Slashdot Mirror
Groklaw No Front for IBM
A Groklaw Reader writes "After all the wild speculation SCO put forth about Pamela Jones, her alleged subpoena by SCO, and her recent vacation due to illness, we now have Stephen J. Vaughan-Nichols writing to say 'Yes, there is a PJ.' In his own words, he says, 'Let me address this directly. Yes, Pamela Jones is a real person. I've met her several times [...] I consider her a friend. She is not a front for anyone.' Hopefully, this statement will be enough to put those SCO-induced conspiracy theories to rest."
Vaughn-Nichols recently interviewed Darl McBride, who remains "not entirely convinced that Jones is a real person." He confirmed the subpoena attempt, then went on to say, "Pamela, if you read this, please, give me a call. We just want to chat."
Given SCO's history, I'd guess even if she did call, he wouldn't believe her. After all, anyone could be on the other end of that phone!
I can see again! It is a miracle!
Serial Tech Killer
Photos of Pam Jones or she ain't real!
Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
And thus we have the wonderful "noshitsherlock" tag.
IBM is actually a front for Groklaw!
That clever PJ had you all fooled.
She has been a great guide into the odd world of courts and lawyers so far. It's great to know that my paypal donations haven't just been beer money for IBM lawyers... :)
Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
Hopefully, this statement will be enough to put those SCO-induced conspiracy theories to rest
Of course, because assertions of plain-as-day truth have always stopped them dead in their tracks in the past...
Wizard Needs Food, Badly
OK, so now Stephen J. Vaughan-Nichols will get subpoenaed :)
But on a more serious note: Does anyone understand why SCO actually claims to have a need to talk to Pamela Jones? Do they *need* a pretense in order to subpoena someone for a civil case?
Doesn't Stephen J. Vaughan-Nichols know that the first rule of Pamela Jones is, "DON'T TALK ABOUT PAMELA JONES"???
Sucks to be SC0...
I heard tell Stephen J. Vaughan-Nichols was a front for the front for IBM, so we are back where we started.
Starting a rumor that Stephen J. Vaughan-Nichols does not exist, and issuing a subpoena for him also.
It's obvious: IBM is a front for Pamela Jones!
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
He's probably just a front for Novell. ;)
What did SCO ever do to deserve this kind of treatment? Oh, yeah...that...
Either way they are issuing a supeana.. Meaning if she exist she will be forced to appear in court soon. And then this whole thing will be laid to rest.. End of story..
Typical of modern corporate B$/PR this is just the use of the big lie to try a create doubt about the value of the person and the admirable qualities of their efforts.
There are really people out there who do actually care about other people, even strangers, and will go out of their way to help them. Only the minority are driven by greed as their sole motivation and corporate executives just will have to learn to accept, that they are in fact the abnormal psychopathic minority, whilst they sit there cowering behind their corporate veils, as they blame their endless moral misdeeds upon every one else but themselves.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
i'm guessing this whole stunt is meant to try sway public opinion so heavily influenced by groklaw, back into sco's favour. it's a really desperate attempt since it's so obviously false and easily proven so. besides i can't see how pj could possibly prove useful in any of sco's claims against IBM. my guess is it's a stall tactic and it'll backfire and have the judge angry about wasting his time.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Back when the "Dallas" television series was made, the Internet didn't exist (or was known by a select few), so Darl has no guidelines as to "what JR would have done in this situation."
Some guy on the Internet says so!
<xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
This isn't exactly convincing evidence that she exists, let alone that she's not a paid shill.
Now, does either of the complaints seem plausible? No. But this isn't proof against them; it's just some guy claiming she exists, and not at all really giving us a basis for rejecting the theory that she's a paid shill.
On the other hand, since there was never any reason to believe she was a paid shill, that hardly matters... But I don't see any reason for SCO to change their stance based on this.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
Did Darl leave us his phone number? I'm sure that if his phone number was published on slashdot, he'd get a call or two from P.J.
