Trolls

Message ID: 158102
Posted By: eightninefourtynine
Posted On: 2004-07-23 23:58:00
Subject: Trolls

Having studied the last four weeks, (its not just me), certain names are coming to the fore. I really question span1ish1nqu1s1t1on.
Do you think I am wrong, or do you believe that M$ etc can do this?
Don't kill me, this is a serious question. I am also looking into Groklaw posts. Paid trolls are very clever.

Brian S.

Message ID: 158104
Posted By: heimdal31
Posted On: 2004-07-24 00:05:00
Subject: Re: Trolls

<< Having studied the last four weeks, (its not just me), certain names are coming to the fore. I really question span1ish1nqu1s1t1on.
Do you think I am wrong, or do you believe that M$ etc can do this?>>

Well, if you are asking if I think span1ish1nqu1s1t1on is a submarine troll, then the answer is no. I've been here for over a year and I've not noticed anything that would make me think that. Mr. Inquisition has only been here for a few months, but he has provided some good material in that time. You can look at everything he has ever posted here at

yah.warmcat.com/boardstats.php?board=1600684464&sid=1600684464&tid=cald&showboard=SCOX&page=results&pagenum=0&searchterm=%3Dspan1sh1nqu1s1t1on

What, in particular, would make you think that?

Message ID: 158105
Posted By: eightninefourtynine
Posted On: 2004-07-24 00:17:00
Subject: Re: Trolls

That's the problem. How do you know? I have however noticed that span1sh1nqu1s1sion posted six minutes after I made the accusation and he ignored it. Not normal behaviour.

Brian S.

Message ID: 158107
Posted By: mathgeezer
Posted On: 2004-07-24 00:18:00
Subject: About Biff

Biff was bounced from GrokLaw today and his post removed for abuse.
He lost it on the first discussion of the SCOG press release. He must be under tremendous pressure.
The time record was ~8:30 PM.

Message ID: 158135
Posted By: deepdistrust
Posted On: 2004-07-24 05:01:00
Subject: Re: Trolls

What makes you think MS (or another company) will pay people to post on this message board? What makes you think they care what gets discussed here? The idea is as ridiculous as PJ's assertion that companies are sending astroturfers to her precious web site!

There is no paranoia without an exaggerated sense of self-importance!

Message ID: 158138
Posted By: cassini_watcher
Posted On: 2004-07-24 05:32:00
Subject: Re: Trolls

>>>> What makes you think they care what gets discussed here? The idea is as ridiculous as PJ's assertion that companies are sending astroturfers to her precious web site!<<<

Well, I won't disagree with you about the astroturfers, but GROKLAW definitely has trolls. They even established a troll section, which, believe it or not, trolls use!

>>> There is no paranoia without an exaggerated sense of self-importance! <<<

I'm not sure if you were implying that PJ also has an exaggerated sense of self-importance, but if you were, what makes you think she isn't important? She's responsible for single-handedly bringing together a community whose prime purpose is to debunk The SCO Group. And guess what, it's working beautifully! There are many important people out there who respect PJ and what she is doing (not to mention a world of OSS users/hacks). If anything, PJ doesn't quite have a sense of how important she really is... and that's no exaggeration.

If I am right, your estimation of PJ runs parallel with your sense of self-esteem. Cheer up, old chap, life is too short to be angry towards clever women who outwit dumb executives.

Message ID: 158139
Posted By: deepdistrust
Posted On: 2004-07-24 06:00:00
Subject: Re: Trolls

< She's responsible for single-handedly bringing together a community whose prime purpose is to debunk The SCO Group.>

I think it has less to do with PJ & more to do with the sense of outrage that SCO generated in the Linux world. I don't think a whole community has to get together to debunk SCO's claims. It would be understandable if the IBM-SCO case were to depend on a subtle technical point that you have to understand by going over every word of every case document. At this point, it is even a waste of time for outsiders to debunk what SCO says in their court filings because SCO has resorted to saying just about anything to keep their cases alive. The Autozone & DC cases are not even about Linux. In essence, yes, a lot of people got together, but what they are doing is mostly a waste of time.

