|
Intimidation |
|
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:
******************
PJ:
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
*********************
PJ:
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'.
|
|
Authored by: sandelaphon on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 04:47 PM EDT |
if any.
---
I hate sigs![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
- Dell supports RedHat - Authored by: IMANAL on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:40 PM EDT
- Ok - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 03:56 AM EDT
- Praetorians - Authored by: cyberb0b on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:45 PM EDT
- Netcraft says... - Authored by: prhodes on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:59 PM EDT
- Zealots vs. Mercenaries - Authored by: frk3 on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:09 PM EDT
- Offtopic here.. - Authored by: code_monkey on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:10 PM EDT
- The low road... - Authored by: alextangent on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:29 PM EDT
- Boycott Sys-Con! - Authored by: jbb on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:45 PM EDT
- Another way to show support - Authored by: bap on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:48 PM EDT
- Well, it's not crazier, but... - Authored by: Tyro on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 07:53 PM EDT
- Need Edit Own Post Option! - Authored by: WildCode on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 08:05 PM EDT
- Wired News shows SYS-CON the way - Faults Found in Online Reporter's Stories. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 10:37 PM EDT
- Open source could slash school IT bills, says UK government. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 11:04 PM EDT
- Could IBM ask about this during discovery (FUD) - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:08 AM EDT
- Impact on G2's motion to intervene? - Authored by: Anni on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 04:34 AM EDT
- SYS-CON management meeting Tuesday. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 04:58 AM EDT
- Moggies - Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 05:30 AM EDT
- Moggies - Authored by: gtall on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 06:36 AM EDT
- Moggies - Authored by: frk3 on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 11:51 AM EDT
- Inquirer chastizes LBW, O'Gara - Authored by: RedBarchetta on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 05:47 AM EDT
- "Microsoft braced for Linux gains" - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 07:25 AM EDT
- "Open-Source Wikipedia Zooms Ahead of Other Reference Web Sites" - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 08:14 AM EDT
- "Article Outs Groklaw Founder" - Yahoo News - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 08:27 AM EDT
- FFII Update. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 08:51 AM EDT
- MOG article pulled? - Authored by: fudisbad on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 09:18 AM EDT
- Sun Buys Tarantella - Authored by: TiddlyPom on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 10:16 AM EDT
- MOG SACKED!!!!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 11:10 AM EDT
- 900,000 ISP customers blacklisted for spam. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 11:49 AM EDT
|
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
best.
--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.
---
~Dave[ 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 | # ]
|
- Intimidation - Authored by: tichael on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:54 PM EDT
- Intimidation - Authored by: bliss on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:02 PM EDT
- Intimidation - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:22 PM EDT
- Intimidation - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:23 PM EDT
- Intimidation - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:33 PM EDT
- Intimidation - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:40 PM EDT
- Intimidation - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:35 PM EDT
- Support and Dismay - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 08:23 PM EDT
- Intimidation - Authored by: Nonad on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 09:45 PM EDT
- Intimidation - Authored by: yarzer on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 10:30 PM EDT
- Intimidation - Authored by: lifewish on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 11:22 PM EDT
- Intimidation - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 04:04 AM EDT
- Intimidation - Authored by: Rudisaurus on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 05:55 AM EDT
- Intimidation - Authored by: abw2005 on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 06:32 AM EDT
- Intimidation - Authored by: barsteward on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 06:39 PM EDT
|
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
you.
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 | # ]
|
- People are curious - Authored by: John Hasler on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:27 PM EDT
- Be thankful you no longer read O'Gara - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:32 PM EDT
- I have serious doubts - Authored by: TomWiles on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:55 PM EDT
- I'm not curious at all!! - Authored by: JeR on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:34 PM EDT
- People are curious - Authored by: cmc on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:51 PM EDT
- I am too, but I don't need your address - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:17 AM EDT
- curious, yes. care, no - it's results that matter - Authored by: xtifr on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 06:48 AM EDT
- I know who PJ is - Authored by: haro on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:31 PM EDT
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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!
WillRobinson
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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.
JG
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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.
---
Dennis
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 | # ]
|
|
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:- Does SCO's
case have merit?
- 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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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.
sum.zero[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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
reason.
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.
---
Rsteinmetz
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 http://linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2005050900926OPBZ - 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.
Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: seanlynch on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:22 PM EDT |
PJ,
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
"Thanks".[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 "...um... 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."
PJ
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
demand-
[ 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
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:31 PM EDT |
PJ,
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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.
