thanks.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    These sorts of tactics invariably backfire
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:40 PM EDT
    Because they draw attention of the mainstream press. The classic example
    was the Watergate Break-in: This was initially a story nobody - not even the
    New York Times - would cover, except for a couple of junior reporters at the
    Washington Post. And nobody took them seriously until John Mitchell called
    up Katherine Grahm (the publisher of the Post) and threatened her. The rest is

    The best thing GL readers can do is to bring this episode to the attention of
    their local newspapers, especially the business reporters. If even a few papers

    pick it up, it'll be enough to bring the kind of publicity that SCOX and MOG
    really, really don't want.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Authored by: Jorge on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:42 PM EDT

    I read the MOG article and I think everyone should read it as well. It is just
    so devoid of any coherency. Seriously, do the police over there in America (I am
    Australian, so we are only just getting to hear about this now) casually have
    chats with reporters and give away privileged information, such as the fact that
    it was PJ’s mother?

    And do Americans have access to phone company records to the level that allows
    them to track people's phone number changes and private numbers?

    I am a Groklaw member, but I prefer to remain silent. This however makes my
    blood boil.

    Keep up the excellent work PJ. You know you are doing a great job when people
    start to attack you personally. It is a sign of their frustration.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Authored by: abw2005 on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:42 PM EDT
    I have followed Groklaw practically since its inception, just lurking in the
    background. It is my morning news and my evening recap. I knew sooner or later,
    that those responsible for this fiaSCO would stoop to this level and try to drag
    PJ through the mud.

    Well, MOG, Darl and the rest of the henchmen involved: PJ and her Groklaw work
    of art has just made us stronger as a community. It backfired. Throw in the
    white towel because you know the end is near.

    Through Groklaw, I have learned the true heart of Linux and the FOSS community.
    Yeah, Linux is an OS, but it far more powerful because the developers, the
    kernel maintainers and the users are determined to make it work, to make it
    better. It is for the people, by the people. Because of this, SCO hasn't got a
    leg to stand on.

    Thank you PJ, for your insights, determination and humor. It is my opinion, that
    next to Linus, you have been the most influential force in the rise to Linux.
    Please remain strong, for we are all behind you.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    I care
    Authored by: bap on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:42 PM EDT
    my readers simply don't care who I am


    As mostly a lurker (and only occasionally a poster) I think I speak for many other lurkers when I say that we do care a great deal about who you are. We don't need to know where you live, how old you are, what your personal beliefs are, what your favorite kind of food is, whether your left- or right-handed, or even if you sleep with a teddy bear. What we do know, through your written word, that you are an honorable, trustworthy, intelligent, caring, individual. For me, and many others, that's enough.

    Maureen O'Gara can only wish that she had 1/100 of the integrity that you have. The whole world now knows that she has none.


    [ Reply to This | # ]

    • Another Lurker - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:54 PM EDT
    • I care - Authored by: Hiro Protagonist on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 07:26 PM EDT
    • I completely agree - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 08:34 PM EDT
    • I care - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 09:31 PM EDT
    Authored by: kpl on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:46 PM EDT
    Don't let them get you down PJ

    The fall - out from this will be interesting
    to see indeed.

    Latine loqui coactus sum

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    PJ, I think its time
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:47 PM EDT
    The best way to fight this would be to goto one of O'Gara's rivals, and give
    them a REAL exclusive.

    I know privacy is what you are after, but I don't think O'Gara will let up, she
    seems to have a massive chip on her sholder.

    So scoop her once again with the truth, but to one of her rivals.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Authored by: wordsofwonder on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:47 PM EDT
    Maybe I'm too nice, but...I just don't see how the "real identity" of
    PJ makes a damned bit of difference to anyone. Even if, for the sake of the
    argument, we were to assume that PJ is being funded by IBM or somesuch -- who

    Are the documents being posted to Groklaw real? It's easy enough to check, and
    as such, PJ would have little to gain from posting faked documents.

    Is the commentary on Groklaw accurate, insightful or meaningful? That's for each
    reader to judge for her/himself.

    Is SCOX going to go down in flames? It really really doesn't matter what anyone
    but the judge in the case thinks on that issue.

    Is attacking Groklaw going to do a damned bit of good to reverse the crushingly
    bad PR SCO seems to be generating for itself? It seems unlikely, given their
    track record thus far.

    Is the FOSS movement an "easy target" just because they're not part of
    a large corporation? Duh. (Memo to SCOX's legal team: 5,000,000 fire ants will
    kill you just as dead as a 30 ton gorilla.)

    Is anyone going to believe that MOG is actually engaging in objective
    journalism? I am a freelance writer and journalist myself, and I doubt it.

    So, I don't get it...what exactly does MOG think she's accomplishing?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    suicide and life insurance
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:47 PM EDT
    There have been some suspicions about the two 'suicides' so
    far related, (however tangentially) to this whole SCOG mess.
    I believe that PJ is at somewhat less of a risk of 'suicide'
    than the others. The vast majority of what PJ knows about
    this case winds up being published. (With the exception of
    things that are still sealed, or that are redacted due to
    other peoples personal information) There is little useful
    information which could be kept still private if PJ were to
    commit suicide.

    This may not have been true for two 'suicides' thus far.
    I would not be surprised if some damaging information and
    knowledge were kept quiet by those 'suicides'.

    As usual, I prefer to look on the bright side of things.
    I think PJ is at much less of a risk of 'suicide' as a
    result of just how public most, if not all, of the
    pertinent information PJ has, is.

    That being said, it may not be a bad idea to make a copy
    of any damaging information that is NOT public and give
    to trusted third parties, to be published in the event of
    PJ's death. Being public about having taken such
    precautions, could be considered to be a life-insurance
    policy. I would encourage doing so, just as I encourage
    wearing seatbelts when driving, or bike helmets when

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Authored by: Bas Burger on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:48 PM EDT
    I am sorry to hear the way they are taking things miss Jones.
    FUD and character murder is what one can expect from people that play the media
    in a ruthless manner. But physical threats is way out of line, I hope you have
    some help from the authorities here.

    Don't let this all paralize you, you sound as if you really like what you do
    here, I hope you keep the fun, but also I hope you know what to do when you
    recognise in the future that things arent fun anymore.

    Remember, things that don't kill you make you stronger.
    And that reality always confronts you later in life after you made your
    decisions, just ask Hilary Rosen... ;-)


    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:52 PM EDT
    This is my first time posting on groklaw but I have been a long time reader. I
    don't normally participate in comments and posting but this one has really
    turned my stomach. I can not believe Ms. Dido is the editor of such trash. I
    consider myself to be a fair person and I always like to look at arguements from
    both ends of the spectrum and that includes many of the views portrayed on
    groklaw and elsewhere but to see what Ms. Dido has done has gone beyond what
    real journalism is. There are no arguements to look at in that article but there
    are plenty of viscous personal attacks flying around.

    Since when does journalism turn into personal attacks? Although I may not always
    agree with PJ on everything, the love of groklaw for me is the content and
    merits of arguementation she provides. I'm still getting over my disbelief that
    Ms. Dido published such a thing. How is that even close to real journalism? In
    that pathetic thing called an article, where were the arguements? What did any
    of that have anything to do with Linux?

    I certinally hope Ms. Dido is fired and never returns to the world of

    P.S. PJ you have my support.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    • Intimidation - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:56 PM EDT
    • Intimidation - Authored by: jto on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 07:01 PM EDT
      • Intimidation - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 07:22 PM EDT
    Authored by: pjwest on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:54 PM EDT
    I have to say about that is, that I've never seen something so just plain
    wrong. No excuse for that from a "Professional" and no excuse for any
    "Respected" publication to give it the space.


    Just keep up the good work and keep on trucking down the high road.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:55 PM EDT
    Keep at it PJ! The latest MOG article just shows how desperate the dark side has
    become. MOG is clearly losing it now; I honestly fear for her sanity. Why else
    would someone admit to stalking, possible illegal entry, stealing/aquiring phone
    records without authorisation and so on?

    By the way, I, like many others, am going to be contacting sys-con's advertisers
    to make them aware of the content of the site they're "sponsoring".
    I've already mailed Google, and hope plenty of others join us...

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    IN *UTAH*?????????
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:56 PM EDT

    I am from Aus, so forgive me if I have my facts mixed but....

    Are not SCO angling for a "sympathetic jury trial" (well, really they
    are angling for FUD, but I thought a clueless jury was meant to be their best
    FUD hope?)..............

    And the trial is being held in UTAH............

    And they are trying to garner sympathy in *Utah* by TRASH TALKING SOMEONE FOR

    Talk about slander that was built to backfire! Your unfailing honesty and
    decency PJ has now completely changed how I see JW - I confess I have often
    given short shrift to the watchtower distributers around here - I think I am
    going to offer the next one who comes around a hot cup of tea and a pat on the

    John G.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Hey - PJ is younger than me
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:57 PM EDT
    Give them hell, Pamela, I wonder who MOG really is ?
    Does anyone have any clues, this thing really stinks.

    Best Wishes from an ancient geek and who still manages to contribute the odd
    code snippet to the kernel.

    May your shadow never grow less and may the farce be with you.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    They can't beat you...
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 07:00 PM EDT
    because you have already won. You have shown millions of people the power of
    providing the truth. You have prevented the extortion of millions of dollars
    from Linux users and have thus helped save the work of thousands (if not
    millions) of developers/testers/marketers/sales people.

    Congrats and keep up the good work ;)

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    The End of SCO
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 07:01 PM EDT
    Obviously SCO and their lackeys can't suppress Groklaw's habit of presenting the
    truth linked to facts. Their only option is to "punish" PJ by
    attacking that which she holds dear: her privacy and the privacy of those for
    whom she cares. With this comes fear and intimidation, at least that's SCO's
    hope. If not successful then SCO, just like any bunch of thugs, can at least
    take satisfaction PJ's pain.

    Disgusting to the MAX..

    If SCO wanted the world to know what they and their supporters stand for, their
    corporate culture, and their personal and professional integrity, then they have
    done a **really** fine job.

    If I were a SCO customer I would pull the plug on them **immediately**, even if
    I had to recode and run my system on FORTRAN, and never send those thugs another

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Authored by: Solaufein on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 07:07 PM EDT
    Long time reader, first time poster. I am disheatened and saddened by what
    MOG has done. My heart goes out to you and your family. It makes me want to
    cry when I think of how mean hearted and vile people can be to support their own
    causes. I have been reading Groklaw shortly after it went up, and have checked
    it religiously (numerous times per day) just so that I might get some
    translation of the legalese from the court documents. IANAL, I am in IT by
    trade and am also a Debate coach, what you have done here with this site it a
    valuable resource in many ways. It is a shining example of journalism, of
    integrety, and of honesty, saying what you believe. Please remember, should you
    ever doubt (which I do not think will happen, but I feel the need to say it
    anyway), what you do here is good, it is something that is needed.


    [ Reply to This | # ]

    The cheaper the crook...
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 07:07 PM EDT
    The gaudier the patter.

    Sam Spade

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Authored by: brooker on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 07:08 PM EDT
    I have not read O'Gara's article and don't wish to. I already know that
    whatever tiny bits of truth she may stumble upon will be twisted out of
    regognition and wrapped in lies and meanness by the time it passes through her
    poisonous pen.

    Sometime I should write to PJ and tell her about some very positive changes (and
    new experiences and skills) happening in my own life that can be directly
    attributed to information and ideas I have learned about on this amazing web

    I try not to post very often, being a bit of a rambler (does it show? :) I hate
    to impose too much. And life has been a bit hectic for me these last few
    months, so I mainly try to use what time I spend here reading and learning.

    But, I'm not a bit embarrassed to be a "me too-er" right now and state
    quite firmly that I value and appreciate this web site tremendously. I don't
    need O'Gara to tell me who PJ is.

    PJ is just PJ. Whoever she is, I would not want her to change. She has always
    been gracious and kind to me, and I have no doubt that that is how she is to
    others as well. Basically, she is just right as-is!

    Heartfelt encouragement and cheers and good wishes to you, PJ!!!!

    ...And resoundingly loud raspberries to Maureen. How very sad and grim it must
    be to be her.


    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 07:10 PM EDT
    I have never commented before, but I have to speakup now.

    Maureen O'Gara just cannot take that people cannot stand her and love you.

    PJ you have our support.

    P.S. I have never seen a more discussting article in my life. I did not see
    anything jornalistic in it, period.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

      Intimidation (and invitation)
      Authored by: ssavitzky on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 07:10 PM EDT
      my readers simply don't care who I am or what I am. They really don't.

      Actually, many of us really do care about you, as well as your superb coverage of the SCO GroupGang. But unlike some people we respect your privacy. I have enough friends who've been victimized by stalkers to have a vague idea of what you might be going through. It's no fun.

      However, I've been on the Net since long before privacy was something I needed to worry about, so if you're ever within 50 miles of San Jose, CA and want to come over for some friendly conversation, feel free to look me up in the phone book (or Google for Grand Central Starport) and give me a call.

      The SCO method: open mouth, insert foot, pull trigger.

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 07:11 PM EDT
      I can only assume that, because of your reaction, that at least some of O'Gara's "facts" have a basis in reality. Assuming that the Jehovah's Witness part is correct, the worst you've done is given me a better impression of their members.

      Personally, I pictured you as younger (30ish) which would have made your stated positions more interesting, since it is a lot easier to get carried away when you're young. You've always been restrained. Remarkably so, given the obvious temptations.

      At 61, it is a bit easier to believe that you can spend as much time as you do and not cut into whatever day job you may have. If you spent that much time at work that was close enough to this case that you got paid for it, I'd be looking for ulterior motives. I haven't felt that from you. We can *read* what motivated you ourselves.

      From you, I see a lot of facts (including the raw data that they were gleaned from). I get some narrative and some interpretation. I have my own views on the technical aspects, but I'm no lawyer so I look to people like you to interpret the lawyer weasel-words for me. I’m all too aware that any jury that SCO wants to pick will never be a jury of *my* peers.

      I don’t see that from SCO sycophants. This though… this is over the top. I wish you well on whatever means you have to curb that kind of behavior.

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      Shock and Awe
      Authored by: jto on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 07:13 PM EDT


      I don't know what to say. I first saw this in Brian Proffit's editorial on LinuxToday, which caused me to read the item on LBN. Never have I been so offended at reading something in the "press", and I have been offended by the press at a lot over my 52 years!

      I have spent the last couple of hours reading all the items here, on LinuxToday and on SlashDot. The support given you has not suprised me, but I can't understand what Maureen was expecting to get from this article. This is the worst of gutter journalism.

      So as the title of this item states, I am in shock that this would get past an editor and have been published, and I am in awe of how well the community has responded. Hang in there, you will be vindicated in the end.

      Regards, JTO

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 07:18 PM EDT
      Hi PJ,

      I've been reading Groklaw for about 18 months now, and in that time I haven't
      seen you write anything personally attacking any of the individuals involved in
      any of the stories you've written. Neither have I see you make any unfounded
      allegations. We all know you're biased - you want SCO to lose and FOSS to be
      vindicated, but you obviously possess morals which prevent you from stooping to
      the level MOG has reached. I must admit I doubted you whilst reading this
      article - I wondered what MOG could possibly have written which would be so bad,
      so for the first time in 18 months I checked out something you'd written about,
      not from normal curiosity, but to verify that it was as bad as you claimed.
      Instead, I found that it was worse. I literally can not understand why the
      editor and/or legal department of LBW would allow this trash to be published.

      Tomorrow morning when I get into work I'll start mailing the companies listed in
      this article's comments explaining that for as long as I have any say in the
      matter neither I nor my employers will buy products from any company which
      advertises on the websites of or is in any other way associated with LWB,
      SYS-CON Media and/or subsidiary, parent or sibling companies.

      Hopefully the threat of lost advertising revenue will convince SYS-CON that this
      sort of behaviour is unacceptable.

      I also want to thank you for the wonderful job you've done, the numerous
      interesting articles you've written - you've even made the dry legal stuff
      comprehensible to those of us who don't understand legalese. More importantly
      you've helped to show that FOSS is a community, not just a bunch of coders;
      we're more than prepared to stand up for ourselves and others, for what we
      believe to be right, but we have and will continue to do this ethically. Your
      work on Groklaw has been great, but your legacy will be a much stronger and
      closer-knit community, whose members know that they can rely on each other.

      I know that this must be very frightening and enraging for you, but try to take
      heart from our support, and don't let people like MOG deter you from doing what
      is right.


      [ Reply to This | # ]

      Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 07:23 PM EDT
      I remember some recent statements by Darl McBride (in a confrerence call?) to
      the effect that "PJ is not who she says she is" and that SCO was
      planning to expose the truth about that.

      Now here is this disgusting article by opinionist Maureen O'Gara.

      Coincidence? I think not. I really hope some crime has been committed here
      against PJ, because it sure looks like O'Gara and McBride are part of a
      conspiracy to commit one, and I'd love to see them on trial for that! Who are
      the zealots now, Darl??

      P.S. If I were you PJ, I would hire a professional armed bodyguard. Can never
      be too careful with all these crazy people around.

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      Authored by: MathFox on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 07:25 PM EDT
      I'ld like to say that Groklaw is not a one woman show. It is undeniably true
      that Pamela is at the core of the Groklaw community, but the community is far
      bigger than Pamela alone. I see it as my personal duty to ensure that Groklaw
      will persist; whatever happens to PJ or me. We will keep Groklaw alive as long
      as nescessary, as a comunity!

      When people start to comment on the form of the message, it is a sign that they
      have problems to accept the truth of the message.

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      Subpoena Yahoo!
      Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 07:27 PM EDT

      If they were subpoenaed in a criminal investigation, Yahoo! would have to reveal
      who wrote those predictions of suicide.

      Sys-Con executives also may have some explaining to do to the police.

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 07:28 PM EDT
      Upon reading the MOG's article, I found it rife with personal attacks ranging
      from religion to stereotyping comments.

      I have enjoyed following the SCO v IBM litigation since I
      first learned of it. Getting the court documents, eye-witness accounts, legal
      translations, etc, have been a major boon in my understanding of what has been
      going on. I've been given a chance to understand the litigation MYSELF instead
      of someone providing me a top-level, personal opinion piece such that comes from
      most journalist. Most don't even link to the court documents and provide as
      much coverage as Groklaw.

      PJ, we all have our mannerisms. Personally, if it makes MOG happy, I am a tried
      and true DARK HEADED geek. Enjoy doing programming for my CHURCH on the weekend
      (they take up donations of clothes, used eyewear, childrens vitamins, etc for
      those less fortunate), drive a less than fashionable vehicle, and work a 7 to 5
      job in a very demanding tech field.

      Hang in there and do what you need from a legal standpoint. There's support
      in this community for someone who takes time to post the documents and legal

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      I sent the following to Sys-Con
      Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 07:30 PM EDT
      Regarding Maureen O'Gara's latest article in Linux Business News:

      By exposing Pamela Jones, you have achieved the same ends that you would have by
      exposing my own mother. Namely, you have committed an act of media voyeurism
      without a shred of purpose.

      Ms. O'Gara may be gleefully proud that she was able to dig up Pamela's age,
      address, phone number, and religion, but what do these facts have to do with
      Linux business? The only reason for publishing these details is to harass Ms.
      Jones. You should be ashamed.

      I'll be forwarding this email to your advertisers.

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      Authored by: tim_hunter on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 07:33 PM EDT
      Hang tough, PJ. If they stoop to this, it's because they know their cause is
      lost. PJ
      please know that I'm sending you all my best wishes. You have more integrity in

      your little finger than MOG has in her whole career.

      To Maureen:
      You can take a step toward making things right, or at least less wrong.
      Apologize to PJ and ask for her forgiveness. It'll be the first step to being
      able to
      look at yourself in the mirror again.

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 07:34 PM EDT

      I am a law student who has regularly read your website with great interest over the past year. While I had never registered or posted comments, this latest turn of events has compelled me into expressing my support for you and for the Groklaw community.

      I would be repeating the sentiments of many to say that it is an unfortunate reflection on the merits of O'Gara's case that she, and others like her, have resorted to personal attacks. Suffice it to say I have written an email of complaint to Sys-Con requesting that they discontinue all association with O'Gara, and encourage others to do likewise. (The email contact form for their Editorial department is here.)