< If anything, PJ doesn't quite have a sense of how important she really is... and that's no exaggeration.>
I disagree, based on her assertions about astroturfers.

< If I am right, your estimation of PJ runs parallel with your sense of self-esteem. Cheer up, old chap, life is too short to be angry towards clever women who outwit dumb executives.>

I think my self-esteem is fine. Really. :)

Message ID: 158154
Posted By: deepdistrust
Posted On: 2004-07-24 07:22:00
Subject: Re: Trolls

< Normally people find they can respect effort and determination even in fields they disagree with. When you still can't acknowledge it, there's usually an interesting personal reason why if you can introspect it out. >

What interesting personal reason? My reasons are in #158139.

Message ID: 158158
Posted By: deepdistrust
Posted On: 2004-07-24 07:52:00
Subject: Re: Trolls

Joking aside, too much self-importance would be if I accused you of secretly working for Microsoft, just because you disagree with me. My original point was that groklaw is not important enough to attract astroturfers.

Message ID: 158164
Posted By: deepdistrust
Posted On: 2004-07-24 08:53:00
Subject: Re: Trolls

<
>> My original point was that groklaw is not important enough to attract astroturfers. <<

And you can prove this assertion? >

Prove is too strong a word, but I gave reasons for my belief in # 158139.

It is not as though SCO is afraid that Groklaw readers will uncover a subtle but fatal flaw in their case by going through all of the documents & by converting them from one format to another & by discussing it among themselves! SCO's case is full of obvious fatal flaws! They have no evidence. They are bound to lose, given enough time!

Message ID: 158165
Posted By: deepdistrust
Posted On: 2004-07-24 09:00:00
Subject: Re: Trolls

< >> The Autozone & DC cases are not even about Linux.<<

Go read SCOX's initial complaints in both cases. I have - well, at least until my eyes started to glaze over - but there's lots of stuff about Linux in both. >

From what I remember, Autozone case is about their using Unix libraries with Linux & DC case is about the compliance document. SCO may have included some gratuituous dirt on Linux. The bottom line is: if someone is making outrageous claims and you sense that they are not really serious, will you go to great lengths to rebuff them or is it more efficient to wait for them to try to prove their claims and fail?

Message ID: 158166
Posted By: deepdistrust
Posted On: 2004-07-24 09:07:00
Subject: Re: Trolls

< I wouldn't put it past them. They've done similar things before. Let's face it, if they're going to doctor a video going to a court, they'll cheerfully pay someone to post
nice things about MSFT products, and bad things about Linux. >

Sure they do. I doubt if this board is worth their trouble, though.

< As for Groklaw's importance, if it wasn't having an effect, Danny-boy Lyons wouldn't have tried to imply that IBM hardware donated to iBiblio years ago, who happens to hosts Groklaw, makes Groklaw an IBM shill.>

I think IBM was the target of Lyons' attack.

< And these sites wouldn't show dhcpxxxx.sco.com in their logs...>

So, SCO checks up yahoo! They don't have to do that if it is to read what their paid poster is writing! It makes more sense if a lot of investors read this board, but I have seen no evidence of that.

Message ID: 158169
Posted By: karl_w_lewis
Posted On: 2004-07-24 09:16:00
Subject: Re: Trolls

>> My original point was that groklaw is not important enough to attract astroturfers. <<

At the [considerable] risk of making you feel like *everyone* is ganging up on you over this... I can't stop myself from responding.

I think I understand your point, the sun does not rise and set by Groklaw. Okay, fine. Never-the-less, Groklaw has garnered, for better or worse, a great deal of attention in the world, it has become *the* site that people turn to to check out what's happening in the SCO case. And, because it keeps all that history, it makes the SCOundrels' [lame] attempts to recast history every second or third week not just useless, but downright counter-productive.