Aside:
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: talexb on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:36 PM EDT |
PJ,
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 05:36 PM EDT |
PJ,
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
professionalism.
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
|
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.
Voltaire
I have never made but one prayer
to God, a very short one: "O Lord make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted
it.
Voltaire
[ 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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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
again. [ 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
"good".
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
|
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:
Yahoo!
701 First Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA
94089 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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
deliveries.
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 | # ]
|
|
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 |
PJ:
mog and sco et al may wish to expose you, but they lack the
understanding, that your readers have always "known" who you
are.
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.
Nick [ 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 |
PJ,
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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
irresponsible.
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
Pamela.
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.
Dan
-----------------------------------------------------
Again if the above is inappropriate for any reason, my appologies for posting it
here. [ 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 | # ]
|
- Intimidation - Authored by: Khym Chanur on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:34 PM EDT
- Intimidation - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 08:42 PM EDT
- FOIA - Authored by: tleps on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 08:59 PM EDT
- FOIA - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 10:00 PM EDT
- FOIA - Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 10:54 PM EDT
- Intimidation - Authored by: John Hasler on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:39 PM EDT
- Squelch - Authored by: fcw on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 07:20 PM EDT
- Countdown - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 08:59 PM EDT
- Harridan--That's The MOGster, All Right - Authored by: Weeble on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 09:12 PM EDT
|
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
revoltion.
It makes me sick to my stomach that someone would do that, the absolute height
of indecent "journalism".
I'll never go to linuxworld.com or sys-con.com 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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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!
chribo
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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
LBN.
Thoughts? I am working on a draft now.
Rob
One PO'd President[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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.
Cheers,
Jamie Conlon.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 ?)
Cheers.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:19 PM EDT |
PJ,
I stopped posting on Groklaw a while ago, due to disagreeing with many of your
policies.
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 | # ]
|
|
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
thing.
Anything like that?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 recipient....next, 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
evidence.
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
source.
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
Linux"
O'Gara can hardly be judged an independent observer when she is clearly so
biased.
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
Adrian[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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
intentions.
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:25 PM EDT |
PJ,
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 | # ]
|
|
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
media.
PJ, after your countless volunteer hours, you deserve so much better than this.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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.
Sybase
Revelation Software
webrenderer.com
Monarch Computer
Data Direct Technologies
Gluecode Software
Devon IT / ntavo.com
Itemfield
Oracle
Wily Technologies
Parasoft
FusionWare
Promind
NetOp
Scalix
Arkeia
Raritan
Centrify
MKS
JadeLiquid
Global Knowledge
I didn't bother listing MS and EV1.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Sys-Con advertisers - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:37 PM EDT
- Sys-Con advertisers - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:40 PM EDT
- Sys-Con advertisers - Authored by: BigTex on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:54 PM EDT
- email links? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 07:21 PM EDT
- More Sys-Con advertisers - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 08:43 PM EDT
- Sys-Con advertisers - Authored by: Ninthwave on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 08:45 PM EDT
- This is completely wrong - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 09:48 PM EDT
- If you contact these advertisers, make sure you... - Authored by: greyhat on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 01:51 AM EDT
- Linux community boycott of SYS-CON - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:24 PM EDT
|
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
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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
history.
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 |
OMG!
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bap on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:42 PM EDT |
my readers simply don't care who I am
PJ
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.
-Bruce [ 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 | # ]
|
|
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
cares?
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 | # ]
|
|
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
bicycling.[ 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... ;-)
Bas.
[ 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
journalism.
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.
PJ:
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 06:56 PM EDT |
Hangonasec.....
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
BEING A JEHOVA'S WITNESS??????
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
back!!
John G.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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
dime.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Solaufein on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 07:07 PM EDT |
PJ,
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.
CMS[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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
site.
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.
brooker
[ 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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jto on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 07:13 PM EDT |
PJ: 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 | # ]
|
- Shock and Awe - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 07:56 PM EDT
|
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.
John.[ 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 | # ]
|
|
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
commentary.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 |
PJ,
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 | # ]
|
|
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
Scotland
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 07:40 PM EDT |
<Humor>
"she did WWWHHHAAATTTT!!!!!!!"
</humor>[ 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.
---
webster[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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
articles.
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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
neighbors.[ 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.
---
webster[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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
do....
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
courts.
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!
---
--
argee[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 07:53 PM EDT |
Those articles are scary. As in "Get me a restraining order now!"
scary.
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 |
PJ,
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 | # ]
|
|
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 be...now 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
Dan[ 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.
