Message ID: 198960
Posted By: jgabriel66
Posted On: 2004-10-28 11:30:00
Subject: GrokSquabble: *This* Is Disconcerting

My account is no longer available at Groklaw. Can't sign in.

My old posts are all listed as written by Anonymous now.

You can't do a search on my handle there anymore. It used to be JohnGabriel.

Now, I haven't posted much on GL lately, and certainly I haven't posted anything on Groklaw that was critical of it, of Pam, of her policies, or anything "trollish".

I'm forced to conclude that I've apparently been kicked off of Groklaw for the criticisms and reservations I've expressed here on Yahoo.

In other words, you can be a good GL poster, and still get kicked off it you're critical of its policies anywhere on the web.

Does anyone else find this disconcerting?


Message ID: 198967
Posted By: infosecgroupie
Posted On: 2004-10-28 11:34:00
Subject: Re: GrokSquabble: *This* Is Disconcertin

> My account is no longer available at Groklaw.
> Can't sign in.
>
> My old posts are all listed as written by
> Anonymous now.
>
> You can't do a search on my handle there
&> anymore. It used to be JohnGabriel.

Yup.br>
BBeen there, had that happen.

http://www.finchhaven.com/TSCOG/Mr_Horse.html

Welcome aboard!

i_s_g


Message ID: 198977
Posted By: jgabriel66
Posted On: 2004-10-28 11:40:00
Subject: Re: GrokSquabble: *This* Is Disconcerti

steigen_linux: "WTF? Man I would email mathfox pronto."

Yes, really. And I'm not quite sure what to do about it.

For instance, I'm not happy that all of the comments copyrighted and owned by me, according to GL policy, are no longer carrying my attribution, my ID. They are now simply attributed to: "Anonymous".

I also can't do any searches to find my old posts and see what I've said in the past, or even locate them easily.

Nor did I get any e-mail warning me that this would happen, or that it did happen. I just discovered it on my own.

I'm not sure what good e-mailing mathfox would do, since he's probablyh the one who implemented the deletion in the first place, at Pam's request I assume.


Message ID: 198980
Posted By: ot_hstoop
Posted On: 2004-10-28 11:46:00
Subject: Re: GrokSquabble: *This* Is Disconcerti

> I'm not sure what good e-mailing mathfox would do, since he's probablyh the one who implemented the deletion in the first place, at Pam's request I assume.

Without asking you are just crying wolf. Get the facts and continue the discussion on CKX.


Message ID: 198981
Posted By: jgabriel66
Posted On: 2004-10-28 11:46:00
Subject: Re: GrokSquabble: *This* Is Disconcertin

I haven't yet, nor am I sure that I'm going to. It's not as if they e-mailed me to say they were doing it or had done it.

It's not as if they don't have my e-mail, either. A) It was part of my profile. B) Pam and I have traded e-mails in the past.

I kind of figure that if they were willing to cut me off without even the courtesy of e-mailing me, or explaining why I've been cut off, then they don't want to hear from me personally.

Again, I haven't posted *anything* trollish or critical of Pam, Groklaw, or Groklaw policy there.


Message ID: 198986
Posted By: infosecgroupie
Posted On: 2004-10-28 11:51:00
Subject: Re: GrokSquabble: *This* Is Disconcerti

>>> I also can't do any searches to find my old posts and see what I've said in the past, or even locate them easily.<<<

The only reason I could find my "Mr_Horse" posts was because of the .sig I used.

>>> Nor did I get any e-mail warning me that this would happen, or that it did happen. <<<

Don't hold your breath. PJ knows me quite well (under both my Groklaw personas) and I never heard a thing. Neither PJ nor anyone else directly associated with Groklaw has emailed me since August 3...

hmm.. that was right after the OSRM debacle :-/

i_s_g


Message ID: 198989
Posted By: br3nsc
Posted On: 2004-10-28 11:53:00
Subject: Re: GrokSquabble: *This* Is Disconcerti

to be fair you should contact mathfox or PJ and ask?
after that then decide how you feel?
braidcasting it to yahoo before at least doing that is unfair to all
not saying you are wrong because what you do somewhere else should not be held against you on another site
especially without a contract?
br3n


Message ID: 199238
Posted By: idiot_spavint
Posted On: 2004-10-28 15:26:00
Subject: Re: GrokSquabble: *This* Is Disconcerti

An anonymous poster just posted a link to your post here, and its content, on Groklaw a few minutes ago. It has been deleted.


Message ID: 199255
Posted By: jgabriel66
Posted On: 2004-10-28 15:42:00
Subject: Re: GrokSquabble: *This* Is Disconcerti

idiot_spavint: "An anonymous poster just posted a link to your post here, and its content, on Groklaw a few minutes ago. It has been deleted."