Darl has even attacked Groklaw, by name, complaining that it is as juvenile as slashdot. (If that were true, then what would he know about it? (A self-contradicting lie.))

Were you aware that someone regularly stops by and fills the old stories with posts containing urls of porn sites? Now, that could just be the pornsters themselves, but it also works out to be a really convenient way of trying to drown Groklaw's signal in noise.

Sure, the comments that posters, like me and others, make on Groklaw are not the kind of things that the lawyers sit around breathlessly waiting for, we'd only be kidding ourselves if we thought so. But it serves as a very effective educational resource for the whole community. Ideas and opinions get tested there, and then move out into the wider world.

Don't underestimate the importance of Groklaw; Lawsuits will likely never be the same.

KWL

Message ID: 158184
Posted By: mitmosnar
Posted On: 2004-07-24 10:25:00
Subject: Re: Trolls

Anything really useful from the comments will eventually end up in an article. I would contend that doing research on Groklaw should be a snap for any paralegals. I would also contend that, without the volume coming in, those valuable nuggets might not be found - think 'many eyes'
Just my two cents.

Thanks again,

Message ID: 158188
Posted By: heimdal31
Posted On: 2004-07-24 10:38:00
Subject: Re: Trolls

<< Anything really useful from the comments will eventually end up in an article.>>

Not to mention that some of the things found on Groklaw have actually ended up in court filings.

I'm certain IBM has paralegals going through Groklaw and because Groklaw has thousands of contributors the return on investment of these paralegals is likely much much higher than the return on investment in a typical paralegal.

So, for IBM who could most easily afford additional expense, there is Groklaw providing and adding to paralegal work gratis and for SCO who most needs to reserve its cash, it is having its arguments destroyed in internet time--likely before IBM's paralegals have even started reading the court documents.

Now, since this is a stock board, let's really look at that return on investment concept. I happen to disagree that Groklaw is not very important in the legal cases, but for the sake of argument, lets pretend to agree that it has no impact on any of the cases. It still motivates and energizes, in a true grass roots manner, a widely dispersed base of highly technical people who are either in decision making positions or influence decision makers. Having access to a concentrated target audience like that is a marketers dream.

Before this whole mess started, IBM was contributing to F/OSS, but was looked at with cautious suspiscion by many in the movement. Now, IBM has a huge supply of defenders who are in position to make or influence purchasing decisions. The general opinion of IBM has changed in a way that even an expensive marketing campaign could not do. All for likely less than the cost of a few superbowl commercials.

So, even though I disagree with the proposition that Groklaw is not important in the legal arena, I think it would be impossible to argue that Groklaw is not important.

Message ID: 158196
Posted By: deepdistrust
Posted On: 2004-07-24 11:19:00
Subject: Re: Trolls

< And, because it keeps all that history, it makes the SCOundrels' [lame] attempts to recast history every second or third week not just useless, but downright counter-productive. >

The quotes are in a separate quote database, which is unaffected by astroturfers (allegedly) disrupting conversations. Even without the quote database, if journalists really want to check the consistency of SCO's statements, google will work just fine. But, for whatever reason, the journalists are not very keen on pointing out the inconsistencies.

< But it serves as a very effective educational resource for the whole community. Ideas and opinions get tested there, and then move out into the wider world.>

And, what exactly is the importance of educating the community on the legal stuff, as far as the current cases are concerned? Instead of one paralegal and 100 programmers, we now have 101 paralegals, all doing (mostly) unpaid grunt work, which will get nobody nowhere. All that agonizing over the minutiae is completely worthless, not now, not later. How much time did they spend on the trade secrets claims, before SCO just dropped them and made all that work a waste? People are doing it because they feel like it, but don't tell me it all has some great use for eternity. It is worthless junk. Other than some rudimentary knowledge of copyrights & patents, and maintaining a few checks and balances in their procedures, what does the open source community need to know about law anyway?

