Slashdot Log In
Maureen O'Gara No Longer Welcome at LinuxWorld
Posted by
Zonk
on Tue May 10, 2005 12:17 PM
from the following-up dept.
from the following-up dept.
flood6 writes "On the heels of yesterday's article about unrest at LinuxWorld, editor James Turner is reporting in his blog that Sys-Con Media has decided to purge Maureen O'Gara from the print and online publications." From the post: "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." PJ at Groklaw also has commentary on this development.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Ding Dong the Witch Is Dead (Score:5, Interesting)
Incidentally, was I the only person who felt that insinuating that PJ's religion was wacko was particularly ironic, given that Maureen's paymasters at SCO were based in Utah, home of the not-exactly-christian-orthodox Church of the Latter Day Saints.
Re:Ding Dong the Witch Is Dead (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Ding Dong the Witch Is Dead (Score:5, Interesting)
Remember, this is a case involving a self described gun nut who travels under assumed names [deseretnews.com]
This same nut in a company conference call described hiring people to follow PJ.This is a case involving "suicides" [sltrib.com] of people who have disagreements with the SCO management team that even SCO supporters can't explain (DiDio calling it "shocking and mystifying" and even Enderle [harktheherald.com] saying "Why commit suicide right after the settlement when the people you wanted gone are gone? The timing doesn't seem right, given that things were presumably going her way as far as the lawsuit was concerned".
Given the context, death isn't funny, even when talking about wicked witches like OGara.
Parent
Re:Ding Dong the Witch Is Dead (Score:4, Informative)
PJ has made that exact point on her latest GrowLaw post, explicitly stating that she does not believe in suicide and has been advised by law enforcement authorities to make that point publicly in advance.
I doubt O'Gara has any intention of committing suicide - vicious fucktards rarely do.
Parent
Re:Ding Dong the Witch Is Dead (Score:5, Informative)
Anyone else feel that this post is just as as bad? Welcome to the muck and the mire. You are now exactly what you claim to hate.
Frankly if a member of the LDS church did okay such an insult it would be a violation of one of the Articles Of Faith. This one to be exact.
11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may
BTW a good number of Linux uses and developers are LDS. Novell is based in Utah after all. Not only that but BYU is very Linux friendly.
Here is the a page on using the BYUTV.org streams with Linux. http://www.byutv.org/streaming/linux.asp [byutv.org]
And here is a link to the BYU users group. http://uug.byu.edu/links.php [byu.edu]
Parent
Re:Since it sounds like you understand this... (Score:5, Informative)
Groklaw = Site run by PJ. pro-linux, OSS, free software site. Particularly anti-SCO as well.
Maureen O'Gara = Journalist who is either a paid shill for SCO or just amazingly sensationalistic.
Apparently there was some mystery about exactly who PJ is and what her credentials are since Groklaw is such an influential site in the SCO/IBM case. O'Gara found out who she is, and definitely overstepped the bounds of decency by publishing street addresses for her and her son.
People were pissed, so O'Gara's articles have been pulled off some web sites. Apparently the publisher's sense of moral outrage only kicked in when facing advertising boycotts.
Tempest in a teacup, but interesting none the less.
Parent
Re:Since it sounds like you understand this... (Score:5, Funny)
I do not believe the world works the way you think it does...
Parent
Re:Since it sounds like you understand this... (Score:5, Informative)
The trigger for this whole fiasco, though, was a recent article by her. It was, to be blunt, venemous, and dirty. It published details about PJ (the maintaner of Groklaw)'s home address, her mother's home address, some supposed details about her religion, and used all of this in a really nasty attempt at ad hominem to conclude that groklaw was run by crazies who wouldn't know logic if it hit them in the face.
It has, thankfully, blown up in Ms O'Gara's face, which goes to show that there is some small sliver of justice in the world.
Parent
Re:Since it sounds like you understand this... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Since it sounds like you understand this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Since it sounds like you understand this... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, but scum have a way of rising back to the top of the pond. Keep an eye on her career. Wouldn't surprise me to see her show up in Washington as a lobbyist.
Parent
Re:Since it sounds like you understand this... (Score:5, Insightful)
How about if she shook hands with the brother of the boss of a programmer who went to school with a guy who later worked for a boss who once owned an IBM PC for a few years before replacing it with a Compaq?
I'd say she'd be discredited if she was actually paid by IBM, but just living in the same city? Give me a fucking break.
