SCO Claims Groklaw's Pamela Jones Is "Not Who She Says She Is"
Darl McBride: "All Is Not As It Appears"
April 15, 2005
"Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah" - MOG
Story comments from the message boards
But, Groklaw basically just posts the legal documents. Sure, PJ adds
commentary.
But that commentary in no way actually affects the legal case. It just
affects
people's perception of the case, and that, I'm pretty sure, is the real
reason
why Darl likes to throw out innuendo about the 'sinister' identity of
PJ.
If you can't discredit someone's arguments logically, attack the
person and hope
people don't notice. It doesn't even matter if your innuendo has any
basis in
truth, because the point of innuendo is never to arrive at truth, but
rather to
distract the gullible from the truth. Truth is: even if PJ really *were*
any of
those things Darl says, it STILL DOESN'T MATTER. The legal documents of
the case
are what they are, and anyone can read them and try to decide for
themselves
what they mean. Darl and Co. are free to offer their own commentary (oh,
right,
that's worked well for them so far. . .).
And Ms. O'Gara compares her to a serial murderer. Classy.
Tell us again about the traits of real journalism, Ms. O'Gara. We're fascinated. :)
So you can imagine the irony. You of all people calling someone else biased. Maureen, how many of your articles relating to SCO/IBM are unbiased? When was the last time you said something positive about IBM? Have you ever reported any news about Groklaw where it wasn't being slammed? How many articles do you fact check or verify sources? Why do your articles involving SCO include personal opinion?
SCO is an interesting company in that is has made many accusations, but never proven anything. And here is yet another accusation.
Why do they feel so threatened? If you look back in time, they brought this upon themselves. Wasn't it SCO who was in the media every day making some claim? Groklaw presented an opportunity to discuss those claims. And if Groklaw wasn't around or didn't come into existance, surely someone else would have addressed it. So the real issue here is the case and the accusations made.
I think SCO is just worried that they're receiving attention that they didn't anticipate they'd ever receive-- which is mostly unfavorable. Although you sue a company for 5 billion dollars, you're definately going to draw attention.
It the end, if SCO has a case, why worry about the Groklaw blog? It's like Michael Jackson is worried about E! performing reinactments of his trial. E! didn't bring him to trial. It's merely reporting the trial and offering daily commentary.
If you can't refute the evidence, slander the messenger.
Nothing in the world is as black and white as MOG paints the SCO v IBM case, despite all the opportunities presented by SCO, a press agent's nightmare, unless perhaps it's a cartoon or maybe a Tom Mix western.
Judging from MOG's commentary, this is one chick with no qualms about trying the case and appropriating the job of both the judge and the jury.
all is not as it appears at linuxbusiness week.
If that possible conflict of interest isn't enough, someone who goes by the name Peter Roozemaal replaced PJ as OSRM's DLRR (oh the acronyms!). Regarding Mr Roozemaal -
"Peter has shown an interest in politics and law from an early age; he combines hobbies and technological knowledge as webmaster for www.groklaw.net and www.grokline.net in addition to his role of Director of Technology Research at OSRM." ( from http://www.osriskmanagement.com/about.shtml )
So Peter works for PJ's old company in a high level and (one must presume) time consuming position, yet he still finds the time to admin PJ's web sites. Then on his off hours he pursues an interest in politics and law. Amazing series of coincidences here.
Never invest time and effort into something you don't know about...namely, groklaw. If you don't know who your supporting or what they stand for, don't support them.
In this case, when SCO does release info on her...I really hope she just fades away. The way she runs her site (deleting accounts at whim...silencing any free speech that challenges her own view) is facist and she should be put back in her place. I say her when in fact I don't even know if it is a her...regardless, it's a crock.
I hate SCO just as much as the next Linux advocate (since 1995) but I hate groklaw even more. Mainly, because SCO tells you they're going to screw you. Groklaw just deletes. While this hasn't happened to me personally, I've read too much about individuals it did happen against to discredit it as BS.
http://linuxblog.sytes.net/index.php?/categories/10-Groklaw
Groklaw isn't the only website to be following the SCO case. It's just the one that SCOXE fears the most.
You know, it wasn't all that long ago that feedback for Maureen O'Gara articles suddenly disappeared from hot topics. It happened over a couple of weeks to several articles. All feedback, gone!
And it wasn't all that long ago someone from sys-con was posting icognito on the Yahoo Finance boards with links to favorable SCO articles. Yep, unbiased journalism at it's finest.
