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.
That's sort of like kicking Michael the hell out of Slashdot.
It's not surprising, really, since MO'G's last article on Pamela Jones so clearly overstepped the bounds of decent, public interest journalist.
Incidentally, was I the only person who felt that insinuating that PJ's religion was wacko was particularly ironic, given that Maureen's paymasters at SCO were based in Utah, home of the not-exactly-christian-orthodox Church of the Latter Day Saints.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
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.
Nah Nah Nah Nah,
Hey Hey Hey
GOODBYE!
And please don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
Why did a magazine called LinuxWorld continue to print garbage by someone who is so obviously anti-Linux?
by sys-con imho. they have repeatedly shown themselves to be anti-linux and they are only doing this because of the pressure [and potential legal issues].
they are most certainly not acting because it was the right thing to do.
sum.zero
It's not censorship, you moron. No magazine or website is morally, legally or ethically obliged to publish anything, by anybody. Especially considering O'Gara will expect them to pay her.
If O'Gara wishes to continue to spout her drivel, there are roughly 27 trillion channels remaining open to her.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
...before their server melts.
Sys-Con has decided to listen to its editors, who took a very courageous stand, its readers and advertisers and will no longer publish any of Maureen O'Gara's writings. Here is the story, from James Turner, Senior Editor of LinuxWorld, who, together with Dee-Ann LeBlanc, forced the issue by announcing Sys-Con would have to choose between them and O'Gara:
The good news is, the right thing happened in the end. 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. Checking around the web sites this morning, I can see that her material is already almost entirely gone, I assume the remainder will dribble out over the next few days. Now we can return to producing a world-class web site and print magazine, with the kind of editorial control that we think is critical. You showed your support for our position, I hope you'll be equally kind to us with your readership.
My faith in the human race is restored. I do thank all those who took such a stand, publicly and privately. It means so much to me to know that there is still a line, an ethical line, and some things that we agree we ought never to do to a fellow human. Sometimes, covering the SCO saga, you can start to wonder what has happened to the human race. SCO's fundamental problem is, they never see that line until they have crossed it. Then they wonder why they are failing as a company and in their litigation.
By the way, we found out how many comments we can have before the software sinks, on the last story. It seems 1,181 is our natural limit, so please don't add any more comments to that story. We are holding on by our fingertips, while MathFox works his wonders. It's never happened before. Remember when we had to move away from Radio Userland because we were having too many comments for the software? Well, again we have so many comments the software is groaning. Here, we can make the necessary changes to be able to grow right where we stand. Your outpouring of support made a difference. I fell asleep with a smile on my face, believe it or not. I had no idea so many people cared so much about Groklaw and about me. I thank you all very much. I'll remember yesterday all the days of my life.
Tech News, Reviews and Tutorials
'n good riddance
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
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.
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.
M O'Gara's report about "Who is PJ?": Google.com text only cache. Puke!
SCO and its minions can never again complain about Linux "zealots", not without being laughed right off the stage, because compared to them and their tactics, it's clear now who are the pros at intimidation and terror.
Darl McBride and Laura DiDio have complained bitterly about receiving nasty email and late-night phone calls. That's kid's stuff by comparison. Without commenting on the latest O'Gara article's contents, because I am considering legal action and can't comment directly at this time, think about this: Have Linux "zealots" ever put up personal info on how to find Darl McBride's mother, with pictures of her home and the number on her mailbox so any stalker can find her readily? That was O'Gara's intent. Has anyone published who DiDio calls from her landline phone? Can you imagine the press conference SCO would hold, and what names they would call the FOSS community, if anything like that happened?
Who are the "extremists" now? The "cyberterrorists"? The violators of the law and of all things decent? Who are the enablers of stalking and violence?