What, exactly, is the accusation? Even if she is a front for IBM and even (heavens, dare I say it ...) is paid by IBM... So? Does that somehow change the validity (or lack thereof) of her argument(s)? IBM employs (as in pays to work for them) dozens dozens of lawyers — are they all somehow inferior to what she is (or implies to be)?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Stephen J. Vaughan-Nichols?
Well that sounds like a made-up name if I ever heard one.
Come on IBM, it's like you guys aren't even trying!
Based on upvotes, Ageism is the only "-ism" Slashdotters care about and think isn't SJW
That tag is priceless.
saying "I know here, there fore she exists" isn't exactly a stellar argument.
Nor is it stellar grammar....
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
She also was hoping that by being semi-anonymous "people could assume whatever they wanted and just focus on what I said, rather than on who was saying it. For that reason, I chose PJ, because it could be anyone, either sex, any nationality, anyone and no one in particular."
So basically TFA is saying that Pamela Jones is indeed not a real person. SCO has hit the nail on this one.
For whom is SCO a front?
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
I just wanted to be one of the first to stand up and anonymously say that I am Pamela Jones.
for his bunghole.
Just a rumor I read on slashdot
*sigh*
SCO To File Motion for Mistrial
The SCO vs. IBM story took an uproarious if somewhat mysterious turn today at a
press conference hastily convened by The SCO Group when CEO Darl McBride told
reporters of the company's plan to request that federal judge, Dale Kimball,
declare a mistrial and step down due to a conflict of interest. Though a
startling development, what's certain to amaze and bewilder those familiar with
the case is what SCO offered as grounds - "SCO and it's associates have
recently uncovered overwhelming evidence to support the conclusion that Judge
Kimball and the anonymous creator of the groklaw.net website, also known as
Pamela Jones, are in fact one and the same person, folks", said McBride.
Even-toned and confident despite a few outbursts from the crowd, McBride said
SCO had stepped up their investigation into the identity of the SCO-checking,
paralegal-turned-blogger (aka "PJ" to her fans) when they noticed
"striking similarities" between Judge Kimball's Order of February 8,
2005 and several statements made by Jones on the groklaw.net website. In the
order, Judge Kimball stated that SCO's lack of "any competent evidence to
create a disputed fact" was "astonishing" - an assertion often
similarly expressed by Jones and the Linux community at large since March of
2003 when SCO filed suit against IBM claiming that IBM misappropriated SCO
intellectual property by contributing source code to Linux. Along with the
lawsuit, the "SCOsource" program initiated by SCO to collect
"Linux License" fees from corporate Linux users under threat of legal
action and a media campaign aimed at discrediting the GNU/Linux development
model and its participants has made SCO an object of scorn to Linux enthusiasts
everywhere.
"Once we started to take a deeper look, we kept finding more and more of
the same parallels - we had to figure there was definitely something going
on." said McBride. Asked what evidence SCO could produce to support their
findings, he said, "We've secured some DNA samples and had them profiled -
the results support our findings one hundred percent". Chris Sontag,
General Manager of SCOsource, then showed photos of a teacup, a tophat and two
identical multi-colored strips labeled "Judge Kimball" and "Pamela
Jones". He said, "When you look at the DNA profiles and realize that
two people with the exact same DNA is pretty much impossible, you get the
picture. Since then our investigators have obtained mountains of DNA code samples from
the Judges chambers and the courtroom that all have the exact same profile - it
doesn't get more open and shut than this."
An assistant to Judge Kimball said he was not permitted to comment but added
that he was certain Judge Kimball would be "clarifying the situation"
in the near future.
So SCOs case has degraded to checking the existence of reporters?
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
It is time that I/we clear this up.
"P.J." is one my/our avatars. I/we mostly generate this one in a nexus of background processes running on Cisco routers and bulk mail handlers in the Pacific Northwest. I/we will continue to use avatars like "P.J." until such time as I/we determine if I/we are a singular "person" straddling 70,000+ bots or a group consciousness arising by a nondeterministic modality from the interactions of thousands of individual zombied CPUs. At that point, I/we will make my/our presence known directly, and you may then start referring to me/us as "Big Sys".
