|
| Authored by: Rad59 on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 11:59 AM EDT |
| woo-hoo for you!!!!! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 11:59 AM EDT |
PJ,
Congrats on taking a stand and keeping your commitment to high honesty and
integrity. I am a VERY happy Groklaw reader!
Jim
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:00 PM EDT |
MOG has a 100 year supply of it. No one needs to do a thing. People like that
are their own worst enemy. Kinda like my ex-wife.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: seanlynch on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:00 PM EDT |
| This thread is for corrections, if needed. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:01 PM EDT |
PJ, thanks for taking the high road on this issue. Your unwavering firmness in
the face of this kind of behavior has been wonderful to watch. You were
challenged, you stood your ground. Now, you have won. We *all* have won.
Sean[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:01 PM EDT |
just that they would no longer print stuff with her byline.
doesn't mean they won't publish her work unattributed and or behind a nom de
plume (sp?)
until they front page apologize and state that they have fired her/cancelled any
contracts and swear never to do business with her or any of her affiliates in
perpetuity, their feet should continue to be held to the fire.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Sevenfeet on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:02 PM EDT |
Hatchet jobs in the guise of "journalism" always has consequences.
This is just the first of it. We haven't seen the last of it. Thankfully,
Sys-Con finally listened to its readers and apparently a revolt from its other
editors.
Keep the faith, PJ![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: seanlynch on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:02 PM EDT |
This thread is for Off-topic posts.
Thanks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- What's next on the SCO scene? - Authored by: frk3 on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:05 PM EDT
- Readership and support - Authored by: WhiteFang on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:32 PM EDT
- Sun buys Tarentella - Authored by: geoff lane on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:42 PM EDT
- Nearly 1200 comments in about 18 hours ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:49 PM EDT
- But SCO associates already told us who PJ is before - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 01:05 PM EDT
- Sun acquires oldSCO for $25m - Authored by: Hydra on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 01:11 PM EDT
- SCO sold Sun the Fried Ice Cream - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 07:11 PM EDT
- Further news on Apache's Java initiative. - Authored by: Ed L. on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 07:13 PM EDT
- Closing Down Groklaw by the backdoor - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 08:33 PM EDT
- Yarro sightings? pronouncements? stock sales/buys? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 08:33 PM EDT
- Please don't sue O'Gara until this is over - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 10:38 PM EDT
- A "gift" from the new UK Government ................ - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 10:43 PM EDT
- Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols - " SCO's Legal Wrangles Take an Odd, Personal Turn" - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 11:01 PM EDT
- Good job! - Authored by: ENOTTY on Wednesday, May 11 2005 @ 04:12 AM EDT
- Number of comments shouldn't matter much - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 11 2005 @ 08:02 AM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: eckenheimer on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:03 PM EDT |
| This kind of thing helps to restore my faith in humanity.
---
In a
world without walls or fences, who needs windows or gates? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Rob M on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:05 PM EDT |
Although a little about this bothers me. The only article that should be dumped
is the intimidation one. The other articles should stay there. I don't like the
idea of trying to cover up history.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:06 PM EDT |
| Maureen O'Gara's bylined material will no longer appear anywhere in the
Sys-con universe of sites or publications.
Notice that they don't say they
won't produce any more of her work, just that it won't be bylined. Hopefully,
they mean that she'll no longer write for them, period. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:08 PM EDT |
| you won't be missed... :) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: piskozub on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:08 PM EDT |
I know it was you PJ who was the target of this [expletived deleted] and not any
of us your readers. But I was worried about how you'll take such an intrusion in
your private life and felt very personal about that.
Today I had some nice little professional successes. But the think that really
made my day is that the blitz agains PJ is now over. Het's hope that relly
teaches them a lesson!
Once, again: we are happy with you PJ. Not because someone was sacked (even as
it was with a very good cause) but because that should make your life better.
Thanks for all! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: elronxenu on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:11 PM EDT |
| I wrote in (comment apparently deleted due to
transgressing Groklaw's rules)
...
"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."
My prediction came true a
lot quicker than I had expected! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:14 PM EDT |
PJ on SCO: they never see that line until they have crossed
it
I don't recall them ever having seen the line,
period - whether
they had crossed it or not [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:18 PM EDT |
PJ, please don't let this seemingly qualified rejection of her work detter you
from sending O'Gara to court.
Meanwhile, stay safe.
SJG[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Oops, by-lined == all - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:41 PM EDT
- sue 'em! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 11:23 PM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:20 PM EDT |
I highly appreciate your effort and courage. Your integrity is clear through
your work so you don't need any other thing against opposition.
Their poison fed themselves.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:22 PM EDT |
| Let's hope she goes to MSN as an editor. What would we do without her? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Felix_the_Mac on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:24 PM EDT |
Article is published on 7th.
PJ publishes 'Intimidation' piece on Monday, May 09 2005 @ 04:40 PM EDT.
O'Gara is gone by Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 11:42 AM EDT.
That's 19 hours!
As someone who emailed about 30 people at sys-con in the middle of the night (UK
time) I can say that I am thrilled![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:24 PM EDT |
"No good deed shall go unpunished" so, now that only a small smigon of
justice has been served, lets get off this sidetrack and back onto the main
course.
Now you have brought more people into the fold, what can we do today? I heard
rummored that there is something going on with SCO that they may be doing some
deal with Vista.
Would be nice if we could fill the court room with yellow bands to show support
of GrokLaw. Wish I were close enough to go see the circus one afternoon.
WillRobinson[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:26 PM EDT |
| I can't wait... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: raynfala on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:26 PM EDT |
To PJ: Kudos!
To Ms. O'Gara: Well done (Not a commentary on her actions, merely her present
state :^)
--Raynfala
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Kybos on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:27 PM EDT |
Thank you PJ, for helping me understand that we can all make a difference.
Kybos
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: blacklight on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:28 PM EDT |
MOG's breach of journalistic ethics was so gross that she made herself too
radioactive for any future employer, even in the rag trade. For all practical
purposes, MOG has committed professional suicide and SCOG will have to look for
another stooge. As for SCOG iself, none of us is naive enough to think that MOG
did the leg work, and it is only a matter of time before we trace MOG's
information back to SCOG.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: teknomage1 on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:28 PM EDT |
Once again the day is saved...
Thanks to the Power Puff...wait erm the LinuxWorld Editors, yay![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: N. on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:32 PM EDT |
Does G2/LinuxGram get republished anywhere else?
---
N.
(Now almost completely Windows-free)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: mdarmistead on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:33 PM EDT |
I know someone elsae already brought it up, but the reply is several layers
deep. Just so you know, James has clarified what he wrote in his blog:
Clarification: Someone questioned the term "bylined article". Let me
clarify as I have had it clarified by the publisher for me. No material
authored by O'Gara will appear, period.
Matt[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: MplsBrian on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:34 PM EDT |
I look forward to the days when groklaw can focus on its mission without such
distractions. I hope that the source of this negativity will learn her lesson
and not search for a new outlet. I fear that I am living in naiveté. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: kberrien on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:38 PM EDT |
I understand the victory of this trash journalism being removed... but lets be
clear.
Those in charge, and even MOG must certainly have been aware this would be the
end game. I just have enough faith in human beings, and their intelligence to
not believe they didn't realize this.
MOG, her credibility ALREADY zero, was likely to take a dive in order to get the
story released, and have its effect. This story, pictures an all, was going to
be published regardless. This is not some rouge posting by MOG without the
concent of higher ups.
Whats in order is an official appology, retraction, and perhaps compensation.
Removing MOG content isn't impressive enough for me.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: UglyGreenTroll on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:41 PM EDT |
| I congratulate Sys-Con on dumping (if in fact they did) a sleazy journalist.