But the big picture is this: it's official now, not just a guess, that my readers simply don't care who I am or what I am. They really don't. Groklaw isn't about me, and my work stands on its own. Anyway, they know me by now as a person, because in my writing they see my inner person, how my brain works, my heart, my ethics. We're old friends by now, and you always stand by an old, true friend. That is exactly what has happened.
Groklaw is exactly what I told you from day one, a blog written by a paralegal who became a journalist. I do it myself. All by myself. Well. Me and the entire worldwide FOSS community. All the rest is just their paranoid ravings and imaginings. Literally thousands of members and readers contribute to Groklaw, and millions read what we present.
You know why? In part, because I never take the low road. Really. That's the secret to Groklaw's success. It's a place on the Internet where we can speak to each other as adults, in a civil atmosphere, without meanness or ad hominem attacks and work together with a common purpose, regardless of our varied backgrounds and preferences in other areas. Politics is off topic. So is religion. And so are insults. I don't even let comments remain if they attack people like Maureen O'Gara. I once wrote an article to ask people not to attack her verbally, when others did so on another website. (In that article I wrote that she was a good journalist. I take that part back. I tend to be too kind.)
I have been flooded with emails of support and donations. I'd say whatever the dark side's intent, it has boomeranged. And I also want to thank everyone for all the words of support and the donations. I will try to write to you all personally in time, but I couldn't wait to tell you how touched I am by the overwhelming number of good wishes. Thank you. It means everything to me that you responded as you have and have seen through this latest and most foul attempt at intimidation and character assassination. Did you notice? They only attack me as a person. What does that tell you about the integrity of Groklaw that they were forced to stoop to that?
On a personal note: I've heard from several who are seriously warning me that they think SCO is setting me up so that they can arrange my "suicide". You know, like Val Kreidel allegedly was so overwhelmed by what was printed about her by Maureen O'Gara and others that she ended it all?
I have no experience in such things, so I can't evaluate their warnings, but I have taken note that three persons on the SCOX Yahoo Finance board, one known to be a SCO supporter if not an insider, have already predicted my suicide, two of them since this article.
So I feel I should say this, just for the record, just in case, worst-case scenario: I don't believe in suicide, and I certainly don't care what Maureen O'Gara thinks about me. So if you hear about my "suicide", it isn't one. And you can take that to the bank. She has
http://www.corante.com/mooreslore/archives/2005/02 /22/the_jonesogara_feud.php
summary, mostly unbiased....
Groklaw = Site run by PJ. pro-linux, OSS, free software site. Particularly anti-SCO as well.
Maureen O'Gara = Journalist who is either a paid shill for SCO or just amazingly sensationalistic.
Apparently there was some mystery about exactly who PJ is and what her credentials are since Groklaw is such an influential site in the SCO/IBM case. O'Gara found out who she is, and definitely overstepped the bounds of decency by publishing street addresses for her and her son.
People were pissed, so O'Gara's articles have been pulled off some web sites. Apparently the publisher's sense of moral outrage only kicked in when facing advertising boycotts.
Tempest in a teacup, but interesting none the less.
> 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
Ms O'Gara has been publishing a series of articles on the ongoing IBM vs SCO case that were....unusual. She generally was pro-SCO, overlooked problems with the SCO case, etc, etc.
The trigger for this whole fiasco, though, was a recent article by her. It was, to be blunt, venemous, and dirty. It published details about PJ (the maintaner of Groklaw)'s home address, her mother's home address, some supposed details about her religion, and used all of this in a really nasty attempt at ad hominem to conclude that groklaw was run by crazies who wouldn't know logic if it hit them in the face.
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.
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.
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...
O'Gara printed what was essentially a "How to stalk Pamela Jones of Groklaw" article, complete with her address and photos of where she lives. Also included was commentary on the quality of PJ's locks, and what the inside of PJ's apartment looked like when PJ wasn't home. We don't know that it was actually PJ of Groklaw, her mother, or just some innocent bystander (judging from PJ's reaction, I'm guessing it was her mother). We do know either someone got screwed, or O'Gara enjoys making crap up for a story. Either way, she needed to get tossed.