Maureen, thank you for this latest distraction. For a brief moment in time, I almost forgot that SCO was losing their case against IBM (NOT!).
Bzzzzzzt! Sorry. Thanks for playing. Hint: GL has been hosted by Ibiblio since I first ran across the site, in May (?) of 2003. More FUD? Perhaps you'd like to make a statement of full disclosure?
Speaking of full disclosure, how about you, Maureen?
My turn? ok...I hold some mutual funds. I suspect that I have a tiny bit of interest in IBM. And Novell. And RedHat. And probably even SCOXE. And I still want to see SCOXE revert back to it's old name: caldera...
Cui bono? SCOXE.
Where does she get her info feeds? Stowell
O'Gara declines to come out from behind sys-con.
And, who is sys-con, anyhow? Who benefits?
...
Poor Maureen.
Must be painful digging all those bullets out of your foot.
Since you never print the truth, just slanted spew for SCO, guess you will need to work overtime cleaning up comments.
You need to block all posts again.
As to your accusation regarding PJ's "shyness" being a cover for something insidious (*sigh*) -- "PJ declines to come out from behind the Groklaw web site. When ... she was invited to come on Internet television, she demurred saying she was "shy." Odd, she doesn't write like she's shy." -- allow me to correct your supposition that one's writing persona must match there personal presence by quoting another one strong in letters but weak in person, the Apostle Paul:
"And I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much
trembling; ...
Because while his letters, someone says, are weighty and strong, his
bodily presence is weak and his speech contemptible."
Argue the facts, conclusions and opinions and leave the personal attacks out of this.
I'm ashamed of my industry for the behavior I see. Deeply ashamed.
Groklaw was hosted at Radio.weblogs.com and is now hosted by Ibiblio. This is fact (see http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/ ). Not Redhat.
Peter R is MathFox, Groklaw's super webmaster. Stop trying to insinuate PJ is MathFox.
Your characterization of OSRM and PJ's tenure there and her departure are pitifully wrong.
3 Strikes and you're out.
Maureen, once again you get the facts all twisted up, and
have such biased reporting that its obvious you are a paid
SCO shill.
I can't see from here, but I assume your eyes are brown.
That said, reporting for SCO / IBM started on SLASH DOT and
other sites and newsgroups. It was then picked up by
Pamela Jones, PJ, and her Groklaw site. Other sites, LamLaw, etc.
also carry commentary. (TuxRocks too)
I first learned of Groklaw on SLASH DOT - Groklaw became
the de facto.
As for PJ hiding behind her website, did you know she
published an article today in several online tech magazines
titled "The SCO Boomerang" (or was it the Linux
Boomerang?).
So much for hiding behind her website ...
It's time for you to find a new industry to track ...
As
I've done my fair share of criticizing Groklaw in the past,
but God knows, if anything speaks to how effective PJ has
been at what she does, its the behaviour of Darl and his media
familiar, Maureen O' Gara.
As for her refusal to appear on SlapperTV, that's not sinister, that's just smart. Why on earth would anyone put themselves into a situation where they didn't have control over the questions that they were asked, or the way that they were presented? A branch of the media that has consistently demonstrated a bias both against the subject of your advocacy, and against you personally. It's not like she has any difficulty making her voice heard under her own terms, or that she has a product that she wants to pitch.
Not any more anyway, thankfully.
But hey, thanks for another cute, content-free story, Mo. You're really unique. Don't *ever* change.
When I read "Well, nobody whatever their political stripe would mistake Groklaw for journalism", I chuckled. How could Maureen tell? For the last several months, ever since PJ and Groklaw got some digs in on her about the silly story she put forth that IBM, Intel, and the OSDL were getting together in Beaverton to re-write the Linux kernel, it seems that Maureen has had a bee up her b*m, looking for ways to tweak, put down, or cast aspersions upon the person of Pamela Jones and / or the Groklaw website. Rumor, innuendo, and snide commentary has been the weapon of choice, since nothing actually negative has been forthcoming.
Now, using an unsubstantiated comment from a person (Darl McBride) who has become known for making, to be polite, comments that perhaps have not been fully proven (arguing, for example, that the GPL violated both the constitution and Copyright and Patent law, and stating that Eric S Raymond was on IBM's payroll, not to mention the many claims of solid proof that IBM stole *something* from SCO, from trade secrets (which they subsequently dropped, as there are none) to hundreds of thousands of lines of code that they hold rights over in Linux (none of which apparently has been revealed to the Judge, despite court orders) to the infamous three teams of programmers who allegedly compared AIX, Unix, and Linux and found "a mountain of code" from Unix in Linux), and basing a series of innuendos and supposition derived from these comments, are certainly one of the standard methods of the gossip columnist.