They didn't have much choice if they wanted to maintain (recover?) their
integrity.
But have they just martyred Maureen O'Gara? There are many
outlets on the internet, and MO'G may use this "firing" as a spring board.
I seriously doubt it will shut her up, as many Grokkrawlers likely hope. It
may even make her louder still. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: TAZ6416 on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:42 PM EDT |
I don't think we should let Sys-Con off the hook that easily.
Jonathan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Groo on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:44 PM EDT |
One thing that probably was not mentioned was the work people did talking to the
advertisers on Sys-Con. I personally called three that I know, and I mean KNOW
the people involved. None of them knew about MoG and the situation.
The funny thing is, at least one of them knew about Sys-Con before I mentioned
it to him, he completed my sentence. The people who made the advertisers feel
the heat were the ones that did it. Next time, go after them, politely and with
well thought out persuasive arguements.
That said, I got three to agree to pull ads :).
-Charlie[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: karl on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:45 PM EDT |
Awesome! I used to wonder if PJ was being a bit paranoid, but after reading
MOG's last "article" it became clear that PJ's instincts were 100%
correct and, if anything, she hasn't been careful enough!
As is obvious to everyone, the MOG message was designed to frighten you into
silence, PJ. (Was it legal for them to get your phone records?
Unbelievable...) Thank you for your courage. Groklaw is now getting more press
than SCO -- the SCO FUD machine is just about kaput, and you have been the key
component in making that happen.
Thank you.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:48 PM EDT |
It's just a shame that Dee-Ann confirmed O'Gara's information. Giving her even
that degree of credibility was unfortunate, not that it's done her any good.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: technomom on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:50 PM EDT |
I think you may have spoken a bit too soon, PJ. When I go to
http://www.sys-con.com, I see 4 articles by MOG spotlighted on the right hand
side. Moreover, I see no words of apology from Sys-Con to you nor no notice
disavowing Maureen's article. I think they have a long way to go to atone for
giving a platform for MOG's harrassment.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: rvergara on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:54 PM EDT |
In the Intimidation article I wrote:
"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."
I am just glad that my admiration for American Journalism was completely
justified.
Ramiro[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:55 PM EDT |
I'm gratified that Sys-con has done the right thing and relieved themselves of
Ms. O'Gara.
I hope they apologized to PJ as well.
Unfortunately we many not have seen the last of Ms. O'Gara. She still has her
web site and may find another outlet for her ravings. The web is a big place and
there are many people out there who have no honesty at all, not to mention
ethics.
She might end up doing Blake Stowell's job, since he may end up doing Chris
Sontag's, while Mr. Sontag is busy searching CVMC for stolen code.
---
Rsteinmetz
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:57 PM EDT |
What a complete crock (from http://www.g2news.com);-
[LinuxGram]
..is directed at the people who run the computer industry, the Fortune 5000 who
buy from them and the developers who make it all work. Treasured as a strategic
weapon that’s hidden by CEOs from their boards so they sound brighter, its tone
and writing style is a favorite with readers.
The people who write
LinuxGram are veterans of the trench warfare that marked the rise of Unix and
the onset of NT. They keep and deploy the cultural memory, something Intel
chairman Andy Groves has charged the rest of the press with forgetting, to its
and the industry’s detriment.
A passion for accuracy goes without
saying.
Please... stop it... you're killng me...
What
makes us unique is our intelligence. The intelligence comes from:
- The
best reporters in the industry. We get the story behind the story.
- A
perspective that comes from the years we've been in this industry. We don’t just
rewrite press releases.
- Contacts at the highest level of every company in
the industry. We've even been accused of having bugs in the boardrooms.
- We
work harder. We have a proven track record. No other newsweekly breaks more
news. Every week. Week after week.
- A fierce dedication to reporting the
facts. We get it right the first time - our accuracy rate is
unchallenged.
How could anyone take that seriously?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:57 PM EDT |
I'd not be surprised if the severance package had been tied before the article
appeared.
Something like "Ok, we are seeing a bad impact on sales. You get to write
another article to make it look good for us when you quit. You have leave to
write whatever you want to. If subscriptions go up at least 20% in reaction to
your leaving us, you get a bonus."
On the other hand, the article is clearly not paid for just by a severance
package, since it basically is severance from the profession, not just the job.
And that calls for deeper pockets than a publisher has to offer.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: perpetual_newbie on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 01:02 PM EDT |
There have been so many calls for an editor's head rolling for allowing it to be
published. Remember that one of the descriptions of MOG was as the
editor-in-chief of Linux Business Week, a SYS-CON affiliate if I remember
correctly. It's easy to release a story of yours if you are the editor...
...or am I wrong?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 01:03 PM EDT |
I honestly think after this SCO case is up you should travel to universities
around the world to speak about ethics in journalism. Having been an opinion
editor of a newspaper, I know exactly how rare those ethics are to find in most
journalists and journalism students.
Do whatever you can to be as safe as you can. This was obviously O'Gara's
attempt to get you bumped off by deep pocketed SCO investors who can afford a
hit.
And that is what is so disgusting about that article... as it truly could only
be perceived as a roadmap to causing you physical harm.
And for that, Maureen O'Gara deserves to be behind bars. Please follow through
with a lawsuit as this attempt to cause you and your family physical harm can
simply not be tolerated from any writer anywhere.
Most important, however, do what you can to be safe. Maureen O'Gara in an orange
jumpsuit would be a good first step toward that.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: brooker on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 01:04 PM EDT |
There's just one more thing that Maureen should write before she disappears from
view. Something that needs to be published publically, and that would be an
apology, along with a full explanation of who has been supplying her with
information, and who's been paying her to mangle and twist that information in
such deceitful and dispicable ways.
I'm glad she's been dropped by Sys-Con, but they should apologise too. The
bums.
To PJ, and to MathFox The Mighty...Congratulations on hanging in there so
gracefully, and keeping things going so beautifully. A job well done, and very
appreciated by all of us.
brooker
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: skwelch on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 01:04 PM EDT |
Almost every reply to the complaints I've sent advertisers support this, only
one claimed they don't like the article but can't help where their ads are
placed. Most where like this one from Arkeia:
Matt -- thank you for your email. You were not the only one that was
concerned about the article and its content. Arkeia does not condone the
article or the views of Ms. O'Gara and we are taking the necessary steps
to pull our advertising from any page or newsletter associated with Ms.
O'Gara. Sys-Con has informed me that they will be posting their official
response as it relates to this article on their website.
Thank you for your concern and for your continued support.
Kind regards,
John
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: 1N8 M4L1C3 on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 01:05 PM EDT |
PJ,
Hip Hip Horray!
Thank you very much for sharing this incredible news with us. I think I can
safely speak for all your regulars here in expressing what wonderful news this
is.
This is another example where taking the high road will eventually pay off in
the end.
Not to be vendictive (simply cautiously-minded), I would still follow through on
a "cease and desist" order against MOG - as there's nothing to stop
her from spreading her vile within other publications or creating her own blog.
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: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 01:08 PM EDT |
First I have some doubts because the linked article says that all Maureen's
material will be removed, but as far I can see, apart of the attempted expose,
the rest is all still there.
Putting my doubts about sys-con aside and taking sys-con at their word, I am
inclined to believe that Maureen will continue her attempted expose, in her own
publications LinuxGram, and ClientServer news, which are owned by G2, Maureen's
company.
Reading yesterday's report in CRN and InternetWeek, which quotes Maureen, she
seems to be defiantly unrepentant. It would seem unlikely that the last few
hours and events at Sys-con would have changed Maureen's mind. Nothing in the
past, no matter how many factual errors in her articles have been pointed out,
has changed her mind. Instead, the more errors that Maureen has made, and the
more they have been pointed out, the more her vitriol has increased.