O'Gara's a reporter who's had scoops on what SCO was planning on doing well before hand (usually screwing up some facts in the process, but still indicative of a very good inside source) The formally wacky conspiracy theories noting the unusually high suicide rate surrounding lawsuits in the Canopy Group took on an entirely new tone after this article, I assure you.
I honestly thought that the new servers at Ibiblio could handle a Slashdotting... Apologies for the disruption in service this time.
extern warranty;
main()
{
(void)warranty;
}
Hearing that Maureen will no longer publish her nonsense articles is certainly good news. But nowhere does it say she actually got sacked by sys-con.
Without evidence of the contrary , I must however assume she is still "Editor in chief" of "Linux Business Week" and thus still getting paid by sys-con.
The only thing which was made clear is that she could not publish articles authored by herself anymore.
Cheers,
Andre
ive not read her stuff but if she overlooked sco's case's weaknesses, what the hell did she write about? what is it about her blank pages that make them so much better than anybody elses?
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
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.
MO'G, is supposedly a tech "journalist" who has been covering amongst many other subjects the SCO vs everybody story. Basically, the open source community dislikes her ( as I see it) because 1. She is obviously biased against Linux, and pro SCO. This is not an opinion, as much as fact. Simply by reading what she writes and seeing that no matter what the decision is in the court case, it is always a win for SCO, even the time the Judge in the case said that so far SCO has provided no evidence of their claims, MO'G painted it as a win for SCO because he had denied a motion they had put forth. 2. She has made rather vile accusations, and published personal information about Pamela Jones, the host of the website Growlaw (http://www.groklaw.net/) who has been providing, what I consider to be a very detailed and comprehensive site tracking every bit of the SCO vs the Linux world cases. 3. She is a hack writer. If I claimed to be a journalist, I would at least try to make sure that what I was writing was close to being correct, but it seemed that even when she could have easily gotten the correct facts, she preferred to write her own version of what happened during court appearances, even though she wasn't there.
The Growlaw site is at least truthful. Documents are retrieved, or linked from the court, volunteers go to the court sessions and write what actually occurred. MO'G wouldn't have attracted so much attention if she had at least been a little more intelligent about how she wrote her stories about the trial. I mean,lots of journalists are writing the story, and some are SCO positive, and they aren't attracting the same level of criticism that she is.
Hopefully this helps a few of the people who were unsure of who MO'G is, and if you want more information, go to the Groklaw site.
SCO, MOG et al have been trying to destroy GrokLaw for some time now. And with one bit of good news, Slashdot does the dirty work for them...
/public/vhost/g/groklaw/system/databases/mysql.cla ss.php on line 108
Warning: mysql_connect(): User groklaw has already more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in
Cannnot connect to DB server
"Our funds have never taken part in toxic or death spiral convertible financings of any sort" -BayStar's managing partne
Well, both, but what really made everyone snap was that she began stalking Pamela Jones, taking photographs of her apartment from across the street, and dedicating her column to providing personal details of her life to the public. Here is a Google cache of the original article. It's rather sick.
Take off every sig. For great justice.
PJ has put a helluva lot of effort into blowing holes in SCO's FUD. In fact, I think that she deserves considerable credit for pretty much snuffing out SCO's publicity campaign. That SCO's supporters would stoop to this level is indicative of just how badly things have become. It's been months since there's been any big SCO news item. Nobody cares any more, though all the shareholders that are going to get kicked in the balls when this whole thing slides into oblivion taking their money with it will in the fullness of time. And I personally won't shed a single tear for them.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I know editor is a dirty word here on slashdot, but with a supposed profesionally publication where the hell were the editors?
Don't most people expect writers to bring drafts and editors tweak before publishing? I mean did NO ONE on staff read this article before it went live? Did they just hand her a publish account and let her loose?
