Another stupid SCO move
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| beirwin Feb 14, 2007 7:08 PM EDT |
Just as I figured we'd heard the last of SCO (yeah, yeah, I was wishfully thinking), they've now decided to go after PJ. If they do successfully serve her with a deposition (this may be difficult if they don't know where she lives!), this will surely blow up in their face. |
| swbrown Feb 14, 2007 8:25 PM EDT |
Given the tight crowd of really horrible people that follow Microsoft's lead in relation to the SCO lawsuit and the Novell deal, and that they've been trying to harass her for a long time, including Maureen O'Gara physically stalking / threatening her, I'd be more worried about 'blow up in /her/ face'. These people are the scum of the earth and I'd not put it past them or their minions to do things like burn her house down or mail a bomb. |
| Sander_Marechal Feb 15, 2007 3:07 AM EDT |
> including Maureen O'Gara physically stalking / threatening her IIRC MoG got the wrong woman. No-one ever got close to the real PJ. And without a signed court order asking Ibiblio for their IP logs I don't think anyone will ever get close to her. That's assuming PJ hasn't taken some other precaution such as using Tor to access Groklaw for the past 180 days. |
| jdixon Feb 15, 2007 5:48 AM EDT |
Well, SCO and O'Gara can't believe that anyone could actually oppose them out of moral conviction. Since they only care about money, they think that's all anyone else cares about. Consequently, they think IBM must be backing PJ. This is as much an act of spite as anything else. They just KNOW that the IBM link MUST exist, and if they can show it, they hope to destroy PJ's credibility. I think they're delusional. If there is any IBM link, I guarantee it's hidden well enough that SCO will never find it, and I don't really think there is. IBM just isn't that stupid. |
| number6x Feb 15, 2007 6:06 AM EDT |
If you've followed the SCO/Caldera cases, you would know that Dan Lyons has long been one of the so-called 'journalists' that has pretty much been in SCo/Caldera's pocket throughout this whole affair. I Think Bob Mimms and Steven J. Vaughn Nichols have been pretty fair and even handed in their reprting. Lyons and Forbes are pretty much a spokes-rag for corporate shills. Lyons isn't as bad as O'Gara, Enderle, or the Alexis de Toquville Institute, but his bias is perfectly clear. Its too bad these SCO Group guys had to drag the SCO name through the mud. The ex-SCO people at Tarentella (now owned by Sun) must cringe every time they hear their old name used in the press. I think Lyons shows his bias more by what he leaves out. He leaves out the facts that Pamela Jones has been stalked, has been investigated by SCO's private investigators (and we know from the HP case how those guys operate), and has even had her elderly mother harrased by investigators. He notes many details about SCO's accusations against IBM, but leaves out the fact that after 4 years and several Court Order's to produce evidence, that The SCO Group has not complied. The Judge noted an almost complete lack of evidence, and has even asked them "Is this all you've got?" Reading Lyon's article make PJ sound like some kind of lone gunmen getting involved where she shouldn't. It does not give the impression that the SCO Group's lawsuit is just a shakedown with no merit. |
| DarrenR114 Feb 15, 2007 7:42 AM EDT |
PJ's credibility absolutely would be destroyed if a fiduciary link to IBM were established. She has continually denied the existence of such a relationship, and to prove otherwise would raise the question "What else has she lied about? Did she really quit the OSDL because of integrity? How can we trust anything she has opined about?" As we have seen with groups like Microsoft, it is easy present hard facts in a slanted way to get them to seemingly support any given conclusion. So if she were to prove herself to be a liar, regardless of how many public documents she uses to base her editorials on, Groklaw would be finished in its usefulness. What impact this would have in court is dubious at best, but in the court of public opinion, it would fuel the fires of FUD for a long time. It would have much the same impact on FOSS "leadership" as the Nixon Scandal has had on the US Presidency (e.g. "Can we really *trust* this person?") |
| jdixon Feb 15, 2007 8:20 AM EDT |
> you would know that Dan Lyons has long been one of the so-called 'journalists' that has pretty much been in SCo/Caldera's pocket throughout this whole affair. Oh yeah. Lyons' reputation is pretty much shot among the folks here. He bought the SCO story hook, line, and sinker. |