I therefore believe that it highly likely that Maureen will continue in the same
vein, perhaps even descending to an even lower path when she continues her
attempted expose, in the G2 publications. I also rather suspect that Maureen
will now attempt to portray herself as the victim. If Maureen had
anger/hatred/malice towards PJ, and it certainly seems to me that she did from
her past articles, in Maureen's mind this anger/hatred/malice seems likely to
have increased, not decreased.
If you are reading Maureen, please stop now, and prove my fears above wrong.
The path you have taken is unacceptable - don't descend any lower.
And PJ, as I've said before, you and your family have my best wishes. IANAL,
and I can't advise you on whether to pursue civil litigation, and in any case
this is a decision you have to take yourself.
Regardless of that, having slept on it, while I know (from your past article)
that you have talked to law enforcement agencies, and I *really* do think this
is a path that you absolutely *must* pursue. Please do talk to the FBI or the
Attorney General, and keep talking until they help you. I don't wish to alarm
you, but I am increasingly of the belief that it is absolutely necessary: If
Maureen's article is to be believed, then she and/or somebody else has access to
your private telephone records, as well as either entering or attempting to
enter your apartment.
Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Turin on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 01:15 PM EDT |
1. Move
2. Redirect mail to a drop box, including motor vehicle records (absolutely
vital to alter, easy to get), cell phone bills (!) and credit cards. Set up a
post office forward to a Mailboxes, etc type location. Perfect for this.
3. Consider the possiblity of listing utility (power, phone, gas, whatever)
records in someone else's name, if this is feasible for you. Availability and
willingness will be the governing factors here.
Please consider this advice carefully. I spent several years doing
investigations for large insurers. This is how we found people. We did not
follow cars.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: shareme on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 01:16 PM EDT |
We need to press sys-con to not only make a full explanation but to publically
in print and online apollogize for their lack of critical thinking and
judgment..
Once that is complete it sends amessage to other actiosn that may already in
play and the people behind them that this type of stuff will not be tolerrated
in any form of press or journalistic form..
---
Sharing and thinking is only a crime in those societies where freedom doesn't
exist.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: eamacnaghten on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 01:27 PM EDT |
| In a way, I feel sorry for MOG. She is (was?) a hard nosed "journalist" who
worked at getting big scoop stories before anyone else did and worked at finding
out information that no-one else seemed to have access to, then breaking the
stories in a way that inspired discussion. All good stuff (as far as selling
copy is concerned) even if at times she was a shill.
The mistake she made
here was that she lost it and started a vendetta on a prominent member of the
Open Source community, and not on only that one person, on all who contributed
to the work that person did. I do not think she understood that although the
FLOSS community is large in numbers it has a village-like community spirit, and
when you issue a generic attack on a section of it, you are in fact attacking
all of it.
When your articles a published by something called
LinuxBusinessWeek (or ehatever it calls itself) it is foolish to, in
effect, start a vendetta against on what compromises of a large amount of your
readership. All her PJ exposing excercise has done (I use the term loosly, all
she did was to show that PJ was exactly who she said she was and to try
and intermidate her) was to put a nail in a coffin that was already shut. She
cooked her goose by maintaining inaccurate and misleading reporting after the
cat was out the bag. At least DiDio and company seems to know how far it is
possible to push things before you should stop.
Web Sig: Eddy Currents
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 01:29 PM EDT |
| And as Cartman would say "Respect my authority"!!! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 01:31 PM EDT |
Dear Pamela,
I didn’t add my well wishes to yesterdays list and would like to correct that
now. You have done a good service for the community and my support is with you
one hundred percent. In an odd sort of a way you can be pleased about this. Not
what was said but the fact that they had to stoop to this level. After all they
only tackle the guy with the ball.
As far as what was said the only outcome I can see is that a lot of the younger
mens hearts are broken and the more mature among us have their hearts beating a
little faster. Personally I think of it as a tremendous testament of what one
can accomplish. It is so common in our society to treat those past their prime
an not being able to contribute. More than what you have done for the open
source community you have shown us all that one is never too old to contribute
to society and make a difference.
Now for the part I’m going to be flamed about. I’m sure MOG is just a pawn. As a
pawn she will probably find she is scorned by those who have been using her as
fast as she has been by us since she is no longer of use to them. She made a
mistake, a big mistake and she is bing punished. MOG now has to make a choice.
She can continue on her current direction and become a bitter hateful person or
she can send PJ and the entire Groklaw community a sincere, heartfelt apology
along with ‘the truth’ about her role in this. Without the truth the apology
would be meaningless. Should she choose this path I believe we should listen and
give her a chance. I believe everyone should be given a second chance in life.
Sadly I don’t think she will take this path until it is too late for her but the
offer for redemption is there. Under the morals set forth by Pamela Jones we are
not mean or vindictive here at Groklaw, we only seek the truth.
Now back to the job of seeking the truth in the various law suits.
BrianA[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: cinly on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 02:24 PM EDT |
I believe if SysCon believe it is serious enough to withdraw the article, it
should also publicly apologize to PJ for carrying the article.
If not because of moral consideration, then a $$$ (damage awarded if there is a
litigation) one will do.
If what the editors say about lobbying syscon owners to dump Ms O'Gara is true,
its sad to say that the owners only take actions after the damage is done.
---
All views expressed here are my own and do not reflect that of any institution I
am affiliated to[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Erbo on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 02:34 PM EDT |
| PJ, I feel late to the party, but I wanted to comment here before your server
goes completely supernova. I put my take on the whole situation here,
and, while writing that post, I was pleased to get the news of Ms. O'Gara being
shown the door. It is my fervent hope that she now finds herself blackballed
and permanently unemployable.
To reiterate the comments in my post: We of
Electric Minds (a community that runs on Linux) stand with you. Like the
children of La Resistance, you fight in all our names for what we know is
right. Thank you.
Eric J. Bowersox
Technical Director and System
Administrator
Electric Minds Community <http://www.electricminds.org> --
-
Electric Minds - virtual community since 1996.
http://www.electricminds.org [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: pcr on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 04:03 PM EDT |
Considering that publishing this kind of article would mean career suicide for a
professional journalist, what could possibly motivate O'Gara to author and
distribute such a thing?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: tangomike on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 04:47 PM EDT |
that doesn't answer the questions:
1. How come the article got published in the first place?
2. How come it took so long to remove it?
According to several reports, there was someone "editing" the site.
These reports noted that some comments were posted and then removed. They also
noted that the comment function for the article was shut off, though the article
remained visible. There was a report that SYS-CON editors had protested the
article, and the SYS-CON publishers (or some such) were meeting this morning to
decide what action to take.
All of this suggests to me that SYS-CON didn't recognize the fundamental
failings of the article. It took complaints, apparently from sponsors, to get
SYS-CON's attention.
So, yes, Ms. O'Gara's firing is appropriate, but it leaves a big question about
SYS-CON's ethics. I will continue to communicate to SYS-CON's sponsors that I'm
not going to support them if they advertise there.
---
Nothing screams 'poor workmanship' like wrinkles in the
duct tape.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 05:22 PM EDT |
So MOG has been fired, but we should not relax our vigilance.
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, and the people who paid her are not
about to give up.
Maybe a lesson has been learned about personal attacks, but even that remains to
be seen, too many people nowadays seem to think that ethics is a county to the
northeast of London.
I am rather concerned that we may end up playing whack-a-mole trying to keep up
with the latest attacks from an increasingly desperate SCOX propaganda
department.
"The Americans will always do the right thing... After they've exhausted
all the alternatives."
- Winston Churchill
We shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France.