      Best regards,
      Alvin Cheung

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      Authored by: stats_for_all on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 07:35 PM EDT
      This vicious attack is simply a sign of demented desperation.

      For me, it has simply encouraged me to redouble my efforts to bring these rabid junkyard dogs to heel.

      Wishing you well

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      Prejudice and intolerance
      Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 07:36 PM EDT
      What strikes me the most about Maureen O'Gara's smear job was how much she
      jumped on the "Jehovah's Witness" thing. I don't like to think of
      myself as intolerant, but I admit to having some prejudice against JWs.

      I've read through a few issues of the Watchtower, and had decided that the only
      people who could find it interesting are people who want their opinions
      spoon-fed to them by an authority figure. So up until now, for me, finding out
      that someone is a practicing Jehovah's Witness would have been an effective
      means of diminishing my respect for that person. Until now.

      PJ has shown what kind of person she is through intelligent analysis, tireless
      research, and candid admissions of even the most minor error (of which there
      have been very few from what I've seen). She has demonstrated unimpeachable
      integrity, pursuing the facts wherever they might lead.

      I find it amusing that my reaction was the opposite of what Maureen O'Gara
      intended. Instead of lessening my respect for PJ, Maureen's allegations (whether
      or not they are true) have made me realize the wrongness of my prejudice towards
      Jehovah's Witnesses.

      I am grateful to have been reminded that one should judge people by getting to
      know them instead of by the categories they seem to fit. At least MOG's
      abandonment of integrity and common sense had one tiny positive effect. I'm
      sorry that this contribution to my education had to come at PJ's expense.

      Best wishes, PJ.

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      Authored by: RPN on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 07:37 PM EDT
      Dear PJ,

      I've followed this blog very actively since very early in its life, something
      I've never done with another blog and the reason is the consistent quality that
      shines through. I don't care, which isn't to say I'm not curious of course :),
      about what you look like and all that. I do care that what you produce here is
      the complete antithesis of what 'that woman' (sorry, I can't bring myself to
      even use her initials) has produced. There is way to much casual to plain bad
      journalism around and I really appreciate what I find here. I don't normally go
      and read her articles since you and regular posters whose views I've come to
      trust report enough and she doesn't deserve the hits but I made this an
      exception and was truly disgusted. It will be the last time she gets a hit from
      me. I've been a victim of merely casual/slightly slanted journlism and even that
      hurts. This goes way, way beyond the pale.

      As for LBN what on earth possessed it to let her put it up in the first place
      let alone keep it up?!! Frankly it makes them acessories and as bad as she is.
      They won't be getting any hits from me either. How can I begin to trust them as
      a news source any more?

      Take care, keep up the good work, we do treasure it.

      Richard Neil

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      That article's scary ...
      Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 07:40 PM EDT
      ... and when I say scary I mean as in:
      Does this woman have a gun licence?
      Does she have any history of obsessive/compulsive behaviour?
      Is she taking any medication?; and
      How fast can I get a restraining order?

      I say this not to insult Ms O'Gara - it's just that if I were the subject of
      these recent articles I'd want the author prevented from getting within 5 miles
      of my person.

      And if Ms O'Gara is reading this then please take a deep breath, drink a
      relaxing cup of hot chocolate and remember ... it's business, law and ethics
      we're talking about here - it's not personal!

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      From SCO Wire Tap (humor)
      Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 07:40 PM EDT
      "she did WWWHHHAAATTTT!!!!!!!"

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      Authored by: webster on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 07:45 PM EDT
      They are desperate and hurtful. Since you are a private
      person, that is exactly where they want to go. It is a
      testament to your character and effectiveness. It is a
      crude and ugly tactic not meant to accomplish anything but
      your distress. Best wishes to you and your mother. You
      will survive this vicious notoriety strengthened and with
      more friends.


      [ Reply to This | # ]

      You are not alone
      Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 07:45 PM EDT
      I'm not a registered Groklaw member, but a daily reader.
      Reading PJ's article I went to dig for the MOG piece.

      Hm, if there is any truth in what she put out there, it seems to not contradict
      the pieces of personal info I read from PJ, in small remarks inside her

      That MOG piece goes a long way to mention again and again the name of a
      religious community (a church, asect, whatever they call it where you happen to
      live) like that was any proove of - what? This is an off topic of the off
      topics, even O'Gara should know that. Given the space she gives to that factoid
      I take it the writer didn't find any thing "worse" to denounce PJ.

      It is so ugly to even try to make someone look bad by pointing at her/his
      religion. I live in Germany and this country learned that lesson the hard way.

      The other thing about that MOG piece is the abundance of "identification
      data" it contains. How to recognize the car. Telephone numbers and email
      addies, postal addresses. Looks like some private investigators report with some
      journaille make up on top of it.

      It does not appear to be farfetched to fear for personal security with a thing
      like that online. To put it mildly. In fact I believe it would be a matter of
      hours to take this offline by court decision (Einstweilige Verfügung) over here.

      What can I say but: PJ, do all it takes to protect your privacy and your health.
      You are not alone.

      I do not care which is your religion or what car you drive, I do care for that
      great innovation you started with this site. I do care for the great spirit.

      Whatever it is that feeds you, be it your church, your family, your friends,
      your vision, may be blessed!

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      "Maureen O'Gara dispels stereotype of Linux Supporters..."
      Authored by: Dr.Dubious DDQ on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 07:48 PM EDT

      If even a fraction of MoG's apparent[1] claims are true, it sure goes a long way towards dispelling the notion that Linux and other Open Source/Free Software supporters are all overweight, socially-challenged, unshaven male nerds, doesn't it?...

      MoG has obviously gotten so frustrated at not being allowed to write whatever the heck she's been paid to without having people actually check her "facts" that she's lost all sense of rational thought. This can only improve the image of Free/Open Source supporters and further tarnish the stereotype of the proprietary corporate software-licensing world as desperate, sleazy, and evil.

      I can't imagine that was the intended result...

      [1] I say "apparent" because everything I know of her article I've gleaned from reading other people's comments on it. I refuse to give her even a click, let alone let her infect my brain with her drivel.

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      The apartment "super" should be fired!
      Authored by: Tsu Dho Nimh on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 07:48 PM EDT
      Unless MOG is making the whole story up, the "super" (for the non-East
      coasters, it's the apartment supervisor, sort of a cross between a janitor,
      handyman and rental agent) should be FIRED! No apartment manager, janitor, or
      landlord should be so free with the details of the tenant's lives to anyone who
      is not wearing a uniform and handing over a warrant for information. For all
      the super knew, MOG or whoever oozed around looking for info could have been
      checking out the place with criminal intent.

      REAL LIFE REASON: I was working on a rental property and J. Random Nobody, a
      clean-cut guy who looked real respectable, chatted me up and was asking
      questions about the tenants. I lied, as usual, and said the place was rented to
      a couple of cops from the K9 squad. Several weeks later, J. Random's face
      showed up on a police sketch, wanted for questioning in a rape one neighborhood
      over. His MO was to locate houses where single females lived by chatting with

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      Authored by: webster on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 07:49 PM EDT
      They are desperate and hurtful. Since you are a private
      person, that is exactly where they want to go. It is a
      testament to your character and effectiveness. It is a
      crude and ugly tactic not meant to accomplish anything but
      your distress. Best wishes to you and your mother. You
      will survive this vicious notoriety strengthened and with
      more friends.


      [ Reply to This | # ]

      Devils Advocate
      Authored by: argee on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 07:52 PM EDT
      If I were a member of the dark forces, here is what I would

      First find out who PJ is. If not sure, run an article like
      MOG did, and see what the reaction is. Judging from PJ's
      response, this article hit close to home.

      Second, now that PJ's identity is known, sue her. The suits
      do not have to be all that meritorious, just tie her up in
      court, maybe get some sort of gag order on her silencing her
      and her site, and get her to spend all of her money and time
      with all sorts of filings, discoveries, etc. SCO has a lot
      of expertise in this; maybe this will tie up with Darl's
      statement about "PJ is not who she claims she is."

      Think about it: the only way to silence PJ is via the

      As for PJ being a forty something retired paralegal and
      now a waitress at a Jehova's Witness cafe in upstate NY;
      who cares? What counts is that the retired paralegal,
      waitress, and JW, has sure put SCO on the run!


      [ Reply to This | # ]

      Jumped the Shark
      Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 07:53 PM EDT
      Those articles are scary. As in "Get me a restraining order now!"

      But ... there's a term in TV land called "jumped the shark".

      It refers to a show, usually long running but failing, that attempts to hold
      onto its audience by desperately trying ever more wilder and implausible
      storylines. Until, finally, it totally loses any credibility it ever had, even
      among it's wildest fans.

      Comes from a Happy Days espisode when Fonzy - well, guess!

      I think Ms O'Gara just had her JTS moment.

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      Authored by: simonbrooks on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 07:55 PM EDT

      We do value you, We do care, Keep up the fantastic work. Slime like O'Gara are
      to be pitied. She will reap what she sows on this one. (No I'm not
      threatening!). Keep doing what you are doing. You're making a big difference.
      We're behind you all the way.

      God Bless

      Simon Brooks.

      [ Reply to This | # ] a loser
      Authored by: icebarron on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 07:58 PM EDT
      Keep up the amazing work PJ, your one very shining example of just the type of
      person we should all strive to lets take this charade to the ones who
      thought to bring all this up...darly and mog. There are a few influential people
      who are in need of a conversation with those two...the pieces of the puzzle are
      getting put together as we speak...

      Peace to one and all


      [ Reply to This | # ]

      Authored by: rdm on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 08:00 PM EDT
      Something has finally happened that has made me angry enough to sign up. I am disgusted. Even the paparazzi do not publish addresses.

      This went up on my blog this morning...

      As many know, I have been following the blog Groklaw for the past couple of years, tracing the increasingly silly path of the SCO vs IBM case and its off-shoots.

      Groklaw is run by an excessively polite person known to her readers as PJ. Now PJ is not one rant or rave or issue profanity. She squashes any such that she finds being posted in her comments - even if directed at those she is opposing. She has taken a large number of personal attacks by the CEO of SCO in her stride. She has even quit her job with OSDL to avoid the possibility of the appearance of a conflict of interest. All she is interested in is the Truth. A paladin.

      She has even managed to make legal proceedings interesting.

      If only her critics were as civil. Today, one of the more noisome thorns, a purported journalist who goes by the name of Maureen O'Gara engaged in a particulary low piece of stalking and privacy invasion. You can read about the Groklaw reaction here.

      I urge you not to go looking for the original article - instead, look at her co-worker's responsed here and here.

      And while you're at it, consider helping support PJ and Groklaw.

      Reality might not get out of Beta, today. (O.Timas, "Bot" - S.Gange)

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      Authored by: ravenII on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 08:01 PM EDT
      Dear PJ,
      All the best, we are proud of what you are. I can't describe who MOG is, my
      mother would wash my mouth with soap.
      Who ever you are you are dear PJ to us.

      "Snowflakes are one of nature's most fragile things,
      but just look what they can do when they stick together."

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      Authored by: Simon Pole on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 08:02 PM EDT
      Keep up the good fight PJ. First they laugh at you, then they fight you, then
      you win.

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      • Gandhicon... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:29 AM EDT
      Stowell and O'Gara comment on that article
      Authored by: MacUser on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 08:03 PM EDT
      Internet Week quotes Blake Stowell (repeating Daryl's line) and an unrepentant MOG at 0395.

      Here are two brief quotes.

      Stowell:"We think there's a lot more to the picture than what's known about this PJ person and who posts on Groklaw," SCO Blake Stowell said in an interview [Monday]. "Nobody knows how it's funded, but the tenor of their postings is not in the form of objective media—it's anti-SCO."

      O'Gara:"This person is somehow connected to Groklaw, but I don't know if this is the PJ who is supposed to be writing this stuff... This person comes fully equipped with a fully developed open-source philosophy. I don't understand the reason for the anonymity. This is somebody who is shaping opinion. It seems strange that we have no face to put with this."

      O'Gara's attitude and behaviour contradict my (admittedly undistinguished) experience of newspapers over 25 years. There ARE certain cast-iron rules, and one of them is: never, ever give a journalist's address or phone number to the public.

      That's ingrained in every editor or reporter. Try contacting a freelance or outside contributor; the paper will insist you leave a message. I find it incredible that any real journalist would break that instinctive, and well-justified, taboo.

      O'Gara's publishers must act now -- unless they wish to persuade us that Sys-Con and its advertisers endorse unethical behavior.

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      Authored by: etmax on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 08:04 PM EDT
      Unlike SCO ($63million) and MOG (of Magog? coincidence?) maybe 1 million, the
      combined resources of the FOSS/Groklaw community far exceed their resources,
      which is why they stoop to personal attacks. The only way to stop this is to
      "take them to the cleaners" as we say downunder. From your moral
      pedestal you will have no problems painting her in her true colours.

      Go Get'em

      Max - Melbourne Australia

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      The 'Red Dress'
      Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 08:07 PM EDT
      She can't have found JP since there was no picture of the famous Red Dress.
      With out that definite proof there is nothing.

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 08:12 PM EDT
      The photo tags (granted they may be faked) were taken the same day of the
      article with a Sony DSC-F828. Looks like a rush article to me slipped in the
      last minute with a few photos.

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 08:14 PM EDT
      When I heard about, then read that article by Miss Og, I was shocked and
      horrified anyone could stoop so low, even in these days of tabloid journalism.
      It is simply jaw dropping that something like that should be published. Miss
      Og not only needs to be fired, she needs prosecution under whatever stalking
      laws apply.

      And personally I don't care about PJ's age or her religion. She can be 91 and
      worship Baal, God of Fire, for all I care, as long as she continues to do the
      good work that she does.

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      SCO involvement?
      Authored by: Christian on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 08:15 PM EDT
      Is SCO involved in this harassment? If so, how directly?

      I would argue that this article was not put out on SCO's orders. First, they have very little to gain. At some point, SCO might have sold a few more Linux licenses by FUDing Groklaw, but it is too late for that.

      Furthermore, the timing is wrong. If SCO were pulling the strings, they would have timed this to come out the same day as a disastrous court hearing or the release of an embarrassing transcript or something. Most likely, they would have saved it to release right when the third amended complaint, if it is allowed, would become public. The Groklawers and Slashdotters would be distracted from the substance of the complaint and perhaps PJ would be unable to post for several days, letting them get their PR established in the press.

      This does not disprove the hypothesis many have offered that the information was dug up by a PI working for SCO and fed to MOG. But I don't think SCO was acting as a direct conduit for the information this time.

      PS: One of the greatest things about the geek community is that nobody cares how anyone looks, smells, or dresses or what their family is like or their attitude toward whatever God(s) or Goddess(es) they believe in.

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      Mother's Day
      Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 08:16 PM EDT
      Why would they bother possibly shooting the photos on the day before Mother's
      Day and presumably interview her mother?

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      She Thinks There's an IBM Connection
      Authored by: hbo on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 08:16 PM EDT
      The gleeful tone of her bile spewing piece reaches a peak when she notes that
      PJ's home county ".. is IBM territory." We know this woman has a
      tenuous connection to reality from the way she has written about the lawsuit. It
      makes sense that she may really believe IBM is behind Groklaw. The fact that it
      would be insane and stupid in the extreme for IBM to engage in such an effort,
      particularly when their legal case is as strong as this one, is probably lost on

      Disclamer: I work for IBM. Neener neener! 8)

      "Even if you are on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there"
      - Will Rogers

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 08:18 PM EDT
      OK, I'm Australian and our media laws are interesting enough without considering
      interactions, etc.

      In a way it's a pitty that MOG is not an English citizen - an article such as
      she wrote would have her in front of a judge failry quickly.

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      • Intimidation - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 08:46 PM EDT
      Authored by: Hygrocybe on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 08:18 PM EDT
      Just for "completeness of Pamela supporters":

      I read the article of support by Brian Proffitt in LinuxToday and followed that
      up by reading the actual O'Gara item and then became as angry as Brian Proffitt
      certainly appears to be. I am not suprised by the explosively negative comments
      by every reader who has replied to the parent journal article by O'Gara because
      they agree totally with my own.

      Pamela, I consider this to be disgusting behaviour on the part of O'Gara, and I
      condemn her utterly for invading your privacy, implicit intimidation and the
      suggestions that somehow age and religion are important to telling the truth. I
      am 62, an active scientist and a relapsed Anglican....should I now be attacked
      by O'Gara as incapable of doing my work ?

      There seem to be no depths to which some people will go in order to destroy you
      however, judging from the massive negative reaction, I believe that this latest
      attempt has backfired massively. Indeed, I would suggest that (given the
      reactions that appear to be widespread in the actual journalistic world) O'Gara
      may have virtually destroyed her own career -- and all by her little self.

      It is my belief that you, Pamela, have always retained scrupulously honest
      credentials with respect to every piece of work done on Groklaw and I have no
      doubt that you will emerge from this situation completely without blemish. In
      fact, my impressions are that this mudslinging campaign is having an effect that
      is totally opposite to what was intended: it is destroying the credentials of an
      opposition whose despicable ethical standards are now fully on display for all
      to see.

      You have my warmest wishes, much affection (from our electronic correspondence)
      and complete support.........

      Blackbutt, Australia

      [ Reply to This | # ]

        What I can't figure out ...
        Authored by: Jude on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 08:23 PM EDT
        ... is why O'Gara would subject her tarnished credibility to so much damage just
        to take a cheap shot at PJ. I don't think MOG is dumb enough to think she can
        pull a stunt like this and then pretend it never happened. This incident is
        going to follow her around for a long time.

        So what happend? Did MOG just go off the deep end? Or is something more
        interesting going on? Perhaps MOG is like a chesspiece that is being sacrificed
        as part of a gambit. What might be the objective of such a play?

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Intimidation - Ugh!
        Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 08:25 PM EDT
        Against my better judgement I googled and found the piece in question.
        Just reading it left me feeling in need of a shower.
        How do reporters like that live with themselves?

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Authored by: mattw on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 08:28 PM EDT
        UTAH, May 10 /Fudwire/. The SCO Group lists 61 year old, grandmotherly
        Jehova's Witness as major impediment to future earnings.

        Continuing it's trend of self immolation, the SCO Group listed the
        "exposed" Pamela Jones as a major impediment to their future
        earnings. CEO Darl McBride ...

        I can't continue that, you get the idea and I can't think that stupid.

        Rock on PJ. Remember the quote "First they laugh at you, then they fight
        you, then you win." Hold on for the winning bit, it's not far off now.

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 08:30 PM EDT
        Nice to hear that you oppose it. Sadly, so did Val. I have suggested several
        times that the Noorda's should have investigated, but it seems that people wish
        to allow the past to be the past.

        I truely doubt that Val (a Mormon) did herself in. SCO is backed by a lot of

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Authored by: sbungay on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 08:30 PM EDT
        I echo the sentiments of each and everyone who stands behind you PJ. You are
        doing the "right thing", while those who would attack you are doing
        the "wrong thing". They show their true colours and those colours are
        indeed repulsive.

        A friend north of the 49th.

        Programmer: A red eyed mumbling mamal that converses with inanimate objects.

        IANAL IAAP

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Intimidation... Look at the source...
        Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 08:34 PM EDT
        what a person says often speaks worlds about themselves.. M. O'Gara tells it
        all in the first sentence..

        "the elusive harridan who supposedly writes".. She describes herself

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Authored by: dkpatrick on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 08:44 PM EDT
        Remember the scene in Spartacus where the Romans ask Spartacus to stand up?

        Aren't we all PJ? Don't we all contribute?

        I am PJ too. I am a 59 year old male presbyterian living California.

        "Keep your friends close but your enemies closer!" -- Sun Tzu

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Not in a million years and not on a bet.
        Authored by: ronhughes on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 08:47 PM EDT
        I was thinking about subscribing to 3 of the Sys-Con Media magazines. After
        reading the article I did a 180 and will never subscribe, refer, or recommend
        their drivel to a colleague. Apart from the fact that this information is not
        news worthy, the insinuations MOG makes are by far over-the-top and in bad
        PJ, I recently joined Groklaw, but have been reading since I found out about the
        site almost a year ago. Keep up the good work and stay in there. I think the
        community as a whole has benefited from your dedication and hard work.

