Slashdot Mirror
Maureen O'Gara No Longer Welcome at LinuxWorld
flood6 writes "On the heels of yesterday's article about unrest at LinuxWorld, editor James Turner is reporting in his blog that Sys-Con Media has decided to purge Maureen O'Gara from the print and online publications." From the post: "Sys-con Media listened to what I and my fellow editors, their advertisers and the readership was saying, and made the correct decision. Maureen O'Gara's bylined material will no longer appear anywhere in the Sys-con universe of sites or publications. We have received this commitment in writing from Fuat Kircaali, the publisher." PJ at Groklaw also has commentary on this development.
It only took them two years. I'm sure they kept her so long because of immense ad revenue generated by all the angry OSS supporters who felt the need to read every offensive article.
Censorship is when the government bans publication under threat of arrest and imprisonment.
She was basically fired.
Get it straight.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
What is reprehensible and really hard to stomach is that she stooped to such lows as attacking Ms. Jones privacy.
Reminds me of the methods of a science fiction space opera nut cult.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
Not really. MOG has the freedom to start her own "Groklaw"_alike blog and rant to her heart's content. No one will be reading unless she starts making sense, but them's the breaks.
Shouldn't there be an official apology and counterstatement on the main pages of all SysCon sites which published the story? And how about personal apologies by Fuat Kircaali to PJ, maybe even some sort of compensation?
This is not censorship. There was no internet-wide ban of O'Gara stories. Maureen O'Gara is free to post her stories on another magazine's website, a personal blog, a newspaper, wherever. Sys Con Media decided that it was not in their best interest to carry her stories, so they removed her from their site. They have no obligation to print her material.
It's not a question of if she'll show up again, but when. There's too much at stake for the other side to allow such a willing tool to go unused.
My bet that she starts her own blog. That way she can have a platform to expound on her quirky worldview, without these pesky editor types watching over her shoulder.
Or she may choose a new pseudo'nym and start writing about life in White Plains, Westchester, and anyplace north of the East River and east of Long Island Sound. She seems really fascinated by that area. O'bsessed, you might say.
sigs, as if you care.
> Shouldn't the editors and slashdotters here who scream censorship at every turn be unhappy about this decision.
... the real world does not work like that, as some principles are regarded well above others, including subjective ones like "merit", such as the merit of MOG's column.
No one is telling her she cannot publish. No one is shutting down her site. Sys-con is declining to purchase her column because of gross unprofessionalism. Firing someone for failing to perform the duties and responsibilities of their job is hardly censorship.
It's common among geeks to assume laws and principles are some sort of rigid inflexible code. if publisher.cuts_off($writer) $action="CENSORSHIP";
And doesn't it put the lie to your bait about us "screaming censorship at every turn" when "we" indeed do fail to live up to this charicature?
I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot
Okay, let's think about this.
...and therefore LBN fired O'Gara, and you think O'Gara was censored?
Maureen O'Gara posts a story, which includes:
1. PJ's address
2. PJ's phone number
3. Some comments about PJ's car and the contents
4. Some snide comments about PJ's religious affiliation
5. Some snide comments about the interior of PJ's place
6. The address of PJ's mother
7. Pictures of PJ's front door
8. Pictures of PJ's car
Get a clue.
She wasn't fired - not censored, fired - for her opinion. She was fired for producing a particularly odious example of yellow journalism and stepping over the line with a gross violation of privacy. One which may well be legally actionable.
Merkey was wrong. Unfortunately O'Gara got it just about right, which is pretty bad because she essentially published a roadmap to stalk and terrorize PJ and her elderly mother. Let's hope PJ finds a suitable legal avenue to haul O'Gara over the coals and make her really pay...
I think you're overstating things. She'll still be around, shilling at linuxgram, and I'm sure we'll see her at SCOForum 2005 if there is one, holding what I can only presume will be an absolutely worthless keynote speech. And just when you thought nothing could top The Endrool...