We shall fight on the seas and oceans. We shall fight with growing strength in
the air. We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on
the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields
and in the streets. We shall fight in the hills. We shall never
surrender."
- Winston Churchill[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 05:56 PM EDT |
Hmm.
I'm happy to hear that Sys-Con has acted. I suggest that the O'Gara
"exposé" had exactly the intended effects, however:
1. It DDoS'ed Groklaw. I'm having serious trouble getting any pages to load
today. This will cut down on positive exposure and, as long as it lasts, will
delay getting the word out.
2. It generated a pile of page hits for MO'G and LBW. "There's no such
thing as bad publicity" is so much less irrational when you get paid per ad
impression.
3. It spread yet more FUD: heavy on the F, particularly w.r.t. PJ.
4. It preached magnificently to the tSCOG choir. Whoever brought this point up
dismissively in an earlier comment on how MO'G still has "outlets,"
please remember that the tSCOG case is really being prosecuted via innunendo and
spin in the PRESS, not in court; so repeating the pro-tSCOG message as often and
as loudly as possible is critical to their survival.
As someone (I haven't been able to read all the comments yet, due to effect #1)
seems to have pointed out, one of the side effects of this brouhaha was to
martyr MO'G. While I think martyrdom is overstating things just a bit, it
certainly could be true that she was thrown to the wolves in order to save the
rest of the party, and that it was done in such a way as to maximize damage to
the wolves.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: dmarker on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 05:59 PM EDT |
Whilst I don't believe we have heard the last of MOG, I believe she will have
difficulty finding new sponsors willing to host and publish her tSCOg inspired
(and other) blotches on journalism.
But Groklaw it seems has proven that as a detergent for truth, it can clean
away even the worst of stains. The formula is simple:
Start with a supply of legal sources,
blend carefully distilled truth,
add a touch of uncomplicated simplicity,
make available to 1000s of interested consumers.
The results will amaze some & entertain others but will prove that no matter
how black the stains, Groklaw can remove them.
Doug Marker[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 06:05 PM EDT |
Good call.
PJ, I don't care if you are a blond redish forty year old ( who giggles a lot (
haha )), Or a white male reclusive in a wheelchair living in a forest wearing
nothing most of the day.
The point is the work you do, giving us 'nobodies' sort of a real voice, is more
important then who you really are in your real life. ( not that i have any
reason NOT to believe you !!!. )
Your life is yours, you deserve to have that little privacy of your own.
Those OTHER people need to BACK OFF FAST.
Retep Vosnul.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: blacklight on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 06:15 PM EDT |
I doubt that sys-con tossed MOG out of the goodness of is corporate heart.
sys-con's decision was a no-brainer: members of the Open Source community got in
touch with sys-con's advertisers, and in turn these advertisers made an effort
sys-con couldn't refuse. After all, getting traffic to the site is a useless
effort if the advertisers are no longer bankrolling the site. In addition, two
of sys-con's editors theatened to resign.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: WildCode on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 06:17 PM EDT |
While I praise Sys-Con for their decision, I do notice that this is not the end
of it.
O'Gara's sites still publish the stories, and the "tabloid" article
was concluded with "to be continued".
I see backlash from O'Gara on the horizon as she will likely blaim Groklaw, and
not her own actions for Sys-Con's descision not to publish any of her
material.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Latesigner on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 06:19 PM EDT |
If whoever owns Warner Bros. these days will permit it I think the coyote and
the roadrunner should be on the cover of PJ's book.
---
The only way to have an "ownership" society is to make slaves of the rest of us.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: mlwmohawk on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 06:22 PM EDT |
I still see plenty of new items by MOG. Lip service by sys-con if you ask me.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 06:37 PM EDT |
For those of us just tuning in, or who never saw the article that caused all the
stench, can someone summarize?
What happened?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 06:42 PM EDT |
Who penned for the suit-happy SCOG
under blogging pretense;
Due to bane consequence
We'll have to wait for the Mog-Epilogue
(sorry for the dupe)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: WildCode on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 06:57 PM EDT |
PJ, with O'Gara not likely to be "finished her investigation", may I
suggest giving one of the Sys-Con reporters who was supportive of you an
exclusive in person, squashing any further "FUD" O'Gara may publish
elsewhere.
I understand you value your anonymity, but I feel coming "out of the
shadows" will at least squash any future "tabloid" attempts in
regards to your identify.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: kberrien on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 07:02 PM EDT |
This is all kinda weird, and as I've watched this develop during the day some
things strike me.
1. We only have a report from an Editor of a related magazine (somehow connected
to sys-con?) - not on the magazine website - but on his personal blog?
Fishy...
2. As of dinner time here on the east coast there are still MOG articles online,
despite the truely offending one. (all sys-con sites are still slashdotted -
attacks?)
3. We're getting reports advertisers are learning the truth.
4. PJ accepts the "editors" information, and posts MOG is sacked. Big
Audience (groklaw slashdotted)
5. Slashdot follows and covers both blogs. Huge Audience.
Now, I see nothing official that says MOG has been sacked, or even ALL her
articles removed.
Now put yourself in the position of sys-con. Your already taking a hit for the
offending article, and had to remove it. You may have gotta angry phone calls
or (shall we hope, cancellations) from advertisers. Now, the entire viewing
public (because who else would read sys-con sites!) is convinced you've sacked
MOG because of an accurate/not leak by a related magazine editor.
So you already look stupid. Do you come out tomarrow an say the editor wasn't
correct and MOG stays? Do you continue the controversy and risk real
journalists checking the facts? Do you appologize publically (front page) and
risk admitting fault in the face of possible PJ legal action?
This isn't done by a long shot.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: rdm on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 07:14 PM EDT |
| In a simliar vein to yesterday, this went up on my
blog this morning.
Fresh from Groklaw this morning, comes the news that,
thanks to James Taylor, community pressure, and requests from advertisers, MOG
shall no longer be published by any Sys-Con publication, and that her existing
material shall be removed.
It says something about the power of the F/LOSS
movement that this would have to be the fastest canning of an errant reporter
that I have ever seen. This is not to say that the pressure has not existed
previously - MOG has been writing articles of questionable worth for a
considerable time - but the speed of response to yesterday's outrage was
impressive.
There will be, I am sure, other public statements from MOG, no
doubt condemming this silencing of a critic, but the public record stands, as do
redacted versions of her article on third-party sites, and even the shallowest
of investigator will soon find the truth: She was not silenced for criticising,
but for breaching basic journalistic ethics.
I also have no doubt that the
suspected backers of her 'investigations' will also get some mileage out of
this, but, again, the attempts are doomed to failure.
To conclude, I would
again like to thank James, Dee-Ann, and those countless partisans who contacted
Sys-Con and their advertisers to make their displeasure known. You are all
heros.
And PJ? Your stance on this matter does you proud. I hope you are
soon able to recover your treasured privacy, and that this fades like a bad
dream.
---
Reality might not get out of Beta, today. (O.Timas, "Bot" -
S.Gange) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anon Ymonus on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 07:14 PM EDT |
PJ,
You're awesome. Really.
You've held close to the Good Ethical Standard, even when some were out to get
you. By keeping to the high road, we got to see what happens to those who slosh
through the muck.
Keep your head held high. You're doing a great job. I think everyone here will
agree with me on that.