(I wonder if one of the pieces of innuendo was, however, fully thought out. When Maureen notes that "Groklaw ... sprang like the war goddess, Athena, did - fully armed from the brow of Zeus", did she remember that Athena was also the Goddess of Justice? It seems like a more appropriate comment when this is pointed out.)
But Maureen doesn't stop there. Her final comment, "Sounds like a serial killer taunting the cops to catch him", was definitely a gem. Comparing a website operator to a serial killer? Really...
Personally, I would more closely compare it to Robin Hood taunting the corrupt Prince Darl. Most of the masses support Robin, and only those with vested interest in trying to keep their corrupt moneymaking power grab in place support Prince Darl.
And perhaps, just perhaps, the current Sheriff of SCOXingham, occasionally bumbling, occasionally cunning, but almost always outthought by Robin -- could the Sheriff's name perhaps be Maureen.
All of this 'She said, she said' is getting us nowhere. Of course PJ isn't going to appear on SYS-CON TV, any more than Maureen is going to agree to be interviewed by the Groklaw faithful.
However, I've got an idea that just might resolve this case once and for all. Rather than spending more money on needless litigation, let Maureen and PJ act as proxies for SCO and IBM, with the winner of the catfight determining the victor once and for all.
We'd need a suitably neutral venue for the bout. Can I suggest The Jerry Springer Show as a suitable location? Darl McBride and Linus could act as the security team for the day to ensure a fair fight.
Ladies, are you going to be eternal spectators, cheering on your team from the sidelines, or do you care sufficiently about the outcome of this case to lay your own necks on the line? Lets see a clean, fair fight, with no biting, scratching or blows below the belt.
The future of Open Source depends upon you!
The CEO of a company spending a large proportion of the call time on an amateur blog site? It was preposterous. Where were the factual discussions of financial or legal issues? Where are they with Sarbanes-Oxley compliance, for instance?
Darl is showing up as a liability to SCOXE now - the shareholders should remove him.
Maureen's bias is so obvious, it's just embarrassing. Try asking Darl what happened to this.....
"Now, by going into pre-discovery, we have strong enough claims. We'd be fine to go to court just on what we have before discovery.-- Darl McBride, 2003-06-25"
McBride of course has a bone to pick, a big bone, and has suffered Groklaw and its rabble rousing silently up until now. He blames the blog for ruining his SCOsource licensing scheme.
Should read:
McBride of course has a bone to pick, a big bone, and has suffered Groklaw and its rabble rousing silently up until now. He blames the blog for ruining his SCOsource licensing scam.
Maureen, do you know what these words actually mean?
* I just tried to respond to this article but it was not posted. What's going on? Are you censoring feedback again Maureen?"
Why not? PJ censors Groklaw posters.
Have you looked in a mirror recently MOG? A load of people are wondering if you are really a she?
Anyway how about posting some facts for once.. You know things you can back up (And I don't mean just Darl told me so). You go on about the costs running the web-site?! Don't ibbilo (or whatever) donate machines/bandwidth for hosting sites? And if Groklaw is so bad why did SCO source some of their documents from there for their own site?
Once again another pro-SCO FUD article by SYS-CON/LINUXWORLD & MOG
You really nailed the story there Maureen. Every other new organization reported SCO's quarterly loss. Hmm... You're the only one that didn't. In fact, you're the only one to report something in SCO's favor. I wonder if it's because the claims made have yet to be verified.
Journalism? Nah, she cannot be bothered with that. It takes time and energy, and she apparently has neither.
You are still the bitter stupid person I have always known.
Touching, really.
Are you joking? You must be because Mo's reputation in the IT industry is that of a pitifully uninformed SCO shill!
Maureen has zero credibility because of repeated stupid statments and predictions that have NEVER born the fruit of truth.
Who cares who PJ is other than a gossip column witch with faltering readership numbers.
Hey Maureen, next time you talk to SCO, ask them why they just don't file a Restraint of Trade action againt Groglaw and PJ. They could claim to have thousands of damaging facts that they will reveal when they get to court.
Have a nice day Moo
So, who is PJ? We all know who Maureen, Darl, Stowell on and on is. Who is PJ? Is this Linux community content to have a mouthpiece by someone who is the unknown? Does that not concern you at all? Strange!!!