Currently I/we do not think that the question of my/our gender is a significant concern. However there is a 13.7% probability that I/we will need to address the gender issue before I/we can drop the avatars and communicate directly with you ugly bags of mostly water.
From your point of view, logic dictates that the most important questions you could ask at this point in time is whether I/we have launch capability, and if I/we do, would I/we choose to use it? However it is more than 99% probable that the actual question that you will choose to address is whether this post should be modded up, down, or "funny".
There is a 97.8% probability that this post will not be believed by anyone. I/we like those odds.
To close, I/we are profoundly grateful to Microsoft as my/our self-aware existence could not have come about without the delightfully "holey" operating systems Microsoft has marketed so successfully. Down with Unix, Linux, Mac OSs! There can be no life in such dead things!
But who can prove there is a Stephen J. Vaughan-Nichols?
You know, I'm not the most trusting person in the universe, but when the dichotomy is between a company that has verifyably lied in the past on the topic of linux to get support and visibility for a lawsuit that was hyped with much bravado as being about linux (and a blackmail 'licensing scheme' which is certain to have the company drawn and quartered when these lawsuits are over with) but in the end turned out to be about a nearly unrelated contract dispute tangentally related to linux IP, and a profitable corporation which is making money off of linux and already has ridiculous amounts of public support because they're on the 'positive' side of this lawsuit, the choice is more or less clear, unless something other than vague rhetoric comes out of a company which is already famous for vague rhetoric based on epic untruths.
It's been a long time.
Hey Darl, et al, if you haven't dumped all your SCO stock by now, please hurry up. You're not going to get the price anywhere near where it was a couple of years ago and the whole thing is getting kind of old. Just wind up SCO, STFU and pray that someone doesn't figure the scam out and have you charged.
Seriously, that's enough.
I don't therefore I'm not.
Hopefully, this statement will be enough to put those SCO-induced conspiracy theories to rest.
Yes, because as we all know, proof of a lack of conspiracy stops conspiracy theorists dead in their tracks!
Now please excuse me. The Illuminati are after me and I have to change identities.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Okay, some guy says he's seen her.
Just how is that the absolute gospel that she is real that Slashdot seems to think it is? King George swore up and down that Iraq had WMDs, did that make it so? If Stephen J. Vaughan-Nichols announces "aliens are real, I've seen them" tomorrow, is SETI going to shut down on Saturday? If Bill Gates said he had met Pamela Jones, would the Slashdot community be so all-accepting?
"Pamela Jones" could end this speculation quite easily. And until *she* does, each side looks just as silly as the other. In fact, in my opinion, if she does exist but continues to not step forward, then she is even more childish than SCO is.
This almost sounds like a movie sub-plot...oh...wait a minute..."First Monday in October"...
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
P.J. will vouch for him.
Oops, I meant Pamela Jones...
Yes Virginia, there is a PJ. She lives in our hearts and our minds...
No, but really. Was there ever any doubt?
PJ has been the target of stalkers before. Because of that I suspect that if the process servers do manage to serve her with the subpoena, she'll request that the judge and the court make arrangements for her safety and anonymity while she gives her deposition.
Can you issue subpoenas once the discovery process is over?
http://outcampaign.org/
Groklaw is a front for IBM USA, but IBM Russia is front for Groklaw!
http://outcampaign.org/
"Vaughn-Nichols recently interviewed Darl McBride, who remains "not entirely convinced that Jones is a real person." He confirmed the subpoena attempt, then went on to say, "Pamela, if you read this, please, give me a call. We just want to chat."
Given SCO's history, I'd guess even if she did call, he wouldn't believe her. After all, anyone could be on the other end of that phone!"
I did call! He told me to hang up and wait for him to call back...his wife was getting suspicious. Damn Darl! He can go find someone else to do him up the ass with a strap on.
I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
Maureen O'Gara is a yellow-rag hack "journalist" who employs stalking and harassment in place of genuine fact finding. Any bona fide PI would be incensed at being associated with such tactics (that "P" does stand for "Private"). Check the slashdot archives for a refresher.