Yeah, but scum have a way of rising back to the top of the pond. Keep an eye on her career. Wouldn't surprise me to see her show up in Washington as a lobbyist.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
It's The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
Makes the not-exactly-christian part seem silly doesn't it.
And I would say criticizing someones beliefs when you don't know anything about them is the height of stupidity for Darl, Maureen, SCO, or you.
Interestingly enough, I've never seen PJ make any negative comments about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints or any other religion for that matter.
Did someone pay MOG enough to compensate for losing what little credibility she had left? I don't believe that - not because this would be "too evil" but because it would be plain stupid.
Phew. I'm seriously baffled.
It's not the servers, its the software. You need to look into moving to Slashcode or something that can handle multiple-thousand post stories.
Censorship...pure and simple.
MoG can publish her opinions as much as she wants. In any venue that she can.
She has done so. Now comes the consequences of her speech.
People are free to vote with their dollars. Vast numbers of people are free to let advertisers that they don't approve of advertising on a site that features such a hateful personal attack which is completely irrelevant to the SCO vs. The World cases. Publications, upon hearing the reaction of advertisers, are free to can MoG.
There is no censorship here. MoG is free to publish elsewhere, such as on the G2 properties which she has complete control over. Anyone wishing to support her with advertising or subscriptions is completely free to do so.
Are you saying that I must be happy and shut up about what MoG writes? Are you censoring me saying that I am not free to express my disgust to the advertisers? Who is the censor now?
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
if she is in an IBM town her opinion is very tainted in my eyes.
How about if she shook hands with the brother of the boss of a programmer who went to school with a guy who later worked for a boss who once owned an IBM PC for a few years before replacing it with a Compaq?
I'd say she'd be discredited if she was actually paid by IBM, but just living in the same city? Give me a fucking break.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Groklaw allows anyone who's willing to take the time (and it takes a lot of time), to understand just how (un-)likely it is that SCO will win some or all of its major lawsuits.
This is why no one really cares who she is.
She makes her (lack of) qualifications quite clear on Groklaw. She is a paralegal, but she does go through the various filings and explain for mere mortals what's going on. The SCO camp has been trying for some time to get rid of Groklaw, and I guess this bit of scummy "reporting" was the latest attempt. Why don't you go to http://groklaw.com/ and look for yourself?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
She basically acted like a gossip columnist, reporting and pro-SCO or anti Linix/IBM/Groklaw/OSS spin as fact. She was factually wrong quite often, and when PJ started pointing that out she started getting particularly angry. She accused Groklaw of being a SCO hate site when the truth is, the Yahoo SCOX message board is the REAL SCOX hate site.
-------- In Soviet Russia, "Soviet Russia" sigs hate Slashdot.
I've read a few of these "advertisers are what matters" comments now, and while you're correct to an extent, I think you're looking at this a bit too cynically. Advertisers are quite often the only source of revenue for magazines, particularly trade magazines. But don't kid yourself. Nobody thinks they can print 72 pages of ads and get away with it.
One way that trade magazines stay afloat is that they offer advertisers the value proposition of having a carefully targeted readership. If you're selling consulting services around MySQL and you advertise in LinuxWorld, you can safely assume that you're reaching an audience with a much higher likelihood of being receptive to your message than if you were advertising in the Daily Mirror. That's not just an assumption advertisers make -- it's a fact that's aggressively promoted by the sales force of any trade magazine.
If your magazine is losing readers, however, or even perceived as losing readers, rest assured that the advertisers will realize it even before your CEO does. This kind of bad publicity isn't worth it for any magazine, even if some evil corporate brain behind LinuxWorld had a secret agenda to destroy Linux. You can't push a secret agenda if you go out of business, and it sounds like the salespeople at Sys-Con wisely saw that this was the way this was heading if the bad press lasted much longer or got much more inflated.
Breakfast served all day!
