Posted on 05/10/2005 9:14:35 AM PDT by ShadowAce
Well, the last day has certainly been an interesting one. First off, I'd like to thank all the people who wrote such kind words of support, both here and on Slashdot. Taking a tough moral stand is made a lot easier when you've got so many people giving you a little push from behind.
The good news is, the right thing happened in the end. Sys-con Media listened to what I and my fellow editors, their advertisers and the readership was saying, and made the correct decision. Maureen O'Gara's bylined material will no longer appear anywhere in the Sys-con universe of sites or publications. We have received this commitment in writing from Fuat Kircaali, the publisher. Checking around the web sites this morning, I can see that her material is already almost entirely gone, I assume the remainder will dribble out over the next few days.
Now we can return to producing a world-class web site and print magazine, with the kind of editorial control that we think is critical. You showed your support for our position, I hope you'll be equally kind to us with your readership.
Overdue Obligatory Personal Note: 6 days after surgery, neck is still a little sore and the occasional Percocet is still required, but I'm feeling surprisingly good. I may ask if I can drive to my High School reunion (my 25th) on Friday. Some of my fingers are still numb, but less so every day, so I'm hopeful things will work out well.
After reading those articles, I wouldn't blame PJ for suing the pants off of O'Gara.
O'Gara makes Dan Rather look good!!!
Aw, wassa matter, poor little PJ doesn't like it when real journalists out her BS? Funny she thought she could keep playing her little game forever, but anyone with a brain already knew she was up in New York working for IBM.
Now I want to see a public apology to PJ.
As someone who values his own privacy, I would've thought that you would be among the first to condemn O'Gara.
Real journalists? Or SCO attack dogs? Sorry, but O'Gara has never reported on anything that solidly refutes anything that PJ has written. The reason? PJ posts the actual documents and comments on them. Even SCO, which said Groklaw is full of lies, used PJ's documents in its opposition site to Groklaw.
I suspect you're not getting any, and you're projecting yourself on others. ;)
I've said repeatedly I'm willing to wager my entire net worth with anyone who thinks I somehow work for Microsoft, along with the fact I'm not the one seeking both publicity and privacy like Jokelaw does. This PJ character needs to either admit who they are, or admit they aren't a reliable verifiable source of info.
Sure you are. You publish your opinions on this board, you back up your opiniosn with links, and you proffer arguments for your opinions. That is exactly the kind of publicity you want--your opinion to be noted. That is exactly the kind of publicity PJ wants--her opinion to be noted. She usees actual court documents to back up her opinion. She declares she is not a lawyer, but a former paralegal-turned-journalist. She is not hiding anything irrelevant, but she doesn't want her personal details published--just like you don't.
This PJ character needs to either admit who they are, or admit they aren't a reliable verifiable source of info.
She has admitted who she is--a paralegal turned journalist. She is a reliable, verifiable source of information as she hosts, links to, and relies soley on actual court documents for her opinions.
Get a subscription to the PACER service or start going down to the courthouses yourself. It's all a matter of public record and therefore highly verifiable. You now must retract your slanderous statement that she is not a "verifiable source of info" or be shown to be the dishonest MS schill we all think you are.
But as I said, SCO apparently thinks her posted documents are valid, since they used them in their own information site (yes, SCO downloaded from Groklaw the PDF files that Groklaw volunteers created by scanning original court documents).
I'd like phone numbers, religious beliefs, street addresses, car photos, and family street addresses on "Golden Eagle" posted on this public board please. If not, you're not believable.
</sarcasm>
| Aw, wassa matter, poor little PJ doesn't like it when real journalists out her BS?
I mean, c'mon. Her religion? Her mother's street address? You approve of doing this? Of course they fired O'Gara. What she did was personally vindictive and totally unethical. |
No she doesn't, she insisted SCO was launching denial of service attacks against itself, while other open source proponents like Eric Raymond were admitting the DOS attacker "is one of us and I am ashamed".
I've not setup a website on servers donated by SCO (like she has on servers donated by IBM) and been the subject of numerous references in trade journal publications covering the case. The veil needs to be lifted, so we can see if IBM is doing more than just donating servers to this mysterious figure.
I agree that was unnecessary information, and why she was canned. But it was past time an actual journalist somewhere quit cramming Linux down our throats, and actually go investigate these shadowy Linux figures some instead. You hardly give the appearance of someone trustworthy either, constantly wearing that trenchcoat, and no telling what up both sleeves.
First of all, I was talking about her legal opinions. You happen to choose a 2-years old allegation, which, if you had actually read it, would indicate that she is NOT "insisting"on anything, but merely reporting what others have said, with clear indications of that. She asked experts, rather than making unsubstantiated allegations. She then passed along those observations and thoughts as that--reportings from others.
| I've said repeatedly I'm willing to wager my entire net worth with anyone who thinks I somehow work for Microsoft
As virtually everyone agrees, O'Gara's behavior here was vindictive and totally unethical. Yet your first instinct was to ridicule O'Gara's target, as you did in #22. When most people in the industry think "vindictive and totally unethical," they think of Microsoft. And here you are behaving just like them. So you can see how people might associate you with them. Then in #33, you point out that her website runs on servers that were donated by IBM. What you don't mention is that the servers were donated to the University of North Carolina, which is where they are, and that this occurred years before the Groklaw web site existed. So it is obvious that you are trying to deliberately deceive people into thinking that IBM donated servers for the Groklaw web site. When most people in the industry think "deliberately deceitful," they think of Microsoft. So you can see again how people might associate you with them. The degree to which your on-line persona mimics the corporate culture at Microsoft... vindictive, unethical, and deliberately deceitful... raises legitimate questions as to your possible association with them. I agree that it is possible that you have crafted these positions all by your lonesome. But if truth be told, that's worse. I for one would think more highly of you if you were a shill doing it for a buck because you needed the money. That the person behind the mask could actually be like Mic is something I'd rather not be true. |
Take the bet if you think your little PI can connect me with Microsoft. And tell this PJ character she needs to either come clean and prove her independence, or to expect her credibility to forever be questioned. Because, no matter how many times you try to deny it, we already know that Groklaw does run on servers donated by IBM.
Then in #38, you repeat that her website runs on servers that were donated by IBM. What you don't mention is that the servers were donated to the University of North Carolina, which is where they are, and that this occurred years before the Groklaw web site existed. So it is obvious that you are trying to deliberately deceive people into thinking that IBM donated servers for the Groklaw web site. When most people in the industry think "deliberately deceitful," they think of Microsoft. So you can see again how people might associate you with them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
That's a new low even for you. That last O'Gara piece was nothing but a catfight hissy fit. Meow! Scratch! Hisssss!