Parent
Re:Since it sounds like you understand this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is PJ's identity or religious affiliation relevant in any way? Groklaw is a resource for all the legal activity. Do you have some complaint against the factualness of what's being reported on Groklaw, or do you think a stalker's guide and ad hominen attack is the same as evidence? Groklaw isn't about PJ. It doesn't matter who PJ is. What matters is that SCO has been exposed by many people as having no real basis in fact for their claims. PJ has created a site that has successfully put the information out there, but the information is public record.
So do you have a complaint about information posted on Groklaw, or do you think that learning where PJ lives or how she lives is the same as a legally supportable argument?
Parent
Re:Since it sounds like you understand this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Therefore I ask: are you aware of any factual inaccuracies on Groklaw? If so, did you make PJ aware of them? If so, did she amend or retract the article, if not did she give any justifcation.
And what, precisely was the disputed data?
PJ has co-orindated the collection of a body of high quality data. If you have evidence that contradicts that on groklaw, then I expect PJ will be glad to set the record straight. If you have better arguments, state them! She will probably print those too.
But if your best argument involves the lady's religion, her alleged employer, her work experience then you have nothing to say at all.
Parent
Finally (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Of course (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Interesting article at Groklaw... (Score:5, Funny)
Why did it take so long? (Score:4, Interesting)
Why did a magazine called LinuxWorld continue to print garbage by someone who is so obviously anti-Linux?
Re:Why did it take so long? (Score:5, Interesting)
Advertisers are a very important source of revenue, and for some the most important one. Have a look at Slashdot stories and keep the phrase "advertisers pay money" in your mind at the same time. Hmh, the average Slashdotter should edit /etc/login.conf and increase maxproc-max from 1 to 2 while doing this. They would need to relogin after this change, though.
Parent
Here's the commentary from Groklaw... (Score:5, Informative)
Sys-Con has decided to listen to its editors, who took a very courageous stand, its readers and advertisers and will no longer publish any of Maureen O'Gara's writings. Here is the story, from James Turner, Senior Editor of LinuxWorld, who, together with Dee-Ann LeBlanc, forced the issue by announcing Sys-Con would have to choose between them and O'Gara:
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.
My faith in the human race is restored. I do thank all those who took such a stand, publicly and privately. It means so much to me to know that there is still a line, an ethical line, and some things that we agree we ought never to do to a fellow human. Sometimes, covering the SCO saga, you can start to wonder what has happened to the human race. SCO's fundamental problem is, they never see that line until they have crossed it. Then they wonder why they are failing as a company and in their litigation.
By the way, we found out how many comments we can have before the software sinks, on the last story. It seems 1,181 is our natural limit, so please don't add any more comments to that story. We are holding on by our fingertips, while MathFox works his wonders. It's never happened before. Remember when we had to move away from Radio Userland because we were having too many comments for the software? Well, again we have so many comments the software is groaning. Here, we can make the necessary changes to be able to grow right where we stand. Your outpouring of support made a difference. I fell asleep with a smile on my face, believe it or not. I had no idea so many people cared so much about Groklaw and about me. I thank you all very much. I'll remember yesterday all the days of my life.
Here's the commentary from Groklaw's webmaster (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
On whores (Score:4, Insightful)
What is reprehensible and really hard to stomach is that she stooped to such lows as attacking Ms. Jones privacy.
Reminds me of the methods of a science fiction space opera nut cult.
Re:On whores (Score:5, Funny)
Where in San Francisco is this Tenderloin district you speak of?
Parent
Some background info... (Score:5, Informative)
"Editor in chief"? (Score:5, Interesting)
Without evidence of the contrary , I must however assume she is still "Editor in chief" of "Linux Business Week" and thus still getting paid by sys-con.
The only thing which was made clear is that she could not publish articles authored by herself anymore.
Cheers,
Andre
Ok, what was she thinking? (Score:4, Insightful)
Did someone pay MOG enough to compensate for losing what little credibility she had left? I don't believe that - not because this would be "too evil" but because it would be plain stupid.
Phew. I'm seriously baffled.
Who is MOG? (Score:4, Informative)
The Growlaw site is at least truthful. Documents are retrieved, or linked from the court, volunteers go to the court sessions and write what actually occurred. MO'G wouldn't have attracted so much attention if she had at least been a little more intelligent about how she wrote her stories about the trial. I mean,lots of journalists are writing the story, and some are SCO positive, and they aren't attracting the same level of criticism that she is.
Hopefully this helps a few of the people who were unsure of who MO'G is, and if you want more information, go to the Groklaw site.