There is a big difference between anti-Linux opinions and personal attacks. Personal attacks can get you sued; getting rid of somebody that is very likely to involve your company in expensive litigation is only smart business. PJ can sue, write up her own documents, and not even pay filing fees since she has no income. However, any company she sues faces thosands in legal fees just to file a response, and if they file a response, they automatically lose. Sacking Moron O'Gara is just good risk management, not censorship.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Just my $0.02
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Why is PJ's identity or religious affiliation relevant in any way? Groklaw is a resource for all the legal activity. Do you have some complaint against the factualness of what's being reported on Groklaw, or do you think a stalker's guide and ad hominen attack is the same as evidence? Groklaw isn't about PJ. It doesn't matter who PJ is. What matters is that SCO has been exposed by many people as having no real basis in fact for their claims. PJ has created a site that has successfully put the information out there, but the information is public record.
So do you have a complaint about information posted on Groklaw, or do you think that learning where PJ lives or how she lives is the same as a legally supportable argument?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
i'd consider this to be more of a SCO hate site (although its all fact)
A dissenting viewpoint is one thing, a misinformed, spiteful, dissenting viewpoint is another thing altogether. Maureen was the worst sort of "hack" reporter, and even her good pieces were filled with holes big enough to drive a Mac truck through. Basically Maureen got all of her information from the same lying scoundrels at SCO that halucinated about imaginary MIT rocket scientists, and mountains of infringing code, and she continued to spout their drivel long after all of the other pro-SCO reports like DiDio and Enderle decided that it would be better to go hide under a rock.
Then MOG topped off her reporting career with an expose that dripped hate, published private information about an individual, and ridiculed a major organized religion. That piece had no business being published in any professional publication. Heck, even the Weekly World News doesn't pull those sorts of tricks.
A dissenting opinion is one thing, but publishing that sort of junk makes the entire publication look bad. It wasn't a dissenting opinion, it was a jealous rant from a so-called reporter that was tired of having PJ rub the truth in her face. If it had been posted here on Slashdot it would probably have been modded down to -5 Troll, and that's saying something. Sys-Con's stock in trade is its credibility, and after publishing that piece their credibility dropped through the floor.
No advertiser wants to be a part of that sort of journalism, and that's especially true seeing as how most of Sys-Con's advertisers are very Free Software friendly. The advertisements I saw around the story were for companies like Monarch Computers (a Linux VAR), Arkeia, and EV1 (they are probably very tired of SCO at this point). An intelligent, and trustworthy, dissenting opinion is one thing, but MOG was neither intelligent nor trustworthy.
That's what I said. Your like is to the Yahoo SCOX message board. So how come you get a 5 and I get a 1?
-------- In Soviet Russia, "Soviet Russia" sigs hate Slashdot.
Dude, uncool. Maureen is a bitch. There's no question there. But you can't put her life in danger just because she put someone else's life in danger. That's for the justice system to do, not a vigilante with a grudge.
A paralegal working for a LAWYER!?!?!?
I am shocked! Shocked I tell you!
If someone had the balls to kill O'Gara, I doubt they would be reading Slashdot.
Maureen O'Gara's bylined material will no longer appear anywhere in the Sys-con universe of sites or publications.
That's a pretty damn narrow promise. It says they will never put her name on another article again. Why not just say they will never publish an article by her again? Because they want to continue publishing her under other names, and allow her to stay on as an editor.
I have to admit, I came into this knowing nothing, and still know nothing... but come on, that line alone is sophistry at its most transparent. Plenty of words, promising nothing of substance.
My Photography - http://ian-x.com
The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
If I were P.J., I'd be filing charges on O'Gara right now. Her actions are likely sufficient to fall under 18 USC 8mumpf 76536gzork(section c-subsection 25), the Interstate Stalking Harassment Punishment Abduction Annoyance and Prevention Act of 1996 Part 2.
Oh, give me a break...I didn't see a IANAL disclaimer, so I sure hope you actually know what you're talking about.
MoG simply wrote an investigative piece on a noteworthy individual. That is still allowed in this country, right?