She sounds like scum, but there's some serious procedure problems as well that allowed this kind of work to happen.
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.
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 875(c), the Interstate Stalking Punishment and Prevention Act of 1996. She traveled across state lines in an effort to violate the privacy of an individual who has quite reasonable fear for her safety. O'Gara may also be liable under New York's anti-stalking laws as well.
At the very least, I'd be filing for a restraining order by now.
Furthermore, Sys-Con was exceptionally negligent in ever allowing that sort of thing to be published. Not only is it a gross and blatant violation of journalistic ethics, but it's quite possibly opened them up to a devastating legal action.
It's beyond disgusting that something like that would ever be published - most bloggers wouldn't dream of pulling crap like that, but to have a supposedly "professional" organization allow potentially libelous and obviously private information to be disseminated is absolutely unconscionable.
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.
Who exactly is she. . .
.
She is a paralegal. That means the value of her legal opinion is not that of a lawyer, but in excess of the general populace.
What she would be an expert at is the gruntwork of the legal profession. Knowing the ins and outs of the "system," which, as it happens, is her role at Groklaw, because. .
. . . why does her opinion matter so much in this case.
It doesn't. O'Gara is a pure opinion piece writer. Groklaw is fact based. They publish the court records. This is PJ's area of expertise. While commentary on the record is offered legal opinion is defered to lawyers, who, oddly enough PJ is in contact with and who actually write for the site.
The value and accuracy of the material at Groklaw can largely be judged by the fact that SCO and O'Gara choose to attack PJ on a personal level, rather than than attacking the validity of the material and opinions available at Groklaw.
Such is always the tactic of the irrationally vicious. Same crap as saying that if you don't approve of attacking Poland you're for terrorism and and against God and the Homeland.
You always know that someone is full of shit when they start resorting to this sort of thing.
Next thing you know they'll start implying that PJ's lying because her dog looks funny, whether she has a dog or not.
O'Gara and her ilk can say any lies they like, because they are speaking "opinion." PJ can't, because she is speaking the court record.
KFG
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)
Uh, IBM Vermont is in Burlington, which is our largest city and does not have 80% of its population employed ay IBM.
I'm in an IBM town and given their penchant for laying people off to minimize retirement expenditures, I can assure you that my opinion is not biased in their favor.
I'm inclined to think that you've never been to IBM Vermont. IBM Vermont employs a few thousand workers, total.
Speaking as an avid reader of Groklaw, the problem is not PJ per se. The problem is that Groklaw has been quite instrumental in digging out the evidence that gives lie to SCO's various claims (I wouldn't be surprised to find out after the case is done that Groklaw's research was used by both sides in their preparations).
Whether Maureen O'Gara acted under direction from SCO and company, or whether she is just a biased journalist, remains to be seen. But the recent spate of articles against PJ is more of an attack against Groklaw's effectiveness (and by inference in my opinion, free and open dialog). The fact that O'Gara et al have stooped to personal attacks in itself says a lot about their desperation (again, IMHO).
It's really comical in one sense, yet dangerously close to blatant hate mongering (I can't think of any other way to say it, sorry). For a professional journalist to publish personal details like Maureen O'Gara did is inexcusable (I'm sure Maureen wouldn't want her personal details published on a web page -- imagine all of the anti-SCO kooks out there that might use it for nefarious purposes).
In any case, apparently the only thing that SCO can come up with to counter Groklaw is to try and paint it as an IBM lackey or worse, and so both Groklaw and PJ has been under attack recently. All I can say is, when it comes to trust and integrity, who would you pick: SCO or Groklaw?
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
I think you are confusing anti-Linux criticism with "smear campaign against an individual". I could freaking care less about anti-whatever opinions... everyone has opinions and can pretty well spout them off at will. I'm sure this isn't the death knell for doubters, criticism and FUD. In fact, it would be a bad thing if it was: the Linux crowd if *fueled* by every off in left field wacko who overstates the "communist conspiracy" or other hyperbole. Gets the blood pumping. More reasoned criticism is also a good thing as it identifies weaknesses and allows them to be exposed, attacked and resolved.