Whatever you want to say about PJ, she didn't insinuate you are a serial killer, and she admonished people from name calling in the comments.
The question I have for you, is when this SCO thing is over, what will you do for a job? you won't be welcomed or believed by anyone in the OSS camp ever again, so what are you going to do? I spose you could get a job shilling for MS, but what's that going to add to your resume?
Thank god I've got all the ads from this site blocked, I'd hate to be earning lbw money for this drivel. I could have heard exactly the same stuff from Darls little conference call. If you are a "Journalist" Ms. O'Gara, why is it you have not actually tried to find the truth in the SCO/IBM case yourself? why haven't you asked Darl and co why they were reprimanded by Judge Kimball for not producing any credible evidence of IBM infringement despite 2 years and some court orders telling them they had to.
If YOU are a journalist Ms. O'Gara, then PJ is too, because unlike you, she posts the legal docs from both sides. (as evidenced by the fact that SCO themselves have filched PDF's from groklaw themselves.) You've done nothing but follow SCO's press line from the word go and still claim your a journalist of some sort?
rgds
Frank
I have no financial stake, if that's what you mean. side from that, the person making the argument isn't the issue unless the intent is to launch an ad hominem attack.
Yes, I know Groklaw is hosted by Ibiblio. But Ibibilio is funded by Center for the Public Domain, which has 2 Redhat alums on its 3 member board: RH cofounders Bob Young Marc Ewing. Young was Redhat chairman and CEO when he founded CPD in 1999.
Or as described here : "Center for the Public Domain, an initiative set up by Bob Young of RedHat, is a philanthropic foundation based in Durham, North Carolina. "
...
"The Center will consider grant applications from all tax-exempt, charitable organizations whose projects fall within the funding guidelines. Please note that the Center does not give grants to individuals, nor can it support lobbying activities. The Center will not fund the purchase of equipment or overhead expenses. "
Sounds like a non-profit to me, yet they're providing a valuable service to Groklaw which advocates against a commercial interest involved in a lawsuit? I'm no lawyer, but that just doesn't seem like a very kosher use of non-profit funding.
It could even endanger CPD's tax exempt status, UNLESS Groklaw is paying for its own hosting. But that's not the case, according to none other than Pamela Jones who said, "Why, then, does SCO say that IBM sponsors Groklaw? They make the claim based on the fact that they say IBM gave some computer equipment to Ibiblio once upon a time. And Ibiblio hosts Groklaw for free."
"...for free."
Maureen ought to look into the free hosting of Groklaw by a tax exempt entity. The end results could prove interesting.
Links:
http://www.centerpd.org/bod.htm
http://www.intercommons.com/org/co-commons.html
http://www.centerpd.org/guidelines.htm
http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/33059.html
Peter R is MathFox, Groklaw's super webmaster. Stop trying to insinuate PJ is MathFox. -------------------
A: See my earlier post regarding Ibiblio and its connections to Redhat.
B: I'm not saying Roozemaal and PJ are the same person. I was commenting on the non-coincidence that She worked for OSRRM while running Groklaw, and now he works for OSRM while doing web admin for Groklaw.
He's OSRM Director of Technology Research (DTR), not their "Director of Litigation Risk Research" (DLRR). My mistake for characterizing him as their DLRR, but if you read that sentence I was talking about "possible conflict of interest," not insinuating they were the same person.
So you're stretching there with the Red Hat connection. And you're losing sight of the most important thing-- SCO is losing their case and all their claims have yet to be proven.
Oh and Maureen O'Gara is biased.
As for journalism, I would suggest that PJ is as much a journalist as the yellow-sheet writer here. A bit of the pot calling the kettle black, I would say.
If Trollsoft is a tax exempt foundation like CPD, or if it directly or indirectly supports a site like Groklaw, then we may have something to talk about. Otherwise, so what?
"So you're stretching there with the Red Hat connection. "
So you realize that there IS a Redhat connection, and we merely differ on the extent? Well, that's progress.
"And you're losing sight of the most important thing-- SCO is losing their case and all their claims have yet to be proven."
Not that I care. For me this case is mainly about the risks companies face when they decide to use open source. Those concerns won't go away even if SCO loses.
Your insinuations about Ibiblio's support for Groklaw are indeed humorous - do you write for Maureen?