        IANAL but I read GROKLAW. – That would make a great T-Shirt and I claim no
        rights to it.

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        It's not often I get riled enough to fax.
        Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 08:50 PM EDT
        I have just faxed the following to sys-con's Editorial:

        To the Editor.

        I have just read Mrs. O'Gara's article concerning Pamela Jones of Groklaw.

        In my twenty years of professional experience - including as a journalist and
        these past ten years at a 13 billion euro FMCG company, where I recently
        sponsored the first Open Source project - I have never encountered such a
        reprehensible personal attack.

        I am not under the impression that your publications have any reputation, but
        after seeing what I have just seen I can't imagine how anyone could consider
        sys-con a source of serious journalism.

        Sean DALY

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Authored by: winnetuxet on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 08:52 PM EDT
        Just wanted to say thanks for your inspiration over the last couple of years.
        I've learned much about software, computers, and more importantly, about people.
        Please - keep up the great work.
        Steve Mattern
        Plympton, Masachusetts

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Religion and morals
        Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 08:52 PM EDT
        I tend to think of morality as not necessarily tied to religion and so view
        people by their deeds rather than their words proclaiming their faith.

        PJ has consistently proven to me her integrity, honesty and energy. She sets an
        example I wish more people would follow. As for her purported age, I have my
        doubts about that 61 number as her energy and drive are more like that of a
        college student.

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Authored by: shayne on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 08:54 PM EDT
        I Cant believe Maureen has done this! OMG.

        Pamela, You need to understand your fans love you and give a damn about what you
        say. No amount of slander or 'expose' crap will take away that your work has
        helped alot of us Geeks feel confident about our future.

        I have seen the article, but stopped reading after a paragraph or two.

        There can be little doubt about it. O'gara needs to resign, and she owes you an

        PJ, you have our support.

        “Two things fill me with wonder, the starry sky above and the moral law within.”
        - Immanual Kant.

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Authored by: fredex on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 08:55 PM EDT

        I don't have any words of wisdom for you. I'm not good enough with words to come
        up with praise or encouragement to match what the other posters have said.

        So, all I can do is add my voice to theirs by saying: "What they

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        MOG not impressive
        Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 09:01 PM EDT
        PJ, SCO and there allies must be getting desperate. It looks like they
        will say anything to change the odds in their court cases. They appear to
        have little left to fight with in court. It looks to me like the information
        provided here has had an effect on the course of world events. If Groklaw was
        just another blog that did not matter, then SCO would ignore us.

        It does not matter who you are PJ, what matters is the truth. The
        courts will decide the truth of all the cases and motions at the proper time.

        There are somethings worth our support. The time for some old school
        letter writings may still be useful.

        Though few will read these word many will be affected by them.

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Why did she write that piece?
        Authored by: PrecisionBlogger on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 09:08 PM EDT
        Many of you people are asking how M'oG could have written her latest piece. I
        must ask you to think more deeply and kindly.

        I myself might write such a piece if it was the only way to rescue my wife and
        daughter who had been kidnapped and were being held at gunpoint. I would also
        write it if the aliens who had captured me were threatening to suck all the
        oxygen off of our planet or else! Perhaps M'oG really needs someone to rescue
        her from peril most dire.

        Oh, the humanity!
        - The Precision Blogger

        - Precision Blogger

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        • Pure distraction - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 09:54 PM EDT
        MOG missing the point
        Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 09:09 PM EDT
        Isn't the real issue the facts of the case? I mean, after all, who PJ is isn't
        at issue, and even if she was in the paid employ of IBM (which is doubtful),
        does it even matter?

        The facts of the case and the digging of the community to find those facts is
        what is important.

        An "expose" of PJ uncovers no new facts. It doesn't prove SCO's case
        (or IBM's for that matter). It simply looks to maneuver away from the facts,
        rather than to prove anything.

        Plain old sensationalistic garbage journalism.

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Authored by: bigbert on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 09:09 PM EDT
        Unbelievable. PJ, keep up the good work, and don't let MOG, LD, RE and whomever
        else put you off. But yes, I would like to know exactly WHEN one calls the FBI
        to report stalking? I thought there were laws in the US against that sort of
        thing? Then again, if after two years of litigation nSCO STILL hasn't actually
        produced any evidence, one also has to wonder about the American legal system.

        (I'm 51, Buddist and live in New Zealand. Put that in you pipe, MOG.)

        4c 69 6e 75 78 20 52 75 6c 65 73 21

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 09:10 PM EDT

        Hi, PJ. I've been reading Groklaw since the earliest days, and I admire your work greatly. You've never lied to us, never steered us wrong, and turned over more rocks in a few years than the average "traditional" journalist does in a lifetime. (And I know you've never steered us wrong because of the sheer number of people who'd trumpet it from the rooftops if you had.)

        As a professional privacy and anonymity researcher (I do Mixminion), I'm naturally disgusted by the machinations of (SCO's?) PIs in this case--I expect these tactics more from something like the CoS's smear campaign against its critics, but not even from the most desperate and straw-grasping of any moribund corporation's shills. I guess that shows what I know!

        As for the content of MOG's : if she wrote an article calling the ocean wet, my first reaction would be to double-check, and wonder what her angle was. If she wrote an article calling you a pyromaniac, it would improve my opinion of pyromania. (BTW, if you did turn out to be a sexagenarian JW, then MOG would have managed only to predispose me favorably to all sexagenarians and JWs around the world.) I'm glad you're proud of yourself: what you do makes me proud to be on the same internet as you.

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Authored by: Avada Kedavra on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 09:10 PM EDT
        I just wanted to add my name to the list of people lending support to
        our Ms. Jones. Regardless of what hapens in the SCO v. World trials, her
        demonstration of the power of collaborative online research and analysis
        will be her true legacy.


        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 09:12 PM EDT
        From The Bible, Galatians vi. 'Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also

        This should be a verse that the purveyors of this infringment into your personal
        space should understand. From an old linux hack (circa 1992 and well over the
        midlife crisis) thank you for your hard work. Your integrity and energy makes me

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Intimidation: Third Party Privity
        Authored by: meshuggeneh on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 09:19 PM EDT
        Does sys-con have it?

        I mean, if you want intimidation...

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Call: please don't stoop to name calling level - and some theories
        Authored by: cheros on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 09:19 PM EDT
        The whole core of GrokLaw is a stubborn persistence in doing things RIGHT -
        calling names for whatever reasons is not included in that. Just in case you
        decide to continue a thread started earlier on..

        I appreciate the emotion, but use that to keep funds and energy ready if this
        goes to court - mine's already out just in case. If I can spend $$ on a Firefox
        Ad (yeah, try to find me between the 10,000) I most certainly will not hesitate
        to put funds where they matter.

        However, getting this to court might be the actual aim: provoke a legal battle
        to destroy PJ's anonymous status.

        That may also explain the vitriol, but that has a couple of problems associated
        with it:

        1) nobody is going to take this seriously (as fact, not the vileness) other than
        the attempt to expose PJ. Even if she got her facts wrong there is probably
        cause for legal action here due to hardcore privacy violations - or attempts
        thereof (but IANAL).

        2) the cultural subgroups mentioned in the article are also unlikely to accept
        being named in such a condescending fashion - regardless whether PJ
        "belongs" or not.

        3) it smacks so heavily of desparation that I'm starting to wonder if this is
        prompted by the arrival of a letter from IBM kindly inviting G2 to explain
        itself in court - or it may even be from the Justice Department. If I pulled a
        stunt like that such a reaction would be precisely what I'd be worried about.
        If not, one can but hope ;-).

        But *please* do NOT sink to that level by name calling, it requires digging

        PJ, apologies if I make any presumptions here. Just be aware that I -like many,
        many others- will support whatever action you deem neccesary. It's a matter of
        hard earned trust - I'm positive you know you're not alone.

        = Ch =

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Suggestion: Get help from Ralph Nader - is this okay PJ?
        Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 09:25 PM EDT
        If PJ is agreeable, I would suggest that PJ and as many Groklaw members who
        agreeable, contact Ralph Nader.

        (Please leave it to PJ to decide first)

        While I (and expect others) do not necessarily agree with all Nader's political
        ideas - I believe that he is a good and honest man who genuinely believes in
        the causes he supports.

        More importantly, I believe that he could bring a powerful light on to this, one
        that the other side would not like to be exposed to. Additionally I believe
        that he this is *exactly* the sort of issue, which if properly explained to him,
        he will use his influence and prestige to support - particularly given his own
        personal history.

        What do you think PJ?

        IANAL IMHO

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        MOG Missing Brain
        Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 09:26 PM EDT
        What MOG doesn't realise, is that by outing PJ as the person she has described,
        MOG has effectively admitted she is incompetent

        She has admitted to being beaten by a retired mother, who ( at age 61 ) is
        unlikely to have had much exposure to the 'science' part of computer science
        during a career as a paralegal - and yet has shown a far greater grasp of the
        technologies - and a willingness to learn and understand that MOG just cannot

        Go PJ...

        PJ: 1
        MOG: 0

        Go on MOG - shoot your other foot off.

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Authored by: m_si_M on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 09:28 PM EDT

        First, and this almost unnecessary to say, I second all posters who expressed their support for PJ. Pamela, what you have done is priceless. And the reactions of TSCOG and this ..., OK, I'll stay with person, MO'G show that you were exactly right in what you did.

        I read a lot of rambling on this so-called article on the Y! board, and some things mentioned there (and in other places) made me think a bit. Groklaw's Quatermass has posted some int eresting thoughts on /. In addition to what he wrote, I want to add one thing that came to my mind.

        First a disclaimer: this post is not about religion, not the least, so please, please don't start a religious flamewar on this posting!!! If this happens, then webmasters, delete it immediately.

        One of the subjects I studied was literature. If you try to analyse a piece of literature, especially an old one, you have to figure out, why someone used a particular word or argument in a certain context. So much for the background.

        It was interesting to see, that MO'G expressly mentioned PJ being a Jehova's Witness. Well, I suppose one of the last things I (and almost all readers of Groklaw) are interested in, is PJ's denomination. So why, I asked myself, was MO'G stressing this point.

        One possible explanation may be that Jehova's Witnesses are generally perceived as "strange" or even "nuts" in the United States. As I don't live there, I have no idea if that's true. In case it is, it would be a possible explanation.

        In case it is not, my education tells me, that someone wanted to get a sublime (cough) message out, that PJ can't be trusted. I read in some other forums, that Latter Day Saints and Jehova's Witnesses have one or more theological axes to grind. If, and only if this is true (I really don't know), this leads to ... you know where.

        Please note again: This is not about religious questions. It is about a probably shortsighted attempt to attack the credibility of a person. All of us have witnessed Mr. McBride's myopia. I think it's not impossible that he or Yarro or one of their mouthpieces (Stowell, Sontag) handed over this "information" to MO'G. And both of them share a past as Mormon missionaries. By that I do not want to diminish Mormon missionaries. I only want to direct anyone's attention to the fact that an attempt by a former Mormon missionary to discredit other people might result in "accusing" him or her to be a Jehova's Witness, something hardly anyone is interested in.

        Once again, this post is not about religion. It's text analysis. It's an attempt to reveal the source of this disgusting attack by trying to explain why some things have been published, which are absolutely useless for readers. The fact, that MO'G even published this crap, may help tracing back the source. Nothing more, nothing less. I have no problems with religious people of any kind; my only problem is people who abuse religious feelings for unethical behaviour.

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        What I dont get is...
        Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 09:29 PM EDT
        regardless of whether PJ is a 60 year old Jehovahs Witness or a 19 year old
        Muslim, it doesn't make the fact that SCOX hasn't presented a shred of evidence
        to support their case. This is repugnant on MOG's behalf and I hope there are
        legal remifications taken against her and G2

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 09:44 PM EDT
        PJ - I always read but rarely post. However, I must say that you have my
        respect and support 100%. Don't give up! Your personal life is your own and
        none of our business. SCO v Linux is a battle of ideas. Its it the old
        fighting the birth of the new. The 'other side' is desperate and this is the
        result. Hang in there - we are obviously close to a victory.


        David Wiener

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Authored by: shayne on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 09:45 PM EDT

        Mahatma Gandhi had a wonderful quote;-
        "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then
        you win."

        This is where Groklaw and the linux world is at right now. They ignored us ,
        then they mocked us. Now they are fighting us.

        We've almost won.

        “Two things fill me with wonder, the starry sky above and the moral law within.”
        - Immanual Kant.

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Appropriate response...
        Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 09:49 PM EDT
        Instead of responding in kind as a few people have already suggested(posting
        MOG's personal info on the net), perhaps a more useful response would be to
        document MOG's accuracy?

        MOG is supposed to be a technical "journalist", so what about an open
        source project to analyze and document her accuracy as such? It shouldn't be
        terribly hard to go over her old articles and parse them for accuracy. Just
        imagine a web site with a list of everything MOG ever wrote was listed WITH
        every lie/mis-truth/deception/mistake was documented in black and white.

        Keep in mind that just because WE know what MOG really is(a shill) that dosen't
        mean that the average IT manager out there has a clue. The IT director at the
        company I work for has no idea what is REALLY going on in the SCO/IBM case. The
        thought of trying to explain it to him kind of makes my stomach hurt too. Guys
        like him get their info by reading articles online and in print from people just
        like MOG.

        Bearing that in mind, how many I.T. types would ever take MOG seriously again if
        they could go to a website and see that +90% of everything she's ever written
        was wrong?

        Any thoughts/ideas/comments? Am I barking up the wrong tree here?

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        My two cents...
        Authored by: tleps on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 09:52 PM EDT

        Once more they just don’t seem to get it. The Linux Community is only impressed
        by competence, vision & the integrity of the person involved. If anyone has
        shown an overflowing abundance of these things in sorting out this legal matter
        it’s been P.J.

        I have had reason to e-mail back & forth with her (that was way back in the
        early life of what this has become...) that lead to some talks with my wife (who
        IS an attorney...and this current ___ just sickend her to no end). This all had
        to do with setting up the non-profit for the site, and I hope the information
        that she was able to send was helpful. Sense then the site has attracted a
        truly impressive crowed of incredibly knowledgeable people, and as their
        experience & knowledge generally outshines my own (except maybe when
        involving that Redmond comapanies stuff) I have not added much the past year
        (though I still spend WAY too much time here reading & learning…) – it
        seemed her time could be better used (I remember when everyone used to get
        worried that she didn’t sleep enough…). I also know that if she needed any more
        information or advice from my wife, she had a direct line, so there wasn’t much
        need for me to clog her in box :)

        That experience only strengthened my belief that P.J. is absolutely above board,
        both with her own integrity & that this site wasisshall be her own
        creation & vision. That she has gotten some help along the way should come
        as no surprise… Mathfox has done truly amazing work with the site layout, and
        there are so many others, from those who do the transcribing, to those who fetch
        the documents & "court reports"…all the rest have helped where
        ever they saw they could. That’s the way communities work (for those outside
        the U.S., maybe part of the problem is our communities here aren’t working very
        well as a rule anymore… and as one who worked in the trenches for several years
        I don’t say that lightly…). I think it is absolutely astounding how much it has
        grown, how the level of communication has constantly been even tempered &
        thoughtful. I guess the opposing viewpoints have just finally showed us how
        “insightful” they are about it all… when you can’t attack the position, attack
        the person. How professional.

        Do what you feel you must P.J., and by all means protect yourself in every way
        that can be meant. Hopefully someday well get that cup of coffee we had to
        cancel when I’m on your side of the continent again.


        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Authored by: mscibing on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 09:54 PM EDT
        Condolences on the vicious violation of your privacy. There is no excuse for
        what Maureen O'Gara did.
        For what little it's worth, your credibility is unaltered with me.

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        The other shoe
        Authored by: shareme on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 09:55 PM EDT
        I do not think this is the end in this series of actions..

        If this is a true pattern than all of us need to take the same steps that PJ has

        Lets be proactive on this folks.. we need not to loose even one single person to
        this type of bully behavior..

        Sharing and thinking is only a crime in those societies where freedom doesn't

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        A Ruse?
        Authored by: Leccy on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 10:03 PM EDT

        I can't help wondering if this is just a ruse to stop you from doing your normal
        digging on the important SCO/IBM documents?

        I think that personal attacts on anybody should not happen in any journel. It's
        a sad time that this can happen at all.

        PJ, we know that you will make it though these times. You have my support and
        that of all Groklaw.

        To err is human.
        To really mess it up takes a software patent

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        I wonder...
        Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 10:04 PM EDT
        If the personal information Ms. O'Gara printed is, in fact, correct and this is the real PJ, then does suing really give away anything they don't already know?

        Furthermore, if it is incorrect, could not the people who were falsely identified (one or more of them) sue?

        I must think if O'Gara is off the mark, it does no good for PJ to sue her. What grounds are there anyway? She's trying to "out" her?

        If one or more person in the "expose" are incorrectly identified, I would think they would certainly have grounds to sue. It would then be useful for PJ and her supporters to provide these people the support needed so they could sue.

        Now, as for the insinutations Marine Iguana made about PJ, let me just say:

        Oooh! She's 61! and a Jehovah's Witness! Oooh!!! Is that seriously all you've got? "Oh No! the old Jehovah's Witness lady is scaring me!" Please. Nobody cares. I've been coming to groklaw since very early on. I don't care what gender, ethnicity, age, religion, or sexual orientation PJ happens to be. All that matters is the veracity of the articles published. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out.

        Veracity. Maureen O'Gara, et. al., would do well to look it up.

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Authored by: Tufty on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 10:06 PM EDT
        Ah, so that was what Darl meant at the conference call. Well, I guess Ms O'Gara
        has really boosted the standing of SCO and their campaign - straight down.

        I watched GL for a long time before joining in. I wanted to see what the
        standard was like first. When satisfied I joined. I have not seen the likes of
        that scold's rant in here. I believe that in the Middle Ages Ms O'Gara would
        have spent much time in the ducking chair. What I have seen here has been backed
        up by the papers from the courts and research. Not idle allegations.

        What do PJ's personal details have to do with the case at all - nothing. What do
        PJ's personal details have to do with how this blog is run - nothing. This is
        harrasasment, pure and simple. I would not wish to cross swords with one who has
        friends such as AllParadox, Webster, Mad Scientist and Quatermass. Not to
        mention many, many more. I suspect that the research and advice is going on
        now. I do hope that PJ does take care about what action is taken over sueing, I
        believe that is the reaction that was desired. That trap should be avoided.

        One thing is sure, GL will continue even if things become very nasty. There are
        many who will pick up the banner. All over the world. This attack has just made
        it stronger. Those behind it really do not understand how the Open Source
        movement works or they would have realised how negative the attack would be.

        Why do I not use that woman's initials like so many others do. My cat wishes it
        to be know that cats take offence at their nickname being associated with the
        likes of her and wish it to be noted that they hold the original IP on the hissy

        There has to be a rabbit down this rabbit hole somewhere!

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Authored by: rvergara on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 10:07 PM EDT
        I have been an admirer of American Journalism and how self controlled and
        independent it is.

        I can only expect that journalism itself deals with this appaling incident in a
        swiftly and complete manner.

        I hope this becomes one of American Journalism finest moments.

        PJ, our continuos support from us in Chile.



        [ Reply to This | # ]

        • Intimidation - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 02:14 AM EDT
        It's official: PJ has won.
        Authored by: BrianW on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 10:16 PM EDT
        According to Gandhi, PJ is now on the third step of his oft-quoted four-step
        plan to triumph.

        In a debate, this would be an automatic loss for MOG. Once the ugliness begins
        in a debate, it's a sure bet that the one that got ugly is fighting an
        indefensible position.

        "Speak not unless your words can withstand the light."

        PJ, we appreciate your contribution more than you know.

