PJ comes clean regarding Al
November 16, 2007
In message #49707 [ http://www1.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=1911&mn=49707&pt=msg&mid=3471082 ] I stated the following:
"PJ is acting somewhat dense in an attempt to cloak her disdain for Al. [...]"
Responding to ColonelZen in message #49719 [ http://www1.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=1911&mn=49719&pt=msg&mid=3471770 ] , I stated this:
"It was pretty clear to me that the history between Al and PJ isn't, shall we say, all love and roses. In fact, I think she resents him for several reasons... [...]"
Less than an hour ago PJ had this [ http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20071115155803532&title=This+is+community?&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=646525#c646558 ] to say:
"He has attacked Groklaw nonstop for years, and he tried to help SCO locate me. He also helped them with their antiGroklaw website, and he has one of his own, where he mirrors my articles in ways he knows I find offensive. [...]"
"[...] So I was quite mild in the article, not because of community feeling, but because I don't believe in repaying evil for evil."
She admits to holding back. Now I am more convinced than ever that her article
was a form of attack on Al. This is aside from the issue of whether it was warranted.
I just happen to find it somewhat hypocritical of her to do such a thing since she
has always demanded civility from her guests.
So although one or two (or more) posters here might find my postulates offensive or without basis, I can only say that perhaps I wasn't as far off as perceived.
(and no, this isn't an attack on PJ -- I'd give her the shirt off my back. I love this woman like a sister -- but make no mistake, even my sister(s) and I disagree at times)
Re: PJ comes clean regarding Al
November 16, 2007
<<and no, this isn't an attack on PJ -- I'd give her the shirt off my back. I
love this woman like a sister -- but make no mistake, even my sister(s) and I disagree
While it may not be an attack, it is a distortion of her post (and the followup post she made.) The anti-Al pieces you quote are to make it clear that there is no love lost between her and Al so that she can state that she was holding back. In fact in the post you refer to, she later states:
But my point is generic, and it's one I've written
about over and over. This is not the first time. I
write the same thing whether it's a friend or an
enemy: don't go into courtrooms without a lawyer
to represent you. You will lose even if you should
win, most of the time. I wrote the same thing when
Dan Wallace did his pro se thing.
This is absolutely true and something she has been completely consistent on.
It is a point she has made over and over and the main point of her post. The attacks
on Al were to explain why she feels that her article was mild. From her perspective,
I'd say she is correct. (And, from my perspective, I agree with those who feel that
Al made some tactical gains in his appearance.)
In her follow-up post [ http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20071115155803532&title=This%20is%20community?&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=646525#c646571 ], she points out that the parent who is decrying community isn't exactly building it. I'd say that is accurate, though I understand the sentiments expressed. In that second post, she goes on to explain more about why she is so against Al's appearance:
Because in my analysis, our best shot is *not* to do
what he did. I don't believe it helped at all. I think
it annoyed. And the more he shows up, the worse it will
get. That is my prediction.
And this raises an interesting question. Even assuming I'm correct that Al's first appearance in the BK hearings scored some tactical victories, will his continued appearance lead to annoyance and ultimately more important losses? I don't know, but I have to admit it is a possibility. Despite that, I like the idea of him being there, but PJ directly, though not extensively addresses that in the second post:
I didn't just fall off a turnip truck, you know. And
my record speaks for itself. What he's doing is, in
my opinion, harmful, not helpful. You guys think
it's great, because of the hacker ethic or whatever,
but courts don't run on hacker concepts.
I'm not going to attempt to interpret exactly what she was trying to say, but
it certainly addresses the underlying reasons for the cheerleading going on here
regarding Al's appearance--even if it doesn't articulate specifically what is meant.
In the beginning of all of this, many of us in the F/OSS culture were attracted to GL because there was someone who could explain this alien legal landscape and culture to us. As that happened, we explained much of our alien landscape and culture to the person running GL. She embraced some of that culture and ethos. Here is an area where she does not. Agree with her on this or not, see her article as an vicious attack on Al or not, you have to admit that it is also her legal training and background screaming this is an area where we have not learned about the alien culture and where the ignorance has the potential to be dangerous.
I'm not yet convinced she is correct, but I am convinced that her point is one worth considering. Moreover, I do think that agree with her or not, it isn't right to take her quotes out of context.
She ends her second post with a clear appeal to elements of the hacker ethos:
I can't tell others what to do. But I can freely
express my opinion on my own website. Or is that
not allowed amongst you free speech lovers any more?
I can only express myself if I say what you like?
Some free speech.
Quoting Voltaire here seems dangerously close to Godwin's law, so I'll do it
obliquely [ http://quotes.prolix.nu/Authors/?Voltaire ]. I will say that she should
have the right to write what she wants. Others have the right to criticize that
and even to suggest that she should not have written it if they feel strongly about
it, but she has the right to call them on it.
So that I'm not accused of misrepresenting the parent to which PJ was replying, the parent did not suggest that she should not be allowed to say things but simply attacked the saying as not building community.
I've disagreed with PJ in the past. I expect to do so in the future. However, like ghost_of_mrchicken implies in the parent, I think she does quite a bit of good. Moreover, if you are going to disagree with her, I do think that it should be done is such a way that it doesn't distort the heart of the message.
For full disclosure, I've disagreed with Al in the past and I fully expect to do so in the future. However, I feel quite comfortable expressing those disagreements to Al directly--and I have done so many times. I have yet to see anything in the BK court appearances that would make me tell him directly that I disagree with him, but I would love to see a discussion of whether PJ's accusation that he will annoy and thus cause harm is correct.
Re: PJ comes clean regarding Al
November 17, 2007
It's late and I'm tired, but I'm really having a hard time thinking up a
scenario where Al could be likely to harm "our" cause. IBM is on deck and Mr.
Levin appears to have Judge Gross's attention. At worst Al can embarrass himself
- but he seems to have an admirably thick skin. He hasn't represented himself to
the court (AFAIK) as standing for anyone but himself.
Those who wish to disparage Al can claim that his effect was a nullity. Expansion of notice parties and their privilege to object may have occurred before his call, but we don't KNOW that it would have happened without his written objection. He was (very) proximate to the effect of the "tactical advantage" and whether causal or mere correlation is open to interpretation by those who wish to quibble ... but that part of his objection WAS "right on" at the time it was written and entered. That might earn him some (at least minor) respect from the court ... and *should* be acknowledged here ... he was RIGHT at the time he entered his objection.
But there are additional potential positives First there is now an order regarding notice the German litigation and money flowing to the German subsidiary. Now it's possible that without such an order being "on record" that SCO would have been diligent, punctilious and punctual about such, but we can only judge from what we've seen; "Cattleback" seems pertinent. With an order on record regarding the German subsidiary I think attorneys who want to remain in the good graces of the BK court will be a bit more forthcoming to the court and notice parties regarding interactions between SCO and SCO/de.
The other is that if UST digs, perhaps just out of curiosity, into Al and his why's .... she's going to find us. She might find out that the long history of SCO is a bit more twisted and sordid than she might otherwise be aware. And there's a possibility that she might decide (and consider it worth weighing) that there's considerably more "public interest" - and a desire for justice - which transcends the mere financial aspects. I don't have any idea if and how much she can consider and act upon that, but that knowledge but it can't do harm if she becomes aware of it.
Source: Investor Village SCOX [ http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=1911 ]