RavenII
---
"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
|
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 http://www.internetweek.com/breakingNews/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=16310
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
- Image Dates? - Authored by: Simon G Best on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 09:42 PM EDT
- Photos - Authored by: greyhat on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 03:22 AM EDT
- Photos - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 09:23 AM EDT
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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
her.
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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?
jgm[ 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
money.[ 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 | # ]
|
|
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
well..[ 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 | # ]
|
- Spartacus - Authored by: John Hasler on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 08:50 PM EDT
- Spartacus - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 09:21 PM EDT
- I AM PJ - Authored by: Weeble on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 10:00 PM EDT
- I AM PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:49 AM EDT
- Spartacus - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 10:05 PM EDT
- I am 51 years old catholic - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 10:09 PM EDT
- Spartacus - Authored by: charlie Turner on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 11:20 PM EDT
- I am PJ - Authored by: gleef on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 11:46 PM EDT
- Spartacus - Authored by: technomom on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 09:29 AM EDT
- Spartacus - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 09:51 AM EDT
|
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
taste.
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 | # ]
|
|
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 |
PJ,
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 | # ]
|
|
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
apology.
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 |
PJ:
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
said!"
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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.
Willie
Though few will read these word many will be affected by them.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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
http://precision-blogging.blogspot.com
---
- Precision Blogger[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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.
AK[ 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
reap.'
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
proud.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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?
Quatermass
IANAL IMHO[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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
comprehend...
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 | # ]
|
|
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.
Regards
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tleps on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 09:52 PM EDT |
WOW,
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.
Tom
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mscibing on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 09:54 PM EDT |
PJ,
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 | # ]
|
|
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
taken..
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
exist.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Leccy on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 10:03 PM EDT |
PJ,
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 | # ]
|
|
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!!!
Ummm...so? 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
fit.
---
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.
Regards
Ramiro[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Intimidation - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 02:14 AM EDT
|
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.
---
//Brian
#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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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.
Tom
[ 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
throes.
Mark
---
"It's all about myths and conceptions" I think that is what Darl meant to say.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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!
---
AYNIL[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 sys-con.com. 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 sys-con.com, 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
company.
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 sys-con.com KNOW that in your emails, and let them know that word gets
around.
---
"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
behavior.
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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
"Linux."[ 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 |
THE ARTICLE IS STILL HERE http://linuxbusinessnews.sys-con.com/read/83267.htm.
NOTE THE ADVERTISEMENT AT BOTTOM TO MEET SINGLE JEHOVA'S WITNESS'S???[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 11:02 PM EDT |
PJ-
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 | # ]
|
|
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
hits.
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.
--Raynfala
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 11:14 PM EDT |
Pj,
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
1970's.
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
impact.[ 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 | # ]
|
|
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."
Ewen[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 11:32 PM EDT |
Congratulations! You are now at GandhiCon 3.
-Wang-Lo.
[ 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.
jim
---
When all else fails, follow directions.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: peterhenry on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 11:35 PM EDT |
PJ:
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
us.
Sincerely,
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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! http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ [ 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
dirt?
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 | # ]
|
|
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
happens.
---
Wayne
telnet hatter.twgs.org
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: AllParadox on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:16 AM EDT |
grrrrrrrr.
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 | # ]
|
|
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
events!"
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 | # ]
|
|
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.
Notes:
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
Custom
Dot Gain
20%
All Images taken with
Sony
DSC-F828
3xxNCentralAve320.jpg
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
3xxNCentralAve160.jpg
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
Norwalk320.jpg
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
Norwalk02320.jpg
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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, http://www.sys-con.com/cont
actemail.cfm?ID=38 and http://www.sys-con.com/cont
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.
--- Smy...
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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!
---
-Skuggi.[ 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 | # ]
|
|
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
road.”
Regards,
Dan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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
out.
I just wonder what Darl and MOG would look like in prison stripes?
krp[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cjames on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 01:05 AM EDT |
PJ,
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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
is
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 | # ]
|
|
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 editorial@sys-con.com"
Also, the sys-con website is going really, really slow.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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
rags.
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,
those
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
area.]
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.
gsy[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 01:40 AM EDT |
http://linuxbusinessnews.sys-con.com/read/83267.htm
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...
http://linuxbusinessnews.sys-con.com/read/80782.htm
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 01:44 AM EDT |
__ __ _
____
_ _
/ /__ | | _____
_____ | _ | | |
/ / / _ |
|/ _ / / _ | |_) |
| | |
V V /
__/ | | (_) V / __/ |
__/ |_| |_|
_/_/ ___| |_|___/ _/ ___| |_|
___/(_)
Nil illegitimus corborundum! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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
href="http://www.threenorth.com/sco/vista_sco.html">Vista
deal</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
|
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
world.