        #define IANAL

        [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: Dennis Myers on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 10:29 PM EDT
          I have been following Groklaw since nearly its inception.
          IANAL, and I find it to be totally wonderful in explaning the
          legal jargon in a manner that I can understand. Over the past
          year or so I have come to admire the person who is PJ. You
          can get a glimmer of someones soul by the things they write,
          and PJ has a very good soul. Now I have registered with
          Groklaw because of the MOG article and Darl's commets. Oh,
          did I mention that you can get a glimmer of someones soul by
          the things they write? I think that we have seen a glimmer of
          MOG and Darl and it is not a pretty sight.
          To PJ, You are my Hero. You have an entire world
          community as your friends, willing and able to stand up for or
          with or beside you. Blessings always

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          answer to the distraction problem
          Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 10:31 PM EDT
          hire boies to sue o'gara! that ought to negate the distraction issue. and it
          ought to keep her busy into the next century at the rate they move.

          jp fielding

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Not bad company
          Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 10:36 PM EDT
          I know a Greek that had problems similar to PJ. He was a bit of a bum actually,
          wandered through the city every day. No job. And he was very fond of wine.

          He taught, he loved conversation, he believed in a moral life. And he was
          disparaged for his religion, his appearance and his wife. Eventually those that
          feared him try to destroy him.

          Not bad company. Not bad principles.

          You have my respect.


          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: globularity on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 10:38 PM EDT
          I havn't read the article in question, there is enough independant commentary to
          get the gist of the content. Definitely below the belt maybe O'Gara is seeking a
          redundency package, although I gather she is self employed. I was brought up on
          a steady diet of peer reviewed academic literature in which there is
          traditionally no interest in the authors personal information, all academic work
          stands on it's own, many of Graklaw's readers probably have similar academic or
          professional backgrounds.

          If there is any truth in O'Gara's ramblings then it is testimony to PJ's skill
          and integrity in that her work has none of the traits that some might expect, in
          other words like many have said before the article is not only irrelevent to the
          SCO v IBM case it is also self defeating in more ways than one.

          Be nice if O'Gara et al had broken some law, then fighting with the D.A would
          keep her foul writings at bay.

          I know it is easy to say but hang in there P.J, these guys are in their death


          "It's all about myths and conceptions" I think that is what Darl meant to say.

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          The funny part is,
          Authored by: kawabago on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 10:38 PM EDT
          PJ will make a bigger profit on MOG's purile attempt at intimidation than SCO
          will make selling there products this year!


          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Apposite Quote from the Past
          Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 10:39 PM EDT

          I couldn't find within myself words to express my outrage at Ms. O'Gara, but using the Web, I did find the right words from someone else:

          Until this moment, [ma'am], I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness. ...

          Little did I dream you could be so reckless and so cruel as to do an injury to that lad[y]. ...

          It is, I regret to say, equally true that I fear [s]he shall always bear a scar, needlessly inflicted by you. If it were in my power to forgive you for your reckless cruelty, I would do so. I like to think I'm a gentle man, but your forgiveness will have to come from someone other than me. ...

          You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, [ma'am]? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?

          [US Army attorney Joseph Welch, addressing Sen. McCarthy, 9 June 1954, courtesy of the Minnesota Star-Trib and Google search, slightly edited]

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 10:41 PM EDT
          Sure looks like the beginnings of the last dying gasps of the entire SCO
          machine. I mean, every single time it has to get personal, the other side has
          COMPLETELY lost.

          Mark this as the official END.

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          We support you!
          Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 10:43 PM EDT
          "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then
          you win."
          --Mohandas Gandhi

          Hang in there PJ. :P

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          IT Resellers, Vendors, Integrators, Consultants: Take Note!
          Authored by: Gnostalgia on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 10:44 PM EDT
          PJ -

          My thanks to you and the whole crew for putting up with this inane crap. I had
          something similar happen to me once, when an employer of mine (currently
          facing over 100 years in prison on tax fraud charges in Binghamton, NY) found
          some NSFW postings
          of mine in a Usenet newsgroup and tried to use them to get me to support his
          fraud. I called him on his BS, and walked.

          Fast forward to today. The smallish IT company I work for is based in Boston,
          as are a large number of the companies that advertise on I have
          been pointing out to all the companies I have emailed who have Boston offices
          that this is a VERY small town, and word gets around at user group meetings and
          so forth. We talk about who is a good company and who isn't. And I have
          promised to follow
          through on that.

          We are also resellers of the Barracuda Networks product, and I wrote them in
          particular, asking that they pull all support for, or I would (very
          regrefully) ask to be removed from their reseller program.

          We have to vote with our feet, folks. My company only sells a few Barracudas a
          year, but it really is all of us little resellers that make a difference with
          these folks. If we hang tight, be reasonable and responsible, express our
          differences civilly
          but firmly, and follow through, we will make an impact.

          I emailed my polite, firm letter to Barracuda, and if I do not get a response
          with satisfaction, I will see to it that we cancel our relationship with the

          Support who and what you love, folks. I'm talking to all the other resellers
          out there, who have a LOT more sway than John Q Publius with these companies.

          Those of us in Boston, Seattle, Silcon Valley, New York -- let the advertisers
          and KNOW that in your emails, and let them know that word gets

          "Only connect." -- E.M. Forster

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 10:44 PM EDT
          You do great work here at groklaw and the truth and honesty in what you
          post is apparent. You even bother to post all the original source material so
          people can look for themselves, I can't imagine MOG ever having done so.
          What you have created here will most assuredly outlive you should anythnig
          happen (accidental or deliberate) which is really the point of open source. No

          one person or group can remove what has been created.

          I would recommend against legal action, simply because there is no point.
          The damage is done, and I can not imagine SCO or MOG refraining from
          repeating themselves. Anyway SCO is a sinking ship, and MOG has lashed
          herself firmly to its mast. Any lawsuit would be a mere nuisance and a
          sideshow compared to the damnig truth you post about them both every day.

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: Juggler9 on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 10:45 PM EDT
          All I can say is, "Wow!" I really didn't think SCOX & Co. could
          get any lower (and, dare I say it, dumber?) than they had recently. I was wrong
          and I admit it publicly.

          I do believe that a response is called for but it should be open and legal.
          Letters to advertisers, cancelling of subscriptions, letters to editors and the
          like but...the legal response (if any) should be PJ's and hers alone.

          Groklaw has been clean and above-board and that is its power. It is in
          everyone's best interest to keep it that way.

          I would like to urge Microsoft to take a stand on this openly and publicly by
          pulling their advertising. There's already the hint of complicity running
          through their recent actions and it can do them no good to support this

          PJ, you have my support in however you decide to pursue this.

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: TtfnJohn on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 10:51 PM EDT
          PJ, hang in there. This screed is just what you say it is a poorly disguised attempt to silence you.

          I read the article in question and after shaking my head in horror more than once I have to say that as a piece of journalism this thing wouldn't pass muster for a high school paper much less a checkout tabloid. MOG gets failing grades there.

          As for facts, such as they are, I'd have to say that they're doubtful though there may be some glimmer of truth to them somewhere. It appears as though MOG has been reading far too many 1930s and 1940s detective novels and fancies herself one of their number now. Both the language and the "facts" lend themselves to that.

          A couple of other "facts" that must be questioned come from the alleged interview with the apartment super who either can't resist talking about his charges or spotted a sucker coming and simply gave MOG something she wanted to hear and then some. The other is the statement from the police. It's normal journalistic practice to identify a police officer that a journalist speaks to. MOG doesn't. I'll leave other questions about that up to the reader.

          The ethics...there are none. What is the purpose of publishing a photo and address of someone's mother? Exactly what is it supposed to accomplish unless it's both a threat and attempt to intimidate the mother or both the mother and a child? There's more about the total lack of ethics here but the long and the short of it is that judging by this and the one other MOG article I've read she and ethics have, at best, a long distance relationship.

          Contast that with this site. Each and every commentary is cross referenced by checkable sources, often the court records themselves in the SCO case. I don't recall any time this hasn't been so.

          This site has never published an article that would be more at home on the dust jacket of an old Sam Spade book than it would be on a site that claims to be an authority. Nor has this site gone to anywhere near these lengths to slander, libel and threaten someone.

          PJ, I don't care if you're a 61 year old JW mother. And if you have run off to Canada, I can understand why. I just don't believe it.

          (Aside -- though I would like to see MOG try her amateur sluething in the true north strong and free and see how long it is before she gets a visit from either a peeved police officer or an even more peeved Customs and Immigration officer. You see we don't like that sort of thing here. And we do have laws about threatening. Criminal ones.)

          In fact the notion, PJ, that you might be a granny makes me smile even more because it's simply that you are exactly what SCO hasn't been looking for. :-)

          Meanwhile, take care, keep your powder dry and don't let the bastards get you down.

          We're with you.

          John Wilson

          PS: That's my real name for anyone interested. Now, MOG, just try to find me. :)

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Internet Week published a reasonable summary of the MOG diatribe ...
          Authored by: dmarker on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 10:58 PM EDT

          Internet Week - Article Outs Groklaw Founder

          I see it is courtesy of 'Linux Pipeline' - I don't know if they are goodside or badside folks ?. The article itself seems very objective and doesn't dwell on specific personal details.

          Doug Marker

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Can Linus revoke use of the LINUX trademark?
          Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 10:58 PM EDT
          I believe Linus owns the rights to Linux including a trademark on the word. Can
          he revoke LBN use of the word?

          Website that are anti-Linux should not be allowed to use the word

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 10:58 PM EDT
          As a groklaw lurker since the start, this latest event provides the impetus to post my note of support. Groklaw provides excellent, fact-based, professional journalism in stark contrast to the spin, FUD, and PR flying about almost everywhere else. I am motivated to action and hope that others in the community who care and are able to help can do the same:

          1) Donate. If you haven't done this yet, what are you waiting for? Amazon honor system doesn't seem to be working at the moment, but paypal seems to be doing fine. Give within your means, but give.

          2) Email/fax a quick note expressing your distaste to the relevant advertisers supporting MOG's press. Please post relevant emails and fax #'s as you find them so that someone can consolidate them in a single post. Personally, I think that the editors are well aware of the reaction of having MOG on staff, but nothing speaks like a decrease in ad-revenue.

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 10:58 PM EDT

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          This is a new low for MOG and SCO
          Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 11:02 PM EDT

          I don't know what help or assistance I can offer, but if there is something I
          can do, say so. MOG and SCO are now officially unworthy of any form of honor,
          respect, or pity.

          I am
          -Just An Obnoxious Twit

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Boy, this one isn't too hard to fathom
          Authored by: raynfala on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 11:04 PM EDT
          I can picture in my mind how it all must've started:

          Maureen O'Gara writes a somewhat controversial article on the SCO vs. IBM case.
          It gets a few people riled. Some links are posted elsewhere, and naturally,
          people come to look at her article much in the same way people slow down to look
          at a bad traffic accident.

          Cause and effect: controversial article garners more hits to the web site.

          So then she starts writing with more sass. She even takes a dig at Groklaw near
          the end of the article. Groklaw folk are riled. Links are posted on Groklaw,
          and a large majority of the readers, many of whom couldn't care less about
          "giving her hits", do just that.

          Cause and effect: even more controversial article garners even more hits to the
          web site.

          So then Maureen started to see the pattern that many others, -- shock-jocks,
          in-your-face political talking-heads, and daytime talk show producers -- start
          to see: attention, even the bad kind, is attention nonetheless. And hits are

          And then, of course, the inevitable happened. She got carried away, overstepped
          her bounds in the name of web site hits, and has now bought herself a big ol'
          heap of trouble.

          Enjoy your new-found fame, Maureen. It must be great, not knowing whether or
          not that next knock on the door is coming from the friendly local federal
          authorities, or from the friendly local summons server.


          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Poking the anthill
          Authored by: seb on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 11:06 PM EDT
          Brilliant! Way to single-handedly get the Linux community
          even MORE rallied against you. If SCO and O'Gara thought
          they were being made to look bad before, I'd hate to be in
          their shoes now.

          PJ, you have my support who ever you really are. I've
          been reading Groklaw since SCO started their saber
          rattling. Thanks, and stay strong!

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Slashdot humour - a story about MogTroll Dolls
          Authored by: dmarker on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 11:13 PM EDT

          PJ may feel it prudent to delete this link & if that happens I don't mind a bit. I just found this on Slashdot and it is causing a lot of people to laugh their heads off (judging by the replies). I laughed at it.

          It is a tad vulgar (but then so is what MOG did).

          A story about 250 MogTrollDolls

          Doug Marker

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 11:13 PM EDT
          Hang in there, PJ! You've got them truly desperate now! MOG and SCO are fighting fog, and they're frustrated beyond all belief. What they haven't come to grips with is that the community behind PJ and Groklaw is not a company or organization they can lay their hands or lawsuits on, but a widespread, diverse community dedicated to exposing their drivel to the light of day. Like someone fighting fog, they're doomed to fail. I just have to remember these words: "I fear that we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve" Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto Empire of Japan December 7th, 1941 Those were spoken by the admiral that led the attack on Pearl Harbor. He foresaw what was to come. MOG and SCO have sown the wind, but will reap the whirlwind (Hosea 8:7). No matter how you spell it: OGARA GO it says the same thing.... All the best, and keep up the good work. Bob White

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Ghandi and Serpico....
          Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 11:14 PM EDT

          Of course there are the fours rules from Ghandi:

          They ignore you
          They laugh at you
          They fight you
          You win

          But strangely, I find myself reflecting on the life and story of Frank Serpico
          the NY police officer that almost toppled the NY police department in the

          One of his quotes is very interesting:

          "20% of the police force are totally dishonest, another 20% is totally
          honest, and the remaining 60% want to be in the honest 20%."(SIC)

          On that note, please remember that Serpico's observation is why the "Ghandi
          Cycle" works. Because in the majority- people really do want to do the
          right thing.

          It is only in the balance when people who refuse to buckle under to threats,
          that the the Ghandi Cycle starts to work.

          Never give up, never surrender.

          And thank you:

          I have a job and a career due to Linux. What you do for our community has great

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 11:25 PM EDT
          PJ - thank you for the site. You have done a great job presenting information
          that has been incredibly accurate. I am horrified by MOG's actions. The personal
          attack does not qualify for journalism in my book.

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Other people
          Authored by: Juggler9 on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 11:31 PM EDT
          Another thought. Isn't this a perfect time for the SCOX shareholders to get
          involved? McBride hinted at something like this in the last conference call.
          Is he now going to say that this is not any of his doing? Is intimidation and
          probable cyberstalking responsible use of the company's resources.

          Does anyone else think that this is a step over the line?

          Where are you, shareholders?

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 11:32 PM EDT
          Having tracked down the article and skimmed it, I think it says a lot more about
          Maureen O'Gara than it does PJ. Even assuming that any of the "facts"
          are actually true. It reads as a very sensationalistic article with little to
          bolster the reputation of the author or publisher, and little to make one
          believe any of it is properly researched.

          So long as Groklaw continues to post articles with full references to sources --
          one of the things that attracted me in the beginning -- I think it matters
          little who is behind it. One can always refer to the quoted sources and see if
          one arrives at the same conclusion.

          PJ, as much as you can I'd be inclined to simply let it blow over. Getting into
          some sort of legal struggle over it is likely to be time consuming and
          ultimately fairly unproductive. I think everyone able to think for themselves
          can see the article for what it is.

          Thanks show us all how "open sources" research can be done.

          And "Don't let the bastards get you down."


          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 11:32 PM EDT
          Congratulations! You are now at GandhiCon 3.


          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: digger53 on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 11:34 PM EDT
          I admire your courage in facing up to this, you must be concerned. True courage
          is not being fearless, it is having fears and doing what is right anyway.

          I don't care how old you are, what you look like or what your faith is.

          Your credibility/Groklaw credibility = 100%.
          O'Gara/SCO et al. credibility = 0.00%.

          Keep up the great work.


          When all else fails, follow directions.

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: peterhenry on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 11:35 PM EDT
          I don't know if there are words to describe the events of the past days. Please
          feel reassured that we are all with you. Keep Groklaw on the high road and take
          comfort in the fact that you have so many loving friends who judge you by your
          words and your actions, not your age, height or shoe size.
          (OTOH, we are still hoping to see you in that red dress someday soon!)

          IANAL, not even on TV - however, I do IT for lawyers.
          --We have met the enemy and he is us......Pogo

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: blacklight on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 11:41 PM EDT
          On the positive side, MOG has just committed one of the most serious ethical
          breaches a reporter can commit - and her article is Exhibit A of whereof I
          speak. I suggest that we save her article and if possible archive it somewhere
          on groklaw, in case MOG has the effrontery six months from now to deny that she
          did what she just did. In my opinion, MOG, has just supplied us through her
          article the instrument of her professional auto-destruction as a
          "journalist". Attaching a copy of her article to those who are
          advertising on sys-con should result in a sizable loss of advertisaing revenues
          for sys-con. Attaching a copy of MOG's article for Bob Mims' consumption shoiuld
          give MOG far more exposure than she would welcome. We will use MOG's own words
          as the instrument of her downfall.

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 11:56 PM EDT
          OK, longtime lurker but firsttime poster. It was through PJ's writings that I
          was first introduced to the wonderful world of Linux. So it is with absolute
          disbelief and outrage that I read of Maureen O'Gara's smear piece in Linuxworld.
          I've always regarded her with complete and total contempt, but I'm gobsmacked at
          the boneheaded stupidity involved in attempting such a move. If she were working
          at an actual reputable newspaper, I'm betting she'd be fired the instant the
          article went to print. Instead, she probably feels that because it was posted on
          the internet she (quite foolishly) believes she is answerable to no one. The
          responses here prove just how wrong that attitude would be.

          PJ, along with everyone else here, keep up the great work. As an IT Developer
          working in a Government Department, I find your work of great relevance and
          importance to what I do. You're a beacon of light in the darkness, for all of

          David Lim (aka Spacehamster).

          PS. Tried signing up an account, but I can't seem to login properly.

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: sidders on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:06 AM EDT
          I have never read anything as personal and scurrilous as MOG's diatribe. There
          seems no depths of depravity to which such people are not prepared to descend
          to. I've seen newspaper articles that were beyond the pale, but this takes the
          biscuit. The rabid dogs are on the loose, they are frothing at the mouth and
          seeking flesh and blood. Unlike rabid animals, there is no known cure, they've
          flipped and there is no bringing them back.
          Stay safe PJ and face these people down, they will fail, they will be brought
          down by their own actions, mental midgets always suffer that fate.

          They fight Linux under the trojan banner of Freedom and Enterprise, just like
          most countries with Democratic in the name are anything but.

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          You can't sue for damage to reputation... ; career self-immolation
          Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:09 AM EDT
          In order to sue, you have to have damages.

          A peice of work like that one is obvious to anyone with a brain as half-baked
          tripe, and as such is incapable of damaging anyone.

          The only thing you might sue over is the very real steps you had to take to
          protect yourself from the very real loonies out there who will go after any
          public figure if only they knew where they lived.

          The "author" in question wrote her own career epitath with that piece
          of fiction. She's self-desctructed just like the SCOundrels before her. As
          someone else elsewhere said, she missed her calling, she should've worked for
          <i>The World</i>. IMHO <i>The Weekly World News</i>
          would be more fitting.

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Re: Unsubscribe SYS-CON
          Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:11 AM EDT
          I've tried on 5 separate occasions to unsubscribe from the various publications
          that SYS-CON has insisted on sending me, against my wishes. I was still trying
          this very day.

          Once they have you, they will never let you go.

          Now I think I'm off to burn my entire set of JDJ.

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Thinking out loud
          Authored by: Trepalium on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:11 AM EDT
          While nothing justifies what Ms. O'Gara has done, I have started to wonder about this situation. There is something I find strangely unsettling about it all. I find the level of hostility that Ms. O'Gara has for PJ a little strange, and I can't quite accept the theories that others have put forth (jealousy, etc). So, I'm going to propose one of my own.

          I'm led to wonder if Ms. O'Gara isn't being used as a pawn. Imagine if SCO were to approach her with the "opportunity of a lifetime". They would give her the information from the trial, and she could become known as the "Journalist Who Toppled IBM". No longer would she have to write for two-bit computer publications. In this light, it not mere jealousy, because PJ is literally the person who's threatening her dream.

          Anyway, I have no proof of this, and it's all just wild speculation. It's possible the others are right, and Ms. O'Gara is just a mean-spirited person. But I feel sorry for someone who seems so self-destructive.

          No Software Patents!

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:12 AM EDT
          So this is it? This is "not who she claims to be"? *This* is the

          61 years old. What is wrong with that?

          Jehovah's Witness. What is wrong with that?

          Living quiently in a modest apartment. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT?