A shadowy, pseudo-anonymous figure runs a web site that draws huge numbers of fanatics for a "righteous" cause, and as part of the coverage calls out individuals (execs, analysts, and journalists) who disagree with their position so that they can be attacked in writing at every opportunity to post comments to public forums, letters to the editor etc. Being one of those targets, MoG decided to find out a little more about who was behind the attacks. As the saying goes, never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel.
Man this is just wrong!
What about the people at the other addresses?
What the freak is wrong with people.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Basically, SCO, Maureen O'Gara, et. al. can't attack Groklaw because everything they present (with the exception of the legal commentary, often provided by professional lawyers) is court record, and therefore not subject to criticism. Groklaw points out the documents, and provides a layman's translation of the documents, but doesn't make any claims as to the validity of claims or evidence contained therein.
So, if you can't attack your opponent's position, you attack him or her directly. It happens all the time in the political arena (if you vote for my opponent, you will be voting for a convicted puppy-kicker), as well as the legal arena (character witnesses and credibility attacks, anyone?), and often in the journalistic world (hell, that's basically what journalism is these days), so it was just a matter of time before the mud was slung over the technical fence.
What's really fantastic is, in the O'Gara "article" under discussion, the only way she backs up her implication that PJ is an IBM lackey is by pointing out that she lives in "IBM Territory". So, I'm sure, do hundreds of thousands of others. Is everyone in this area an IBM stooge, O'Gara? Then, MOG goes on to attack the woman's religion, for crying out loud! So she holds a religious belief you yourself don't subscribe to. Big deal. You know, SCO is located in Utah, and they have lots of Mormons there, maybe Darl & Co. are a bunch of Latter Day Saints stooges and kooks.
Everyone, open your eyes! It's so obvious that the Mormon Church, Brigham Young University and the Salt Lake City Olympic Committee are behind the SCO actions!
Set the bar high, then bring a tall ladder.
>
The term "born yesterday" come to mind on this commnent.
What diff does it make? IF she was the head of IBM PR the documents and references would still be the same.
according to the now fired one. Groklaw is one big IBM love-fest and anyone who can't see that has already drank the kool-aid. We all like free stuff, including OS's. It's fun. But to side with the Death Star so easily creeps me a bit.
If it were done when 'tis done, then t'were well it were done quickly... MacBeth
I suppose somebody could make a redacted version with that stuff removed, but there wouldn't be anything left. The article is just a recitation of this personal info and an attempt to insinuate vague negative things about PJ as if they were supported by the personal info, which they aren't.
Therefore I ask: are you aware of any factual inaccuracies on Groklaw? If so, did you make PJ aware of them? If so, did she amend or retract the article, if not did she give any justifcation.
And what, precisely was the disputed data?
PJ has co-orindated the collection of a body of high quality data. If you have evidence that contradicts that on groklaw, then I expect PJ will be glad to set the record straight. If you have better arguments, state them! She will probably print those too.
But if your best argument involves the lady's religion, her alleged employer, her work experience then you have nothing to say at all.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
More than just a sliver. Look at the facts: because it happened on the Internet, because the public knew what was going on, and because of the overwhelming common interest held by proponents of the Linux legal defense, justice was speedily and accurately dispensed.
Just my way of saying, We don't have to be quite so cynical anymore. The world really is improving.
Don't try that "protecting the children" shit you people use to keep the tits and bad words off my TV. --Seanbaby
That's oversimplefying (I'm dutch so forgive any grammar errors) a lot. Groklaw is about publishing court record and trying to explain them, about researching claims that are made and trying to find evidence. It's a community effeort where a lot of people contribute to the work done.
The article O'Gara wrote contained pictures of allegedly her and her moms house, adress and personal details. None of wich have anything to do with the sco-ibm story. She belittles the jehova witness religion and insinuated that PJ was 61 so couldnt be a serious reporter.
If you find anything in her piece that wasn't loathing I think you should check your own ethics.
Whether Maureen O'Gara acted under direction from SCO and company, or whether she is just a biased journalist, remains to be seen.
