a sad spectacle
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| herzeleid Aug 15, 2007 4:13 PM EDT |
I was going to comment on this journalist's tirade, but the majority of the comments already posted there are quite eloquent. It's sad to see these folks who bought into the whole anti-linux sco party line, now angry and confused, and not wanting to admit what fools they were, but instead attacking the messenger. |
| lcafiero Aug 15, 2007 5:56 PM EDT |
Oh, well allow me to comment, herzeleid: As someone who has been in the news field for over 30 years, I have to say that it shames me to have to share the once-hallowed, now-tarnished title of "journalist" with someone like the reporter who calls himself "Paul McDougall," who adequately represents the lazy, slipshod and biased reporting that's now so commonplace in the profession. For two ridiculous articles, he gets two Elmers. Think he'll play for the trifecta? |
| vainrveenr Aug 15, 2007 6:35 PM EDT |
One thing evident in Paul McDougall's accusingly acerbic attack on PJ in the Information Week piece is his avoiding any mention of SCOG's deep stock plunge following the SCO vs Novell ruling.
One can readily see from the five-day Sco Group Inc stockwatch at http://www.marketwatch.com/tools/quotes/intchart.asp?symb=SC... that SCOG stock took a BIG hit just after the ruling (and almost everyone knows this!), going from $1.55 p/s on Friday's NASDAQ close to 45 cents p/s Monday morning.
As of this writing, SCOX is still steadily hovering just under 40 cents per share. One could certainly conjecture that Paul either owns stock in the SCOG or else has close connections with those persons who do. As per SCOX stock's nosedive itself, McBride simply MUST try to raise the company's dismal stock level on the NASDAQ following the disastrous court ruling against it. One way is to be as overly defensive as McDougall is in the 'Get Your Facts Straight' InfoWeek piece. Another way is to vigorously "fight to the very bitter end" as PJ writes concerning McBride's current spin in Groklaw's 'SCO's Letter to Customers and Partners', http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2007081421281115 Yet another way is to somehow shed resources the SCOG may or may not own in order to buoy its current and future position in the marketplace --- what readily comes to mind here is spending cash reserves to buy back stock and selling off underperforming parts of its core business. Other likely courses of action too for the SCOG's dire straits. |
| azerthoth Aug 15, 2007 7:05 PM EDT |
OK, this whole thing is silly beyond reason, however it seems I see everyone defending PJ here. The lady who in truth inaccurately dissected in great and painful detail Pauls article, yet no one called her on it, only him when he used the EXACT quote and rebuke style that PJ enjoys using so much. Like we haven't done that to each other very publicly right here in these forums, yet between us we just call it a normal day at LXer. Folks the double standards in the community get pretty thick without our giving them any more credence. I am not defending Paul or the article's in question, just the reactionary hypocrisy that could well be avoided. I hate to burst everyones bubble, but PJ can be, has been, and will again be wrong. However no matter how wrong she is, I feel terribly sorry for whomever calls her on it. Because as shown over and over again, with this just another example, a vocal part of the community will vilify that person where a smart person would start wondering where the torches and stakes were being stored and facts be damned. just my .02, take it as you will. |
| herzeleid Aug 15, 2007 7:38 PM EDT |
> it seems I see everyone defending PJ here. I'm not sure what your problem is with PJ - this "it pundit" came out swinging, and attacking Groklaw, and when PJ called him on his errors, he responded with a temper tantrum disguised as an article, attempting to mock the factual style in which his mistakes were pointed out. You obviously don't like Pam, but you have to admit, she does her homework and has mountains of evidence on her side. This other fellow seems to have only a chip on his shoulder, and little else. |
| tuxchick Aug 15, 2007 8:19 PM EDT |
Heh, he just dug himself a deeper hole. Most of the comments to the story are critical of his two articles. Silly "journalist." Even on Slashdot and Digg, good-quality fact-based articles get good responses. But I guess that's a lesson some folks will never learn. |
| azerthoth Aug 15, 2007 8:36 PM EDT |
I'm sorry, I fail to see an attack on PJ. Are you talking about this?