| Abe Feb 15, 2007 9:28 AM EDT |
Quoting:How can we trust anything she has opined about?"Darren Come on now, even if PJ was fictitious person or real and associated with IBM, nothing will change. All she said was backed up by legal documents and many times with exact photo copy/pdf files. Besides, many of the articles and comments on Groklaw were NOT written by PJ; Are you saying all of these people are discredited too? I don't think you can say she lied or fabricated any thing to discredit her. What do we have here, FOSS supporters helping SCO like they are helping Novel in their agreement with MS?!!! It seems to me true colours are starting to show. |
| Koriel Feb 15, 2007 9:37 AM EDT |
I couldn't care less if Pamela was taking kickbacks from Satan, as long as she backs up her cases/suppositions with legal documents and factual evidence then it really doesn't matter to me. Hard facts are what this case is about and unfortunately for SCO none of the facts are coming down on their side so they decide to try and muddy the waters by going after people instead of the truth, I surely hope this will backfire on them. |
| number6x Feb 15, 2007 9:53 AM EDT |
It is true that being caught in a lie can affect your credibility. Look at the SCO GROUP, They have been caught in countless lies for the past 4 years. Only Dan Lyons of Forbe's, Maureen O'Gara, Rob Enderle, and that guy who wrote Samizdat still believe in SCO. They lawyers don't have to believe, they just have to ask, "are you telling the truth?" and then cash their checks. :) |
| DarrenR114 Feb 15, 2007 10:07 AM EDT |
abe, I'm not saying that anyone lied on Groklaw. What I'm saying is that if PJ were caught in a lie, due to the way she's emphasized the importance of personal integrity, it would irreparably damage the usefulness of Groklaw. It doesn't matter how many public documents she makes available on Groklaw - the editorials surrounding them would all be suspect. And yes, I mean *all* of them. There would be no way of knowing which were just PJ's sockpuppets. Look at what happened to LinuxToday.com, with the editorial scandal that occurred. Nowadays, *years* later, there are talkbacks posted on only a fraction of the articles presented. Even the reads normally stay less than 1000 (much less). This is why the actual identity of PJ and her background information *is* important. |
| dthacker Feb 15, 2007 10:27 AM EDT |
Actually, SCO is right. I am Spartacus....err, Pamela Jones. |
| Abe Feb 15, 2007 12:40 PM EDT |
Quoting:What else has she lied about?That is insinuation about her/him (whatever) lying. May be we should wait and see what the truth is before we jump the gun and accuse some one. Quoting:It doesn't matter how many public documents she makes available on Groklaw - the editorials surrounding them would all be suspect. And yes, I mean *all* of them. There would be no way of knowing which were just PJ's sockpuppets. Yes it does make a difference, they weren't just public documents, they were legal documents, and their editorials were dealing with facts from various sources that were referenced and cited. So far Gorklaw has credibility with many many people. SCO doesn't have any credibility or people believing them. And those who believed them or given them credibility are well known to be lackeys of SCO & MS. May be we should wait and see who is lying first. Let's be fair, even those who suspect Gorklaw would would give them the benefit of the doubt. |
| DarrenR114 Feb 15, 2007 12:56 PM EDT |
abe, I'm not sure, but I think you missed the word 'if' in my posts - *IF* she's proved lying. As for the content of groklaw, it may be a lot of "legal" documents, but most people follow groklaw for the commentary that surrounds them. This is why I mentioned the ease with which hard facts may be skewed in the presentation by organizations like Microsoft (e.g. the "Get the facts" campaign). I'm not sure I'd believe Steve Ballmer if he told me the sky is blue. I won't even get into the lack of oversight on the expenditure of public funds on Groklaw.net. |
| Abe Feb 15, 2007 1:05 PM EDT |
http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/interviews/5176/1/ I am not sure if this is a proof of PJ being a real person or not, but sure is an indication that she is real. And, according to eWEEK.com Senior Editor Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols; was he lying too when he said Quoting:Oh, and by the way, Pamela Jones really does exist. I've met herIn this article http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1814683,00.asp |