Nothing is that simple. Obviously O'Gara works on the edges of the computer world trying to get scoops(The word vulture seems strangely appropiate).
She has obviosly thought that by ingratiating herself with SCO she will have a front seat in the fight. It is no coincidence that on the last phone conference SCO announced they had private eyes looking into PJ. A few weeks later MOG gets here scoop. However I doubt she was ever directly paid(although the distinction is marginal)
However she has made two cardinal journalistic mistakes. By getting so close to SCO, she has lost all objectivity to a point that her articles cannot be trusted and also she has allowed it to become personal with PJ.
No good journalist would ever allow those things to happen. In doing so she has lost any respect that others may of had of her. Basically she is now an non-entity.
Choose your allies carefully, it is highly unlikely you will be held accountable for the actions of your enemies
What does a 61-year old grandma have to do with open source software? Nothing.
WRONG!!!
Please tell me how being old or a grandmother disqualifies someone from being relevant to Open Source? I've written documentation for 3 different Open Source projects. Yet, if you investigated me, this is what you'd find:
A 33 year old father of two who tends to be introverted, spiritually eclectic, drinks, smokes(tobacco), and has a history of post traumatic stress disorder. I'm a human being, with frailties and shortcomings just like you, PJ, or anyone else. None of that changes the fact that I have made myself relevant, in my own small way, to Open Source Software. PJ has made herself relevant in a very large way, my contributions are paltry and pale in comparison to hers.
You could also look at it another way, what do SCO's lawyers have to do with Open Source? They're lawyers, not coders, yet, they have a relevance, even if we don't like it.
Further, and I'll bet this strikes closer to home for you. What does being a male who masturbates to pornography have to do with Open Source? I gurantee you that the majority of males involved in open source have masturbated to pornography and yet they are still relevant to Open Source.
Because the common person can be so incensed by thoughts of vengeance that they don't respect the rights of the accused. Remember, innocent until proven guilty. Most people make up their mind in 15 seconds wehther someone is guilty or not. Letting the public go willy nilly punishing "criminals" (or people they just don't like) would be insanity. Lynch mobs are never a good thing. It is our adherence to due process of law in the pursuit of justice that makes us a civilized people. Otherwise we're just animals.
The problem is that the phrase "believe in [noun]" is actually a shorthand. The problem is that it's a shorthand for vastly different things that have nothing to do with each other:
"believe in [noun] existing" : "I believe in the moon landing."
"believe in the trustworthiness of [noun]" : "I believe in my spouse"
"believe in the competence of [noun]" : "believe in yourself! You can do it!"
One of the most frustrating things about speaking with many people is that they will engage in the false equivocation fallacy of switching between those totally unrelated things and keep using the same phrase for all of them, thereby propping up all sorts of fallacies about nonbelievers.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
This is why no one really cares who she is.
Yep, and she'd be the first to agree I'm sure.
On another note, who she is is particularly interesting to me. It demonstrates that people who seem to fit a certain stereotype on the surface, can go much deeper and shatter those stereotypes at the core of their being.
I also think it's worth noting what a humble woman like PJ can accomplish that the money at SCO can't. What a blow to the big ego's who think they are something because they have money and attorneys and yet here is this woman they judge by outward appearances, thwarting their BS public perception campaign. LOL.
That article did not really say who she is. That article only addressed who she appears to be. If you want a glimpse of who she is, one need only go read her writing, see what she has built and accomplished. The surface details are meaningless. Groklaw is a testament to who she is and what kind of person she is.
In a way, her outward appearance makes her that much more dangerous a foe to people. My Aikido teacher is in his 50's, he's this short Japanese man who does accounting part time. He looks small and not much of a threat. I'll bet he weighs 150lbs. Yet, my 200lbs, my strength(can bench 250), and my youth are all vanity. I couldn't kick his arse if I wanted to. Many times he has done things that have blown me away, nearly magical. For one, he had me and several other students come at him, just to try to restrain him. With atounding control, discipline, and gentleness, he deflected the 3 of us(all of us physically bigger than him). I honestly could not get to him. I ended up face down on the mat before I even knew what was going on. I pity anyone who judges him by how he appears and attempts to push him around. They will leave that encounter bewildered, in pain, and humbled.