Simply Amazing... (Score:4, Funny)
Warning: mysql_connect(): User groklaw has already more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in
Cannnot connect to DB server
Editors (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't most people expect writers to bring drafts and editors tweak before publishing? I mean did NO ONE on staff read this article before it went live? Did they just hand her a publish account and let her loose?
She sounds like scum, but there's some serious procedure problems as well that allowed this kind of work to happen.
O'Gara May Have Violated Federal Law (Score:5, Interesting)
If I were P.J., I'd be filing charges on O'Gara right now. Her actions are likely sufficient to fall under 18 USC 875(c), the Interstate Stalking Punishment and Prevention Act of 1996. She traveled across state lines in an effort to violate the privacy of an individual who has quite reasonable fear for her safety. O'Gara may also be liable under New York's anti-stalking laws as well [state.ny.us].
At the very least, I'd be filing for a restraining order by now.
Furthermore, Sys-Con was exceptionally negligent in ever allowing that sort of thing to be published. Not only is it a gross and blatant violation of journalistic ethics, but it's quite possibly opened them up to a devastating legal action.
It's beyond disgusting that something like that would ever be published - most bloggers wouldn't dream of pulling crap like that, but to have a supposedly "professional" organization allow potentially libelous and obviously private information to be disseminated is absolutely unconscionable.
Is this over reaction? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just my $0.02
Re:Censorship!! (Score:5, Interesting)
If O'Gara wishes to continue to spout her drivel, there are roughly 27 trillion channels remaining open to her.
Parent
Wrong, wrong, and wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
She was basically fired.
Get it straight.
Parent
Re:Censorship!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Censorship!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Censorship!! (Score:5, Insightful)
No one is telling her she cannot publish. No one is shutting down her site. Sys-con is declining to purchase her column because of gross unprofessionalism. Firing someone for failing to perform the duties and responsibilities of their job is hardly censorship.
It's common among geeks to assume laws and principles are some sort of rigid inflexible code. if publisher.cuts_off($writer) $action="CENSORSHIP";
And doesn't it put the lie to your bait about us "screaming censorship at every turn" when "we" indeed do fail to live up to this charicature?
Parent
Re:Censorship!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Maureen O'Gara posts a story, which includes:
1. PJ's address
2. PJ's phone number
3. Some comments about PJ's car and the contents
4. Some snide comments about PJ's religious affiliation
5. Some snide comments about the interior of PJ's place
6. The address of PJ's mother
7. Pictures of PJ's front door
8. Pictures of PJ's car
Get a clue.
Parent
Re:Summary not clear (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Full Aritcle Text (Score:5, Informative)
Darl McBride and Laura DiDio have complained bitterly about receiving nasty email and late-night phone calls. That's kid's stuff by comparison. Without commenting on the latest O'Gara article's contents, because I am considering legal action and can't comment directly at this time, think about this: Have Linux "zealots" ever put up personal info on how to find Darl McBride's mother, with pictures of her home and the number on her mailbox so any stalker can find her readily? That was O'Gara's intent. Has anyone published who DiDio calls from her landline phone? Can you imagine the press conference SCO would hold, and what names they would call the FOSS community, if anything like that happened?
Who are the "extremists" now? The "cyberterrorists"? The violators of the law and of all things decent? Who are the enablers of stalking and violence?
But the big picture is this: it's official now, not just a guess, that my readers simply don't care who I am or what I am. They really don't. Groklaw isn't about me, and my work stands on its own. Anyway, they know me by now as a person, because in my writing they see my inner person, how my brain works, my heart, my ethics. We're old friends by now, and you always stand by an old, true friend. That is exactly what has happened.
Groklaw is exactly what I told you from day one, a blog written by a paralegal who became a journalist. I do it myself. All by myself. Well. Me and the entire worldwide FOSS community. All the rest is just their paranoid ravings and imaginings. Literally thousands of members and readers contribute to Groklaw, and millions read what we present.
You know why? In part, because I never take the low road. Really. That's the secret to Groklaw's success. It's a place on the Internet where we can speak to each other as adults, in a civil atmosphere, without meanness or ad hominem attacks and work together with a common purpose, regardless of our varied backgrounds and preferences in other areas. Politics is off topic. So is religion. And so are insults. I don't even let comments remain if they attack people like Maureen O'Gara. I once wrote an article to ask people not to attack her verbally, when others did so on another website. (In that article I wrote that she was a good journalist. I take that part back. I tend to be too kind.)