          I think I know why this makes me so angry. My mother is a deeply religious
          woman and recently celebrated her 60th birthday. Every snide comment that MOG
          makes could apply to her as well. How angry would I be if she was treated like
          this! Knowing MOG probably made it all up just makes it worse.

          I'll sign off before I start swearing.

          PJ, you've got a lot of people on your side. Keep fightin.

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          I hope Maureen doesn't have athletes foot...
          Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:16 AM EDT

          It's not often you see someone try to insert one of their own feet into their
          mouth up to the hip.

          This article is going to generate a firestorm of criticism, and MOG is going to
          be at ground zero. I hope she has a thick hide, and a good retirement plan
          because she will probably need both.

          Of course she should apologize. I guess we'll have to wait and see what



          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: AllParadox on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:16 AM EDT

          PJ is kind, and takes the high road. We all give thanks for that.

          I have, at times, taken the low road. My opponents knew it from the scream
          "YeeeHaaaa" when I dove in. I still smile whenever I pick a bit of
          the dried mud from my eyebrows.

          Do what hurts most. I think the only appropriate place for Ms. O'Gara to
          publish in the future would be on the walls of alleys, with a can of spray
          paint, when nobody is watching.

          Her article crossed every ethical boundary I know.

          In the future, anyone who accepts her work is publicly announcing that they are
          continuing the support for her conduct: public blackmail (listing pictures of
          her ailing mother's home, with address, as well as PJ's address), personal
          investigation of journalists by private detectives, stealing and publishing of
          private telephone company records, and incompetent smear campaigns. Any company
          who advertises with any publication who prints O'Gara's work is also publicly
          announcing that they are continuing the support for her obscene conduct.

          Corporate advertising executives and managers simply cringe when their corporate
          names are associated with merely controversial topics. To be branded as
          financial supporters of the above would be absolute horror to them.

          Sys-Com published this drivel. They need to go, too.

          Don't do this all at once, folks. Just once every day, go through and pick one
          more advertiser that gets put up when one of O'Gara's articles get published on
          the web. Then contact the head of that company's advertising department and let
          him or her know what they are supporting with their advertising budget. I hate
          to say it, but a copy of the article will speak more loudly than any description
          of it. There may still be a version on Slashdot.

          Explain to the unfortunate advertising executive that if their company's name
          ever gets connected to O'Gara or Sys-Com again, that your criticism will go
          public. This is not a threat, mind you, but a promise. You will tell the
          public the truth, and the public can draw their own conclusions. Keep your
          lawyer's business card handy.

          It is mean-spirited of me, but I hope O'Gara is reduced to having to steal the
          spray paint necessary to continue her journalistic "career".

          PJ deletes insult posts, not differences of opinion.

          AllParadox; retired lawyer and chief Groklaw iconoclast. No legal opinions,
          just my opinion.

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          keep right on truckin' PJ!
          Authored by: 351-4V on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:19 AM EDT
          After reading all this I can only say "What a curious turn of

          I am bewildered as to Ms. O'Gara's state of mind and her motivation. I do hope
          that Ms. O'Gara receives the intense medical attention she requires.

          As to Ms. O'Gara's motivation, well that usually involves money. And in a
          situation like this where does that kind of money usually come from? If a
          convicted monopolist feels threatened enough to spend a gob of dough advertising
          an OS that he's already gotten paid for, who's to say what will happen next?

          As far as what Ms. O'Gara has published, I do not trust a word of it. And aside
          from that, PJ could be a Tibetan Monk for all I care. PJ's personal information
          is not of interest to me. What is of interest to me is that PJ has consistantly
          shown great care in how she reports events and treats people.

          Keep Right On Truckin' PJ!!!!

          Best Wishes,

          Timothy W. McNeil
          Clearwater, Florida

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          EXIF image data for the record
          Authored by: stats_for_all on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:21 AM EDT
          Nobutl (on Y! SCOX) has already established that the website images for the character assasination piece had the EXIF image data embedded. I want to further document this for the record. Readers should know that the ugly piece originally occured in text form on the alternative M'OG site "Client Server News" on Friday 5/6/05. Images were photographed subsequent to the text release on May 7th between noon and 2:12 pm, indicating the Norwalk and Westchester sites were revisited by a photographer.

          Embedded color profile is custom, can be traced to similar set up in other images.

          At least 12 minutes were spent at Norwalk, including an image whose focal length places the photographer on foot and on the private drive.

          The header files have a photoshop internal doc ID, meaning images can be localized the exact machine responsible for manipulation.

          Data taken from EXIF embedded data of images downloaded from the sys- con web report.

          Embedded color profile sRGB IEC61966-2.1
          Dot Gain 20%
          All Images taken with
          Sony DSC-F828

          Focal Length 33.9, Exposure 1/200 FStop 4.0
          Original 2005:05:07 12:55:35
          Photoshop 7.0 last save: 2005:05:07 20:30:39

          Focal Length 37.1, Exposure 1/125 FStop 4.0
          Original 2005:05:07 12:55:31
          Photoshop 7.0 last save: 2005:05:07 20:24:11

          Original 2005:05:07 14:00:18
          Focal Length 7.1, Exposure 1/125 FStop 4.0
          Photoshop 7.0 last save: 2005:05:07 20:31:47

          Original 2005:05:07 14:12:37
          Focal Length 11.2, Exposure 1/100 FStop 4.0
          Photoshop 7.0 last save: 2005:05:07 20:32:36

          Norwalk160.jpg (Mailbox Image)
          Original 2005:05:07 14:12:46
          Focal Length 33.9, Exposure 1/100 FStop 4.0
          Photoshop 7.0 last save: 2005:05:07 20:33:35

          Nicolas Screenshot
          LastSave: 2005:05:07 20:34:36

          Metabiliti screenshot
          LastSave: 2005:05:07 21:05:26

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Frankly, I just don't care
          Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:22 AM EDT
          I read the article -- well skimmed over it. Nothing I saw there seemed of any
          consequence to me.

          If the person she describes is our PJ, or some other PJ it doesn't really matter
          to me. I care for the content of this site, not the age, home addresses, or
          religious affiliations of those who post here.

          I do agree though that this is a terrible invasion of someone's privacy, be it
          PJ or someone else who shares the initials.

          To my mind, the comments in MOGs article seem about as well researched as, well,
          as any other article of hers.

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Sys-Con Media
          Authored by: SmyTTor on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:25 AM EDT
          Okay, first I tried to call the editorial office of SYS-CON, 201-802-3040, in an attempt at verbally expressing my outrage at this hatchet job, but I could not get through. Trying again later I got through, but could not reach a live person and when I tried to leave a message the system kept disconnecting me. So then I tried to get through to customer service, 1-888-303-5282, with similar results. I decided to try leaving an email to the addresses of both departments, actemail.cfm?ID=38 and actemail.cfm?ID=44, however both links seem to have been taken down.

          Interesting, I thought. I decided since money seems to be all that these people understand anymore I would try the advertising department, 201-802-3020. Sure enough I found a human voice and asked to be transferred to the editorial department and was promptly treated to a disconnect and dial-tone. I called back and oddly enough I could not get a live voice again.

          Well, I plan to start bright and early this morning until I get through to a live person in the editoral department at SYS-CON. Since I had a bit of free time being unable to contact SYS-CON today I decided to call my local paper, The Cincinnati Enquirer. I gave them the situation, the sites for resources, and a little back story and they seemed pretty interested and generally shocked at what they said was a clear violation of journalistic ethics.

          I would like to encourage more people to contact local newspapers and play this up. If money is more important than ethics and integrity for SYS-CON, then bad press and loss of ad revenue is a great way to gain their attention.


          They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Darl's Handiwork ?
          Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:39 AM EDT
          Or a clever intimidation^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H imitation? If you go to this page [Warning: links to foul sys-con site], you'll see a letter by "You Stupid Man".

          Some respondants reasonably thought that YSM was MOG herself. But consider the style: "PJ may be a multi-million dollar communist propaganda operation run by IBM. ...all the neo-communist free movement followers can pack up and move to Cuba or China or North Korea, or to any of their communist paradise they fancy.... Maureen is unfolding a bigger scandal than Watergate ..."

          Hmmm. Hyperbolic claims, no substance behind them. In Newton's time, fellow mathematicians said they could recognize the work of the lion by his claws. Today, we recognize the work of the weasel by his spoor.

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Watch the other hand folks!
          Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:41 AM EDT
          Hey, has anything out of the ordinary happened to SCO?

          Are they out of cash? Sold shares?

          It's a common trick to make a distracting show with one hand
          while doing something nefarious with the other.

          So, has anything out of the ordinary happened while everyone
          is yapping out their outrage over MOG?

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:42 AM EDT
          PJ, keep on rockin the free world.

          You work has been stellar and nothing short of amazing, keep it up!

          As well, consider this post an offer to donate funds if you so require them.
          Your work and your effort cannot be repaid.

          Thank you.

          - Robert

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Keep it on PJ - it is working as expected!
          Authored by: skuggi on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:45 AM EDT
          Two of my favorities goes well with this-
          I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly

          wounding because I think, well, if they attack one
          personally, it means they have not a single political
          argument left.
          -Margaret Thatcher
          You dont know a person by what others say about her,
          rather by how she talks about others.

          And Maureen, you are exposing your true self and it is not
          a pretty sight.

          Do not bother trying facecream on that one!


          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: horedson on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:54 AM EDT
          Seems like a TRO might be in order.
          The article in question is way out of line.
          Someone out there is getting very worried.
          That means you have had huge effect.
          It's good news actually.
          Keep it up.

          (From a retired hacker, older than you are - grin)

          ... Hank

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          How to deal with Sys-Con and Maureen O'Gara
          Authored by: arreaux on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:57 AM EDT
          If I have learned on thing from reading PJ the last few years it is this, take
          the high road.

          Sys-Con could care less about what they publish so long as they get readers on
          their pages. I think you are wasting your time protesting with SYS-CON.

          Their web advertisers on a page, gets billed on views or clicks. I would like
          to humbly suggest, that you do what I did, and spend sometime on their web-site
          or with one of their magazines and pick a few of their advertisers. Then e-mail
          your comments about SYS-CON’s personal attack directly to the advertiser’s
          public relations or media relations department.

          Since SYS-CON only seems to care about money things will change once their
          advertisers start asking questions about all the e-mails they are getting.

          Remember if you choose to participate, follow PJ's example and “take the high


          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Remember the last SCO Group conference call. . .?
          Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 01:00 AM EDT
          When old Darl was talking trash about Groklaw, PJ and that the SCO Group had
          learned a lot about PJ and, in theory, would be letting the cat out of the bag
          within the near future? Remember that?

          Well, I would have to say that the SCO Group and MOG have become tag team
          partners, to borrow a phrase.

          So, SCO Group and MOG have stooped to a new low and I suspect that this new low
          is going to cost them. Time, money and possibly their freedom as well.

          Darl, SCO Group and MOG may just wish to be a tad more cautious in the future.
          I do not believe that when they let the cat out of the bag did they realize just
          how big a set of teeth that cat has. However, I do believe that they will find

          I just wonder what Darl and MOG would look like in prison stripes?


          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: cjames on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 01:05 AM EDT

          I often find it ironic how the most humble, honest and unassuming people are the
          ones who really make a difference. Not by bluster and strutting, but by
          studiously and relentlessly reminding us what's true and what's not.

          PJ, you don't think of yourself as a mover and shaker, but you are. Your simple
          mission -- the truth -- combined with your unbelievable energy, persistence, and
          absolute integrity, has put you in the ranks of people like Torvalds, RMS and
          Raymond. You've made a real difference.

          Thanks. I really mean that.

          Craig James

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Another voice
          Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 01:06 AM EDT
          I've been following this site for quite a while now and its quite sad to see an
          internet "journalist" like MoG stoop to these kind of tactics to
          attempt to throw doubt on your work, so I'm one more voice adding my support and
          saying hang in there PJ!

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          No to Intimidation
          Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 01:23 AM EDT
          What O'Gara did is villainous. PJ has my apprecious. I hope you can sue her.
          But what concern me more is the threatening mails that you are receiving. Please
          take care. We are with you.

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 01:26 AM EDT
          Dear PJ,
          You have my total support, now as always!
          I am very sorry that you have to deal with this, ah, 'intimidation'.

          Ivan Anderson

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          The same "getting it" problem that SCO has???
          Authored by: Dr.Dubious DDQ on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 01:30 AM EDT

          Just had a stray thought. The apparent basis of SCO's stubborn lawsuit seems to be a fervent belief that "regular people can't possibly have made this cool Linux stuff, there MUST have been some kind of major corporate entity driving everything behind the scenes! There must there must there must!!!!"

          In their arrogance, they just can't imagine it. They seem to share the same arrogant ignorance about PJ's Groklaw as well. "It COULDN'T be this thorough and accurate without some major corporate entity driving things behind the scenes! It couldn't it couldn't it couldn't!!!!!"

          They have this obnoxious, ingrained, pompous attitude that only superior beings such as themselves could accomplish a success of this magnitude, and surely us unwashed "hippy fiends" couldn't organize ourselves around PJ's, I must say, high quality journalism and the high quality of research that shows up here.

          That may be why the keep digging so desperately. And the deeper they dig and not find the "powerful corporate entity" driving things, the more they just assume that the entity behind the scenes must just be THAT powerful, to be able to elude them time and time again...

          It'd just be funny if that was as far as it went, but now they've gone well into "harassment" territory, and it's also disturbing now.

          I hope all of the connections between (new)SCO's various puppets, fanboys-and-girls, paid shills, and duped fools is revealed by the end of this.

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Intimidation requires illumination
          Authored by: patrix47 on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 01:31 AM EDT
          I have been a long time reader of Groklaw. The work here has been an
          inspiration to many professionals in the IT, legal, and communications
          business. Not just because of the relevance of the legal issues we, as a
          community, directly face as a result of the various SCO legal proceedings, but
          most importantly because of the many tangental business and legal scenarios
          that we have witnessed here through the consistent and objective reporting
          from PJ.

          Today, the tactic of intimidation used by business hacks, unable to succeed in
          the either marketplaces of commerce or ideas, has once again been
          emboldened by the brazen abuse of position demonstrated in the MOG
          article. Whenever a discussion of philosophy, opinion, design concepts, or
          the other core elements of intellectual property is interrupted by personal
          attacks and threats, then we as a civilized society lose that which separates
          us from the apes. To disagree in the forum of ideas is to expand the breadth
          of perspective for all - but to attack a person, or as the article attempts, to

          "out" a person in a manner designed to silence only serves to
          illuminate the
          dangers of a closed mind.

          For what it is worth, I have worked in the business worlds of IT and
          Communications for over 25 years and I have never seen such a clear
          example of blind abuse of position as the most recent MOG article
          exemplifies. If there is anything we can do to restore the sense of balance it
          that we all use our voices, virtual as they may be, to call attention to this
          situation - not just for PJ, but for ourselves. My greatest fear is that if the

          discourse on Groklaw is brought to a close because of fear, then the others
          who hide under the rocks in each of our respective fields of work, will take
          this opportunity and make these tactics a viable process to intimidate us all
          from the shadows. This is not far fetched - it is happening right on the very
          page you have read here before you.

          The next step is ours. We must continue the responsible and reasoned
          course of action. But we must offer not just our support, but our talents and
          our voices. Conspiracy theories or not - the steps taken in print today are
          outside the scope of reason and we should work to see that situations like
          this are given a proper - yes, legal - manner in which they can be quickly and
          judiciously resolved, let alone prevented.

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Apparently she's gotten some negative feedback
          Authored by: dtfinch on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 01:34 AM EDT
          From the page "Editor's Note: There have been several implied death threats
          posted in the feedback to this story, all of which have been removed. At 9:55pm
          Pacific time Monday, May 9, feedback was therefore disabled. A SYS-CON
          management meeting during regular business hours Tuesday May 10 will determine
          whether feedback will be restored. In the interim, we are interested in your
          feedback, so please e-mail it to"

          Also, the sys-con website is going really, really slow.

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          PJ is not a public figure, privacy should be protected
          Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 01:34 AM EDT
          MOG's attack on PJ might seem like "news" in the same way that certain

          tabloids chase other public figures for anything they think will sell their

          Only thing, there is something very different between PJ and the typical
          celebrity, whether it is a singer, an actor/actress, a politician, or even
          someone rich or influential, such as a Bill Gates. In all the latter cases,
          people often SEEK the spotlight and fame, in an effort to become more
          famous, wealthy, or influential. PJ is the extreme opposite.

          Every turn she has taken steps to protect her privacy, and in the early days,
          her identity. She was wise to do so. Especially given the recent turn of events

          and stories like MOG spewed forth this past weekend.

          I think PJ's efforts to protect her privacy, and not to seek the spotlight, even

          though she could easily, will also put her in a much better position when she
          takes legal action against MOG, should she choose to do so. Simply put, one
          of the arguments used by tabloids and papparazzi is that these people are
          public figures, often seeking to put their image out for the public to see, and

          as public figures, they should have no expectation of privacy.

          Personally, I do not agree with that mentality. Those public figures deserve
          their privacy, in some cases more so than others, simply because of what they
          have to put up with when in public. [Unrelated: I recall eating at a restaurant

          about 2 or 3 hours north of San Francisco. At the next table,a pro football
          player from San Francisco was eating with his family. During the dinner, at
          least 4 people bothered him. Finally, he politely told the people coming up
          that he was trying to enjoy a quiet dinner with his family and he asked they
          respect his privacy. He was very courteous, and I was pleased no one else
          came up and bothered them. I've often wondered if they had come so far
          away from the city in order to have that quiet time, or if they were just in the


          In PJ's case, by her taking efforts to protect her privacy, and even more
          importantly, by her not attempting to pursue the spotlight [refusing personal
          interviews, etc.], I do not believe MOG will be able to use the same argument
          to "justify" her so-called expose on PJ. It is one thing to reveal the
          real name
          of an influential author writing under a pseudonym, it is an entirely different

          matter when it becomes stalking, possibily breaking-and-entering, theft, and
          harrassment of friends and family members.


          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Linux Business News Feedback Comments?
          Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 01:40 AM EDT

          Did they take away the feedback comments on that site, I can't seem to access
          them anymore? -- if anyone has them, I highly recommend you save them, including
          backing up the article... First I thought it was just down for admin, but an
          older article like this one still has feedback available...

          Are they starting to feel the pressure? MOG better wish, she has some eplosive
          testimony on the continuation, like PJ, is actually a retired IBM lawyer, who
          had a sex change, else heads are going to roll...

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          WE LOVE YOU, PJ!
          Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 01:44 AM EDT
          __        __     _                  ____     _ _
               / /__  | | _____   _____  |  _   | | |
            / / / _ | |/ _ / / _ | |_) |  | | |
            V  V /  __/ | | (_) V /  __/ |  __/ |_| |_|
             _/_/ ___| |_|___/ _/ ___| |_|   ___/(_)

          Nil illegitimus corborundum!

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          My reply... and my support for PJ
          Authored by: Night Flyer on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 01:50 AM EDT
          I read the article in question, and I am quite incensed.

          Several times I started to write a reply to this invasion. Every time words
          failed me.

          In many ways I identify with PJ and when she is threatened, (or her family or
          friends), I feel threatened...

          I don't like feeling threatened.

          The word paparazzi, in full negative context, jumps to my mind.

          I agree with some of those that posted above... I like the quote from Margaret
          Thatcher, to the effect that, if people attacked her personally (verbally), they
          had no effective arguments to support their own position.

          But alas, as we have seen, the legal route is slow and expensive. But what
          about initiating some sort of restraining order?

          I think those that feel like I do should politely, but firmly, send a message to
          the editor of Linux Business News and SYS-COM Media that retractions and
          appologies are a minimal starting point... Maybe if they voluntarily posted the
          addresses and published the pictures of the homes of their closest family
          members for all to see, then they could report on how intrusive and threatening
          it is ??? No ??

          Maybe the advertisers on this website are attracted by the number of 'hits'.
          WOW... what a bonanza for SYS-COM...

          If every time we buy something of the type advertised on this site, and we use
          an alternate, we should sent a note to the advertisers saying they lost business
          (how much, when and where) because of what we consider as offensive journalism
          in a website they sponsor.