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
tactlessness).
[ 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
inverted! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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
benefit.
-Jon[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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.
Consider:
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
happening.
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 mail.sys-con.com.:
>>>>>>
RCPT To:
550 5.1.1 ... User unknown
Reporting-MTA: dns;
islay.sys-con.com
Arrival-Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 23:05:05 -0400
Final-Recipient:
RFC822; lloydcaron@sys-con.com
Action: failed
Status: 5.1.1
Remote-MTA: DNS;
mail.sys-con.com
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
- I am stunned - Authored by: PM on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 03:25 AM EDT
- I am stunned - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 03:52 AM EDT
|
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.
Ebel[ 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 advertisers...so I have compiled a list of
some ones I grabbed off of her site with email addresses.
Parasoft
info@parasoft.com
DataDirect Technologies
charles.gold@datadirect.com
Sybase Inc.
http://eshop.sybase.com/feedback
Oracle Inc.
(I can't find a contact e-mail, please post back if you find one)
MKS Software
Press Contact: wendym@mks.com
Main Contact: tk_info@mkssoftware.com
Raritan
info@raritan.com and press@raritan.com
Linux Networx
media@linuxnetworx.com
Google (through AdSense)
adsense@google.com
Scalix
info@scalix.com
Ntavo
sales@devonit.com
Revelation Software
info@revelation.com
Centrify
info@centrify.com
GlueCode Software
info@gluecode.com and sales@gluecode.com
Global Knowledge
diane.seghposs@globalknowledge.com
FusionWare
info@fusionware.net
EV1
customerservice@ev1.net
Arkeia
report@arkeia.com
Itemfield
marketing@itemfield.com
JadeLiquid
info@webrenderer.com
Enerjy Software
http://www.enerjy.com/en/form/requestinfo.htm
NetOP
http://www.netop.com/netop-11.htm[ 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
bodyguards.
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
case.
I wish I were better able to show my respect and admiration for PJ in this
difficult situation
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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.
DES[ 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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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
appearance.
(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
likely.
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: 1N8 M4L1C3 on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 04:18 AM EDT |
Pamela,
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
campaign".
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... ...so let the court define it for them!
Sincerely,
m.
---
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
difference.
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.
-cybervegan
---
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 | # ]
|
|
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 |
PJ
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
you.
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
systems.
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 05:18 AM EDT |
PJ,
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
safety.
Steve[ 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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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
LinuxBusinessNews.com. They seem to be housed in Redmont.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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,
Peter[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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
backfired.
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 annette.trent@quest.com
and Redhat
and stylusstudio@stylusstudio.com[ 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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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
mail.sys-con.com.:
>>> RCPT
To:<lloydcaron@sys-con.com>
<<< 550 unknown user
<lloydcaron@sys-con.com>
550 5.1.1 <lloydcaron@sys-con.com>...
User unknown
Cowards. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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
|
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
O'Gara.
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.
---
Tim
"I drank what?" - Socrates, 399 BCE[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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.
Darkelve
[ 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
ineptness.
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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
intimidation.
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
thugs.
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!
nzvx[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 08:25 AM EDT |
MOG is known for trying to exposure PJ;
PJ IS KNOWN FOR WHO SHE IS!
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 lloydcaron@sys-con.com
I have shared my feelings with him.
Best wishes one and all.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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
been!
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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
above.
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.
dfarning [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: belzecue on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 09:09 AM EDT |
http://turner.linuxworld.com/read/1256619.htm
-----
"... 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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: belzecue on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 09:13 AM EDT |
http://dee.linuxworld.com/read/1256657.htm
-----
"...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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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
available.
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 | # ]
|
|
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
to
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 LinuxWorld.com 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.
Regards,
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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: info@parasoft.com;
charles.gold@datadirect.com; wendym@mks.com;
info@raritan.com;
media@linuxnetworx.com; adsense@google.com; info@scalix.com;
sales@devonit.com;
info@revelation.com; info@centrify.com;
sales@gluecode.com;
diane.seghposs@globalknowledge.com;
info@fusionware.net;
customerservice@ev1.net; report@arkeia.com;
marketing@itemfield.com;
info@webrenderer.com;
sales@monarchcomputer.com;annette.trent@quest.com;
stylusstudio@stylusstudio.com
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 syscon.com 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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|