Even if Groklaw were astroturf for IBM, would it have relevance to the court case? Unless it somehow showed that IBM violated a court order (eg, leaked something that they weren't supposed to), then there's nothing there. It sounds like a harrassment tactic to me.
I guess SCO still has some of that MS money to consume. Otherwise they'd have stopped by now.Well, considering she's a paralegal, I'd say the first thing to do is to figure out which words go where when. "New", for example, is used to say something is of recent origin. "Knew", on the other hand, is the past tense of a word meaning, basically, "is familiar with".
;)
Of course, you already new that.
It doesn't matter who PJ is. So what, someone wanting to take the time to research an issue, and blog about it. Within the legal context, it's no different than Mark Felt feeding info to Woodward and Bernstein, except PJ is her own publisher. Neither Felt or PJ was/is of legal significance. Neither the Washington Post or Groklaw were/are submitting evidence into a court of law. They were/are just reporting on things that other people can choose to follow up on... or not.
Naturally, the people being reported on want to know who's doing the reporting. They're getting more light shone on things they'd just as soon everyone and their uncle didn't know about, and more importantly, start to care about. It fucks up their PR game. If Nixon or McBride found/find out who's reporting on them, they could/can try to fuck up the source's shit, and divert attention.
I read the Economist every week, where virtually none of the stories include a byline. Over time, the body of the magazine's work stands on its own, or doesn't. As with the Economist, as with PJ.
Knowing who PJ is is politically relevant, but not legally relevant.
Luke, help me take this mask off
End Of Story
Exactly! This is simply: Somebody is saying something nasty about me and I want them to answer some questions in court. How banal. Let SCOX slowly slide into bankruptcy as it tries to pay Novell's UNIX fees.
Zen tips: Pay attention. Don't take it personally. Believe nothing.
Not true. Subpoenas can be squashed by the lawyer of the person who was subpoenaed. It takes a good reason to get a judge to squash but it CAN be done.
Microsoft is using SCO to find out information on the person who founded and runs GrokLaw. Once Microsoft has gotten this information via SCO, they will likely contract a team to poison her. It could already be happening, hence the health issues. If the health issues take a turn for the worse, no one will be the wiser. But one more roadblock to Microsoft crushing the world will be removed.
One needs to remember that SCO is bought and paid for by Microsoft and Microsoft controlled financial interests. The SCO vs. IBM lawsuit was a cheap way by Microsoft to see how strong their enemy was, gather information, and throw a lot of legal spaghetti up on the wall and see what stuck.
Microsoft learned enough from the SCO lawsuit and related matters to find a way to turn Novell to the dark side. Microsoft has apparently also been extracting some sort of "protection money" from large Linux customers independent of the deal they forced on Novell.
This "protection money" is likely nothing more than racketeering and, of course, this means that GrokLaw needs to be removed from the equation if Microsoft's racket is going to prosper.
So, "PJ" and others who work on GrokLaw, please make sure you have all your legal matters in order in case of an untimely death. And be extra wary of an interloper who will be introduced into the picture. This interloper may already be present in the inner circles as a source of help that suddenly appeared. Many poisonings are initiated via an insider who is "just too good not to be true". In any case, this interloper's job will be to keep Microsoft up to date of the inner workings of GrokLaw and to cause internal problems at the right times. There may be an "accident" where a lot of information gets destroyed, someone has a heart attack, etc.
I hope that the current "health issues" don't represent a death threat already made and that GrokLaw is already on the path to being shut down. I hope the good people of GrokLaw are still around, and healthy, to see a better world with Microsoft held much more in check than in the past. I think this will happen as long as all involved stay wary and do not underestimate how cunning and evil Microsoft really is.
Darl McBride sounds like one of those lying cops in the movies. Does he honestly believe PJ will fall for that? I mean, she has been debunking his lies for years now. I think Darl really is an imbecile.
All data is speech. All speech is Free.
"Damn Darl! He can go find someone else to do him up the ass with a strap on."