| jdixon Feb 15, 2007 1:07 PM EDT |
> I'm not sure I'd believe Steve Ballmer if he told me the sky is blue. The question with Microsoft isn't whether they're telling the truth or not, it's what do they have to gain from what they're telling you. If Ballmer tells you the sky is blue, you can be certain he thinks they've gotten a patent on the color blue and will try to charge you for looking at it. |
| Abe Feb 15, 2007 1:09 PM EDT |
A more recent article by SJVN about PJ's existence. http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS7673520174.html |
| tuxchick Feb 15, 2007 1:26 PM EDT |
It will be news when SCO doesn't do something stupid. |
| swbrown Feb 15, 2007 4:55 PM EDT |
> I'm not saying that anyone lied on Groklaw. What I'm saying is that if PJ were caught in a lie, due to the way she's emphasized the importance of personal integrity, it would irreparably damage the usefulness of Groklaw. I totally disagree. You can read Groklaw with blinders on to her comments and just use it to highlight the important clips from court documents she digs up, and fact aggregation of the tiniest details and forgotten pieces of history that any of us would likely have never found. She could be IBM's CEO in actuality, Darl's split personality, or zombie Hitler, and it'd still not make any of the above less useful. Although having to wade through pages of "brains.. mmm.. brains.." to find it might get annoying. |
| Abe Feb 15, 2007 7:06 PM EDT |
Quoting:'m not sure, but I think you missed the word 'if' in my posts - *IF* she's proved lying.You are right, I did miss the "IF", for that I apologize. I was in the middle of doing something when I read your post. At least you assumed it could be true and to have the slightest thought that it could be true is inconceivable. Like many people, I am sure you read Gorklaw, PJ and the posters are very credible and intellectual people. They have proven that they are some of the best, if not the best of people with editorial integrity. There are many article on the Internet about the community that are total lies and fabricated stories. I guess my point is, when something is published, we have to consider the source and who is publishing it before we jump and add to the flames they like to create. Again, sorry about that. |
| dcparris Feb 15, 2007 7:21 PM EDT |
I think that was kind of Darren's point as well. If it turned out that PJ was an IBM'er, you'd have to consider the source. Everytime a Microsofty speaks, we always consider the source. SCO is considering the source from their own point of view. Frankly, IBM ties would call into question her integrity, even if her integrity holds up in the end. It is possible to be an active player on one side and yet tell the truth. It's also a precarious position to be in. It would also be an interesting literary/journalism technique to use a pen name to rake muck. I'm not saying that is the case, but that it would be interesting. Hmmm... Carla Dinotrac... Great American muckraker... Naw, I think I'll stick with good ol' Don. It's just easier for me to remember who I am that way. |
| swbrown Feb 15, 2007 8:24 PM EDT |
> Frankly, IBM ties would call into question her integrity, even if her integrity holds up in the end. I'm not really sure what integrity issues there would be even with IBM ties, as it's basically fueled by direct quotes from the relevant legal documents. Unless someone can show the transcriptions are fake (which would be easy to do seeing as it's public record), the documents speak for themselves. Ditto re the OOXML fact aggregation - IBM ties wouldn't make the standard defining 1900 as a leap year any less true. |
| dcparris Feb 15, 2007 10:56 PM EDT |
There need not be any integrity issues - just the perception of such. Well, that's all it takes for some people. And if you recall the grapevine game, don't be surprised if you run into someone who tells you that she was hired by Carly to work for IBM so she could spy on/snipe at SCO, or something convoluted like that. |
| DarrenR114 Feb 16, 2007 3:38 AM EDT |
Exactly, Don! It's not a matter of the facts with this stuff - it's a matter of perception. That's what FUD is all about - Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. And abe, just because I consider the possibility doesn't mean anything nefarious on my part. It's like when I pay for life insurance on my wife and son: I'm not planning on killing them - I just don't want to stuck high and dry with a bunch of costs for funerals and the financial mess that usually arises from death. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!