---
---
Anon Ymonus
The future is known. It is the past which is always changing. -- Soviet
dissident joke[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: WildCode on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 07:44 PM EDT |
The Inquirer
O'Reilly OSDir
News.com
CNR
Internet Week
Yahoo
Linux
Pipeline
Dest
op Pipeline
Linux
Electrons
While I do know that some of these are "sister" sites,
I'm just showing the exposure this is getting, than google and yahoo show. I'm
sure there are others not on this list.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Corrections - Authored by: WildCode on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 07:47 PM EDT
- they say... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 10:36 PM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 07:46 PM EDT |
Dear Maureen,
I'm sure you've heard this from thousands by now, but I'll add my voice to the
chorus. Your act of voyeurism was childish, and an apology is in order.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: darkonc on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 08:10 PM EDT |
| I don't believe in censorship. Among other things, O'Gara's articles may be
useful to leave there for posterity and research purposes. I can see LinuxWorld
wanting to place disclaimers above/around her articles, but outright deletion
(other than for the most obviously libelous) gives me a bad feeling -- on
principle, not on feelings. The answer to bad speech is, generally, more speech,
not censorship.
Not entirely like the principle behind keeping up some of
the holocaust camps -- it's not to glorify what went on there -- but rather to
acknowledge what happened when parts of humanity turned to the darkside, and
other parts acquiesced to it.
---
Powerful, committed communication.
Touching the jewel within each person and bringing it to life.. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Jorge on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 08:13 PM EDT |
The SCO Group (SCOX) is pleased to announce that they have secured the services
of Maureen O'Gara as the new Media Manager for SCO.
CEO Darl said "We were the only one's who would touch her after a fiasco
like this"
------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone want to take a bet that this headline will appear for real in a couple of
weeks?
Bad pennys always turn up, as long as there are equally bad people who use their
work. It is funny how MOG was predeicting PJ's suicide and wound up committing
her own (career that is).
The best thing to come out of all of this though, was the fact that PJ slept
soundly last night and with a smile on her face. She now knows that people do
care who PJ is, just not what she looks like, where she lives, etc.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 08:13 PM EDT |
PJ,
I read MOGs "story". Reads like the diary of a stalker. Seriously, If
you haven't already, please notify the FBI. MOG may be mentally ill, a poor
loser or worse. You never know with someone like this. Best that the authorities
keep track of her. Who knows what she'll do next. Sounds like she's "off
her nut..."
Anon46[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: duratkin on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 08:25 PM EDT |
| Give all this, will TSCOG release any information about PJ as Darl
promised?
Are they that crazy?
---
All good
penquins love free stuff. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: kawabago on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 08:27 PM EDT |
I'm just so happy!
---
AYNIL[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Tufty on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 08:35 PM EDT |
Whew, that server needs a new fan after that, well done. I am still having
trouble getting in, a DOS by comments. I wonder what happened to the hit count,
put up the stats for the last few days. - :)
Sadly I think this is only a breathing space. She'll be back, nastier than ever.
I do wonder if our reaction was wanted or unwanted. I can't decide. I would have
thought a defamation like that would have been carried out far more subtly than
an all out frontal assault that would be seen for what it was. I am suspicious.
Let us all not get too overconfident, there is worse to come.
PJ - put me on the list for transcriptions, provided I am not busy with work at
the time.
---
There has to be a rabbit down this rabbit hole somewhere!
Now I want it's hide.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: arch_dude on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 08:35 PM EDT |
What would it take for MoG to redeem herself? I love PJ, and I've been a
Groklawer since mid-2003, but I feel that we need to think about this.
In her public persona, MoG is tough and mean. But what if she is actually
brittle? Might she take her own life? If so, we are going to feel bad about some
of the things we have said.
What could MoG do that would cause the Groklaw crowd to at least remain silent?
For me, a public apology and a promise to take a college-level course in
journalistic ethics, and henceforth behave ethically, would suffice. So MoG, if
you are reading this, please try to think objectively about your future.
Of course, the Groklaw crowd is actually more likely to forgive than is the
Yahoo or Slashdot crowd, but if you apologize to PJ and PJ publically accepts
your apology, you just might be able to restart your career as a legitimate
journalist. Your apology would need to be sincere, and I am willing to forgive,
but of course I will never forget. After such an apology, I would read any new
MoG articles carefully and if they were ethically flawed in any way, I would
contact the editors and the advertizers. Without such an apology, I won't bother
reading the article, I'll just contact the editors and advertizers anyway.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: pooky on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 08:51 PM EDT |
This is the lowest of the low. Never have I seen such a loathsome display of a
personal vendetta by someone in a public forum.
I'm hoping other outlets will follow suit and can her stories (and hopefully
stop paying her for them). She has no business passing herself off as an
industry analyst.
-pooky
---
Many Bothans died to bring us this information.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Alex on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 09:09 PM EDT |
Huzzah!!
Alex
---
Hey Darl!! Did Ross Perot draw your chart?"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: jelenko on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 09:12 PM EDT |
Just went to Sys-con [9:10pm 5/10] - there's three articles under Latest News
all by MOG - dated 5/9[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 09:20 PM EDT |
| I just had a premonition.
O'Gara will sue PJ for libel and sue Sys-Con for
unlawful termination and violating her first-amendment rights.
Yes, crazy, I
know, but crazy hasn't stopped her before. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 09:44 PM EDT |
PJ, I know you prefer not to push yourself into the public eye, but
please consider getting in touch with the drama or media department
of a nearby college and learning the techniques asssociated with
giving a dignified, confident interview.
SCO wants to push you into the public eye, because that will make it
easier for them to take the discussion back to the level of innuedo
and spin control where they want it. And frankly, the average
person looks like a babbling dolt their first few times on camera.
I know.. I trained to work in front of a camera and my own early
tapes achieved truly epic levels of suckage.
This has nothing to do with your actually soliciting interviews,
either on camera or in print. It's about taking away SCO's ability
to make you feel threatened, and building a deterrent to make them
fear you instead.
It's already clear that you're intelligent, articulate, and
passionate about what you do. Add the skills to make those
qualities shine through on camera, and SCO will be desperate to keep
you *away* from the spotlight, rather than trying to shove you into
it against your will. Groklaw already generates more media buzz
than SCO does these days, and the last thing they want to do is sic
their paparazzi on you only to discover that you've turned into the
next media darling.
Again, I neither ask nor suggest that you abandon your decision to
remain out of the public eye. Just consider giving SCO a reason to
live in mortal dread of the thought that you might.
SCO has shown no compunction against opportunism in the past, and if
they think this line of attack might yield benefits to them in the
future, I see no reason for them to stop trying.
The longer this case goes on, the more I become convinced that SCO
went in expecting to lose the legal battle, but win the media war.
You've handed them a humiliating defeat in the media realm by
untangling their complexities, negating their misdirections, and
debunking their insinuations. You've destroyed their ability to feed
stories into the media wire through a few pet writers, then sit back
and wait for a crop of 'paraphrasing is easier than independent
research' articles to arrive. The independent research too easy,
thanks to you. You also outed their pet writers, more or less en
passant, and drove the ROI on such investments straight through the
floor.
SCO needs to bring this issue back into the realm of intangibles and
spin control. That's the only place where they can possibly win.
As long as they think they can beat you in that arena, I expect them
to keep trying. Your best defense is the threat of a strong
counterattack, which simply means having enough poise and control to
direct attention back to the facts, no matter what media channel
you're in.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: tymark on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 09:49 PM EDT |
I'd like to show my support for groklaw and you, PJ. My full opinion on this
matter is posted <a
href="http://mark.geektyme.org/?p=18">here</a>, on my blog.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Eric Damron on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 10:22 PM EDT |
This is truly great news! MOG really showed her true colors in her last
“article.” It went WAY over the top. This entire time PJ has been a perfect
lady. Never once mentioning the fact that MOG sounds an awful log like Smaug.
I appreciate people with true sense of ethics.
Anyway, let's get back to the business of protecting the truth.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 10:38 PM EDT |
Blake Stowell is quoted in a new eWeek article saying he doesn't condone
Maureen's outing of PJ.