If that's true, and I've seen you posting here often enough to have no reason to doubt you, then it would seem to confirm my hypothesis.

I mean, Peter or Pam has the time delete a post linking to my concern about losing my login, but not to respond to my e-mail requesting clarification?

Looking very iffy...


Message ID: 199351
Posted By: jgabriel66
Posted On: 2004-10-28 16:42:00
Subject: Deleted Account: Pam Responds

sco_source_spam: "I can confirm the truth of idiot_spavint's statement. I saw the post before it was deleted. In fact a search on groklaw for "jgabriel", limiting it to today, lists the deleted posting. I've noticed this before: deleted posts trun up in search results."

I can confirm that my account has been deleted now also.

As Pam's response is too short to have any copyright protection and too discourteous to compel the courtesy of not posting it, I include it in full below.

Here is the entire exchange:

First Message:

Subject: Urgent: Why Has My Account Been Deleted?
From: "John Gabriel"< jgabriel66@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, October 28, 2004 12:14 pm
To: PJ@groklaw.com, mathfox@groklaw.net
Cc: pj@osriskmanagement.com, mathfox@xs4all.nl

Pam, Peter,

My account has been deleted from Groklaw. Is this a bug or mixup of some kind? Or have I violated GL policy in some way?

As far as I know, I've always kept to the topic on Groklaw and haven't beena disruptive presence on the board. I know that I've expressed some criticisms and reservations regarding GL posting policies at Yahoo, but haven't done so at GL, as far as I remember.

I also consider my Pro-Linux/Anti-SCO credentials unassailable, as you can confirm, or re-confirm, by checking my "Open Letter To Darl McBride", posted to Groklaw back in September 2003, at:

http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=302&title=radiocomment&type= article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=0#c6222

Please let me know if this is an error, and if not, why this action was
taken.

John Gabriel


Pamela Jones Response:

Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 12:27:50 -0700
From: pj@groklaw.com Add to Address Book
Subject: RE: Urgent: Why Has My Account Been Deleted?
To: "John Gabriel" <jgabriel66@yahoo.com>

It's not a bug. I have deleted your account. You know perfectly well why.

PJ


My response:

Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 13:30:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: "John Gabriel"< jgabriel66@yahoo.com> Add to Address Book
Subject: RE: Urgent: Why Has My Account Been Deleted?
To: pj@groklaw.com

Pam,

Honestly, I don't know why you have deleted my account from Groklaw. I can only assume that this is due to criticisms of GL's moderation policies I've expressed at Yahoo, as well as analysis that GL's copyright & licensing notifications needed clarification to express the intent that your articles be treated separately from the posts.

In any case, I know that I kept my criticisms and discussions regarding these issues off of Groklaw, because of your expressed preference that such issues as were not germane to SCO in particular not be discussed at GL.

It appears to me that you have deleted my account for expressing reservations about Groklaw's moderation outside of groklaw.net. In other words, your policy appears to be that anyone criticising its policies *anywhere on the web* will have their GL membership revoked.

I certainly never posted anything in Groklaw's message threads to challenge your authority there or distract from the sites main purpose.

Finally, I think you're doing yourself and Groklaw a disservice by alienating people who share your goals, who would prefer to be your ally, and who have lengthy records of ProLinux/AntiSCO contributions in the past.

Since the Groklaw policy is that each post is copyrighted to and owned by the author, please send me a copy of all my previous contributions to Groklaw and then delete all of my previous contributions to Groklaw from the site.

Sincerely,

John Gabriel


Message ID: 199404
Posted By: jgabriel66
Posted On: 2004-10-28 17:55:00
Subject: Re: Deleted Account: Pam Responds

In response to the people asking whether Pam must remove my posts, I have recieved an e-mail from Pam regarding my request.

She has marked it "NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION" which I will respect, though for the life of me she hasn't given me any reason to.

However, Pam asserts that since I myself posted them to Groklaw, that I have no retroactive authority to unlicense their display by Groklaw. She may well be correct.

My response, in full:

Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 14:49:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: "John Gabriel"< jgabriel66@yahoo.com> Add to Address Book
Subject: RE: Urgent: Why Has My Account Been Deleted?
To: pj@groklaw.com

Pam,

Since by your own stated policy, I own and retain the copyrights to the posts I've put on Groklaw.

I accept your argument for the time being that I have no retroactive authority to enforce their removal.

I do not accept that you have the right to remove my authorial attribution from my posts.

John


Message ID: 199406
Posted By: ColonelZen
Posted On: 2004-10-28 17:57:00
Subject: Why delete jgabriel?