Quoting:An anonymous blogger who goes by the name 'Pamela Jones' on the anti-SCO Web site Groklaw said over the weekend that he or she would "eat chocolate" to celebrate Novell's victory. Check the definition of anonymous, it is a factually correct statement Or is it the anti-SCO label used to describe groklaw, puh-lease Groklaw cant be described as anything other than anti-SCO except anti-Microsoft and on days when nothing positive is happening against SCO is anti-Novell on even numbered days. Perhaps it was in the other sentence (only 2 in the whole article) Quoting: But hold the Godiva and Toblerone for a moment. If I'm a Linux user, do I really want SCO v. IBM to be called off without a definitive ruling on SCO's claims? Even leaving it in context I really dont see an attack here either. So how exactly did he come out swinging? I'm not saying I agree with what was said in the article, however the person who came out swinging here ... wasnt Paul. |
| devnet Aug 15, 2007 8:37 PM EDT |
I agree with azerthoth here. No one has dissected his claims and called him on his supposed BS. Until someone says point for point why he's wrong...he presents a strong case. To someone who doesn't know much about the whole debate and someone who might not know PJ or groklaw too well...he presents a very strong case by using quotes from her articles. Someone post how wrong he is on his article and I'll agree with you. Until then...this is a pretty level headed response...which is very odd coming from him. |
| herzeleid Aug 15, 2007 8:45 PM EDT |
> I'm sorry, I fail to see an attack on PJ. Are you talking about this? Lol, you trotted out just about the 2 most innocuous points in the whole article - in any case you're not looking at the overall flippant, arrogant tone of the article, and his disdain for the linux community. I dunno, you may dig weird stuff like that, but it's not my cuppa joe, and it stands in stark contrast to through analysis you see on groklaw. |
| tuxchick Aug 15, 2007 9:04 PM EDT |
If you're really interested in what's what, just start at Groklaw, and compare what's written there with the IW articles. It's all there for anyone to read and compare.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2007081316171269 It's not mysterious at all, not to anyone who actually reads the articles. |
| gus3 Aug 15, 2007 9:17 PM EDT |
{donning flame-retardant underwear} Paul McD's first article was nothing but FUD. His "argument" was a straw man at best, summarized in his thesis question: "If I'm a Linux user, do I really want SCO v. IBM to be called off without a definitive ruling on SCO's claims?" I gave my response at http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/25814/ . However, a reading of the comments at http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2007081421281115 exposes the precise portions of the initial transfer of rights which excluded the UNIX and UnixWare trademarks from transfer. (Look for "Atticus" at 10:49 PM.) It's right there in black and white... er, greenish-buff. I'll admit, I'm not a regular Groklaw reader. But Icafiero's comment above says plenty about P.M.'s "journalism." Even if Madonna (whom I don't like) were to chime in with a comment about P.M.'s pathetic "reporting," I'd nod my head in affirmation. Paul McDougall has lost the game, on facts alone. If he doesn't clam up soon, he'll lose the sportsmanship points as well. |
| azerthoth Aug 15, 2007 9:42 PM EDT |
TC that rather backs my point of view, and actually it started slightly before that, here http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/08/no... as referenced in PJ's article. herz, nope, I'm looking at something different and not trying to impose what I think the author meant by imagining an arrogance or flippancy. My wife does a good enough job at hearing between the lines for me to even attempt such a feat. I am glad though that there are psychics out there though who can explain to me what someone actually meant to write instead of what they did though. And as to those 2 lines I trotted out ... they were the only ones in the whole article that related to PJ or groklaw at all. So tell me again, who is attacking here and who is defending ... a few posts ago it was said that PJ was defending so that was OK, now we see that the inverse is true and yet still you go on blindly defending her. Are you starting to see the point I made about hypocrisy in the community? |
| herzeleid Aug 15, 2007 10:02 PM EDT |
> now we see that the inverse is true and yet still you go on blindly defending her. Are you starting to see the point I made about hypocrisy in the community? So, now you are calling us names? hypocrtites, are we? Because we think the facts tend to back up groklaw's position, and don't see any substance in PM's arguments, that means we're "blindly defending PJ"? I don't think there's any way to bridge a chasm like that. |
| azerthoth Aug 15, 2007 10:21 PM EDT |