(only yesterday he was sort of justifying it to CRN and InternetWeek - not to
mention his own boss, Darl McBride proposed to do the exact same thing 3 weeks
ago during SCO's teleconference)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: webster on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 10:57 PM EDT |
Maureen O'Gara seemed to be part of the SCO scheme. She was a partisan not a
journalist. She betrayed not a hint of objectivity.
The attack article on PJ was not designed to enhance the SCO scheme. It was a a
symbol of thier desperation. They realize they are not going to be paid
millions. They have been exposed as pariahs. They blame PJ for this exposure.
It is easy and convenient to focus on her. But it was not just PJ. And if it
wasn't PJ, it would have been someone else. It was this new wired community.
The article was meant to harm and nothing else. It amounted to throwing fuel on
the fire outrage. She knew this. The pressure was already on. She did this
while she still could. Let's hope she did this for money. I'd hate to think
someone could be so cruel and stupid without some outside, sinister
inspiration.
They needed her to carry the flag. The corporate officers have shut up. The
lawyers have shut up. Now their shills are being shut up. There is no one to
sling the FUD and scare up license fees. They are millions short of where they
planned to be.
If she was doing it for the money, we have heard the end of her.
---
webster[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 11:00 PM EDT |
PJ,
The old adage of "What goes around comes around" and "The truth
will always shine through the mire of lies" come to bare here.
They tried to HURT you personally. This is vindictive and totally illegal
behaviour in Australia.
In Australia, O'Gara would more than likely spend a few months at Her Majesties
Pleasure (gaol) for using the methods that she employed in this attempt at
gutter journalism. The breaches of the Privacy Act alone would see her away for
a year if found guilty.
She ended up shooting a very large hole in her foot. I hope that other journos
recognise that this behaviour is typically rewarded with a change in
profession!
A side issue, Has anyone done any investigative journalism on her relationship
with McBride and any of the SCO-mob? Would it not be ironic if there were
relationships and they were splashed over the rags? I bet you she would cry
foul then!
Chrisfrd.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 11:27 PM EDT |
Joe McCarthy did a lot of damage to a lot of people. Finally, however, he went
too far. He accused someone who was clearly innocent just when everyone had
come to the conclusion that he had no real proof of anything. I can't remember
the name of the lawyer who called him on it but I did hear a recording of the
speech and it was a doozie!
I think that two years ago, MOG could have got away with this; just as McCarthy
did in the beginning. Now, on the other hand; let's just say that her timing
was really really bad.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 11 2005 @ 12:20 AM EDT |
So after being ousted from linux.com a few years ago, MOG has finaly been ousted
from Sys-Con. Grrrrrrrreat.
I have been waiting something like that since
her infamous article "Li
nus Savages Red Hat 7.0" back in december 2000.
Thank you PJ. You once
more made my day. :)
Now, what about the G2News galaxy still publishing
the offending article about PJ amongst a load of other dubious "news"?
Here
is an (incomplete) list for Google and the posterity (and maybe some groklawer
to find interesting connections):
G2News
publishes
ClientServerNews , LinuxGram, EPostalNews and OnlineReporter (connection to MOG)
and is even linked to UsChinaBusinessNews!
All
those "titles" should be tainted by now. Let's make sure they
are...
Oh! And here is this old (2001) but funny example of what G2News
calls "journalism":
Ben Collins
in Client Server NEWS
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 11 2005 @ 12:22 AM EDT |
I absolutely hate to be the bearer of bad news.
Browsing to www.g2news.com/, which lists MOG as one of their editors...
"Who are the editors of G2News Publications?
Maureen O'Gara, (Long Island, NY) ogara@g2news.com
516-759-7025 Ext. 109; FAX 516-759-7028
Maureen's resume is impressive. [...]"
...I found a link to Client Server News, which has "Who is Pamela Jones? by
Maureen O'Gara" boldfaced on its title page. :-(
I think it is important for your consideration to take legal action against her,
Pamela?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: IMANAL on Wednesday, May 11 2005 @ 12:51 AM EDT |
The article, BTW (By That Woman), is still
up.
I just wondered: if Slackware (and Debian, RedHat) has been
sold on CD for so and so many years, how many people have been employed on those
sales and revenues? That would be a countercase in point. They were never sold
below market value but rather created a new one and sold according to that
market's value. Oh yes, that market value triggered Michael Dell's 100M$
support for RedHat a few days ago.
---
--------------------------
IM Absolutely Not A Lawyer [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 11 2005 @ 01:12 AM EDT |
Mog will probably spew under a psudonem until it blows over, but it couldn't
have happened to a more deserving person.
PJ, you have done more to shine the light of documented truth on the shadowy
mis-truths of SCO's mis-guided attack on Linux than any single person anywhere.
No doubt about it.
Sure you have help now and make no mistake, thanks to each and every one of
them. But *you* provided the initial spark. *You* keep the community to the
high road. You're human, and have even gotten carried away a time or two. But
I think I speak for all of us when I say we love you for all you've done, and
helped the community do!
Of course we're curious, but you know it don't matter. We owe you one heck of a
debt of gratitiude, and you know we will stand with you.
I had to refrain from comment last night, I was so angry I could not say
anything particularly useful or hold myself to the GrokLaw standards of conduct
;c)
Best,
--glenn[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: djw on Wednesday, May 11 2005 @ 01:45 AM EDT |
Hey. . .that 'article' says PJ is 'missing and has been for weeks' (yes, I did
read this screed quickly in cache somewhere, though I felt like I was in a rank
dirty bookstore doing so).
Well, I notice lots of stuff someone named PJ is posting here. Perhaps someone
should alert MOG that we've found her. . .
Why in the world does this O'Gara person think any of what she spewed forth is
'news' in any form? Looks like she has really finally lost it. Desperation is
all it appears to be. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: daWabbit on Wednesday, May 11 2005 @ 01:58 AM EDT |
As of 00:53 CDT, 11 May, LBN is covered with articles by Maureen O'Gara. There
is what I think may be a re-written version of the article which raised all the
dust in the first place. (I don't know because I did not see the original.)
Without being too hasty, I do believe we've been duped. Time will tell.
Jack Imsdahl
---
"There ain't no reason I should work this hard when I can live off the chickens
in my neighbor's yard" -Bruno Wolfe[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: muswell100 on Wednesday, May 11 2005 @ 03:08 AM EDT |
I reckon I was one of the many yesterday who came up against the limits of the
Groklaw site when my comment couldn't be added. Regardless of that, I am very
pleased to see that justice - at least in this particular case - has been seen
to be done. Gutter journalism has no place in the professional press and it's
good to see that it's been promptly stamped out.
Essentially, my attempted comment yesterday stated that in many ways, Pamela,
you can consider Ms O'Gara's actions a backhanded compliment; it means that
you're hitting 'em where they live - though not quite so literally as Maureen's
attempts - and exposing the SCO crowd in a far more meaningful way than any of
their own brutish methods in 'exposing' their critics. Keep shining that
spotlight on these cockroaches and with any luck they'll scuttle off to join Ms
O'Gara under the nearest rock.
My congratulations go to you and your continued work.
Best wishes...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: timycc on Wednesday, May 11 2005 @ 03:56 AM EDT |
Reading that sick article did have impact on one's health.
From time to time, a cartoon scene will come up in my mind.
A dear old paranoid rightful lady in red chasing and hitting a screeching big
bad wolf tagged SCO or MOG with her ambrella.
Sorry PJ, if that is not you.
Except exposing the address stuff, I do'nt see what the point of that article
was. Maybe she was suggesting a braindead younger woman (like you-know-who) is
more credible than a faithful old lady? Most people get along with old ladies
quite well, I suppose, especially if they make yummy cookies.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: TerryL on Wednesday, May 11 2005 @ 03:58 AM EDT |
| While it's good that Sys-Con (for whatever reason, whether moral or financial)
have acknowledged that the article was unacceptable and that M.O'G had
overstepped (more like did the triplejump over) the line of what is decent, but
I'm sure that isn't the last of it.