I have been flooded with emails of support and donations. I'd say whatever the dark side's intent, it has boomeranged. And I also want to thank everyone for all the words of support and the donations. I will try to write to you all personally in time, but I couldn't wait to tell you how touched I am by the overwhelming number of good wishes. Thank you. It means everything to me that you responded as you have and have seen through this latest and most foul attempt at intimidation and character assassination. Did you notice? They only attack me as a person. What does that tell you about the integrity of Groklaw that they were forced to stoop to that?
On a personal note: I've heard from several who are seriously warning me that they think SCO is setting me up so that they can arrange my "suicide". You know, like Val Kreidel allegedly was so overwhelmed by what was printed about her by Maureen O'Gara and others that she ended it all?
I have no experience in such things, so I can't evaluate their warnings, but I have taken note that three persons on the SCOX Yahoo Finance board, one known to be a SCO supporter if not an insider, have already predicted my suicide, two of them since this article.
So I feel I should say this, just for the record, just in case, worst-case scenario: I don't believe in suicide, and I certainly don't care what Maureen O'Gara thinks about me. So if you hear about my "suicide", it isn't one. And you can take that to the bank. She has
Parent
Re:Who is she and what did she do? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Honest question (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:So who is she (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:So who is she (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:So who is she (Score:5, Insightful)
Groklaw allows anyone who's willing to take the time (and it takes a lot of time), to understand just how (un-)likely it is that SCO will win some or all of its major lawsuits.
This is why no one really cares who she is.
Parent
Re:So who is she (Score:5, Informative)
She is a paralegal. That means the value of her legal opinion is not that of a lawyer, but in excess of the general populace.
What she would be an expert at is the gruntwork of the legal profession. Knowing the ins and outs of the "system," which, as it happens, is her role at Groklaw, because. .
. . . why does her opinion matter so much in this case.
It doesn't. O'Gara is a pure opinion piece writer. Groklaw is fact based. They publish the court records. This is PJ's area of expertise. While commentary on the record is offered legal opinion is defered to lawyers, who, oddly enough PJ is in contact with and who actually write for the site.
The value and accuracy of the material at Groklaw can largely be judged by the fact that SCO and O'Gara choose to attack PJ on a personal level, rather than than attacking the validity of the material and opinions available at Groklaw.
Such is always the tactic of the irrationally vicious. Same crap as saying that if you don't approve of attacking Poland you're for terrorism and and against God and the Homeland.
You always know that someone is full of shit when they start resorting to this sort of thing.
Next thing you know they'll start implying that PJ's lying because her dog looks funny, whether she has a dog or not.
O'Gara and her ilk can say any lies they like, because they are speaking "opinion." PJ can't, because she is speaking the court record.
KFG
Parent
Re:So who is she (Score:5, Interesting)
Whether Maureen O'Gara acted under direction from SCO and company, or whether she is just a biased journalist, remains to be seen. But the recent spate of articles against PJ is more of an attack against Groklaw's effectiveness (and by inference in my opinion, free and open dialog). The fact that O'Gara et al have stooped to personal attacks in itself says a lot about their desperation (again, IMHO).
It's really comical in one sense, yet dangerously close to blatant hate mongering (I can't think of any other way to say it, sorry). For a professional journalist to publish personal details like Maureen O'Gara did is inexcusable (I'm sure Maureen wouldn't want her personal details published on a web page -- imagine all of the anti-SCO kooks out there that might use it for nefarious purposes).
In any case, apparently the only thing that SCO can come up with to counter Groklaw is to try and paint it as an IBM lackey or worse, and so both Groklaw and PJ has been under attack recently. All I can say is, when it comes to trust and integrity, who would you pick: SCO or Groklaw?
Parent
Re:Can you say BIG BROTHER (Score:4, Insightful)
MoG can publish her opinions as much as she wants. In any venue that she can.
She has done so. Now comes the consequences of her speech.
People are free to vote with their dollars. Vast numbers of people are free to let advertisers that they don't approve of advertising on a site that features such a hateful personal attack which is completely irrelevant to the SCO vs. The World cases. Publications, upon hearing the reaction of advertisers, are free to can MoG.
There is no censorship here. MoG is free to publish elsewhere, such as on the G2 properties which she has complete control over. Anyone wishing to support her with advertising or subscriptions is completely free to do so.
Are you saying that I must be happy and shut up about what MoG writes? Are you censoring me saying that I am not free to express my disgust to the advertisers? Who is the censor now?
Parent
Re:So? (Score:5, Informative)
see here [linuxworld.com].
Parent
Re:Original Article (Score:5, Informative)
Google cache, text only. [64.233.161.104]
Parent