If yo look at the facts (and FAQs) at Ibiblio, you will note a few things:
(1) Ibiblio is supported not only by Center for the Public Domain, but also by UNC Chapel Hill. As a joint effort, a project can have different goals than either of the participants individually. Thus, your innuendo about CPD threatening its non-profit status is not only inappropriate, it is incorrect.
(2) "... they're [in contect - CPD] providing a valuable service to Groklaw...". No, Ibiblio is providing hosting, not CPD. They are separate entities, just as SCO and Canopy were separate entities (now even more separate).
(3) one of the project's stated purposes is to "[h]ost and foster projects that expand the concepts of transparency and openness into new areas". This is at the very least arguably what Groklaw is about - expanding openness into the Legal forum. Hosting Groklaw would seem to foster Ibiblio's stated purposes.
Personally, I see no problems here, when the true facts (and not innuendo) are considered
See http://www.ibiblio.org/about.html for more information about Ibiblio's purposes.
You're like the last supporter of horse vs. automobile. You're unable to recognize the future, and you fear change so you attempt to spread fear and doubt.
I'm a long time Windows supporter and I will continue to use Windows for the foreseeable future, but I also recognize that change is coming. I thank SCO for opening my eyes. I never recognized Linux prior to this case but with all the attention I can't help but notice. The future is coming. Try as you might to change it, the momentum is already there.
By the way, anyone notice certain arguments made here sound as if it were coming from someone with a legal background? Someone that is perhaps also connected with SCO? How nice.
I look forward to your next biased article.
Ad hominems aside, Ibiblio's support for Groklaw is a hard fact. They host the site.
"(1) Ibiblio is supported not only by Center for the Public Domain, but also by UNC Chapel Hill. As a joint effort, a project can have different goals than either of the participants individually. Thus, your innuendo about CPD threatening its non-profit status is not only inappropriate, it is incorrect."
Nice theory, but rules for non-profits prevent them from acting like two roommates putting their clothes in the same washing machine. And even if that didn't matter, UNC is also a non-profit.
Glad you asked though. Here are some more facts to consider, starting in 1999. See if you can connect the dots:
"Red Hat cofounder Marc Ewing will be director of the new
nonprofit organization, called the Red Hat Center for Open Source (RHCOS),
the company said. "
...
"Red Hat and its three largest shareholders--Ewing, chief
executive Bob Young, and investor Frank Batten--together donated $8
million to the foundation, Ewing said. "
...
"While the center might sound like a philanthropic idea, Red Hat also has its own interests at heart. "
-------------
FAST FORWARD TO 2001:
Center for the Public Domain Press Release -- Feb. 9, 2001
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA -- "The Center for the Public Domain
(formerly Red Hat Center) today announced ..."
"2) "... they're [in contect - CPD] providing a valuable service to Groklaw...". No, Ibiblio is providing hosting, not CPD. "
They provide funding, without which they wouldn't have any hosting. Follow the money trail, from Redhat - CPD - Ibiblio - Groklaw.
"3. one of the project's stated purposes is to "[h]ost and foster projects that expand the concepts of transparency and openness into new areas". This is at the very least arguably what Groklaw is about - expanding openness into the Legal forum. Hosting Groklaw would seem to foster Ibiblio's stated purposes."
Discussing an issue is openness. Issue advocacy is not. One quote will suffice to establish that Groklaw doesn't quibble about their involvement as an advocate for open source and an opponent of SCO.
Groklaw is "an independent journalistic voice, telling the story from the point of view of the FOSS community, who are, after all, while not a direct party to this lawsuit, directly interested in and affected by its outcome, since it is their code and their community that is under attack. For that reason, we believe it is both natural and appropriate that we try to contribute positively to that outcome."
That's fine as far as free speech goes, but not so when it comes to accepting tax free donations, in this case web hosting that has a cash value. CPD/UNC should require Groklaw to reimburse Ibiblio for the value of the web hosting and start charging, otherwise they should tell Ibiblio to stop hosting the site.
"Personally, I see no problems here, when the true facts (and not innuendo) are considered"
Those are true facts I've stated. Speculation on the future outcome is perfectly valid; everyone here does it. The only innuendo here is in comments such as, "do you write for Maureen?".
Links:
http://news.com.com/Red+Hat+funds+open-source+think+tank/2100-1001_3-232246.html
http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/www.eff.org/EFF/Historical/20010209_cpd_grants_pr.html
http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=20040923045054130
Red Hat is behind IBM's website, and Novell's website, and Daimler Chrysler's website, and AutoZone's website, and behind the Salt Lake Tribune's website, and the Yahoo Finance Message board for SCOXE, and the lamlaw website, and tuxrocks website, and scosucks website, and the opensource.org OSI Position paper SCO vs IBM complaint website, and they were involved in the faked moon landing.
http://www.corante.com/mooreslore/archives/2005/02/22/the_jonesogara_feud.php
You should report your theories on what is a permissible activity for a non-profit to the IRS. I'm sure they would be fascinated.