          In some ways the GROKLAW situation is unique. PJ is, in real terms, a public
          figure, easily accessible on line. But she values her privacy, as do I. (I sign
          my postings with a pseudonym.)

          Hold the course PJ. There is support all around you, and remember:

          Veritas Vincit - Truth Conquers

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Could this be a smoke & mirrors to hide vista dealings?
          Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 01:51 AM EDT
          Could MOG's story be a smoke-and-mirrors campaign to deflect attention
          from the <a

          I've seen mention of it on other threads on GL, and more so on the SCOX
          forum at Yahoo.

          Have to admit, what better way to deflect from that than to stir up a hornets
          nest somewhere else entirely. This intimidation of PJ is a great start.

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          • Fixed Link - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 01:58 AM EDT
          Intimidation is Jealosy
          Authored by: dodger on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 01:53 AM EDT
          MOG is jealous.

          You, PJ, have had an enormous success in these two years, following the SCO/IBM
          story. You have made history by creating GROKLAW, which has been a model for
          getting information into the public for discussion and evaluation - a true
          public forum. A democratic weapon against ignorance, stupidity, the greedy, and
          the decay/misuse of the legal system. Your service has been invaluable to the

          The "Who is Pamela Jones" article by Maureen O'Gara on the other hand
          is a cheap and worthless collections of words. She stoops to NON-JOURNALISTIC
          practices by trying to give out personal information about another person. Using
          the tone of a 'gossip' column and 'trying to be clever' she is neither funny nor
          clever. It is criminal what she has done.
          She should be stopped. She should apologize.

          She should recogize that being a star and climbing the heights is accomplished
          by achievement NOT by trying to tear down someone else's achievements. She
          should recognize that there are no SOCIALLY REDEEMING QUALITIES in her tact (or

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 01:57 AM EDT
          hrmm tried to register, but did'nt get the email... :), first time poster be
          gentel :)

          after trying to wrap itself in the flag when SCOX got talk to congress its
          pretty bad that they start stomping relegion ( I'm a atheist.. ), and what in
          the hell does someone's age have to do with copywrite law... Just like most of
          the silent majority that has depended on Groklaw for the facts in a case where a
          private company tries to steal the work of hundreds of innocent programmers
          working on a labor of love, keep up the good work Pam btw i'm 45 yet I code
          sooooo... what the heck difference does it make ?

          Ron Pugh

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 02:02 AM EDT
          I have the feeling that Ms O'Gara and SCO have just done
          what a panicked pilot might have done, pulled the ejection
          seat handle.

          Someone should have explained to them that you do that
          BEFORE you find yourself 10 feet off the ground and

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          PJ you are an amazing person and have a lot to be proud of.
          Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 02:06 AM EDT
          Rock on.

          Crazy Engineer.

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 02:11 AM EDT
          At the risk of sounding redundant, or the risk of getting lost in the flood of
          comments here, I'd like to reiterate that the best way to approach an artile
          like this is to hit the publisher in the pocketbook. I am working on compiling a
          list of advertisers for syscon and the pertinent contacts for those
          organizations. When I load the page, the only advertisers that I see (besides
          the google ads) are Arkeia, Sybase, Microsoft, and the various ads for
          affiliated magazines. I will be looking for contacts at Sybase and Arkeia so
          that I may let them know that I am not interested in doing business with
          companies that advertise in tabloids that engage in character assassination. Not
          only will I be e-mailing them, but I will be calling them as well. While I plan
          to be nothing but professional, I feel it is imperative that these companies be
          educated as to the negative consequences of advertising with this organization.
          If any of you are able to find contact info for the persons in charge of
          advertising at these organizations please post it here so that we may all


          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Fingerprints of Boies?
          Authored by: blang on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 02:23 AM EDT
          Firstly, I am happy to see that PJ, bless her heart, is not going to back down.

          Secondly, I'm proposing another (conspiracy) theory. It is far-fetched, but on
          the other hand it is very much in character for the players involved.

          1. The SCO case is going really badly. The law, what we have seen of the facts
          (or lack of such) supporting SCO's case, not to mention Judge Kimball's words
          (my translatio): SCO you ain't got nothing yet. Get sumthin, or I'll have to
          sing you a lullaby.

          2. Boies has taken on a string on high profile cases. His specialty is not any
          kind of law, but rather a talent for playing outside the law, abusing the legal
          system, and try to distract the court. Which is exactly what is required when
          your client has no case. The only path to victory lies in justice NOT

          3. The case being so dead, SCO needed another Wookie. At first they tried the
          Monterrey wookie. Didn't last long untill that fell flat on it's face.

          4. They can no longer cry about IBM denying them discovery. IBM is practically
          giving it to them, not as a mountain of paper to bury them, but in such a way
          that it is easy to access, and quick to search.

          5. So, very soon now, SCO really has no more they can file about. They've
          struck out swinging again, adn the game is over.

          6. Except, behold the Wookie. Boies must have suggested to Darl, who suggested
          to MOG, that some pressure should be put on groklaw. Get groklaw off the air and
          into the courts. Find a link to IBM, any link, no matter how remote and
          unproven. All they need is disputed facts, right? They know PJ likes here
          privacy. What better way to shut here up than violating that privacy. Now that
          also this "outing" of PJ seems to be backfiring, in the form of more
          support than ever for groklaw, I predict that the next move by SCO's criminal
          minds is to get PJ directly involved. Subpoenad, at some future date required to
          prove her innocence(otherwise SCO will cry about not being afforded a fair trial
          without a non prejudiced jury). Even if PJ's only connection with IBM might be
          something as silly as living in the same part of the country as some IBM
          facilities. (To live in a town with no IBM presence, you will have to live in
          Antartktis, and I am not sure even about that).

          7. So be prepared for the worst. SCO has nothing to lose. They already have run
          out of ammo. Boies is known for his total disrepect for the law.

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          keep on truckin'
          Authored by: akStan on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 02:41 AM EDT
          Did someone thing no one cared?

          769 messages in 9-hours, 38-minutes ...

          about 4 every 3 minutes, going on TEN HOURS :-)

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Intimidation or ANOTHER SCAM
          Authored by: dodger on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 02:45 AM EDT
          I just noticed that MOG has a strong copyright notice on her website - which
          says that her article may not be copied without G2's express permission.

          THE SCAM: you file a law suit against MOG and include a copy of her article as
          "evidence". She sues you for copyright violations.

          So, Grokies, how do you "prove" or even "file" a case when
          the "crime" is not to be copied?

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: john82a on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 02:57 AM EDT
          Although belated, let me add my voice to the support for your privacy. It is
          hard enough for any of us to know ourselves, let alone other people. There is
          certainly no chance that MOG could write anything that could impinge on what you
          have been able to do through Groklaw in the past couple of years: that is,
          create a body of dedication, insight, humour and integrity that has inspired
          many to do more and to look deeper than they might have imagined possible. In
          that process, we've all seen and been touched by the good will and sharing of a
          particularly informed community that will never meet, but care greatly about
          each other - and especially about you, PJ.
          Certainly, MOG has been unable to demonstrate *any* insight, not even when
          re-circulating what she has been told by people who have some
          "insights" they wish to communicate. She brings shame to herself, to
          those who use her as a mouthpiece, to the organisation that publishes such
          rubbish, and taints any advertiser foolish enough to pay such an outlet. MOG is
          even unable to persuade herself that what she has written is "true" in
          any meaningful fashion.
          The truth about PJ has been apparent since she first uploaded Groklaw: that
          there are people with a genuine intellectual curiosity about the world and its
          machinations, who have found a forum that enables them to share their views.
          Hurrah for PJ and Groklaw!

          John Hinton

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Letter to the editor?
          Authored by: NemesisNL on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 03:15 AM EDT
          They are so wanting to hear from us so I wrote this:

          Dear Sir, I've read the article Mis O'Gara wrote about Pamela Jones. I must say this is the worst kind of print I've ever read. This article contributes nothing to the SCO-IBM story and surely can only be seen as an atempt to discredit Pamela Jones. I can't imagine what prompted you to place this article in linux buisiness news but Mis O'Gara seems to be intend on destroying her, and your, credibility in a big hurry. As far as I'm concerned she succeeded. This article only shows one thing: Mis O'Gara is no journalist. She's nothing more than a tabloid writer at best. If that's the kind of image you want for buisiness week I suggest you place more of her articles. If you do however intend to be a source of news and wish to have the reputation and credibility you need to be taken serious I suggest you stop acting like a tabloid. This kind of article, placing personal info that no self respecting publication would print, isn't worthy of a serious publication. It also puts yur company at risk of litigation wich I'm sure will follow after this article. I will contribute what I can should Pamela Jones decide to take you to court. You have crossed the line of journalistic ethics so blatantly that I'm sure you will regret the day you asked Miss O'gara to write for you.

          Guess what the reaction was..........

          ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- (reason: 550 unknown user ) ----- Transcript of session follows ----- ... while talking to >>>>>> RCPT To: 550 5.1.1 ... User unknown Reporting-MTA: dns; Arrival-Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 23:05:05 -0400 Final-Recipient: RFC822; Action: failed Status: 5.1.1 Remote-MTA: DNS; Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 550 unknown user Last-Attempt-Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 23:05:15 -0400 You just got to love these people. nex thing they will say nobody was bothered by the article because nobody actualy took the time to write.

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: jobsagoodun on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 03:19 AM EDT
          Bravo PJ. This attack just makes MOG and her backers look foolish - and also it
          seems they have no arguments of substance any more. They should give up now, but
          they will probably struggle on until they stopped. Lets hope that doesn't take
          too long now.

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          I am stunned
          Authored by: GLJason on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 03:20 AM EDT
          Is there a reason that a link to O'gara's article isn't posted? I didn't want to post one in case PJ didn't want it posted but I think that people should read it. I'm sure that a lot of jurors would be on your side after reading it PJ.

          O'Gara's article is unbelievable. How does it pass as news? It is nothing more than a mean-spirited probing into someone's personal life with innuendos of misconduct thrown in. Also, it is full of contrasts. I can't even manage out what the article is trying to say, unless it's that PJ isn't really PJ, her brother Nick stole her identity and runs the site on IBM's payroll.

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: Geertsema on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 03:23 AM EDT
          PJ you have my support.
          And as many already suggest, mail the advertisers on sys-con to stop placing
          there ads on sites of sys-con.

          I just started to do so.


          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 03:25 AM EDT
          My understanding is that calling someone a 'Harridan' is not illegal. I believe
          under English and American law, vulgar abuse is not slanderous or libellous.
          Though, of course, it speaks volumes about the abuser.

          - Lee Brimmicombe-Wood

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          • Intimidation - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 08:25 AM EDT
          Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 03:25 AM EDT
          Dear PJ,

          The article by mrs O'Gara and your reply places each of you in entirely
          different leagues. I'm mildy surprised you repied at all.

          And you are right, I do not care who you are. I just care about the
          tremendous, positive effect your work has on the OSS world.

          Thank you,

          Kees Jan Koster

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: rm6990 on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 03:27 AM EDT
          First of all, I wish to let PJ know I am sorry this whole mess had to come to
          this, and that we all support you.

          And to everyone else, emailing SYS-CON or threatening O'Gara will get you
          NOWHERE! You have to contact their I have compiled a list of
          some ones I grabbed off of her site with email addresses.


          DataDirect Technologies

          Sybase Inc.

          Oracle Inc.
          (I can't find a contact e-mail, please post back if you find one)

          MKS Software
          Press Contact:
          Main Contact:


          Linux Networx

          Google (through AdSense)



          Revelation Software


          GlueCode Software

          Global Knowledge






          Enerjy Software


          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: ile on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 03:36 AM EDT
          I'm unfortunate enough to live in (and care deeply about) a part of the world
          where we still have politically "justified" intimidation; terrorism,
          in other words.

          And, as a matter of fact, several years back a person very dear to me, and
          since deceased (natural death), was not just threatened: a bomb went off next to
          the office, a gunman ran away from a building he had been stalking, when
          challenged. I say a gunman because he actually shot. Furthermore, the police got
          hard data about the threat, so this person close to me that I am talking about
          had to flee, and even several hundred kms away from home needed police

          This person I'm talking about was offered a gun permit for self-defence, and
          refused: "I'm not prepared to use the violence these enemies of ours are
          using, and if I carried a gun it would be because I am ready to kill another
          human being. And I'm not".

          Fortunately, PJ is not in the same situation (fortunately, even though what she
          is going through is horrible, the level of risk for herself and her family is
          nowhere near what I have mentioned earlier). Nonetheless she is bringing to it a
          response which brings back to me the brilliant memory that even in such dire
          situations _some_ people will keep their dignity and their respect for other
          people's personal dignity - be those persons despicable enemies, as is now the

          I wish I were better able to show my respect and admiration for PJ in this
          difficult situation

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Only way out?
          Authored by: DES on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 03:47 AM EDT
          PJ, the only way I see to permanently silence Maureen O'Gara on this issue is to
          simply come out of the closet, hard as it may be.


          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 03:59 AM EDT
          Groklaw is a phenomenal project. It would be fitting if PJ, the creator, one day
          received the personal recognition for her efforts which she deserves.

          However, at her own choice, if and when she chooses. It is a disgrace that PJ's
          personal details should be published by way of a smear campaign. I am deeply
          offended by that MOG article.

          Please do not be deterred from your actual mission, which is the coverage of
          legal ongoings around FOSS. Thanks to those efforts, SCO is nearly sunk. Let's
          finish that job, and others.

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Not intimidation but rather punishment
          Authored by: dyfet on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 04:06 AM EDT
          I had held back from commenting directly largely because I believe it is never good to write when you are angry. However, I do know most people believe MoG's article is about intimidation. I have thought about that, and have come to a slightly different conclusion, which I should explain:

          First, I have some experiance with initimidation. Initimidation is generally not done in the light of day for reasons that should be fairly obvious even to the simplest of minds, or even the "team that cannot shoot streight", as it were. Initimidation is the random death threat calls in the night, or the unknown car that slowly follows your youngest daughter as she walks to her school bus, followed by the call in the middle of the day asking if you know "where your daughter is".

          Rather, I think MoG was a mercenary being sacraficed purely to punish PJ as a form of payback. Perhaps her bosses have decided MoG is no longer particularly useful or effective. I am also sure they had hoped they could find something they could actually embarras her with, but failing to do that, they have chosen to try and take away from PJ that which she seems to hold most dear, her privacy.

          The idea of punishment for spite is most clear from what I gather was the deliberate effort to reveal as much direct personal information about PJ and her family, address, etc, that MoG could possibly work into her article. The uneven and poor quality of the work also suggests to me that even MoG is keenly aware she has no future in this business after this little dispicable act, so why put all that much effort into it. Can someone actually be paid well to do such things and flush one's own reputation down the crapper, and then sleep at night? Perhaps her "payment" was a free ticket to ride the "linux lottery" with enough advanced notice to know when to call her broker over the past few years.

          I cannot fathom that anyone would think this little exercise would actually have detered PJ from continuing groklaw, or as done in such a public way would have been successful in intimidating PJ or anyone for that matter. No, I think it's pure spite, nothing more, nothing less.

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Best whishes
          Authored by: troll on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 04:11 AM EDT
          Dear PJ.

          I confess. I have read MOG article. I was drawn to it the way the crowd is drawn
          to stare at the car crash. I felt sick. Really, really sick. Physically sick.
          And ashmed.

          I swear. I shall read no more articles MOG spewes. Even if everybody tells me
          she has proof about who killed JFK.

          I will also try very hard to avoid any site, article, magazine or *anything*
          produced by SysCon.

          I don't really care about what your age is, or religion, or address, or physical
          (Well, I did fancy you to be a girl in your twenties, or perhaps early thirties
          in a red (night)dress in a bed with an Apple computer ;-).
          What I really *DO* care about is the wonderfull comunity you have built around
          Groklaw, and your influence on the wonderfull world of free software and freedom
          in general. I will continue to read your blog daily. Several times a day, more

          You DO realize you have become one of the most influential *writers* in the
          world, don't you? (I hesitate to use word journalist as that would put you in
          the same category as some people that cal themselves jourlnalists.)

          If you need help, ANY help, just let us know.

          Yours truly ...

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          The basis of defamation....
          Authored by: 1N8 M4L1C3 on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 04:18 AM EDT

          My heart truely goes out to you. This is an act of cowardice to the lowest
          possible magnitude.

          While character assasination is something journalists learn to live with
          ("roll with the punches", so to speak), the publishing of personal
          information, such as family names, addresses, phone numbers, religious/business
          affiliations, etc., is well beyond any immaginable notion of journalistic
          integrity or moral fiber.

          Quite simply, if this were a political race - it would be a "smut

          I submit for your very serious consideration, that this is indeed grounds for
          legal action - with statements by the other party, clearly denying your right of
          liberty and privacy without undue threat to your personal safety.

          Possible notions of "celebrity status" aside, you have the same basic
          rights as every other person... ...notably so, given your previous steps
          towards protecting your privacy.

          Given the same circumstances, I would immediately petition the courts for a
          "cease and desist" order against the other party and ANY
          PUBLICATION(S) they currently write for.

          Clearly, the other party doesn't understand their feduicary responsibility of
          journalistic integrity... let the court define it for them!


          On the 7th day, Linus saw that which he created and it was good... ...on the
          8th day SCO litigated.

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: figures on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 04:24 AM EDT
          Don't let them get you down.

          That was a terrible article, trying to cite religious intolerance, and trying to
          defame your character. It wasn't an unbiased investigative article but a
          venomous attack. I tend to be the type of person who sees things for myself and
          makes my own mind up and even I thought it was an article throwing mud.

          The big problem for sys-con is that your work on Groklaw has defined your
          character, and no matter how much mud they sling, it just won't stick. I (and I
          expect many others too) couldn't care if you were a 98 year old man in Berkley
          California, or a 19 year old girl in China, I don't care about your color or
          your religion or any other possible demographic, who or what you are makes no

          Groklaw is commited to the truth, and that can never be beaten. I'm sure some
          troll would say that finding out your identity is the truth as well, to which I
          would answer relevance. I don't believe there's ever been an article on Groklaw
          showing pictures of Maureen's house or where Darl's Mom lived, and I think there
          would be outcry from most of us if there was.

          You present the facts in the SCO case, and all they can come back with is that
          you might need new wallpaper. That makes me laugh. It's not exactly the
          strongest defense ever is it?

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: 1N8 M4L1C3 on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 04:28 AM EDT
          I submit for your consideration that there are sufficient grounds here for
          defamation of character, with some basis in age and religious discrimination.

          If MOG has any dispute with PJ, then it properly belongs in their journalistic
          differences; NOT in either party's personal information being dragged out for
          public consumption.

          MOG's action was singularly "callus disregard" towards PJ's personal
          privacy and safety. MOG could have simply stated the city, PJ's neighbourhood, a
          brief introduction of her religious and business affiliations, any number of
          other techniques, which rightly may have been permissable.

          Defamation of character, violation of personal privacy, and the privacy of other
          family members is something entirely different - it now becomes a legal matter.

          On the 7th day, Linus saw that which he created and it was good... ...on the
          8th day SCO litigated.

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: luvr on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 04:28 AM EDT
          > "considering legal action"

          Just my two cents' worth: It feels to me that that's exactly what they want to provoke. I may be wrong, of course, but that's what my gut feeling tells me. I'd think twice, no thrice, about this option before going down this route.

          It's scaring, though, to think that I have been wondering these past few weeks about what to expect once SCO is history, and once Microsoft is beginning to find itself in big trouble. Microsoft will certainly do anything they possibly can to get Groklaw off the radar by the time they feel the need for the kind of legal (sic) action (and the associated random shootings) that we currently see coming from SCO.

          Anyway, best of luck.

          All that I can do at this point is making my financial contribution - which I have done.
          (By the way - Many thanks for the kind words in reply.)

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: cybervegan on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 04:30 AM EDT
          From: [cybervegan]@[my.employer].com
          Subject: You will never be taken seriously again.

          Ms. O'Gara,

          Why would I want to know what car Pamela Jones drives? I don't care what car
          you drive, nor do I care what car Bill Gates or Madonna Ciccone drives. Nor do I
          wish to know where you or they live, or even if they have big locks on their
          doors. I *am* interested in real news, however, but *that* article is NOT news.

