Message ID: 256537
Posted By: choconutdancer
Posted On: 2005-04-16 00:17:00
Subject: MOG's hit piece

well as expected, MOG took Darl's comments and wrote a hit piece on Groklaw. surprise surprise.

Message ID: 256545
Posted By: theantidarl
Posted On: 2005-04-16 01:33:00
Subject: Re: MOG's hit piece

I agree 100% that GL is 110% anti SCO. And biased. Very biased. Not true journalism. My opinion PJ is an editor, and GL is her editorial page. HER page. Don't like it? Don't read it.

I don't care if she is a strawberry blonde IBM marketing exec named Paul with yellow teeth. I read the page. I read her commentary. And I read what both parties file, usually before I read PJ.

Does she spin? Yup. Does she lie? Not that I have seen. Does she run GL her own way? Yup. It's her page. Don't like it don't read it.

She has gone a long way to expose the lies that the SCO bastards have spun. She has trapped them in thier OWN LIES. Not her spin, just the words that all the SCOundrals have used themselves.
MOG has never mentioned Kimball's "no credible evidence" statement that I know of.

Hey MOG can you stop by for a little chat like Melanie does from time to time?
Don't worry we promise not to drop a house on you. OK I cannot speak for others, but I won't drop a house on you.
I would like you to answer the following questions.

1. What is your opinion of Judge Kimball's statement that SCO has shown no credible evidence?

2. What is your opinion of SCOX showing BSD code with copyright notices removed and passing it off as thier own? Can you ask Darl how that could happen?

3. The mitigation question. BEFORE SCO can get damages from ANYONE they must attempt have the code they *supposedly* own that is in Linux removed. Why does SCO NOT go to Linus and say "here is our code, remove it"?
(I can answer that, it would KILL the $699 SCAM)

4. Answer part A and B
Darl made a threat to reopen the BSD settlement.
(A) He claimed SCO is a party to that settlement. SCO's lawyers claim SCO has no copy of that agreement. Who is NOT telling the truth?
(B) Who would win a death match, Darl of SCO, or Theo of OpenBSD?
(My advice: Don't piss off Theo, and don't take this SCAM to Canada.)

5. AIX on Power. You have access to SCO. Why not ask them about press releases from as far back as 1999 that indicate Santa Cruz Operation knew full well that IBM was working on porting Monterey to Power? Why are they mad that IBM pulled the plug on a porject that was doomed to fail becuase there was not, and to this day is not. a readily available Intel processor to run Monterey?

7. If F/OSS is as bad (speaking of unconstitutional, anti-capitalist, not quality) as Darl has said it is why is there so much of it being touted as part of Legend?

8. Can you tell me the status of the Novell Slander of Title Suit? What is Judge Kimball deciding on at the next SCO v Novell hearing?

9. Read SCO's complaint against AutoZone. Without talking to SCO, or cherry picking quotes, and in YOUR own words tell the world with specifity, why SCO is suing AZO.

10. Explain, in your OWN words, and with NO quotes from SCO, with specifity what does RedHat v SCOX have in common with SCOX v IBM?

More to follow. Gotta go feed the nine week old.

Message ID: 256565
Posted By: diogenese19348
Posted On: 2005-04-16 08:48:00
Subject: Re: MOG's hit piece

The Groklaw masthead has changed over time from identifying PJ as a "paralegal" to a "journalist with a paralegal background." Well, nobody whatever their political stripe would mistake Groklaw for journalism. By definition, journalism is nominally "objective," even as practiced by Dan Rather. There is nothing objective about what Groklaw says or the reaction it gets. Opinion maybe, but not journalism.

Ms Pot, meet Ms Kettle

Message ID: 256663
Posted By: walterbyrd
Posted On: 2005-04-16 16:28:00
Subject: PJ smear: agenda? Or just ranting?

Any opinions?

Is McBride just lashing out in frustration? Is he being vindictive? Or is there method to his methadrine?

Frankly, to me, it seems more like lashing out. I think he does scoxe more harm than good by trying to smear PJ.

MOG just does what McBride instucts, IMO.

The texts of these Yahoo Message Board posts have been licensed for copying and distribution by the Yahoo Message Board users "choconutdancer", "theantidarl", "diogenese19348", "walterbyrd" under the following license: License: CCL Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0.

Copyright 2005 Yahoo! SCOX. Messages are owned by the individual posters.