decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

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


To read comments to this article, go here
A Peek at the Dark Side
Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 10:26 PM EDT

The media has reacted a bit. Information Week's Paul continues on more or less the same path of repeating SCO's smears. This time there is some improvement, though, in that he at least mentions something that I wrote, albeit in a distorted fashion. This time, he takes my article and characterizes what I wrote in his own words. Here's what I wrote:
Let me reiterate: No one came to serve me that I ever knew about. SCO claims that I left on vacation to avoid service. That is false. When I took my health break from Groklaw, I didn't go away on a vacation. I just went to bed and went offline to rest. That made me *easier* to serve.

And here's how it comes out from Paul's journalistic sausage machine:

In a posting on Groklaw, Jones said she never received the subpoena. She also said she was on a self-imposed "health break" from the Web site during the period when SCO tried to serve her.

Um. Not exactly what I said, is it? It leaves the impression that I went away, and I didn't. Still, baby steps forward into the light are better than none. My favorite coverage without a doubt was my computer translation of Heise's coverage. Here's one little bit:

The reporter, who operates meanwhile at the business paper Forbes, had reported before on the fact that SCO could not make the Bloggerin Pamela Jones. When further proof for the IBM Groklaw connection some public court documents must hold, which Pamela Jones is to have published allegedly prematurely. While Pamela Jones does not commentate the new procedure, writes the American attorney Lewis A. Mettler in its Blog: "fools and idiots appear the public by what they say and do."

Ain't *that* the truth? And I love part about the fact SCO just can't make the Bloggerin Pamela Jones. Yup. I just keep a-bloggerin' on.

One other thing happened. Someone left an odd, strangely threatening message here:

Maybe someday the truth will come out and everyone will see the darkness behind PJ. Even if it doesn't...we'll always know won't we? Sleep well.

There is no darkness to me, unless someone makes something up. That last part got my attention, naturally. So I decided to check the logs, and lo and behold whois indicates that the messaage came from a company that does ad campaigns for Microsoft. If that has happened, then in the immortal words from the movie "All About Eve," fasten your seatbelts -- it's going to be a bumpy night.


  View Printable Version


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

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