          "It is better to remain silent, and thought a fool, than to open your mouth
          (or your word-processor) and prove it beyond all doubt."

          I will never be able read any of your articles again and believe a single word.
          Credibility comes from being reliable and accurate, not from exposing people's
          (allegedly) personal information on the internet. Washing your dirty laundry in
          public is a serious misjudgement. If you have personal issues with another
          journalist, you should take it up with them directly. Pulling stunts like this
          is just plain stupid.

          If you don't want to get pillioned for being inaccurate, then don't be
          inaccurate. Deriding others who point out your deficiencies doesn't make up for
          them. I think you [Americans] call it "due diligence" don't you? I
          take that as meaning being as diligent as your job demands, aka "doing your
          job properly".

          You have done yourself no favours here. I *was* a subscriber to your linux
          newsletter, but I've now unsubscribed, viz:

          "As you requested, you have been unsubscribed from 'linuxnewslettersall'.


          Return-Path: <[cybervegan]@[my.employer].com>"

          Of course, there's loads more where I came from - "there's one born every
          minute". Why should you care?

          -[cybervegan] (a "limey" IT guy)

          Stuff in square brackets has been edited (slightly) so as not to drag my
          employers name accross the 'net. Oh, and one small case of 'self-censorship'.

          That's what I sent her yesterday. I hope everyone else will join me in taking
          similar action and sending a similar e-mail. Today I'm going to e-mail all the
          publications MOG writes for telling them I won't be coming round anymore, until
          they ditch her.


          Software source code is a bit like underwear - you only want to show it off in
          public if it's clean and tidy. Refusal could be due to embarrassment or shame...

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          To litigate or not?
          Authored by: Anonymous Coward on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 04:38 AM EDT
          I'm not sure but the piece seemed more like an attempt to get the real PJ out of
          the woodwork by goading her into something like a lawsuit.
          Is is possible for others to start up the suit to defend Groklaws good name by
          trying to clear the owners (PJs) name? And do it in such a way that no
          information regarding PJ has to be released?

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: TiddlyPom on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 04:42 AM EDT

          Just to say that I am amazed and astonished at Maureen O'Gara's latest 'attack'
          on you and it has done nothing except enhance your reputation for honesty,
          openness and truth that have always been the hallmarks of Groklaw.

          I did in fact read MOG's article and (as a Brit) find nothing that MOG claimed
          about your person that would in any way make me (or anyone else) think less of

          The whole point is, you set up Groklaw on your own, helped to rally the open
          source community to defend Linux against (IMHO) a thinly disguised attack by
          Microsoft (via Caldera/New SCO) and in doing so created a wonderful educational
          resource about IP law and the entire history and timeline of Unix-like operating

          It is thanks (in part) to Groklaw that I have my current (high) level of
          enthusiasm for Linux and open source software and will continue to do my bit to
          the FOSS world whenever I can.

          What has Maureen O'Gara done in comparison (IMHO) except write mindless pieces
          of propoganda for IP opportunists and attack public spirited people like
          yourself who appreciate a good thing like FOSS when they see it.

          In the spirit of MOG's article, I am proud to give my real name (John Cockroft -
          Manchester, UK) and declare my support for PJ and the Linux community.

          "There is no spoon?"
          "Then you will see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself."

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          The article is crazy
          Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 04:44 AM EDT
          Is there a reason that a link to O'gara's article isn't posted? I didn't want to post one in case PJ didn't want it posted but I think that people should read it. I'm sure that a lot of jurors would be on your side after reading it PJ.

          O'Gara's article is unbelievable. How does it pass as news? It is nothing more than a mean-spirited probing into someone's personal life with innuendos of misconduct thrown in. Also, it is full of contrasts. I can't even figure out what the article is trying to say since it's just full of innuendo. The only thing I can think of is that O'Gara thinks that PJ isn't really PJ, her son stole her identity and runs the site on IBM's payroll. O'Gara's own (illegally?) obtained phone records showing PJ calling Utah courts would seem to disagree.

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 04:47 AM EDT
          I thought this kind of journalism disappeared with "Der Stürmer" :

          Basically the "article" is a bucket of excrement thrown at Mrs.
          Pamela Jones of Groklaw fame. It holds against her that
          1. She's 61 years old
          2. She's a Jehovah witness
          3. She lives in a shabby flat
          4. She drives an old Japanese car
          5. She owns a PC
          6. She lives in "IBM Country"

          Furthermore, the author - or should I say the defecist - publishes
          Mrs. Jones' address, e-mail address and phone number.

          I'm a great admirer of Mrs. PJ and Groklaw but I know next to
          nothing about Jehovah Witnesses, except they are Christians and
          were put in concentration camps in great numbers.

          The slimebag who wrote this "article" on behalf of MicroSCOft seems to
          be American, not German. - Is this what American journalism has
          become ?

          Kaj Haulrich.

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: stovring on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 05:18 AM EDT
          Never seen anything this outrageously as what MOG put up. Haven't posted here
          before but I have read with sustained interest. This is just to be another voice
          in the chorus of support.

          Take care!

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          How can you keep your privacy?
          Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 05:18 AM EDT

          I've read all of these wonderful messages of support for you. They very simply
          affirm what it is that we all know and love about you: honesty and integrity.

          We don't really care about your looks, lifestyle, beliefs and so on. As one
          poster put we live in a world where we value each others contribution, we are
          immersed in a world where we understand and appreciate the freedom to expand on
          anothers work and to introduce new ideas of our own. However, we also subscribe
          to the understanding that we can have that work challenged for its veracity and
          integrity. I think the word I'm looking for is 'meritocracy'.

          Groklaw would not have got the status it enjoys today had your work not proved
          'worthy'. And there's the important word - proved. All along your work has been
          overseen, corrected and challenged. All at your instigation, and all welcomed.

          O'Gara, McBride and their kind cannot challenge your work, it has already faced
          the challenges of peer review and was not found wanting. It was reviewed by
          individuals and a community that value truthfulness and accuracy over a desired
          result. If in the early days SCo's claims had had some merit, then the community
          would have pursued those claims in exactly same manner as they have pursued the
          falsehoods that SCO espouse.

          I cannot help but wonder - if you take that deplorable woman to court won't you
          end revealing your identity anyway? Is there another way to stop her awful
          spoutings without compromising your cherished privacy?

          My sincerest best wishes go out to you Pamela, and I pray for your continued


          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 05:19 AM EDT
          Dear PJ
          I have read your blog for well over a year now and have found your comments both
          informative and balanced.

          It really is no surpise to see the tactics SCO and those supporting them have
          adopted, being past masters at innuendo and smear. They must be getting pretty
          desperate to adopt tactics like these.

          Keep up the good work and best wishes for the future.

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          This is just sad
          Authored by: Uraeus on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 05:23 AM EDT
          Is this the 'dirt' Darl was bragging about in their latest teleconference?
          Considering his trackrecord with truckloads of evidence I guess I have not right
          to be surprised. I mean geez, just because this kind of badmouthing sometimes
          worked in kindergarten for Darl and Maureen doesn't mean they can seriously
          think its still works towards and adult audience?

          Keep up the great work Pamela, we will not hold it against you that you are not
          below 30 :)

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          • This is just sad - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 11:05 AM EDT
          Authored by: Naich on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 05:39 AM EDT
          PJ - I'd like to add my message of support to the other 870 ones on here
          already. Your courage and dignity in the face of this awful harrassment is
          truly inspirational.

          I'm going to make a donation to Groklaw and I'll gladly donate to any fund you
          set up to cover your legal fees in your action against MOG.

          Non conterendus est nothis. I hope that means what I was told it means - my
          latin was never much good :)

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Quality Journalism by MOG
          Authored by: TwinDX on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 05:58 AM EDT
          By my reckoning she's a front runner for a Pulitzer Prize for Journalism. Why
          look into the corruption of big business and governments like Greg Palast,
          risking his life to deliver truth and paying the price as a pariah in his own
          nation, when you can get SCO's financed private detectives and dress up their
          report as an article.

          I don't care who PJ is or how she lives, her political or religious
          inclinations, how many arms she has, anything... I just care that we have a
          shared open source ideology and gain enjoyment from using quality software and
          supporting it as best we can.

          I particularly liked MOG's scoop that PJ's a grandmother. Wow. Who'd have thunk
          it? All those times PJ said she's a grandmother were true after all.

          PJ - you have my support, 100%.

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 06:01 AM EDT
          guess which company is advertising just above the article in
 They seem to be housed in Redmont.

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          A new source of motivation!
          Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 06:05 AM EDT
          I think this is pure distraction.

          Let's take a mental note of this episode. Shall this make us aware of
          how low they can go.

          But above all. Shall this be a new source of motivation! Another
          occasion to unite together and to work, harder as ever, to expose
          the truth.

          Let's keep our temper. Let's keep focused on our task: debunking fud.
          This is the only thing to do.

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: Peter Simpson on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 06:07 AM EDT
          PJ -

          We're right behind you. You're a leading figure in this, and I'm not surprised
          it happened, but it certainly was a low blow. Doesn't help the other side's
          position one bit. Your private life should remain your private life.

          Your record stands on its own. That's not going to change, no matter where you
          live or what your age is. They must be getting desperate, because this is not
          the act of a rational CEO (and, given Darl's comments at the last conference
          call, I don't think he's firing on all cylinders).

          Anyway, keep fighting, rise above it, and remember that they can't win if you
          don't let them. The IBM legal team is going to let tSCOg dig a big hole, push
          them into it, cover it over and plant a floral IBM logo on the new park in
          Lindon UT! That will be a reward for all of us.

          All the best,

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Support from a lurker
          Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 06:08 AM EDT
          This is incredibly disgusting.

          I only lurk this site for the factual correctness and real information avaliable.

          Even if the entire circus around this case is good entertainment, but sad, this really disgusts me and takes it way too far.

          I dont care who you are, I dont care where you live, I dont care about your religious preferences, neither do I care nor do I need/want/desire to know if this attempt at character assasination is correct or not.I read/lurk to find factual data surrounding this case, not about the messenger.

          I am just so disgusted.

          Bravo for all your hard work, whomever you are.
          Health and a happy life to you.

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          The Boyd Cycle
          Authored by: Anonymous Coward on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 06:23 AM EDT
          This just occurred to me.
          The Boyd Cycle or OODA loop was first coined by an USAF colonel Boyd.
          It basically states that if you go through this cycle faster then your opponent in any adversarial competition you eventually win.

          The first O is for observe. In this case that means two things. The actually reading the article or reading the response of people who already went through the loop at least once.
          The second O is for orient. That means in this case use what you know about the article (if a first responder) or the result of the reaction of people who went through the loop before you to get the information to make a decision.
          The D is for decide. Based on the data you've gotten and historical reference information you get to a decision.
          And that gets us to the A for act. You act on the decision you made.

          If you go through this cycle faster then an opponent there will be new data (first O) for them available they have to get through to the A while the opponent is not yet finished with reacting to the data in the last loop. If sustained this will mean your opponents reaction will be more and more out of sync with reality (or none at all if they keep trying to use the new data before acting). The end result is that the faster looping person or persons will eventually defeat the slower ones because the slower ones are fighting ghosts of the past.

          Now what has this to do with this site?
          There are hundreds if not thousands of people reacting on his and each runs their own OODA loop (distributed networks rule if combined with positive feedback as is in this case). There are the first responders to the article who get the initial comments in. Then there is a second wave of first responders who read the article because the first wave pointed it out for them. And all these people make their own Decision on what would be the best way to Act.
          Some of the things are stupid (ex. the alleged death threats), some are considered smarter (ex. complaining to the editors and advertisers)
          Then the next waves comes in and Observe the actions of the previouse (note people in the previous waves can be and are part of the followup waves). The next waves then Orients itself on the extra data provided, retracing the path taken by the previous waves if needed. Usually they Decide that the stupid things should not be repeated since they were not productive for the goal people have in mind. So they Act to repeat or reinforce what they think is succesful behaviour.

          And while the people on groklaw have been through this entire loop at least three time (if not four to six times) MOG + sys con have to still get beyond the Decision part of their second loop which for them is based on the initial Action of responding to a subset our first Actions (yelling at MOG, LBN and Sys con) and what is worse for them their Action in the first loop indicates (shutting down the comment ability) that they are Observing and Orienting the behaviour that the people defending Groklaw and PJ have discarded in the second or third loop Decision make part.

          So they are already fighting a ghost, a piece of territory we don't need, don't want and could care less if they'd control it. The people defending Groklaw and PJ are already working on another angle of attack that seems a lot more promising for the wanted result. The problem is that we are actually held back because those other angles of attack require outsiders to Act or require knowledge of the next Action of MOG, LBN and Sys con.

          Note that I'm not predicting total victory here. Just that it is very, very hard to lose (complacency will do that).

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: discard on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 06:26 AM EDT
          Dear PJ,

          I read this story last night and I decided not to comment on it to prevent me
          from writing something in anger. I am still quite pissed off at what a so called
          journalist wrote about you and your family.

          Luckly several journalist that work for publications affiliated with Maureen
          O'Gara have decided that it's either them or her. It is good to hear that not
          everyone who writes for those publications is like Maureen O'Gara.

          I have donated several times to Groklaw and will continue to do so, not because
          I care who you are but because I care what you are doing. If Maureen O'Gara
          thought the story about you might change how people view Groklaw it has clearly

          If you want to take legal action against her or her publishers, I will fully
          support that.

          With kind regards,

          Robrecht van Valkenburg

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: Geertsema on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 06:27 AM EDT
          Also Quest
          and Redhat

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 06:28 AM EDT
          I'm sure I won't be the first person to say this, or the
          last - but in the craziest way possible this is probably
          the best advertisement for the integrity and
          professionalism of PJ - and also how low and desperate the
          SCO shills hae done.

          Truth shines a light in the darkest places PJ. I wish you
          all the best in shining your light into the darkest
          recesses of this despicable action and hope that those
          concerned see the inside of a courtroom, and hopefully a
          jail cell, real soon

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Jehovas Witness?????
          Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 06:35 AM EDT
          Um, what does it matter that PJ is a Jehovas Witness? I mean, if she were
          baptist would the article have been constantly refering to her as a
          "...Baptist"? What if she were Catholic, or Jewish or Muslim? I
          guess that adds the title "Biggot" to O'gara's long resume as well!

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: M.Kuipers on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 06:36 AM EDT
          This story disgusted me enough to go digging out my old
          GrokLaw account and show some support.

          If they can't beat you in the game of fair journalism, the
          will stoop to the other side of the fair-line. Strange as
          it may seem, it is actually a compliment for all that
          GrokLaw stands for. Having said that, I know it is a
          compliment which would have been more appreciated if it
          wasn't given.

          This time no anonymous post :-)
          Thanks PJ for all your work, I hope to be able to enjoy it
          for a very long time to come (of course without the SCO
          news, as that should be behind 'us' very soon now).

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Sys-con hiding away
          Authored by: ceri on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 06:36 AM EDT

          I note that comments are disabled on the article, and the email address that they say they will receive comments on is invalid:

          ----- Transcript of session follows -----
          ... while talking to
          >>> RCPT To:<>
          <<< 550 unknown user <>
          550 5.1.1 <>... User unknown


          [ Reply to This | # ]

          MOG is sys-con?
          Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 06:40 AM EDT
          Just a thought.

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          • No. - Authored by: Jadeclaw on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 06:53 AM EDT
          End Result
          Authored by: tredman on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 07:09 AM EDT
          In the end, I can't help but shake my head. I find myself asking the same
          question of Maureen O'Gara that I was asking myself in the beginning about SCOX,
          and later on about Rob Enderle: Why would somebody do something that, in the
          final tally, would result in professional suicide? All had to know when they
          started down this path that they wouldn't win. All had to know that, if this
          thing backfired, that was it, it was over.

          I haven't been able to figure out, at this point, whether it was ego that drove
          them to it, or something else. Even as paid lackeys for somebody like
          Microsoft, the cost would be far too great.

          I actually don't believe that SCOX is directly pulling the strings here. I see
          SCOX as the mad cult leader. They have a group of followers that drank the Kool
          Aid, and they know that all they have to do is float a suggestion, and the
          lackeys will run with it. But it still begs the question of what's in it for

          History is rife with people who've committed similar grandiose acts, with
          predictable results. O'Gara has become Geraldo Rivera, and in the end, will be
          taken as seriously. The final, tasty touch of irony is that the only way for her
          to get a second chance is for her to adopt a nom de plume and publish under that
          when this thing is all over.

          Personally, I could care less if PJ was a 108 year old cross-dressing
          Marxist-Leninist ex-circus-clown who listens to Marilyn Manson while talking to
          the rocks in her back yard. Her credibility speaks from the reams of court
          documents that have been posted here. SCOX has never disputed the accuracy of
          those documents, and even thought enough of them that they would use them on
          their own site, markups and all. When one reads them, there is no room for
          doubt who has the stronger case.

          There has never been any secret that Groklaw was biased. It was biased towards
          the truth. And apologies to Jack Nicholson, but SCOX and Maureen don't seem to
          be able to handle the truth.

          "I drank what?" - Socrates, 399 BCE

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Gutter Press
          Authored by: muswell100 on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 07:10 AM EDT
          Sad to see that Ms O'Gara has now stooped well below the level of the gutter
          press in writing something like this. My impression is that she's shooting wildy
          in any direction, leaving whatever journalistic integrity she might have once
          had now lazily floating in the toilet. A criminal prosecution should certainly
          follow. To what purpose does it serve to publish unsubstantiated personal
          details about someone publicy, except to put that person in possible danger?

          Sorry, Maureen, but the harridan in this case is most certainly you.

          Pamela: As hurtful as this may seem, you should consider this kind of behaviour
          on the part of Ms O'Gara and Co. almost complimentary in a backhanded sort of
          way. It means you're getting them where THEY live - not in the literal way that
          Ms O'Gara seems to feel is important - but in a genuine fashion: by throwing a
          spotlight on these cockroaches and watching them run for cover.

          Best Regards...

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 07:13 AM EDT
          I just read the darn article.

          It has a bad taste, is disgraceful, a story that walked right out of an old
          fantasy book or a bad detective story.

          Even if the facts where true, and I absolutely DO NOT think they are, the way in
          which is was written clearly indicates malign intentions.

          How anyone can stoop SO incredibly low... this is beyond me.

          So hang in there PJ... don't let it get to you too much, and don't let it
          distract you from the fabulous job you are doing at Groklaw.


          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: jig on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 07:15 AM EDT

          it's just payback for groklaw publishing the whos who list of litigators and
          other entities (journalists) involved with SCO v everyone. obviously, they
          over-corrected. i'll chalk that up to o'g's bitter enthusiasm. well, and her

          i'm almost sure it was timed. the above posts about the reverse merge, and maybe
          the florida scandal (timing was off), are possible suspects. i have a hard time
          imagining this was just bile from an upset old lady.

          be vigilant, all. i'll be on the lookout with you.

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Isn't it about time to wear that red dress?
          Authored by: GrokTact on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 07:23 AM EDT
          PJ, I hope I can cheer you up just a little. You deserve
          it, especially when people attack you in such a shameful
          way. They must be more than desperate, and that can only
          mean that you are winning!

          I don't even want to know if any of the 'facts' MOG
          mentioned were right. Whatever your actual age, religion,
          lifestyle or family situation may be, you have every right
          to be real proud of who you are and what you do. The
          popularity of GrokLaw is a clear sign of the respect you
          have earned.

          However, I do hope that your age is indeed around 60.
          Because from now on, whenever I see an older lady in a
          bright red dress walking on the street, I will look at
          her in deepest admiration.

          Erik van Mourik

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Gutter Press
          Authored by: muswell100 on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 07:34 AM EDT
          Sad to see that Ms O'Gara has now stooped well below the level of the gutter
          press in writing something like this. My impression is that she's shooting wildy
          in any direction, leaving whatever journalistic integrity she might have once
          had now lazily floating in the toilet. A criminal prosecution should certainly
          follow. To what purpose does it serve to publish unsubstantiated personal
          details about someone publicy, except to put that person in possible danger?

          Sorry, Maureen, but the harridan in this case is most certainly you.