The rich powerpunks at SCO are just too stupid to recognize that they don't have what it takes to stand against someone like PJ. They don't understand or recognize the nature of her strength because they don't value inner strength or truth, but they think appearances are all that matter. They are wrong and everyone who thinks that way will lose when they go against someone whose strength is being true to who they are, as opposed to masquerading as something they aren't.
Everyone, open your eyes! It's so obvious that the Mormon Church, Brigham Young University and the Salt Lake City Olympic Committee are behind the SCO actions!
The Mormon church is one of the world's largest genealogical information repositories; and a majority of that information sits inside an IBM S390 running a thousand instances of Linux. Personaly I think its more likely that McBride would be excommunicated from the church rather than acting in it's behalf.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
I have no complaint about her discussion of the religion, as that provides context about an interesting subject. Publishing her mother's address is not ethical, and is borderline criminal.
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
Rei I know we've had a flamefest is the past, but this is serious shit, not like a couple of geeks argueing about mass vs. volume. There are a lot of wacko's out there, if a couple of them decide to take out everybody on your list how would you feel?
My guess is the Maureen O'Gara in question has an unlisted home phone and isn't even on your list. People do get assasinated, and sometimes it's mistaken identity.
Bad form.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Be serious - nobody is going to go assasinate Maureen O'Gara. Seriously, what sort of logic would lead to that? Who do you picture out there, reading Slashdot, that is thinking "Hmm, she stalked the author of Groklaw, I should go hunt her down and kill her"?
The only effect of the post is to show what it's like to have your personal information published on the web.
is that censorship won in this case.
Whether you like what she says or not is irrelevant. You do say that O'Gara is an opinion based writer, and whether you agree with the opinion or not has no bearing on it. Whether its true or whether its false, or whether truth beats out opinion is not important.
Part of the whole freedom of speech thing means you have to be responsible enough to handle it.
And guess what maybe YOU will be censorred one day, and when that happens I will laugh!
Wanna learn about the LDS faith. don't go to xmormon.com and expect to learn anything useful. thats like going to microsoft for opinions on linux. try looking at http://www.lds.org/ do a little research into what the church believes. Go ahead, I dare you
Thats good but on top of that the one thing she needs is emotion. Next time she sais something about OSS that almost makes you cry it's so full of shit, just laugh. For evrey person that gives her the time of day, a slighted look, or a full out flame basting its a +1 in her book. Don't give the dog her bone. Shes just trying to influence the plebs that don't know linux from dinnerware and we are looking like tards fighting with her because she is a tard. People see that, they may not have a clue what an OS is but they know emotion. This bitch is a one trick pony I will assure you that she is nothing more than a passing fad and once ignored who will bother writing about her? If someone was to do some research on where her articles are posted / published you will notice that they are only there because nerds check out the site to froth over her. Really how many joe-six packs do you know would follow something like this? None If you ignore her she will dry up and disappear like a genital wart. She has no future in the industy and if the nerds brush her off where do you think she will go from there? Hollywood, Springer? Sad thing is the only people taking her seriously is us.
A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
Anyone else feel that this post is just as as bad? Welcome to the muck and the mire. You are now exactly what you claim to hate.
No he's not. He's just pointing out irony.
Painting a Jehovah's Witness as wacko (because it's non-mainstream) is ironic, coming from an organization based in Utah, home of the non-mainstream Church of Latter-Day Saints.
It's weak irony, but it is irony. Pot, kettle, black and all that.
The grandparent is not claiming that Mormons are wacko, nor Jehovah's Witnesses. Just claiming that they're both non-mainstream Christian religions, which is true, and one calling the other "wacko" because it's non-mainstream is ironic.
It's weakly ironic because it's a stretch to associate MOG/SCO with Mormons.