Groklaw: How One Person Can Do Big Deeds. Thanks PJ.

What jdixon said, though her position on First Amendment rights is not license to fill other people's sites with rubbish comments. She spells it out here: http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/Blogs/ROSE-Blog-Rikki-s... If she did treat some commenters unfairly, I have to admit I mostly don't care, given the immense value of the work on Groklaw. So yeah I'm biased.

bigg, if all comments were on-topic and tried to present coherent opinions and arguments with factual bases, then I would be leaning towards agreeing with you. But the reality is a lot of comments are pointless rubbish, hostile, or trollish, and I can't think of single reason to tolerate them. I don't let people talk that way to me in person, why would I put up with it online?

Going back to the comment that started it all:

Quoting:TIRELESS crusade to make sure all the facts WITHOUT CENSORSHIP are displayed on the case.

Like PJ hasn't done that with every single (unsealed) filing and every transcript in every SCO case? As this latest ruling shows, public statements don't matter to the outcome of a lawsuit. The facts that come out in the courtroom are what counts. Strike 1.

Judging from the massive self-contradictions from SCO that PJ has pointed out, time and again, from court evidence and SCO publicity, it seems SCO can never make up their mind. Ball 1.

I have been censored by PJ, so it isn't only the trolls that get to meet Mr. Delete Button. Fanbois and fangurls can get it, too. Strike 2.

Posters own the comments, but PJ owns the space. Strike 3, you're out, devnet.

Rid...,

If you can say this:

Quoting: [...] we need curmudgeons like me as well as level heads like you [meaning dinotrak] ...

I can use the mindless word sequence seen all too often on slashdot, i.e You Are New Here. Do some searches of the older threads and you can only conclude that your name does not belong in the curmudgeon class even by LXer standards. Even at a novice level, if you were admitted, dino would rank so high above you his visage would lost in the lofty mists ranking him among the gods*. So go back to where you anger will suffice to produce illogical tirades, even then you might not reach the level necessary to allow to you join.

YBT

* Obvious on a LXer standard of measurement. We are all failures when measured against Fox News.

gus,

I am not a sports fan, however, whenever devnet comes up to bat I am putting you behind home plate.

YBT

@gus3

well, the mission statement said comments were the property of their owners. To me, that means you shouldn't be able to alter them or remove them without explanation. Especially where 'open source principles' were applied.

I guess it happens all the time...large chunks of information in projects where open source principles are employed just disappear and everyone is ok with it...wait what?

I'm not embarrassed either...nor should I be.

Quoting:Well, yes. But then, there is no presumption of free speech on private property

Yes, but you don't tell everyone that they own chunks of said private property (comments) and then revoke that right after they've come onto your private property and shouted something you don't like (opposing opinions).

You have the RIGHT to do that...but employing open source principles means that you SHOULDN'T do that IMHO. If FOSS projects did that they wouldn't have anyone contributing. PJ is lucky she silenced everyone quickly when it happened and no one paid any attention to them afterwards...probably because they were so happy with what she was doing...it's easy to ignore the small things right?

@TxtedMacs and @gus3

You'd strike out too...Godwins law means that someone mentions Hitler or Nazi's...I did neither. I guess you're trying to lump in my George Orwell slant with it?

IMHO since it's PJ's site, she can edit and manage content as she sees fit. If she chooses to keep cranks and trolls from adding noise, strife and confusion to the discussions, more power to her. Could it be that some posts which were not approved, maybe should have been? Could be. Nobody's perfect.

But remember, you can always go start an anti-PJ site, if that's what floats your boat!

Quoting:IMHO since it's PJ's site, she can edit and manage content as she sees fit. If she chooses to keep cranks and trolls from adding noise, strife and confusion to the discussions, more power to her.

That's precisely my view. When I expressed that view in my blog (that I have editorial control) all hell broke loose, if you remember.

http://ever-increasing-entropy.blogspot.com/2009/11/strange-... http://ever-increasing-entropy.blogspot.com/2009/12/legitima...

> ...but you don't tell everyone that they own chunks of said private property (comments) and then revoke that right after they've come onto your private property and shouted something you don't like (opposing opinions).

Devnet, PJ's says they own their own comments. She doesn't say she'll publish those comments for them. There's quite a bit of difference there.

What she's saying is that she doesn't claim ownership or copyright over the comments (save for the implied right to publish them on her site, granted by submitting them to same). Now, if she were publishing those comments in book form and profiting from them, you'd have a valid point. But she's not doing that. She's merely rejecting comments she doesn't find appropriate.

I'm not arguing that she doesn't have the RIGHT to remove them and to make her blog a police state.

I argue that she says 'open source principles apply' and then ignores this in her own mission statement by making sure opposing comments aren't published and ideas that disagree with her own never see the light of day.

Disagree with me all you want...the bottom line is that anywhere where they only point of view that counts is a single point of view is a bad place to be and definitely not how open source projects operate where so many points of view contribute toward a single goal.

What I despise most is that people try to remove the guilt from her for this by touting how much she's done in pursuit of SCO. What's a few civilian casualties in a war of this magnitude right? For some of us, ANY casualties are too many. For others, I guess you have the ability to overlook shortcomings with your rose colored glasses.

Everyone,

Now we know the real reason* devnet's undies are tied in several painful knots:

Quoting:Groklaw has been selected by the Library of Congress for inclusion in its web archival project, in the category of Legal Blawgs.

The Pain and Injustice ... PJ is asking those owners of their comments to give their premission or not to having their contributions included. See for yourselves: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100406141939511

Be warned, I will ignore all attempts to disprove these assertions, because facts carry no weight, people who might validate devnet's character are to be ignored**.

As always,

YBT

* He/She/It must have had inside information that this was about to happen. We all know that whatever devnet might be, it is well connected. We have been spun again using spurious appeals based upon inherent human rights and the evils censorship. But behind it all was mundane self interest.

** This passes my tickle test, I accept no other criteria. Time to Lock & Load against all dissenters.

@TxtEdMac

If Dino is now ranked as a god, then god save us all or should that be Dino :)

I wouldnt trust Fox News to do my horoscope let alone pray to them.

> ...by making sure opposing comments aren't published and ideas that disagree with her own never see the light of day.

And how is she doing that? She's not allowing them on her site. Nothing prevents the authors from publishing them elsewhere.

Simply put, you're overstating the case. Calling PJ dishonest is enough, and you may even have a valid point in that regard. It's not like anyone (except for Dino, of course) is perfect.

"Open Source principles apply."

Which means, I may reject your input, but I can't prevent you from publishing your own patchset for my source code. And all authors retain copyright, unless specifically transferred to another party.

Change "patchset for my source code" to "opinion on this topic", and the philosophy is pretty much the same.

jdixon -

Sorry to disillusion you, but I am not perfect.

The phrase "I'm only human" encapsulates the fact that to be human is to be fallible. A human being is, by definition, flawed. As a mere human, perfection is my flaw.

Dino, you are the best straight man ever. Do you have any idea how tempting it is to write "Of course Dino is perfect! A perfect [fill in the blank.]

But as I am classy and brimming over with graciousness, I shan't.

Oh, and let me express my admiration for your courage in admitting your flaw. Brings a tear to me eye, it does.

tc -

I'm touched.

I'll stop there.

Just what I was thinking!

;)

> As a mere human, perfection is my flaw.

We'll forgive you such a minor flaw, Dino. :)