          Pamela: As hurtful as this may seem, you should consider this kind of behaviour
          on the part of Ms O'Gara and Co. almost complimentary in a backhanded sort of
          way. It means you're getting them where THEY live - not in the literal way that
          Ms O'Gara seems to feel is important - but in a genuine fashion: by throwing a
          spotlight on these cockroaches and watching them run for cover.

          Best Regards...

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Some judo against MOG
          Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 07:42 AM EDT
          The judoka's tactic: when your opposent pushes on you, don't push back, but pull
          him, and let him fall from his own force.

          I am going to send an e-mail to Maureen O'Gara (her e-mail address is no secret
          and can be easily found), saying this :

          Groklaw is the work of a community, not of a single person. As a member of this
          community, I, too, have the right to be the subject of personal attacks, and to
          see my personal details spread on the Web. So here they are, so you don't have
          to spend time looking for them.
          (Here: details on name, address, age, job, religion, or absence thereof,
          parents, etc.)

          I suggest that as many people as possible should do the same. Of course, it will
          be better if :
          - every detail given is true (yes, it takes guts... we have some, don't we?)
          - the e-mail is long
          - and it stays neutral in tone, refraining from using such strong (and deserved)
          language as "vile", "dirty" and "unethical".

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: eugen on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 07:42 AM EDT
          Hi all,

          I very seldomly post and I won't comment and MOG - everything has been said!

          Just one piece: Maybe we should have a list of self-outing-grooklaw-readers,
          just as to make it easier for the shills (besides of showing our support!)

          I'll start:

          I am Eugen Rieck, 36, no church, from Vienna, Austria, and drive a 2001 Citroen

          Webmaster: Any ideas on automating this, maybe with password-protected search
          (dont forget to send credentials to MOG)

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: griffith on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 07:48 AM EDT
          Well, there is little left what hasn't been said. Truly disgusting and,
          thankfully, it backfired at MOG. Wherever this is mentioned, people are,
          rightfully, condemning this lowly action.

          PJ, keep up the good work and don't
          worry about ``people'' who flush whatever doubtful reputation they may have had
          down the toilet. They cannot tarnish you or your work the least.

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: marbux on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 07:55 AM EDT
          PJ, you (and others) have said it does not matter who you are, but you are wrong. Despite your understandable desire for privacy, who you are has crept past every word you've written on Groklaw. We know who you are, and we are proud to be your colleagues.

          Our knowledge of you may be shy a few details, but we know of your shyness and your tenacity, of your devotion to the truth and to letting facts speak for themselves without embellishment, of your willingness to sacrifice in service to a vision of a better, more informed world for our children.

          But most of all, for me it has been the personality that can not be hidden by the words you employ. You are a kind, caring person. It is difficult to put in words, but I suspect that all of the regulars here feel that they have had more than a glimpse inside your skull and like what they've seen.

          You are a friend. Please never forget that. We care about you. If anything, MOG's personal attack on you has only intensified what we felt before.

          Retired lawyer

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: LinkJunkie on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 08:18 AM EDT
          Serious lurker here, I haven't even logged in in over a year. I would have an excuse, but I'm a lurker everywhere :-)

          Just putting in my word of support for PJ.
          And remember PJ, if they ever do get crazy enough to attempt anything physical, I'd guess that you have at least a thousand safe houses all around the country :-)
          Hell, you could probably walk into a crowd and say your name and soemone would come to help. What you have awakened in the online community is beyond words and while it may not have been intended it is still quite an accomplishment.

          As someone who is reclusive and secretive, I respect your desire for privacy, possibly more than most.

          People in your 'offline' life know who you are and that is what is important.
          Do not hesitate to bring people from your 'online' life into the fold when in need. I'm sure there are longstanding members and contributors that would help at the drop of a hat and maintain your privacy should you feel the need for safety.
          In the meantime I hope you will continue the work that impresses and informs us all.

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 08:22 AM EDT
          In my opinion, what we are seeing is the utter white-faced terror of those
          "establishment types" who have run up against one true person who is
          so far above them, the person cannot be touched by the common tools of their

          In my opionion (and I am sure that many agree with me), PJ and Groklaw have
          become obsticles to their petty schemes and plotting, and they have resorted to
          their old tricks to try and "squelch" her writings, and to drive her
          away from the scene.

          But they cannot touch her: PJ doesn't have a standard "media presence"
          (ie, PJ has wisely avoided most of the standard "talking head" ploys
          like giving interviews, self-promotion with pictures and bios, etc, etc), and
          she has obviously avoided leaving much of a trail for them to follow. She
          couples this with a journalistic style that is tough only when it need to be,
          based on exposing the truth.

          She has been able to, because of here firm principled stance, avoid the exposure
          that would make herself an easier target for some who, in my opionion, act like

          So they are all getting desperate, in my opinion. They appear to be making
          desperate mistakes in an effort to intimidate and shut her up. And if it finally
          cross the line to physical intimidation, I hope the federal authorities deal
          with them using the full force of the law (federal jurisdiction, since this
          obviously crosses state lines in a case of federal importance).

          I myself have been inspired by all this to consider a career change: After 13
          years designing microprocessors and systems, I am considering a return to law
          school to become an attorney. My purpose is to prepare myself for a career in
          helping people legaly take back their privacy and identity, to disempower those
          who would use the identity network for harasment and intimidtion.

          Thanks PJ, you have shown me the path to a new career!


          [ Reply to This | # ]

          MOG Rides off Yours Shirt-Tails, PJ
          Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 08:25 AM EDT
          MOG is known for trying to exposure PJ;

          AND - I think MOG knows this. She is jealous, PJ, jealous.

          She wants to be as widely read as you.
          She wants people to like her journalism as they like yours.

          In my experience, some people fixate on those things they either aspire to be or
          those things they believe stop them achieving their aspirations. Clearly MOG
          has a fixation on you. I believe you were her "anti-hero", her
          "nemisis" or "demon".

          But as a Groklaw site, drawing upon not only your resources, but those who
          contribute, her nemisis was far too big for here. Frankly, she had to try to
          move you from the powerful Groklaw to something that is human, and a more
          "reasonable" opponent.

          That is what she has tried to do. Except that it will fail - as I believe she
          is finding out now - and she will find her nemisis is larger, and more fearful,
          than ever. I liken this to a very stupid, or ignorant, child who puts a stick
          into a hornets' nest and actually is surprised when they are stung.

          Chin up, PJ. You have our, and my, support

          The Banjo

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 08:28 AM EDT
          I wish PJ the very best. I don't care who she is or what her background is or
          even if she's a she or he, I admire her work. I feel that this attack from M
          O'G is dangerous, nasty and vindictive.

          The editor of the rag that published the hateful bile is
          I have shared my feelings with him.

          Best wishes one and all.

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          another lurker drawn out
          Authored by: llandros on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 08:31 AM EDT
          like many ive been reading here for some time (around a year) nad to be honest i
          never touhght id see anything id want to post in responce to, ive always found
          the site useful and informative and the commentry lacking in bias (even when you
          have a fair idea of pj's own views on a subject her commentry remains unbias and
          in the form of a true journalist)

          well basically now ive foudn something i feel strongly enoguh to post a reply
          about, i did a search on goggle for the relevant article(if im going topost
          about something im going to read it first so i know what im talking aoubt (evne
          if my typing and slight dyslexia give others trouble working out what im typing)
          and i cna safly say in 3 years of working in it and before that rouglhy 3 more
          in media( i worked for a local tv station for some time afer leaving university
          so i know quite a bit aoubt journalism and journalistic law (if your filming and
          editing video for the news you need to knwo the basics at least of the law)) and
          i never tohugh i owudl ever see anyone working as a profesisonla journalist post
          such an unethical and devoid of news story as the one by Maureen o'gara (hope
          ive spelt name right as im guessing) i foudn no newworthy information in the
          articla and was instead confronted with what to me seems a personal attack
          published as news publishing antyones peronsal contact details in a news article
          borders on criminality in a lot of countries and combined with the tone of the
          article id be surpised if there wasnt some breech of law involved here (standard
          declaration, i am not a lawyer) although this is just my best guess not knowing
          us law.

          to sum up gl PJ tis sort of thing shoudlnever happen and anyone who can write
          such an aritel as news is totalyl devoid of journalistic ethics (some of the
          points in the articel seme to merrit investigation for possible criminal
          activity as well(how info was obtained for instance)) and to finish of i join my
          voice to the multitude wishing you well and success however you decide to deal
          with this, and io hope you kepe posting with articles fomr peoepl like maureeen
          o'gara being psotd we need someone posting truth to counter it.

          Peter A Lockyer (if im gonna post sometng im putting my name to it)(nb chose a
          differnt name for registering with as llandros is a name ive used online(esp in
          a mud i used to play) for well over 8 years now)

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: nattt on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 08:33 AM EDT
          Dear PJ,

          You have made Groklaw a shining light of the internet, showing that truth and
          intelligence will burn away the shadows of FUD.

          Keep up the good work, do what is true and honourable, just as you have

          I support you, my family supports you, and there are many, many people like
          me who support you as well. You have a lot of friends, and a lot of friends
          you don't even know you have. Remember that, and call on us to help when
          you need us.

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Go PJ - Groklaw tour of the world
          Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 08:58 AM EDT
          What is there left to add - except that if you do end up on the run, make sure
          you take your camera with you.

          It looks like you've got a home to visit in every corner of the world.

          I do know you are welcome here..

          For those of you going after the advertisers, I know you are all feeling angry -
          but we must not let our anger cloud our vision.

          You want to ask a question, and make a statement - rather than making demands (
          they amount to the same thing, but should not be seen as a dictat )

          The questions are :-
          Do you think this is appropriate material to be associated with your brand ?

          If the answer is "no", then
          "Can you contact sys-con and let them know that too please"

          If the answer is "yes", then
          "OK, then I'm afraid I cannot support/use/recommend your product, thank
          you for your time"

          Go PJ...

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          One more lurker comes out
          Authored by: onchiman on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 09:00 AM EDT
          I too have been moved to respond. I've been a regular visitor to this site for
          years, but until now have not posted. PJ, your work is a model. You seek truth
          and always take the high road relying on facts to stand on their own. Truth
          hurts those who are guilty so they'll lash out in any way they can. I don't know
          if you're a believer or not but you can take comfort in knowing that God is in
          control. If you suit up in the armor he provides, nothing can hurt you. Your
          work is a beacon of truth among a vast sea of lies and deception. Please
          continue to fight the good fight.

          God bless

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: elronxenu on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 09:00 AM EDT
          It seems to me that when SCO said "we're digging deeply, and we're close to the bottom", they kept digging and found Ms. O'Gara.

          I read the "article" in question - well, most of it, until my stomach turned with disgust. It is devoid of any literary or news merit, and appears to be a product of pure spite.

          On the Internet people are often outed as punishment for their bad behaviour - trolls, for example, or spammers. Occasionally people who stand up to trolls are outed by those trolls. In the real world, outing is intended to cause shame and fear, as a person with enemies may be fearful of being located and hurt by those enemies.

          So what can we infer about Ms O'Gara's intent? Does she believe that PJ is a troll or a spammer? Or is Ms O'Gara playing the role of the troll, determined to cause mischief? I believe it's the latter.

          I believe Ms O'Gara's job and/or income are seriously threatened by PJ and Groklaw. This is through no fault of PJ or Groklaw. Ms O'Gara has placed herself in the spotlight of Internet scrutiny and been found wanting. The Internet is quite good at detecting fakes, frauds and over-inflated egos. Her apparent shilling for SCO, inaccurate reporting, her handling of the death of Val Noorda Kriedel and finally her failed attempt to involve herself with the IBM-SCO court case are not any of Groklaw's nor PJ's doing, nor can any repercussions for that be blamed on Groklaw.

          If Ms O'Gara's outing of PJ is accurate, it contradicts the snide allegations of Darl McBride, and thus is to his detriment, no matter whether Ms O'Gara may think otherwise.

          If I can say one thing, it is that the kind of trashy article which Ms O'Gara has just written is a stain on the reputation of the writer, and nobody else. It is the product of spite, an attempt at revenge. It won't work and it can't work. When this kind of dung is flung, we can infer that it is a monkey doing the flinging.

          Pack your bags, Ms O'Gara - you're finished. Nobody with any integrity will employ you. From the moment you started writing that article - and possibly long before - you were doomed.

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          That's pathetic
          Authored by: Wesley_Parish on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 09:01 AM EDT

          PJ, we're right behind you.

          I read that person's article, and the thing I most remember is thinking, "What does this have to do with the SCOGroup versus IBM?"

          To be perfectly frank, I don't care if you're the only one of the three-foot-high market analysts who fell out of the Infinite Improbability Drive's wormhole to survive, or a forty-foot-high dwarf! That's totally irrelevant!

          What's important is that you've told the truth in a time and a place where a lot of people don't. And you've used your skills and knowledge to assist people, instead of defraud them. That's important

          He aha te mea nui?
          What is the most important thing?
          He tangata, he tangata, he tangata.
          It is people, it is people, it is people.

          Live long and prosper, PJ. You're well-loved.

          finagement: The Vampire's veins and Pacific torturers stretching back through his own season. Well, cutting like a child on one of these states of view, I duck

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Story has been pulled from sys-con site
          Authored by: dfarning on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 09:07 AM EDT
          As of 8:02 AM Tue May 10 The mog article has been removed (or else the server is
          over loaded.) Other articles by Mog are available just not the one discussed

          I have cached copies of the article in case Mog tries to rewrited history.

          If any one needs copies of the cached version let me know so tht we can continue
          to alert advertisers as to what they are being associated with.


          [ Reply to This | # ]

          James Turner: "It's either her or me."
          Authored by: belzecue on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 09:09 AM EDT


          "... This is the worst kind of yellow journalism, a pure ad hominem attack
          intended to portray Jones as a senile religious kook not to be taken seriously.
          In fact, O'Gara's track record of biased and incomplete reporting shows that she
          is the kook, and I for one am no longer willing to affiliate myself with an
          organization that will pay for this type of character assasination. The
          editorial staff of LinuxWorld Magazine has been calling for Sys-Con to sever
          their affiliations with O'Gara for at least half a year, with mixed results.
          This is the final straw, and although I can not speak for the rest of the
          editorial board, I am not going to further sully my reputation by affiliation
          with a sleazy sensationalist such as O'Gara. I call on Sys-Con to immediate
          terminate all business dealings with Ms. O'Gara, or I will find another outlet
          for my work."

          James Turner
          Senior Editor, LinuxWorld Magazine

          posted Monday, 9 May 2005

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Dee-Ann LeBlanc: "Either O'Gara is thrown out or I'm gone..."
          Authored by: belzecue on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 09:13 AM EDT


          "...The irony is that someone recently offered to hire me away from
          LinuxWorld Magazine, but even though I'm not paid I had decided to stay for a
          number of personal reasons. Well, now I'm stating loud and clear that I will no
          longer be associated in any way with O'Gara, and I will not volunteer my time to
          a company who pays this woman (it's very difficult for me not to use less
          genteel terms but I'm trying to hold better ethics than she) a red cent. Either
          O'Gara is thrown out on her butt for being a vehicle of intimidation (which is
          the only reason for posting such information) or I'm gone.

          This is just beyond disgusting. The buck has to stop here, and now."

          -- Dee-Ann LeBlanc, posted Monday, 9 May 2005

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Well, it's about time!
          Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 09:14 AM EDT
          I went looking for the article that MOG wrote to find that email address to
          provide feedback to. Low and behold, you now get a message that says "The
          story or page that you where looking for is no longer available."

          Did sys-con finally wise up? Where the supposed death threats actually coming
          from other sys-con writers or its editors?

          I know the old saying, any press is good press, but somehow I bet death row
          inmates don't think a blurb in the paper about their execution is such good
          press. It is time for sys-con just to drop MOG like a bad habit.

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          LBN pulls article?
          Authored by: jmc on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 09:14 AM EDT
          The front page still has a link to it but it says the story is no longer

          Maybe Sys-con woke up?

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: heathenx on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 09:15 AM EDT
          well done PJ. sometimes it takes a better person to keep things fair. you have
          proven to all of your loyal readers that you are that person.

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          The Advertisers Respond!
          Authored by: skwelch on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 09:22 AM EDT
          Ive received two responses so far, the most encoraging from and advertiser
          called Devon IT:

          Matt, thank you for your email.

          Devon IT has received many emails regarding the articles written by
          Maureen O'Gara, editor-in-chief of Maureen O'Gara's LinuxGram. We have
          reviewed and voiced our concerns regarding the editorial content of her
          recent article, "Who Is 'PJ' Pamela Jones of Groklaw.Net?" directly
          SYS-CON. We have encouraged them to stop distributing articles which
          contain personal attacks and private information.

          If SYS-CON fails to act in an appropriate and forthright manner
          regarding this matter, Devon IT will cease its support of SYS-CON and
          halt all advertising with their media properties. We believe that Linux
          World magazine and are valuable sources of information
          for Linux technology and hope that SYS-CON will act in good faith and
          put an end to this reprehensible form of journalism.

          Paul Mancini
          Devon IT

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 09:27 AM EDT

          Okay, I've had a night's sleep to ruminate on MO'G's article. In the cold light of morning, looking at her trash (if possible) dispassionately, there are some things in it that don't quite add up.

          • MO'G claims she spoke with the police officers that PJ's mother called, and that the officers described (what I would consider) some private details of the lives of the involved persons. Now, I'm no expert, but do police officers normally go talking with complete strangers about the private lives of people in their areas? For that matter, how were the police officers aware of the alleged "facts" that they related to MO'G? How, for instance, would they know that PJ was supposedly "on the run", that she had "shacked up with her mom" (a truly offensive phrase), or that she was "headed for Canada"?
          • Nicolas Richards is, according to MO'G, PJ's son. Take a look at the picture of Mr. Richards. If PJ is indeed 61 years old, and Mr. Richards is her son, then PJ must have started bearing childred extremely early in her life; I'd hazard a guess that Mr. Richards, from his appearance in the photo, is at least fifty years old.
          • As has already been mentioned here, it's surprising that MO'G could have obtained telephone records from the Utah courthouse. (Not so surprising that she got them from Canopy, especially if she got them prior to The Purge.)
          All this makes me wonder (objectively, that is) at the factual veracity of her article. In short, Ms. O'G, just how much of this did you in fact make up???

          "When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night"

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          LBN Article Pulled
          Authored by: ceolson on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 09:35 AM EDT
          Looks like MOG's article has been pulled off of the LBN web site.

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Open Letter to Advertisers
          Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 09:41 AM EDT
          I am one of an apparent multitude of Groklaw readers who visit Groklaw daily for facts and opinions on the SCO lawsuits. Though I've read Groklaw almost since it's inception, until now, I have not seen a reason to comment.

          PJ, we support you. We don't appreciate it when our friends are maliciously attacked! Unlike your attackers, however, we will fight fair. In this case, convincing SysCon's advertisers to remove their ad support. Here is a copy of a letter I am sending to their advertisers:

          To whom it may concern,

          For some time now, SysCon has been a laughing stock of the tech community for their biased and fact-deficient articles by Maureen O'Gara. But the latest article by Ms O'Gara, stalking Pamela Jones of Groklaw and defaming her name, crosses the boundary from merely bad journalism to unethical and mean spirited behavior.

          By your ad sponsorship of and Linux Business News, your company appears to tacitly support the unethical behavior of Ms O'Gara. Please clarify your position publicly - do you agree with SysCon's treatment of Pamela Jones and support their ridiculous attacks?

          If SysCon and Ms O'Gara no longer meet the ethical standards of your company, please display this by removing your advertising revenue from these sites.

          Sincerely, [Redacted]

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Moore's Lore
          Authored by: belzecue on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 09:55 AM EDT
          Dana Blankenhorn's cats go ballistic! . Oh, and he says some stuff about the MOG vs PJ thing, too.

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          call for boycott of all sys-con products
          Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 09:56 AM EDT
          hey you hurt one of us personally, we hurt your wallet

          here is call to boycott all of sys-con products
          the company which publishes the magazine for MOG

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Authored by: Nigel on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 09:58 AM EDT
          "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then
          you win." - Mahatma Gandhi

          Stage 4 must be getting pretty close - hang in there, PJ, and if you need
          anything, all you have to do is ask.

          [ 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 )