Given the backgound and the players I'm
sure this will be re-spun "Linux Stormtroopers from Groklaw carry out
vicious campaign to destroy the carreer of respected journalist" or some
such rot.
M.O'G hasn't gone away (actually, she does have a right to earn
her living, I just hope (but doubt) she will do it right from now on put the
effort in and report on the facts and be able to back up the facts (I guess,
follow PJ's example on how it should be done). I'm not hopeful though, she still
has outlets for her output, and she may now feel she has an even bigger grudge
and may push harder.
The other thing to remember is that, whether SCO were
involved as sponsors of the attack or not, they are still out there, and they
are on record as saying they trying to get to the bottom of who PJ is and didn't
Darl say he was getting close to PJ's bottom???? (sorry, couldn't resist
PJ).
I suspect that there are others that also would love to get rid of
Groklaw and the community around it. To stop the research machine that has been
so successful in poking holes in dodgy legal claims. These will be the companies
that hope to make a killing with spurious Patent and other IP claims. They don't
want the research machine to dig out the prior art, the old legal documents that
languish in the system that disprove claims, the press releases that show thing
aint like they say.
I guess what I'm saying it, hooray, this skirmish came
out OK, but it wasn't the end of this battle, and certainly not the end of the
war.
---
All comment and ideas expressed are my own and do not necessarily
reflect those of any other idiot... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 11 2005 @ 07:27 AM EDT |
According to Linux Pipeline
<a
href="http://www.linuxpipeline.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=163100863&qu
ot;>She Quit</a>
But I have to laugh when I read from G2 their mandate for their rags....
-"It is pledged to fact and fair comment."
-"A passion for accuracy goes without saying"
-"* A fierce dedication to reporting the facts. We get it right the first
time - our accuracy rate is unchallenged. "
I can only hope the when PJ sues G2 that G2 is personally guaranteed by MOG....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 11 2005 @ 09:02 AM EDT |
I'm totally shocked at the news. I've been away on vacation, and had no idea of
the events in the last week.
I'm not suprised at the stand Sys-Con has taken, it's something that needed to
be done, but I just always assumed it would have happened a long time ago.
Ultimately, Maureen O'Gara was writing as if she had some sort of vendetta. It
came across loud and clear. And I totally stopped reading her articles some
time ago.
But I still personally believe, the ones pulling the strings, and the one
responsible here is SCO. Had they not put certain events in motion, NONE of
what has transpired would have likely happened.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 11 2005 @ 09:38 AM EDT |
| Like some others, I don't think Sys-Con has gone far enough. In fact they may
be laughing about the whole thing. I have checked their main site a few times
(which unfortunately pushed up their hit rate) and I don't see any statement
where they accept that what was written on one or more of their sites was not
accepted practice. Like others, I suspect the only reason they
supposedly "dumped" MOG was because of some complaints from advertisers.
As
of yesterday, they still had links to MOG stories.
So my take is they either
come out and say that they have some sort of journalistic ethics, or we should
assume they don't (or that it depends totally on whoever happens to write the
story). Editorials by supposedly offended other writers on their sites (sincere
or not) don't cut it for me.
Short of some statement by the Sys-Con
organization that such behavior is at least not condoned, I think contacting
advertisers and saying that being connected with Sys-Con reflects poorly on them
is still in order. Until then, to me, all these "thank you's" to Sys-Con seem a
bit premature. You may say "don't look a gift horse in the mouth" but when
someone does something because their arm is being twisted it doesn't mean they
deserve kudo's for doing it.
---
A very long time lurker who didn't log
in because I wouldn't put it past them to harrass someone who suggests
contacting their advertisers (yeah paranoid, but these days who knows).
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Juggler9 on Wednesday, May 11 2005 @ 10:45 AM EDT |
As of 7:35am PDT May 11, 2005 the linuxbusinessnews.com site is still rife with
O'Gara. Searching for "o'gara" gets you a message that "Search
has been disabled for the time being." but also turns up nearly a dozen
stories by MOG in the sidebars. All clickable.
True, there has been nothing posted under her byline since the 9th but I get the
feeling that Sys-Con is less than sincere about their statement (suspiciously
released only through an editor's blog, not openly stated in an obvious and
prominent place). Especially given that there has been no official retraction
and apology from the publisher.
They say that actions speak louder than words. I am not seeing any actions
here.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: ssavitzky on Wednesday, May 11 2005 @ 11:49 AM EDT |
Unfortunately, LinuxBusinessNews, a sys-con
rag, still has plenty of her articles on it. Not surprising, since I believe
MOG still runs it. Seems more like a bit of a shell game.
By the way,
PJ, I grew up in Norwalk. If you're really 61 I would have been three years
behind you, so it's unlikely we ever met even if you did go to Norwalk
High, but we may well have eaten the same execrable caffeteria food and had some
of the same teachers.
---
The SCO method: open mouth, insert foot,
pull trigger. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: brain1 on Wednesday, May 11 2005 @ 12:21 PM EDT |
A quick check at LBN reveals that many of MOG's articles are still in place
including the more benign "SCO Claims Groklaw's Pamela Jones Is Not Who She
Says She Is" dated April 15th.
Personally, I feel that MOG's rantings are pretty much self-evident as
self-serving, flawed, poorly researched, and full of half-truths and outright
lies. But, as long as she doesn't cross the line, then she has every right to
air them in a venue of her choice. The best way to handle her is just as PJ has
done - with the cold light of truth.
So the statement of a totally MOG free zone is not quite true. However the
offensive article doesn't show up on the front page. That, at least, is good
news. Whatever else they might do is their business, but I think that a public
apology on their site is warranted and will go a long way to repairing their
reputation.
However the distrubing thing is that they have been subject to a DOS (denial of
service) attack. This is plain wrong and gives them (SCO, MOG, etc, etc.)
ammunition to paint us as a bunch of lawless zealots.
I implore those responsible to knock it off. We all feel incensed by the
deplorable attack on PJ and are boiling mad at someone who would stoop so low.
This has to be handled the right way, by PJ through the authorities and the
court system, and by us by showing her our support. Recruiting a bunch of
zombied pc's to hammer the Sys-con site is going to prove nothing, and is an
infantile way of handling the situation.
-dave[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 11 2005 @ 02:51 PM EDT |
I think it would be fitting if Syscon ran an apology in the slot for the OGara
show.
They still list the last show as of March.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 11 2005 @ 03:01 PM EDT |
Here it is Wednesday afternoon (PDT) 11-May, and MoG's stuff is still prominent
on LinuxBusinessNews.com (sys-con's site). Yesterday Sys-Con made a big
production of dismissing MoG also saying that her stuff was coming off their
site immediately. Yet, more than a day after that announcement, her stuff is
still up and prominently featured. ... What's up?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: heretic on Wednesday, May 11 2005 @ 04:24 PM EDT |
New development:
Playing a Little CYA
James Turner, Senior Editor of LinuxWorld Magazine got a call from Dan
Lyons.
Got a call from Dan Lyons at Forbes this afternoon,
nosing about the whole Maureen story. I've been in the business long enough to
tell the slant a story is probably going to take from the questions asks, and
answered VERY carefully.... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 11 2005 @ 05:25 PM EDT |
Pamela Jones was a nasty old bitch,
Drove a nine wheeler in a six foot ditch,
Lined 99 guys up against a wall,
Swore to hell she'd screw them all.