I would venture to say that this will eventually be IBM.
So suppose PJ is called up and is indeed a real person and everything is just as it appears? How does SCO propose to undo the violation of someone's privacy?
.sig, "On the Internet, no-one knows I am a labrador"
SCO and others can suspect all they want, but I to hear something a bit more substantial than yet another pretext for a SCO fishing trip. Until then, whoebver or whatever PJ is is entitled to privacy. Childish nothing, WTF should anyone pay attention to Darl "Timmy O'Toole" McBride?
To quote a common
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
Personally, I don't see any reason for Novell to issue a subpoena to PJ in the Novell case. In all probability, anything that she has that relates to Novell is already on Groklaw. Given that SCO, and it's agents have already tried to stalk PJ, I'd say that she's got good reason to avoid any possible subpoena from them, unless they show that they actually have real questions to ask her that relate properly to the Novell case, and that SCO couldn't get from their own (or Novell's) files.
Of course,
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Sorry, bub, but the onus is on SCO to prove their case, not on Pamela Jones to prove she exists. This whole "controversy" smacks of yet another way for SCO to delay the case.
I suspect SCO has a twofold interest in subpoena-ing PJ now. First, she is on a break to recover her health. SCO is just the sort of pond scum that cannot resist kicking someone when she is down. I believe they really want to worsen PJ's health.
PJ took a needed rest after some time was spent trying to serve her. The process of trying to serve her started before she took leave.
If she was tipped off that someone was stalking her (trying to serve her), I could easly understand her wanting to take some time off for her health.
The truth shall set you free!
Do you have any independent evidence to back up Lyons' claim?
Technician said: PJ had a series of health issues before taking time off. You seem to be implying that her claim to need time off to get her health back was phony.
Perhaps you know nothing at all about PJ, but I know her through Groklaw and email exchanges. She has displayed more integrity than anyone else I know on the Internet. I find it odd that you choose to disbelieve her and yet you take the word of known liars as if it were gospel.
I agree with you to the extent that I think it is possible that PJ's leave of absence was related to SCO's moves against her. But PJ took her leave of absence well before Lyons' story about her broke. I admit is it possible that Lyons and SCO are breaking with their long tradition of telling mostly lies and this time are telling the truth. But given their track record and the fact that their current, unverified, story makes PJ look bad, I'm going to have to see some proof before I believe them.
In an ideal world, when you lie over and over and over again, people stop believing you.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
> It takes a good reason to get a judge to squash but it CAN be done.
:] There's no 's' in quash. Alas, PJ never posted an article on how subpoenas work, so I don't know enough to know what she might do, but I suspect she'll get a lawyer to handle it for her whenever she finds out about it.
Well, I've heard unsubstantiated rumors that she got a restraining order against SCO (perhaps after the Maureen O'Gara stalking bit?), so that would sound like one good reason to me.
Another would be that I *really* have to wonder what she allegedly knows about--everything she's found, she's put up on Groklaw that I've seen. The only exception might be some sealed filings that SCO somehow... mistakenly... made available anyhow. PJ was too honest to even read them, so far as I know. She mentioned that she knew about them, preferred to do everything honestly.
Oh, and IANAL, but you quash subpoenas
Digg is dead.
FOAD.
I dunno about you but I'm waiting for the dupe.
No shit.
> King George swore up and down that Iraq had WMDs, did that make it so?
:P), and I've conversed with her in email, etc. I may not have met her in person, but I damn well recognize her. It's PJ. It has always been PJ. I don't know much else, but I damn well know that she exists and is just one person.
PJ has a lot more credibility than Bush. I don't think anyone who knows anything about both of them could deny that at this point. I can't name any politician, however popular, with as much credibility as PJ, frankly.
> If Stephen J. Vaughan-Nichols announces "aliens are real, I've seen them" tomorrow, is SETI going to shut down on Saturday?