Sort of, yes, in 3 short posts you have gone from PJ defending herself to defending PJ's attacking someone else AND criticizing him for defending himself ... which was OK when PJ was doing it. I dont mean to be picking on you herzeleid, and please believe that it is not personal, its just that your posts in this thread seem to be a rather symptomatic example of what happens when anyone steps away from some of the media darlings in the linux community and dares to say "I dont agree" or even worse "um, you got it wrong". That was the hypocrisy that I was referancing, the double standards we apply for the media darlings we actually like. If I have caused personal offense herz, it was not intentional, and if you took it so I apologize. *edit* p.s. I'm going to bed now, we can continue if you wish after work. */edit* |
| dinotrac Aug 16, 2007 12:33 AM EDT |
azerthoth -- Tough sledding when you deal with the Sainted Mother of Groklaw. Truth is, Paul's original story wasn't very good, but PJ's response was a nasty rant that reflected very poorly on her. PJ's reply lacked grace, style, and the benefits of an good editor. |
| purplewizard Aug 16, 2007 2:41 AM EDT |
azerthoth, on attacks and defenses From what I have read both are true. It started with an attack on Groklaw and PJ even if not the main thrust of PM article. Then PM attacked the PJ item which in my light scan reading seemed to be both an attack and defense but far too long and without a great deal to be said for it (due to a lack of focus, did anyone really read it meticulously?). On the whole both articles seem worth giving a miss if you interested only in the facts because they are both carrying far too high a percentage of personal additions (including things like interpretation of the facts) |
| vainrveenr Aug 16, 2007 6:21 AM EDT |
@azerthoth
Quoting:I am not defending Paul or the article's in question, just the reactionary hypocrisy that could well be avoided.Ummm..... maybe you ARE actually defending P.M. and you do not even realize this? All the logic, statistics, and cold facts are ROUTINELY used in different, and indeed at times, opposing ways. Besides P.M.'s criticism of PJ and your so-called "factual defense" of this, politicians and certain scientific studies come to mind as examples of how logic, statistics and cold facts do indeed get twisted around to suit the purpose. What perhaps strikes me the most about the bottom responses to this P.M. piece itself is the everpresent terminology of those commenting in one extreme camp or the other within the larger FOSS vs closed-source debates. Those avidly supportive of PJ and her efforts are now calling this current InfoWeek journalist just another Enderle-like "troll" or even an actual Microsoft "shill". OTOH, those much less supportive of and antagonistic toward PJ, end up calling PJ's FOSS-supporters "reactionary hypocrites" as above, or downright "zealots". Although it may be less likely to occur on LXer, someone even managed to call FOSS-supporters "IT terrorists" in the responses to P.M.s' piece. Hmmm, maybe a new metric could be generated on the intensity of the response to a commentary to a piece like P.M.'s: the ratio of Shill or Troll name-calling to Zealot or Hypocrite name-calling. A veritable st/zh ratio! The "statistical facts" on this (;D) are that the st/zh ratio is clearly higher in the bottom responses to the P.M. piece itself than in the above LXer discussion; would guess about 3:1 for the former and 0:4 for the latter. azertoth wrote Quoting:I'm sorry, I fail to see an attack on PJ.and Quoting:Even leaving it in context [a selective quote] I really dont see an attack here either. So how exactly did he come out swinging? Perhaps azerthoth hopes that few persons will review the end of P.M.'s piece, as brought here verbatim : Quoting:'PJ''s clear implication here is that, because Microsoft advertises in InformationWeek, my stories, and those written by other InformationWeek reporters, reflect a bias in favor of Microsoft.Umm.... sure seems that this is not just a line-item "factual" attack on PJ, but an actual veiled threat on PJ herself! herzeleid wrote Quoting:Lol, you trotted out just about the 2 most innocuous points in the whole article - in any case you're not looking at the overall flippant, arrogant tone of the article, and his disdain for the linux community.Yep, would definitely have to side with herzeleid wholeheartedly regarding the tone of this anti-PJ piece here. I already termed P.M.'s tone as "accusingly acerbic" above, and made some conjecture as to why P.M. would adopt this attitude here. |
| Bob_Robertson Aug 16, 2007 6:37 AM EDT |
A note on anonymity. PJ uses her real name. I do not. So which is "anonymous"? If the IW article cannot even get this correct, why should I trust it on technical matters that are so much less straight forward? |
| dinotrac Aug 16, 2007 7:16 AM EDT |