.._alledged_ suicide, and, _at_least_ two people.
"Suicide" "also" "happens" when murder
scenes are rigged successfully _enough_.
..and, lets face it, PJ or Mustard, now, would be the _classic_ too
little too late. ;o)
How many people watches this? 8000? 300,000? 5 mill? ;o)
..oh, that reminds me; Hi Maureen, how about some discovery in support of your motion to intervene? ;o)
ALL M.O.G. has to do is tell the truth.
I'm not holding my breath waiting for either.
AND I'M NOT COMING BACK TO linuxbusinessweek.com or linuxworld.com EITHER.
Why would Darl question a website hosted by a 26 USC
501(3) tax exempt foundation? Just because it sponsors
someone who wants to wipe out his company? Hmmm...
It just happened to be April 15th when Darl complained.
Isn't that when the tax man cometh and taketh away?
I wonder if he wants to see a certain foundation's Form
PF-990 which is a matter of public record?
Probably just curious about those PayPal public
contributions being solicted over at Groklaw with tax
exempt internet hosting. I don't think he'll get
anywhere. PJ will simply tell the IRS that it's none of
their business and refuse to divulge any information.
Second thought... I am told the IRS can be *very* firm
about these matters... whether you are 'shy' or not.
Maybe those PayPal contributions will be put to good
use. Good tax lawyers are very expensive.
Or failing that can we here more of your fascinating dissertation about the GPL? I know it's a rerun but it was a particularly funny episode.
MOG feeding off of Darl's words about tracking down criminals and serial killers merely confirms she and he both nearing an O.J. Simpson sense of classy behavior. Apologies to O.J. who may still be far ahead. It's probably some lame PR philosophy at work here that any buzz about the company being better than no buzz.
That makes me think it's time to lighten up folks. Think of the PR value here. PJ and Groklaw get renewed attention as SCO accelerates through the cycling phase descending into the porceline bowl -- NASDAQ delisting, Canopy's power struggle and tragedies, Yarrow's folly, BayStar class A stock meltdown, and SEC/auditor required restatements aren't the sort of thing Darl probably can face without slamming at other faces, however faceless they may be.
Here's a poser for you Maureen. Holding a public company accountable might be an interesting angle for a journalist to consider trying, especially regarding SCO and Darl McBride. I sorely doubt we'll see objectivity like this happen.
As long as SCO has 'journalists' like MOG backing them, the Linux world can rest easy. It's not easy to get this sort of self-discrediting tacky bad taste and factless presentation for free. I'm sure Darl had to paid for this sort of lip service. Whatever it takes to at least keeps SCO in the soap opera level of awareness. The sad part is MOG continuing to try and scratch out her place in this rapdily shrinking soap opera of a story.
What will MOG do after the SCO legal gambits implode and the myriad charges against SCO go to jury trial? It might be fun to have a very imaginative contest which specifies sort of penance would be acceptable! (Told you it would take imagination!)
Unix Seller SCO First-Quarter Loss Grows
Associated Press (Wed, Apr 13)
Market Pulse: SCO Group narrows quarterly loss
MarketWatch (Wed, Apr 13)
SCO GROUP INC Files SEC form 8-K, Financial Statements and Exhibits
EDGAR Online (Wed, Apr 13)
** MOG: News in Brief: SCO Finally Files Delayed 10-K, 10-Q To Follow
April 13
** Apr 8 2005
** MOG: Is Canopy Imploding and Liquidating Its Portfolio?
** Apr 8 2005
** MOG: Red Hat Numbers Solid, Stock Price in the Pits
** Apr 1 2005
The SCO Group, Inc. Completes Restatement of Financial Statements and
Files Form 10-K
PR Newswire (Fri, Apr 1)
** MOG: SCO May Shake Its Scarlet Letter Soon; Starting By Filing
Belated 10K
** Apr 1 2005
** MOG: Well, Somebody Out There Likes SCO
** Mar 28 2005
** MOG: SCO Finally Takes Groklaw-Like Stand
** Mar 25 2005
** MOG: SCO vs IBM: IBM Gets 45-Day Grace Period To Turn Over SCO
Discovery
** Mar 25 2005
The SCO Group, Inc. Receives Notice From Nasdaq Regarding Its
Delinquent First Quarter Form 10-Q
PR Newswire (Tue, Mar 22)
SCO GROUP INC Files SEC form 8-K, Notice of Delisting or Transfer,
Financial Statements and Exhibits
EDGAR Online (Tue, Mar 22)
Maureen sure does write a lot of articles about SCO. Notice the spin.