Corporations are what SCO is suing and corporations have legal departments. (That the paralegals from these companies are checking groklaw is just fantasy, without more evidence. So far, all we have is groklaw mentioned in one little foot note. The paralegals are better off doing their own work, I think, than trying to find something good among all the junk.) What wider world are you referring to? slashdot?

Message ID: 158198
Posted By: b29651
Posted On: 2004-07-24 11:31:00
Subject: Re: Trolls

i would suggesst before you spout so much wisdom you go and do some research for yourself
i know that redhat does monitor the groklaw board
that is a fact they said in a interview
and even pointed people to the community
IBM maintains neutrality but they did point in one filing as *support* of evidence to a story that was covered on groklaw
and there is knowledge being given on groklaw that NO COMPANY could afford
yes they can afford pieces
but not all of it
the research on groklaw is from people that *know* the history and can point the lawyers to where the FACTS lie
so yes you can bet the paralegals from all those firms involved with the lawsuits and even more are watching this board
and probably lots more CEO's and CFO's than we can imagine.

hehehehe
in your face darl

br3n
lovin' it
scox is BURNT TOAST

Message ID: 158215
Posted By: mitmosnar
Posted On: 2004-07-24 12:35:00
Subject: Re: Troll

"My original point was that groklaw is not important enough to attract astroturfers."

Right. As opposed to what other site?
Want an 'astroturfer'? Well, ol' Rant for Rent Rob posted in Sepetember of last year (he is still listed as a member). Does he qualify? Groklaw has been plagued by both professional and amateur trolls since well before then. To state otherwise is simply a troll in itself. Heck, we even got a cameo from one of your local trolls recently, with hilarious results (although biff is clearly an amateur).
you characterize Droolbucket Dan's infamous Revenge of the Nerds article in Forbes as an attack on IBM, yet I fail to see where sneeringly attacking Br3n's character or trying to publish PJ's address has/had anything to do with IBM. How, from your transcendent vantage point, do you see these things hurting IBM?
I would add that being mentioned constantly in the mainstream press and winning O'Reilly's Editor's Choice award are things that just might run contrary to your assertions.
I can only assume that sour grapes in one form or another are coloring your reasoning.
Perhaps you're sick of biff and ledite's feeble efforts, and envy the bounty of professional or otherwise more sophisticated trolls Groklaw attracts. Believe me, if a trade could be negotiated, I would be all for it.

Thanks again,

Message ID: 158222
Posted By: mitmosnar
Posted On: 2004-07-24 13:00:00
Subject: Re: Trolls

Wow. You really have a hard-on for Groklaw. I won't waste my breath telling you what everyone else already knows, except to say that if you think reading Groklaw is a waste of time, and that it's all 'worthless junk', then I would contend that you clearly ought to look up the word 'irony', as your arrogant, factually deficient posturing is likely the most worthless, ineffectual load of public thumbsucking I've read since your last post.
Naturally, you lack the guts or the intellect to bring your feeble, ankle height hectoring to Groklaw, and are content to make an idiot of yourself here.
If you are unable to make use of the amazing resource that is Groklaw, perhaps you could use the time to cultivate a spine (and maybe even a clue). If you insist on keeping your head in the sand and your ass in the air, that's great. Just don't begrudge others who seek to engage their brains in efforts more productive than peeing on the good work of others.
If you had half a wit, you would log in to Groklaw and give PJ a donation for looking out for your ungrateful butt.

Thanks again,

Message ID: 158256
Posted By: deepdistrust
Posted On: 2004-07-24 15:05:00
Subject: Re: Trolls

< Naturally, you lack the guts or the intellect to bring your feeble, ankle height hectoring to Groklaw, and are content to make an idiot of yourself here. >

Replying to half a dozen guys is taxing enough! I have no desire to take on more people.