>Umm.... sure seems that this is not just a line-item "factual" attack on PJ, but an actual veiled threat on PJ herself! Oh please. surely you're smarter than to believe your own statement. First off, nothing was veiled about it. He said, quite simply, if you libel me, be prepared to defend yourself. I've said the same thing to people and PJ herself has accused people of libeling her. PJ has done a lot of good stuff. That doesn't mean you have to go all stupid and fanboi over her. |
| lcafiero Aug 16, 2007 9:03 AM EDT |
Dinotrac said: "Truth is, Paul's original story wasn't very good, but PJ's response was a nasty rant that reflected very poorly on her. PJ's reply lacked grace, style, and the benefits of an good editor." The difference here is simple: Information Week is a "news" publication, and Groklaw is not (and I mean that in a good way), meaning the former should both hire responsible, articulate reporters and columnists, as well as having a staff of editors who, hopefully, aren't asleep at the journalistic wheel (as at least one was in the case of these stories). Assuming editors exist at Information Week and are (at a minimum) conscious and aware of their surroundings, the columnist who calls himself or herself "Paul McDougall" should have had his or her editor say, at the least, "rewrite this" to the first column, and "wtf is this?" to the second one before killing it outright. Both this so-called columnist and his or her editor should be shown the door and perhaps apply for jobs for which they are more qualified. Groklaw isn't a "news" publication and doesn't portray itself to be. If anything, it appears that Groklaw's purpose is to digest legal issues around digital cases and present them to the non-legal masses in an understandable format (at which, in my opinion, the site excels). It appears that Pamela Jones, who is not a journalist but a paralegal, writes most of this stuff on her own without the "benefit" of an editor (quotes intentional). She can be a tad verbose, but if you've ever had to wade through legal documents, it's no easy chore and sometimes explanations can be lengthy; in the SCO case, since many of the motions were asinine, that was unavoidable. On the whole, I think Pamela Jones has been above board and ethical in covering the court filings and digesting the legal documents in the SCO case. And one more thing: Praising her work while realizing she's not perfect -- is anyone here perfect? -- does not mean going "all stupid and fanboi over her." |
| jrm Aug 16, 2007 9:58 AM EDT |
Last Friday, Groklaw posted the 102 page court decision from Novell-SCO. Reuters had a 4-sentence blurb. Most of the media caught up Monday afternoon and Tuesday. As the IT columns trickled out, I was struck by how incomplete and inaccurate most were. Of course if it weren't for PJ, I wouldn't really know for sure whether they were incomplete and inaccurate. So I'm sorry if anyone is offended that she ruffled the feathers of "Paul McDougall". But shouldn't we be more offended by the fact that we can't depend on anyone in the press to give us the actual facts? Shouldn't THEY be the ones that give us links to court docs? Shouldn't THEY be telling us the truth? (FWIW, I don't care if it turns out that PJ is really a hookah smoking caterpillar... it's all the same to me as long as Groklaw gives me access to information I can't get any other way.) |
| herzeleid Aug 16, 2007 10:24 AM EDT |
This discussion unfortunately spun out of control. Everyone here has their opinions and that's fine, no hard feelings here. In a nutshell, here's my take on it: I'm not saying PJ is perfect, and there have been times I've found myself in disagreement with what she's said, but regardless of her views, I've never doubted her integrity. I can't say the same for Paul McDougal, and let's just leave it at that. |
| jrm Aug 16, 2007 10:59 AM EDT |
I don't think it had spun out of control. I just think sometimes the Linux community has a tendency toward cannibalism. But thank goodness for a place where people can say what they think. I don't think you learn much when you're around people that always agree with you. |
| dinotrac Aug 16, 2007 3:03 PM EDT |
lcafiero - What's interesting in your response to me is that you did not seem to disagree with my assessment in any way. Instead, it seems you said, "Cut the girl some slack. You can't expect from her what you should expect (but do not often get) from a real journalist." For the record -- please note that I did not say anything nice about McDougal. |
| azerthoth Aug 16, 2007 4:36 PM EDT |