Screwed 97 til their balls turned blue,
Backed off, jacked em off, then screwed the other two
When old Pamela Jones died she went to hell,
Screwed the devil's minions and screwed em well
Two little demons sitting against the wall saying,
"let's get outta here, before she screws us all.
:-)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Ode to PJ - MOG's a poet too! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 11 2005 @ 05:36 PM EDT
- It takes a lot of courage to write anonymously - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 11 2005 @ 06:14 PM EDT
- PLEASE DELETE THIS ASAP - Authored by: dmarker on Wednesday, May 11 2005 @ 06:31 PM EDT
- Campaign of harassment - Authored by: bmcmahon on Wednesday, May 11 2005 @ 06:32 PM EDT
- Ode to PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 11 2005 @ 06:51 PM EDT
- Ode to PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 12 2005 @ 02:57 AM EDT
- Leave this as evidence... - Authored by: RedBarchetta on Wednesday, May 11 2005 @ 10:53 PM EDT
- PJ, Please remove this post - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 12 2005 @ 04:35 AM EDT
- You really are a sad and pathetic lot (nt). - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 12 2005 @ 06:42 AM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: bmcmahon on Wednesday, May 11 2005 @ 06:39 PM EDT |
| I am somewhat puzzled that this story hasn't hit El Reg yet. Aren't they usually all
over
the place when there is muck to be raked?
Or did I just miss the
article?
Or are PJ's mistakes, real and imagined, somehow newsworthy in the
U.K., but a frontal assault on a popular Open Source news site is
not?
Or...(left as an exercise to the reader)? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: jawaidbazyar on Wednesday, May 11 2005 @ 08:13 PM EDT |
I did some digging in G2's New York State corporation filing. The registered
agent is a James V. O'Gara. Whether he is father, husband, or brother to MoG I
do not know, but clearly there is a connection.
James V. O'Gara works for a New York law firm called Kelley, Drye & Warren.
He specializes in anti-trust law.
He (unsuccessfully) litigated against the Open Software Foundation, DEC, and HP
in the early 1990's. The claim was that the "More importantly, Addamax is
alleging that the entire OSF concept is an illegal joint venture designed to
influence the market for operating systems technology."
Hmm.. the OSF was an early attempt to create a single standard for Unix, to open
up the Unix platform. Seems Linux has done that.
I would be vey, very curious to see if this law firm, or perhaps James V. O'Gara
himself, has any connection to: SCO, Baystar, Caldera, or Canopy. If there is,
that would be a smoking gun for MoG's being a hired gun for SCO.
Here, Maureen O'Gara is quoted in a Byte article in 1990:
http://www.mirum.org/archives/cat_heh.html
She says that "at least one Unix provider is worried" about what
Windows NT will do to them. Ha ha ha.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: jawaidbazyar on Wednesday, May 11 2005 @ 08:25 PM EDT |
I am pretty certain that G2 consists only of Maureen O'Gara.
Back in 1999/2000 a "Charles Hall" was listed as CEO. But all
references to Mr. Hall ceased a few years ago.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: jawaidbazyar on Wednesday, May 11 2005 @ 08:35 PM EDT |
Some people seem to think O'Gara was an employee of Sys-Con. That is not the
case.
O'Gara is "G2 Computer Intelligence, Inc." a New York corporation.
G2 publishes a variety of stuff, and, syndicates articles. Prior to yesterday,
that included to Sys-Con.
I believe previous comments from Sys-Con have indicated that the syndication is
electronic and pretty much automatic.
That was the extent of the relationship. While there was probably some
contractual agreement in place, I would think that any such syndication
agreement would be arm's length, and not tie Sys-Con into any particularly
odious obligations.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: gjleger on Friday, May 13 2005 @ 12:38 AM EDT |
Here is a pseudo apology from LinuxWorld Magazine:
http://linux.sys-con.com/read/85049.htm
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 13 2005 @ 11:02 PM EDT |
The interview with Fuat Kircaali on Free Software magazine is quite disgusting
as Kircaali demonstrates that he has no ethics at all.
As far as I'm concerned, sys-con will continue to be boycotted by me and I'll be
telling all of its advertisers my strong opinion as well.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 09:37 AM EDT |
Editors are moving elsewhere.
http://turner.linuxworld.co
m/read/1278212.htm
MONTVALE, New Jersey, May 14th, 2005 --- The
entire senior editorial staff of
LinuxWorld Magazine has today announced that
they will be leaving the magazine,
effective immediately.
The following
statement was released by the group. “We regret that Sys-Con Media has
been
unable to apply a standard of journalistic ethics that we can comfortably
operate
under. We feel that recent articles published with the consent of
Sys-Con Media fail to
meet minimum generally accepted journalistic codes, and
because the management of
Sys-Con Media has failed to acknowledge that the
articles are by all informed judgment
ethically unsupportable, we have decided
we must find other avenues for our work.” [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: HockeyPuck on Monday, May 16 2005 @ 12:20 PM EDT |
The tone and content of the article was very bazaar, even for Maureen. There
seems to be no doubt she wrote it. But there are a lot of questions surrounding
why. Why does someone with all the years and successes in the industry commit
professional suicide? She is a veteran of this business and journalism; she had
to know this was going to turn out bad (including lawsuits).
The strange thing is both Sys-con and O'Gara should have spotted there was going
to be a problem long before the article was printed. Someone should have raised
concern about its tone and research; let alone the stupidity of publishing such
gossip. But they all jumped in head first and printed it anyway. Now that they
have smacked their heads on the bottom of the pool; they are fighting just to
get their heads above water again. Maureen will not recover anytime soon; but
she will be back.
This brings me to these observations:
- Maureen is getting older and her capacity for common sense is fading or she is
senile to some degree.
- Maureen is bitter about Groklaw, and PJ specifically, because of their instant
success. She felt she needed to attack with anything she had because her chances
where running out.
- Maureen was paid/offered so much money that she was willing to cut her own
throat to get it.
- Maureen was threatened somehow with such a strong threat that she was willing
to be professionally disgraced.
- Maureen had nothing to lose; she was already being "ousted" so she
wanted one final fling.
*The most disturbing* - Maureen is losing her mental capacities to continue
functioning within normal human boundaries. I've seen it before many times where
someone slowly loses mental processes due to age, stress and/or other social
problems that they start down a path of strange behavior. They seem normal but
act very different from their normal personality or that personality exaggerates
into something entirely different. Drugs and/or Alcohol also could have been a
factor.
I imagine a picture of a woman with some personal problems sitting down to write
an article with a glass of wine. She happens to choose this subject and starts
writing. As the glass turns into a bottle, her writing turns more and more
ridicules and hateful. She is now spitting mad at her subject and does something
even against her nature and publishes addresses, personal information; perhaps
as a demented, drunken way to make the piece seem researched and acceptable. She
publishes the article early in the morning hours and goes to bed. Sys-con
assumes that it is just another angle to what has already been said before and
publishes it without actually reading it (maybe due to protocol they don’t read
her articles before publishing them). The next morning when she wakes from her
stupor, she sees what she has written and freaks out. Sys-con is also scrambling
to save face and the world turns up side down for both of them.
I just don't see a professional doing something like this without some
underlying stress. I'm no fan of Maureen, but it is senseless to wish anything
bad against her personally. And based on the article, it appears she has
problems. The point is her ramblings seem to indicate (to me, a non-professional
in the matter of mental health) she is not "with it". Now she is in a
professional downward spiral and she may be on the brink of serious personal
problems (maybe even committing suicide; which I do not wish on anyone). I hope
I'm right to some degree and she gets the help she needs. If I'm wrong, I'm not
sure what to think. I guess she should just retire and disappear to another
life.
The main thing is I hope she realizes her mistakes and corrects them someday. To
that end I wish her well.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