The thing that makes the least sense to me is, since jgabriel hasn't abused his GL account and isn't the type of person likely to, why delete it at all.

Since he posted criticism of GL off GL is this some attempt to "punish" him?

Why does she think she has a "right" to punish him for what she does off GL? Is PJ your mother, John?

If so it's border-line insane since removing his GL account can't possibly prevent him from future comments off GL.

Does she think her "punishment" will inspire him to be a good boy in the future?

An example to others?

Does she believe her approbation so terrifying that all will kowtow and declaim her wisdom out of fear?

If anyone has a *rational* explanation I would very much like to hear it.

-- TWZ


Message ID: 199430
Posted By: jgabriel66
Posted On: 2004-10-28 18:11:00
Subject: Re: Why delete jgabriel?

ColonelZen: "The thing that makes the least sense to me is, since jgabriel hasn't abused his GL account and isn't the type of person likely to, why delete it at all."

In Pam's last missive, she seems to be accusing me of posting to Yahoo "libellous comments from Groklaw" that have been deleted.

Which, as far as I remember, I've never done. I rarely quote from GL posts anyway, and it's always either cross-posting one of my own posts or quoting from something that seemed particularly insightful.

So I literally have no idea why my account was deleted. Though it's apparently confirmed that it is, somehow, due to my posts here on Yahoo


Message ID: 199443
Posted By: mjpieters
Posted On: 2004-10-28 18:25:00
Subject: Re: Deleted Account: Pam Responds

This is getting in the absolutely ridiculous paranoia stage. I have emailed Pamela requesting my Groklaw account to be deleted. I don't want to be listed as a member of her blog any longer.

My email:

Subject: Please delete my account
To: pj@groklaw.net
Cc: mathfox@groklaw.net
From: Martijn Pieters< mj@zopatista.com>

Hi Pamela,

Although I haven't contributed much ever to Groklaw (a few cached copies of nearly lost stories don't really count), I always enjoyed getting your view on the legal filings.

However, in light of recent events, particularly the vague, non-explicit moderation policies and the arbitrary deletion of accounts of anyone remotely suspected of Groklaw crisism, I feel I can longer lend you my explicit support by being a member of your blog.

Therefor, please delete my account 'mjpieters', and all posts connected to that account. In case of doubt about my identity, you can verify this signed email message with my public GPG key filed with my Groklaw account.

Martijn Pieters

--
High trees catch much wind -- Dutch Proverb


Message ID: 199471
Posted By: br3nsc
Posted On: 2004-10-28 19:06:00
Subject: Re: Why delete jgabriel?

i highly resent that
i have defended groklaw at all times
but this time i just dont see anyway to try to defend
i dont always agree with jgabriel but i am very familiar with his posts on groklaw
this defies reasoning to be deleted with no cause except for posting to another board?
/very confused
br3n


Message ID: 199473
Posted By: peragirn
Posted On: 2004-10-28 19:07:00
Subject: I removed myself from groklaw as well.

You might as well delete my account of peragrin as well, as the others you are deleting for criticizing you. If you can't take criticism, that takes place on other boards then you really have changed. I will continue to read the front page of Groklaw, As it is one of many stops to find news about SCO. I haven't read the posts here in quite some time, I could never follow the trains of thought the people here tried to express.

I am truly sorry that you think you have to run a prefect little world. It's truly a shame since the great projects of the Internet that end in failure, fail not because the Idea was flawed, but the people behind the idea changed and they couldn't even see it.

I do hope you see the changes SCO has brought about in you, So you can make peace within your self. Notice how I didn't say change back since that can never be done. All you can do is accept and try to force a change again.

David Turnbull
I thought once I was found but it was only a dream


Message ID: 199481
Posted By: walterbyrd
Posted On: 2004-10-28 19:14:00
Subject: We need a groklaw replacement

>>
Yes, of course, it is PJ's blog
<<

What a complete insult to all those who have selflessly contributed so much to groklaw. Those who provide the site, those who administrate the site, those who do all the transcribing, those who take the time to write insightful posts, and answer questions. Not to mention all the financial contributions.

What thanks do they get?

THIS IS ALL PJs SITE!!!
NOBODY ELSE GETS ANY CREDIT!!
AGREE WITH EVERY WORD - APPLAUD EVERY ACTION - OR GET KICKED OFF THE SITE WITH NO EXPLAINATION!!
NOBODY ELSE GETS ANY SAY-SO, AND HOW *DARE* YOU EVEN SUGGEST IT!!

Groklaw is a great site. Lots of good information. It's just too damn bad PJ is in charge.

And now lamlaw is gone. I think we need a groklaw replacement. Too bad we can't post on prosco.net. If it contained the information, I'd use that instead.