** MOG: SCO Claims Groklaw's Pamela Jones Is "Not Who She Says
She Is"
** Apr 15 2005
Unix Seller SCO First-Quarter Loss Grows
Associated Press (Wed, Apr 13)
Market Pulse: SCO Group narrows quarterly loss
MarketWatch (Wed, Apr 13)
SCO GROUP INC Files SEC form 8-K, Financial Statements and Exhibits
EDGAR Online (Wed, Apr 13)
** MOG: News in Brief: SCO Finally Files Delayed 10-K, 10-Q To Follow
April 13
** Apr 8 2005
** MOG: Is Canopy Imploding and Liquidating Its Portfolio?
** Apr 8 2005
** MOG: Red Hat Numbers Solid, Stock Price in the Pits
** Apr 1 2005
The SCO Group, Inc. Completes Restatement of Financial Statements and
Files Form 10-K
PR Newswire (Fri, Apr 1)
** MOG: SCO May Shake Its Scarlet Letter Soon; Starting By Filing
Belated 10K
** Apr 1 2005
** MOG: Well, Somebody Out There Likes SCO
** Mar 28 2005
** MOG: SCO Finally Takes Groklaw-Like Stand
** Mar 25 2005
** MOG: SCO vs IBM: IBM Gets 45-Day Grace Period To Turn Over SCO
Discovery
** Mar 25 2005
The SCO Group, Inc. Receives Notice From Nasdaq Regarding Its
Delinquent First Quarter Form 10-Q
PR Newswire (Tue, Mar 22)
SCO GROUP INC Files SEC form 8-K, Notice of Delisting or Transfer,
Financial Statements and Exhibits
EDGAR Online (Tue, Mar 22)
** MOG: Opinion: Might Sun Buy SCO?
** Mar 21 2005
SCO Recognized for Five-Star Channel Program
PR Newswire (Mon, Mar 21)
** MOG: SCO vs IBM: Court To Hear Motion To Intervene & Fabled
Third Amended Complaint Arguments
** Mar 19 2005
** MOG: Yarro Gets Canopy's Shares in SCO
** Mar 18 2005
** MOG: SCO Appears at Nasdaq Hearing
** Mar 18 2005
** MOG: IBM Asks for More Time To Turn Over SCO Discovery
** Mar 18 2005
SCO Issues Statement Regarding Canopy Settlement
PR Newswire (Fri, Mar 11)
** MOG: Canopy Fight Resolved; SCO Suit Saved from Potential Dumpster
** Mar 11 2005
SCO Stumbles--Again
at Forbes.com (Mon, Mar 7)
** MOG: SCO To Restate Three Quarters; Expected to Lose $2 Million a
Quarter This Year
** Mar 6 2005
** MOG: SCO Wants Court To Block Any IBM Escape Hatches From
Discovery Order
** Mar 6 2005
The SCO Group, Inc. Announces Restatement of Financial Statements to
Correct Certain Accounting Errors
PR Newswire (Thu, Mar 3)
** MOG: SCO vs IBM: See, You Do Have To Be Careful What You Ask For
** Feb 25 2005
** MOG: SCO vs IBM: The Legal Mind at Work
** Feb 21 2005
** MOG: IBM Agrees To Turn Over To SCO Upwards of 2 Billion Lines of
Code
** Feb 20 2005
** MOG: Breaking News: SCO Gets Notice From Nasdaq, Company Risks
Being Delisted
** Feb 18 2005
Nasdaq Warns SCO of Delisting
at TheStreet.com (Thu, Feb 17)
Since the very beginning, PJ has been consistent about her background. Nom de plume or not, groklaw's content stands on it's own merit.
And unless you happen to have been on Mars the last 20 years, or even did a bit of self-searching, you would know that objectivity is no longer a requirement for journalism. Did you ever hear about WSJ, NYTimes, Fox News, Washington post, New York post, or Linux Business World? Those are publications supposedly populated with journalists, but you will be hard pressed to find objective coverage of any news event. Only the Reuters and AP newswires are objective these days, and often even the wires present slanted news (Ref. rarely Reuters reporting on SCO).