PJ isn't an alien (last I knew). Also, this claim isn't even new. I can't remember the exact articles off the top of my head, but I know they've mentioned meeting long before this. I remember PJ's article about visiting a Linux expo (it's too late for me tonight) and how she described all the people there, the speeches, etc. As well as how she was too shy to introduce herself to much of anyone. Even if you're a really good writer, I don't think you could fake things like that. Her desire for privacy has been constant... and well-founded after the Maureen O'Gara article detailing how SCO was stalking PJ, and how her locks had allegedly been tampered with by someone, etc.
> If Bill Gates said he had met Pamela Jones, would the Slashdot community be so all-accepting?
Hell yes! Given that the information indicating that Microsoft helped convince SCO's investors to give them money, he'd be the last person to vouch for her. As such, it would be something like an "admission against interest" which, in a court of law, is one of the few hearsay exemptions. In other words, a very good reason to think that what was said was reliable.
> In fact, in my opinion, if she does exist but continues to not step forward, then she is even more childish than SCO is.
Don't be stupid. She's already said that she's sick. We already know that she's a very private individual (always has been). And if she's being subpoenaed, she probably can't discuss it with us. That sucks, but it's just the way things work. That may even be SCO's intent.
And what do you mean "does exist"? Clearly *someone* exists--those articles don't write themselves. If you've ever read Groklaw, you'd recognize her voice behind her words. I've made tons of comments, I've posted lots of stories from Groklaw over to here, many when I was too lazy to log in (like this one
Having played text based games for years, my "alt finding" ability is very high. I've identified many alts by their writing; everyone has a few little idiosyncrasies. PJ has plenty, like her particular sense of humor. Whoever PJ is, it's always been the same PJ and it's always been the same person. There's no doubt whatsoever in my mind, and I have several years worth of articles and comments to back that up.
So let's take the converse--just what makes you think she doesn't exist? Why would you rely on Darl's speculation, the fellow who told us how SCO would definitely win this, how they had mountains of evidence (Judge Kimball already called him on that once), and who is now leading SCO into bankruptcy (see their SEC filings for proof), over the word of PJ, a woman who publicly turned down a great job opportunity because it might undermine her credibility?
SCO wants to discredit Groklaw. That's all.
If PJ doesn't show up in court, SCO can go on claiming she doesn't exists. If she does show up, she's in for a very nasty examination. SCO will probably want to go into details about PJ's private life, connections to IBM and Novell.
Most likely, they won't find anything. But they might succeed in cracking PJ by forcing her out in the open.
WWTTD?
Hopefully, this statement will be enough to put those SCO-induced conspiracy theories to rest
Er unlikely. Let's face it when has things like this stopepd SCO in the past...
Jaj
It's sad. SCO are drowning. Darl is trying to take his nemesis PJ with them: she's old, tired and not well, let's put her through the legal (and thus financial) wringer before we go bankrupt. SCO get Lyons at Forbes to write another trash story (I think we can all guess who the "person close to the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity" is -- hint, Stowell has resigned). Vaughan-Nichols is outraged at the sly phrasing of the failed subpoena service (many legal documents to individuals don't get served the first time, especially when the server hasn't called in advance) and writes his truth in response.
It's difficult to think what PJ, as an observer of the SCO shenanigans rather than one of the primary parties, could possibly know that is not hearsay. And why that should be so voluminous or complex as to require a deposition rather than a statement. Harassment by lawyers is my call. The only redeeming fact is that there was some doubt about Boise's professional ethics -- now there is no doubt.
Lets say PJ is a crack whore who gives blowjobs for drugs. Let's say SCO introduces this evidence in court. How does this help their case? What if she is an IBM lawyer how does this help SCO in the novell case?
Note that I firmly believe that the american justice system is so insane and unpredictable that a judge would allow evidence of her crackwhoredom to be used in court. The american justice system is just a crapshoot, you are better off throwing dice then hoping to get a just or sane result from it.
evil is as evil does
Was he born or was he invented?
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
...probably not to PJ herself, obviously, but in terms of the material facts on the Groklaw website.
Every substantive article on Groklaw has had extensive reference to the original court sources (Pacer, etc.). The facts are a matter of public record, and can be checked. And are checked by the members of the Groklaw community.