Message ID: 199489
Posted By: atul666
Posted On: 2004-10-28 19:24:00
Subject: Re: I removed myself from groklaw as we

tiger99, on GL: "...I looked at Yahoo for the first time a short while ago, and frankly it was a teeming rabble of angry and/or ignorant people, spouting accusations which at best are libel, and might involve other offences involving corporate law."

This tiger99 guy is a total asshole, a complete toad-licker, and a sad utter waste of perfectly good carbon atoms.

So there.


Message ID: 199490
Posted By: ColonelZen
Posted On: 2004-10-28 19:25:00
Subject: Re: Deleted Account: Pam Responds

Speaking for myself, very sadly no.

It was really possible to think that maybe she really didn't understand that our "bull session" was just that and not being familiar with Y accounts and how things play out, that she thought it was hostile.

But she's gone over the top and shown that she doesn't respect the community which offered her the leader ship she has had.

GL is gone, folks. Whether it fades slowly or pops like a bubble, it's over.

-- TWZ


Message ID: 199501
Posted By: span1sh1nqu1s1t1on
Posted On: 2004-10-28 19:41:00
Subject: Re: We need a groklaw replacement

I like GL for the articles and Yahoo for the Board. Between self-moderation via recs and ignore and Yahoo having no ax to grind when it removes posts/IDs, I almost exclusively use this Board for posting, but I do give credit to PJ (and those that do some of the legwork) for the articles.


Message ID: 200401
Posted By: jgabriel66
Posted On: 2004-10-29 16:08:00
Subject: Fanboys & Shills

Outside of the atypically decent spelling and grammar, has anyone else noticed that the Groklaw/Pam Fanboys sound remarkably like the SCO Shills?

Or am I just seeing it all through bitter-colored lenses?


Message ID: 200804
Posted By: infosecgroupie
Posted On: 2004-10-29 23:30:00
Subject: Talk about paranoia...

I just reinstated a deleted login at Groklaw

1) to see if it was possible

2) to keep the login name from being commandeered by someone else

and so far it seems to have been successful -- in other words there was no suggestion that I was trying to use a pre-existing login.

Now I'm just waiting for the reply email; and here it is.

And now I've just re-instated my second Groklaw login but I had to use a different email address; and here *that* is...

i_s_g


Message ID: 201030
Posted By: ColonelZen
Posted On: 2004-10-30 15:31:00
Subject: On record regarding GrokLaw

For the record, I T W Zellers aka ColonelZen hereby offer the following testimonial as true without reservation.

I admire and respect GrokLaw. I wish GrokLaw to continue. I declare and aver that GrokLaw was the largest part of impairing SCOX's ability to FUD against Linux last year and continues to be a significant part of that today.

I admire and respect PJ. I wish PJ success in her continuing work with GrokLaw and any other endeavors.

My past defenses of GrokLaw are on record in yahouevre at warmcat.

I have at times been angry at PJ and at the time may have said things more hostile than should have been said. I am a human being.

I want GrokLaw to continue. I hope it goes on being a part of the community indefinitely, as long as PJ or her successors, should she at some distant time, hand it over to someone else.

That said, I perceive there have been some problems at GrokLaw, especially very recently.
I do fear that some of these could *potentially* be fatal to GrokLaw if not addresssed quickly. It is your perogative to disagree if you so believe. But this is not GrokLaw, and GrokLaw is a public site. I am free to say as I wish, here limited only by Yahoo's policies which are not burdensome.

The huge majority of what I have said which is critical of some aspects of GrokLaw has been intented and should be interpreted as inviting discussion among others so that those here who may have some input to PJ can convey whatever they feel is valuable from my posts or resulting conversations

Right now, my advise and suggestion is that at least for now, PJ turn off comments. Certainly once the software is fixed to address GL's current capability problems, and possibly some other issues addressed internally by PJ and her management team, it could be reenabled, or she may find some other way to allow and reflect community input.

This is posted here to be seen by the newcomers from GrokLaw. By and large welcome. For my part I would welcome reasoned criticism of my views. Possibly you can amuse me by flaming me incandescently.

But this being the SCOX board I suggest unless the issue is also related to SCOX, that we take it to the CKX board.

-- TWZ


The texts of these Yahoo Message Board posts have been licensed for copying and distribution by the Yahoo Message Board users "jgabriel66", "infosecgroupie", "ot_hstoop", "br3nsc", "idiot_spavint", "ColonelZen", "mjpieters", "peragirn", "walterbyrd", "atul666", "span1sh1nqu1s1t1on" under the following license: License: CCL Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0.

Copyright 2004 Yahoo! SCOX. Messages are owned by the individual posters.