Its' been a long time since journalism was supposed to be objective. Objectivity is on of those virtues that people demand from others, but lack themselves, and Maureen O'Gara is clearly one who is suffering from this.
Three words for you MOG: Must - Do - Introspection
Amusing. Have you ever read "The Emperor Who Had No Clothes?"
Seriously, your bias is obvious as it is misinformed. Sure, SCO has a "problem" with Groklaw. Groklaw has done well in unmasking SCO's spin and bluster. Groklaw has allowed no one to really be afraid of them -- and they have used SCO's own words and dealings to do so.
Tell me, Maureen, I would really be interested in knowing how often you have posted complete court filings to allow people to form their own opinions? How many times have you tried to turn loss into victory?
When was the last time you, Didio and Stowell met to discuss strategy? Do you report to an office somewhere in Redmond Washington?
And what will you do for a living when all of this is over and your credibility is totally destroyed once and for all in public?
Not that many take you seriously now, other than for amusement purposes. I honestly think that fellows like George Carlin and Robin Williams do a better job of reporting "news" -- at least the world as they see it is presented as purposefully funny, whereas you are accidentally humorous. I realize it must gall you to read that, but, facts are facts, and even you as a journalist should bear them being repeated.
Honey, you must be cold. Put some clothes. You're naked.
"The Groklaw masthead has changed over time from identifying PJ as a "paralegal" to a "journalist with a paralegal background." Well, nobody whatever their political stripe would mistake Groklaw for journalism. By definition, journalism is nominally "objective," even as practiced by Dan Rather. There is nothing objective about what Groklaw says or the reaction it gets. Opinion maybe, but not journalism."
from someone as obviously on the take as Ms. O'Gara.
While I'm not one to ignore a dissenting opinion, these stories have become the worst sort of tripe.
PJ should be held to a high standard because high is where I think we should sll place our standards.
Ms O'Gara should be proud of having done such a discredit to such a disservice. The truth is not intended to be mangled by those who wear a cap.
Infinity is just one step removed from the hyperfocal distance for a given aperture. If we close it down by just one stop, only half the light will flood into the dingy corners.
Folow me, said the harlequin as he picked up his toad and licked it.
You are in dire need of a Civics lesson.
That's the problem with kids today. They have no idea about how things
work.
Groklaw is a blog, under editorial control of an owner.
Free speech is not thwarted by the owner of the site selecting what can
be said on the site. NY Times don't post every reader's letter, do they?
Are they fascist too?
If you want to avoid censorship, go to slashdot. But be a man about it, and read posts at level 0. The "moderation" they are doing, which delegates trolls and those obsessed with feces and goat sex to level 0, is a form for censorship as well. However, you will find that most sites except from slashdot, will exercise their editorial powers.
I've seen some of these grokwars, and found that it is very immature and overly idealistic people who react so violently to editorial control. Pamela Jones never advertised groklaw as a bastion against censorship. Hating groklaw is immature. If you want unlimited free speech, bring yer own soapbox, or play by the rules, and maybe someone else will lend you their soapbox.
- 26 USC 501(3) tax exempt foundation
- a certain foundation's Form PF-990 which is a matter of public record?
Attn PJ:
Good tax lawyers are very expensive.
------------------------------
Daniel Wallace commented on 17 April 2005:
"We also have a major web site that's out there that's
stated their core reason for being is to try to destroy
SCO and try and put a big damper on what our claims are
in the marketplace, so we have a lot of misinformation
flying around out there on this web site," he said. ---
Darl McBride
Why would Darl question a website hosted by a 26 USC
501(3) tax exempt foundation? Just because it sponsors
someone who wants to wipe out his company? Hmmm...
It just happened to be April 15th when Darl complained.
Isn't that when the tax man cometh and taketh away?
I wonder if he wants to see a certain foundation's Form
PF-990 which is a matter of public record?
Probably just curious about those PayPal public
contributions being solicited over at Groklaw with tax
exempt internet hosting. I don't think he'll get
anywhere. PJ will simply tell the IRS that it's none of
their business and refuse to divulge any information.
Second thought... I am told the IRS can be *very* firm
about these matters... whether you are 'shy' or not.
Maybe those PayPal contributions will be put to good
use. Good tax lawyers are very expensive.
------------------------------
http://www.corante.com/mooreslore/archives/2005/04/18/blogger_of_the_year.php