From the top (or actually where I went to bed last night). @ dinotrac, thanks however I was fully aware that I was probably going to take a bit of a lambasting when I opened my mouth. The concern was noted though. @ vainrveenr, I really shouldn't reply to your post. However since you made the effort I will also. You have scrambled the timeline to justify your position. Using parts from the rebuttal to make it appear as they were the initial impetus of attack, which clearly is not so. I do notice that you however have perpetuated one of PJ's proposed theories that Paul might be a MS shill as what appears to be a fact. Your whole post is disingenious with what I hope is a mistaken warping of facts. @ bob, anonymous in truth. She has consistantly refused positive identification nor has she allowed validation of her credentials in any way. Thus it is fair to say that anonymous is a fair description. Heck alot of the people here have let known who they are well enough to verify that yes that really is the person behind the screen name. Personally I believe she is exactly who and what she says she is, but belief does no necessitate fact. @ dino, lcafiero, and jrm, I completely agree with almost everything said in your posts. With one single exception . PJ has put herself in a position of analyst and commentator, if this were a TV show that equates to journalist. Especially if she steps outside of the box to comment on odds and ends that happen outside the court room which is where he forte lies. There is no reason at all to hold her to a lesser standard, especially when so many in the community blindly take her word as gospel. *breath* Finally. It takes only a second and a look no further than LXer to see what I think about PM's initial story, look at the caption included when I initially added it to the news wire here [url=http://lxer.com/module/newswire/search.php?search_terms=Novell's Victory Over SCO Could Have Downside For Linux Users]http://lxer.com/module/newswire/search.php?search_terms=Nove...[/url] The story is faulty on a whole lot of levels and I do not argue that. It was the vivisection of his article that even here at LXer would have initiated a response if it happened just amongst us, and then calling his defense of himself an attack on PJ that got my dander up. It was dishonest, blasting him because he couldnt write his way out a a wet paper bag, thats fine. Blasting him because he crossed the Sainted Mother Pamela, when he was the receiver and not the initiator ... Oh and the websites whole name according to my browser window caption is Groklaw - Digging for Truth. Which in the end is all I am trying to bring to light, as I see it. |
| flufferbeer Aug 16, 2007 6:24 PM EDT |
I think it would be immensely productive if both PJ and Paul McDougall talked TO one another regarding clearing up each of their Novell vs SCO points, this instead of exchanging vituperative rebuttals AT one another. Not that this would realistically happen at this point..... Pamela J's response and Paul M's counter-response reminds this LXer of a recent argument between two pre-teen girls which pretty much went briefly like this: "Well, MY Mom let me hang out with counselor Maria and her friends a week after camp ended!" "No, she didn't. Deirdre was the one cleaning the dining hall and staying around after camp. Maria had to drive out with Dave instead" "No, no, no. I said I hung out with Maria, I didnt say at the camp itself. It was around Maria's friends near us." "You are such a liar! You told me when I saw you the week after camp in front of Devvie that ' ' I stayed at camp until just before the bus came last session. ' ' " "YOU are the liar! You are so full of //curse word of 10-11 yr-old gals//, that's not what I said at all and Devvie can prove what I meant!" ... and on and on. I think that the girls then brought in their own allies on their claims, before going IM on this. Pedantic bickering in my experience, and just my own 2c |
| gus3 Aug 16, 2007 10:24 PM EDT |
jrm said,Quoting:I'm sorry if anyone is offended that she ruffled the feathers of "Paul McDougall". But shouldn't we be more offended by the fact that we can't depend on anyone in the press to give us the actual facts? Shouldn't THEY be the ones that give us links to court docs? Shouldn't THEY be telling us the truth?It's anecdote time. Three years ago, I attended BayCon 2004 in San Jose, CA. The SCO case was still fairly new, and very little discovery had been done. There was a panel discussion about it as part of the BayCon schedule of events (rather odd for a sci-fi/fantasy convention), which I nicknamed "Shooting Fish in a Barrel." Rick Moen and some other Free Software luminaries were on the panel, as well as a legal analyst and a journalist. When the floor opened for Q&A, a British-sounding fellow in the audience made the observation that only in the USA had he ever seen reporters applauding at the end of a press conference. The reporters in most other places would run the gamut from diffidence to outright hostility toward the proponents of such specious accusations. So, to answer your questions: Yes, yes, and yes. But don't hold your breath. |
| devnet Aug 22, 2007 6:24 AM EDT |
I'm waiting for PJ to come out as fake steve jobs. |
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!