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.

15 of 727 comments (clear)

  1. Of course by Homology · · Score: 5, Insightful
    the advertisers that are paying hard cash are the only opinions that count :

    "Sys-con Media listened to what I and my fellow editors, their advertisers and the readership was saying, and made the correct decision..."
    [My emphasis]
  2. Wrong, wrong, and wrong. by dfenstrate · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  3. Re:Censorship!! by elrond2003 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. Re:Censorship!! by r_benchley · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:Censorship!! by snorklewacker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > Shouldn't the editors and slashdotters here who scream censorship at every turn be unhappy about this decision.

    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"; ... 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.

    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
  6. Re:Censorship!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Okay, let's think about this.

    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 ...and therefore LBN fired O'Gara, and you think O'Gara was censored?

    Get a clue.

  7. Re:Since it sounds like you understand this... by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Insightful
    It has, thankfully, blown up in Ms O'Gara's face, which goes to show that there is some small sliver of justice in the world.

    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
  8. Re:Since it sounds like you understand this... by Qzukk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  9. Re:So who is she by studerby · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Her opinion doesn't matter much, no more so than many others. Groklaw (which she runs) matters a lot because it provides a fantastic resource for those wishing to understand the SCO v. IBM, SCO v. Chrysler, SCO v. AutoZone, SCO v. Novell, and RedHat v. SCO lawsuits. Primarily it does so by providing references and copies of unbiased original source material; court filings, relevant historical journalism and press releases, etc. etc.

    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.

    --

    .sig generation error:468(3)

  10. Is this over reaction? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Like many people, I thought the last article crossed a line. It was purely a personal attack with no journalistic merit. However, I am uncomfortable with purging all of her articles. Some of them may have been biased, but removing all of them is censorship in my opinion. I woud think that expunging the offending article and banning her from submitting any new articles should be enough.

    Just my $0.02

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  11. Re:Since it sounds like you understand this... by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I think it painted a perfect picture of a person that has no place commenting on the SCO case fairly well.

    If PJ is who that LinuxWorld chick says she is then yeah, it discredits her a lot. I will no longer have any respect for Groklaw.

    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.
  12. Re:Since it sounds like you understand this... by mattyrobinson69 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    i'd consider this to be more of a SCO hate site (although its all fact)

  13. Re:So who is she by bazio · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  14. Re:Since it sounds like you understand this... by NickFortune · · Score: 4, Insightful
    And as James Turner points out, this is an ad hominem attack: unable to refute PJs arguments, supporters of SCO have taken to trying to slur PJ herself in order to discredit her data and her arguments.

    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!
  15. Re:So who is she by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.