This was neither. This was a personal attack run by an angry, bitter woman against another woman. Not seeing what there is to *support* in that behaviour.
Sig under construction since 1998.
It's a bit worse that that for O'Gara. Research posted on Groklaw has pointed out that it sure seems like O'Gara had access to previously sealed court documents (now unsealed in some cases), based on the timing of some of the articles she has published. If true, that could put her and her sources in serious (i.e. criminal) hot water...
Could the issue of illegal access to sealed documents as implied on Groklaw be a motive to her attempt to get all documents in the case unsealed, as well as the recent attacks on PJ? Should be interesting to see what comes of that...
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
I just now read that article she wrote. I think it's the first thing by her I've ever read. Someone copied it into a comment on slashdot.
She really reminds me of the gossip columnists in a Howard Hawks comedy of the 30's or 40's. It's weird how she takes you back.
Those were fun films, but I had assumed the somewhat stock characters were a parodies. I guess there ARE people who talk/write like that.
But I'd expect her to write for a paper called _The Tattler_.
Well, I'd call that a pretty subjective and ill-informed judgement. Trying to keep away from the flamebait and encourage civil discourse, I'm aware of a lot of people who consider the LDS practice of post-mortem "baptism" at least odd, and some people were mightily offended when it was found that they were applying it to Jewish victims of the Holocaust.
Of course, if we want to visit the historical files, then the LDS's history of polygamy and "blood atonement" (murdering the sinner, commonly for adultery, but sometimes just for leaving the church or challenging the leadership or being in the wrong place at the wrong time) would make a lovely flamefest. The modern LDS formally repudiated "blood atonement" in 1978, but major splinter sects still advocate it.
But yes, it's pretty far afield for slashdot, and most individual Mormons are "good folk".
I do not believe the world works the way you think it does...
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.
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
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.
For the love of all that is holy, don't link to the real article. Blindly questing for page hits is what got us in this mess to begin with.
Google cache, text only.
I am not your blowing wind, I am the lightning.
In regards to other FOSS issues, PJ does a terrible terrible job, presenting mainly Opinion (her opinion) as topic, with chitterings of approval coming from her chorus.
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.
Sites don't just become popular like that. There was much more than "A couple of mentions around the web" about groklaw. It is a very nice, very informative site about a lawsuit that interests a lot of people.
>SCO's problems are always reported as crippling
>flaws, IBM's problems are "setbacks". It's a very
>nice PR job
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you are not just trolling:
You don't need public relations to make people hate SCO. Everybody hated SCO even before groklaw started.
On the other hand, you need someone like MOG, to get a few people like you believe that SCO actually has something.
An example:
Not a long time ago the Judge (after many,many requests from SCO, of course) ordered IBM to produce all "non-public contributions to linux" they made.
See, there are no "non-public contributions to linux". It is not possible. What you are going to do, hack into kernel.org and plant the code when everybody is looking the other way?
Still MOG paints this as a major setback and a slap in the hand for IBM, while Groklaw obviously does not.
Naturally in a few months SCO and MOG will be like "IBM STILL HASN'T PRODUCED THAT LINUXCODE THOSE BASTARDS". If she still has a job that is...
Washington bullets will simply be known as the "Bulle
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!
then the LDS's history of polygamy
Jews used to practice polygamy and many muslims still do ("legally" up to 4 wives if the husband is able to financially support each of them, so none of this wife-is-another-name-for-slave business, at least in theory) and I'm pretty sure that a lot of early Christain sects had similar views. So, in a judeo-christain world, polygamy really isn't terribly extreme and offensiveness is as much in the eye of the beholder as it is in the practice itself.
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
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.
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
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.