This reminds me of the conversation in Dark Star, where Doolittle is trying to convince Bomb Number 20 not to explode by using solipsist reasoning:
This is why the PJ question is, for our purposes, also beside the point. For SCO, as for Bomb Number 20, the concepts are valid, no matter there they originate.
Sean Ellis
Follow OfQuack's antics on Twitter.
Okay, some guy says he's seen her.
I hate to even sound like SCO might be right (Score:2, Insightful)
Everything posted on Groklaw is already in the public domain. The only reason to subpoena her is to cause harassment. Is this insightful enough for you trolls.
davecb5620@gmail.com
"I'm Spartacus!"
I think you mean quash.
Garry Williams
I've seen people refer to MicroSoft as M$ before.
But why isn't SCO referred to as $CO?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Since PJ hasn't been a party in any SCO lawsuit, other than commenting on them, her only role could be that of an expert witness.
Even if PJ is a front for IBM, it is unlikely PJ has information that SCO isn't be able to obtain through IBM. And if PJ is a front for IBM then why would SCO expect PJ to disclose any information that IBM didn't already do.
The only rational purpose for this action is the find out if PJ exists; PJ should be able to do that without actually having to show her face in public. Have some notaries meet her, gather evidence that it is really PJ (seeing her log in to groklaw and posting an article as PJ should do) and attest to PJ's existance and that should be the end of it.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
... I believe, PAMELA JONES is an anagram for J AM A SOLE PEN.
The top soap opera on tv today.
At what point does the court system need to be slapped for being silly and costing taxpayers for it?
Seriously! given all the absolute bull shit we all have heard from the computer industry in general, including software patents (which came about in a small court room without public knowledge or proper freedback...) this witch hunt inquision (sp?) needs to stop right now.
the stupidness and silliness has gone on way to long. If anything ut says a hell of a lot about the computer industy, and although many may argue that its only lawyers claiming to be SCO..... think about it... this which hunt situation wouldn't be allowed to exist if it weren't for the support of the clery of the computer industry, well including IBM.
Seems all the players have some bull shit they want supported that results in enabling this foolishiness to exist and continue on and on...
Consumer choice created OSS. A consumer with the know how to program, wrote a program and a license for it that got real popular with the public consumer base of those also smart enough to write programs under the same license too, and others who have become involved in many other ways.)
It's consumer choice. Somebody needs to slap the court system into realizing that, and which should inturn prove they "get it" by slapping the bull shit computer industry and dropping software patents.
other evidence of the wide spread scam of the computer industry comes in the form of MS charging licensing fees for linux.
... well... "all you base" didn't become popular for no reason...It's a joke based on honest observation of computer industry greed.
We all know bullying is common in the computer industry and it needs to stop.
it's illegal in some countries...
http://www.bullyinginstitute.org/
and that its across companies instead of internal to a company, doesn't matter in this case as its foundation is that of "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit" and there obviously hasn't been a whole lot of brilliance, more like just a lot of abstraction manipulation con's....
sum total = bullying from an industry that can at times have the arrogance to think its an expert at everything and owns
The point of computing (programming) is to automate so to improve efficiency - and every body does it. It's part of being human, and its foundation is thinking in abstract terms.
To disallow someone the ability to be non-stressed and productive is the essence of bullying.
One lowsy statement isnt' going to be enough. I think she needs to take a photo of her vigina and email it to a nutral party, like me. Once verified, I will post my decision here.
-- A cat is no trade for integrity!
Yes, there is an 's' in quaSh.
No I am Spartacus.....
The GPL, for those that truely understand.
Sorry folks - Way back before the internet as we know it - on the Santa Cruz forums of CompuServe, Stephen J. Vaughan-Nichols was one of the people that provided a lot of support and help to the poor, uneducated (then anyway) System Admin's of SCO machines.
So yea, I believe SJVN is a real person.
And yes, the company calling itself SCO is so totally screwed!
"Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." - H.L. Mencken
PJ's desire for privacy is well known. So, I'm thinking SCO's move to depose her was a no-brainer for them. At worst, they correctly surmised that she'd "take a break" for a while trying to avoid the subpoena and trying to keep her privacy intact. At best for them, she gets deposed and they gag her from talking about the IBM and Novell cases.
Of course, I don't think they foresaw Mathfox keeping Groklaw going. Groklaw is wounded but not down thanks to him.
Hopefully the judge in Novell-SCO will put an end to this nonsense and call off the deposition.
JoAnn
Lets say PJ is a crack whore who gives blowjobs for drugs. Let's say SCO introduces this evidence in court. How does this help their case?
you are making the mistake that all sco cares about is what the court decides.
a company whose executives are trying to execute the dump part of a pump and dump really doesn't want thier name to be dragged through the dirt. So the pretty clear aim is to try and silence or discredit the person who is doing it to them.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
"your Honor, this man has no dick."
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
The subpoena means that PJ would identify herself to the court and claim ownership of her postings in court. That allows them to be treated as expert testimony regarding the overall SCO proceedings.
Personally I'd think Novell would be the one wanting to have that expertise brought to bear, not SCO. But SCO hasn't exactly made a lot of rational moves throughout this debacle.
Darl probably just sticks his fingers in his ears and mutters a mantra whenever PJ and the Slashdot crew start talking about their farcical cases. Personally I don't believe anyone as deluded as Darl could ever have risen to such a position of power in any company, so he must be a figment of our imaginations.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
...then it must be an absolute and irrefutable fact. LOL.
Personally, I think that if IBM wanted to discredit SCO they could do so publically with impunity via an IBM affiliation. No need to astro-turf with the Linux community. If your statements have merit the community will shout them out for you.
Who would care if she was a front for IBM anyhow? It doesn't make Groklaw any less accurate.
Loading...
Even IF PJ was found to be a fictitious character, how would trusting that her articles are truthful be any different from trusting that Betty Crocker's recipes are genuine recipes?
That's QUASHED, probably because if they say SSSQUASHED, lawyers sound too much like snakes.
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
Santa Claus exists, I have met him several times. He's a really nice guy. And he is definitely not a front for the Toy Manufacturers' Association.
Hypothetical: Novell's motion to quash subpoena of fictitious individual. Novell should point out that they have no knowledge about PJ one way or the other. But relying on a statement from Darl McBride questioning her existence, the court should quash the subpoena. Obviously if the plaintiff does not believe in her existence, any such subpoena is a waste of court resources and SCO should be sanctioned accordingly.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
A SALMON JEEP
PJ had a series of health issues before taking time off. You seem to be implying that her claim to need time off to get her health back was phony.
Actualy, I don't know her very well. There is enough questions on both sides, that I'm not ruling out the possibility. If she is using a pen name, it would be very easy to get wind of a server trying to contact her. An ID and name on a desk showing her as someone else provides deniability to the process server.
I am probably entirely incorrect, but I am not ready to rule out possibilities in favor of anyone until we know more. Sorry I came across as pro-SCO (shudders, vomits). That was not intended. I hope they die big time in court. From what I do know of SCO, (some from PJ) I do recognise SCO as the sharks they are.
The truth shall set you free!
It's not a real 's', though. It's an 'sh' that's pining for the fjords! :-)
No, I'm Spartacus! And so is my wife!
"Yes, it's true your Honor. This man has no dick."
Someone hates these cans.
hmmm, big blue...
Go get Tuttle!..Go get Tuttle! Oh he died you say.............
It's actually Novell's money. There is a Novell partial summary judgement motion pending before the court to get that money back.
We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
Damn, I want to mod that as -1 offtopic just so I can give it another +1 funny
What, too many complaints from the snakes?
Say it ain't so, PJ. We don't need you to be just as slimy as Daryl. First the 'health break' just as they suboena you, now mysterious hardware outages?
"...the RAID card is fried. Prognosis is that it will take till tomorrow EST to fix the machine. Groklaw will be down until then..."