< If you are unable to make use of the amazing resource that is Groklaw, perhaps you could use the time to cultivate a spine (and maybe even a clue). If you insist on keeping your head in the sand and your ass in the air, that's great. Just don't begrudge others who seek to engage their brains in efforts more productive than peeing on the good work of others.>

People can of course do whatever they feel like. No begrudinging on my part. I just don't think it is playing any part in anything real, and I basically spoke my mind. IBM is narrowing the case and winning it by the simple process of discovery and by thinking up the master stroke - request for partial summary judgment. Volumes of stuff on groklaw have amounted to nothing as far as actual case progress is concerned. Volume and brute force are no substitutes for insight. But don't listen to me. Go ahead and compare one version of a case document with another and nicely tabulate the results, with the differences in red. They need their daily articles or the crowds will stop coming.

< If you had half a wit, you would log in to Groklaw and give PJ a donation for looking out for your ungrateful butt.>

PJ won't get a dime from me. She will have to make do with that OSRM salary (and later, with the payment for the book, if she writes the book). I don't think she is looking out for me or Linux. I have realized long ago that groklaw is not about Linux; groklaw is about groklaw.

Message ID: 158260
Posted By: boyle_m_owl
Posted On: 2004-07-24 15:31:00
Subject: Re: Trolls

" I have realized long ago that groklaw is not about Linux; groklaw is about groklaw."

Well. Duh. It's a discussion board. I am sure that when SCOX is finally pushing up the daisies, an ex-stock, bereft of life, that PJ will use it for further discussion of other things related to law. The reason that SCO is the current topic there is that it is an *interesting case study*, not that PJ had it in for any of the Board of SCO (well, by now, she probably does, for good reason).

That's why it's named GrokLAW and not named "GrokSCO"

How long did it take for you to come to this conclusion of such obvious facts?

Furrfu.

--
BMO

Message ID: 158261
Posted By: ColonelZen
Posted On: 2004-07-24 15:34:00
Subject: Re: Trolls

dd, what is your point?

That PJ is not a goddess? Fine. I don't think she's a goddess either, but she's doing a fine job IMO, one which she admits she never expected or prepared for.

If it hadn't been PJ and GL it would have been something/someone else. There were thousand's of techies intensly interested in what was going on with SCO, most of whom had no or very little legal knowledge and who wanted to know and understand what these legal subroutines were all about. This was an unstable situation which was going to coalesce around the first nearly suitable nucleus. It happened to be Pamela Jones and her blog. Note that there is now also lamlaw and tuxrocks. PJ got there first.

If *she* hadn't been up to the job of leadership of coordinating the dissemination of legal matters for the legal lay geek community, it would have migrated elsewhere. "If I should fall, another will take my place...".

So, given the weather on the net, Groklaw or something very like it was inevitable.

Your point is?

-- TWZ

Message ID: 158285
Posted By: ColonelZen
Posted On: 2004-07-24 16:44:00
Subject: Re: Trolls

dd, are you biff?

Your style of argument has that certain eau.

-- TWZ

Message ID: 158286
Posted By: deepdistrust
Posted On: 2004-07-24 16:44:00
Subject: Re: Trolls

Sorry Colonel. If # 158138 and the message you replied to don't make it clear, I really don't have anything to add.

Message ID: 158289
Posted By: deepdistrust
Posted On: 2004-07-24 16:48:00
Subject: Re: Trolls

No, no. I suspect biff will be here long after I am gone. He is a persistent little fellow.

The texts of these Yahoo Message Board posts have been licensed for copying and distribution by the Yahoo Message Board users "eightninefourtynine", "heimdal31", "mathgeezer", "deepdistrust", "cassini_watcher", "karl_w_lewis", "mitmosnar", "b29651", "boyle_m_owl", "ColonelZen" under the following license: License: CCL Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0.