What GROKLAW has become

Posted By: quality_not_compromise
Posted On: 2004-09-17 07:23 pm
Subject: What GROKLAW has become

Been to GROKLAW lately?

While Pamela Jones undoubtedly runs a first class act, unfortunately, her audience is ruining things for her. You can't even ask a simple, unassuming question without being called a troll. The level of intolerance is astounding.

Then there's the awkward moderation policy. Some posts are worthy of the trash can, but they are left to stay. While more worthy posts are deleted. It would help matters if GROKLAW had a uniform delete policy. By not doing so, some people may wonder why their post was deleted without explanation.

I find this board a bit more tolerant. While the signal-to-noise ratio is high, sometimes I do want to hear someone's cantankerous rant. It helps me form a good mental image of their state of mind.

GROKLAW is much too formal for this kind of behaviour. It's much more like a British Bankers Club with a bunch of pedantic geeks quibbling. Formal in appearance, yet informal when it comes to respecting a dissenting opinion. At least here you have voices of moderation, like al_petrofsky, TomFrayne, et al, that respond respectfully to even the most stupid of posts.

Please don't construe this as an attack on PJ. I have a very high opinion of her. However, her audience is what is lowering my opinion. I find my wanting to post is waning just because of the idiocy I witness sometimes. The only reason for me to read GROKLAW now is to read posts by PJ, Quatermass, AllParadox, and webster. Otherwise, I'd ignore the site.

Message ID: 181860
Posted By: infosecgroupie
Posted On: 2004-09-17 20:19:00
Subject: Re: What GROKLAW has become

>>> Then there's the awkward moderation policy. Some posts are worthy of the trash can, but they are left to stay. While more worthy posts are deleted. It would help matters if GROKLAW had a uniform delete policy. By not doing so, some people may wonder why their post was deleted without explanation. <<<

I did sufficient research to conclusively verify a rumored modification to the Geeklog source code such that selected IP addresses can continue to post, but such posts are rendered invisible to the public at large although they remain visible to the OP.

I had several people indendantly verify this for me, with posts that I made from my home IP address, and then posts that I made through a web proxy service.

The posts I made from my home IP address were not visible to any of my testers, but posts that I made through a web proxy were as visible as any other.

(By way of background, I managed to piss off PJ back when the OSRM study first broke).

I now visit Groklaw momentarily ever other day or so, but never read the comments.

i_s_g

Message ID: 181863
Posted By: cat_herder_5263
Posted On: 2004-09-17 20:56:00
Subject: Re: What GROKLAW has become

----------------8< Quote >8----------------
I did sufficient research to conclusively verify a rumored modification to the Geeklog source code such that selected IP addresses can continue to post, but such posts are rendered invisible to the public at large although they remain visible to the OP
----------------8< Quote> 8----------------

That's not a foolproof solution. A lot of us have DSL using PPPoE from a big provider like EarthLink (my case). They will give you a fixed IP address for an additional $15/month, but it's pretty meaningless to have one because they still drop your connection every 24 hours or so an make your firewall/router/whatever renegotiate. I don't pay the extra money for something that is no real benefit.

My IP address comes from a pool, so anybody who's in that pool could be rudely surprised by that "feature".

How would you like it if I had just posted something offensive to GL, got my IP banned, dropped my connection and you accidentally got my old IP address?

=^^=

Message ID: 181864
Posted By: b29651
Posted On: 2004-09-17 20:56:00
Subject: Re: What GROKLAW has become

so you want to criticise PJ 's web site
funny
we kinda like it the way it is
else why would we be growing so fast
someone must think so too
br3n

Message ID: 181878
Posted By: karl_w_lewis
Posted On: 2004-09-17 21:47:00
Subject: Re: What GROKLAW has become

More Groklaw discussion? Weren't we done with this?

Obviously not, because here I am once again joining the fray.

I have heard all the complaints. [shrug]

For myself, I'd like to burden you all with my expirence.

I "joined" Grolaw as a regular poster back around November or December or '03. Right around the SCOundrels' first court date over discovery. I posted a lot. I read all the comments.

I have all but stopped posting there. Not because I am unhappy with PJ. Not because I conssider the signal to noise ratio too low. I stopped posting because I realized I have very little to add. There are the handful of "expert" posters there, (and *I* remember that info_sec_groupie, btw, was one of those, too). I realized that my voice was just more noise. I still read Groklaw. I have the deepest respect for the many great posters there.

I think Groklaw could be better, if more people made the same decision I have, to be a spectator, rather than a participant, but you know, it's a free planet.

On this board, though, while I can't hold a candle to the likes of stats_for_all, elcorton, Tom_Frayne, Al_Petrofsky, w4rmc47, and so many others, there's enough steady traffic that my "noise" doesn't seem to be a crime.

Mostly, I make my [poor] attempts at comic relief, because really, when it comes right down to it, the SCOundrels are almost too funny for words. The reason for all the Monty Python references, and Princess Bride references everyone keeps makeing is because this is *just* that sort of farce, come to life.

< /Friday night at confessional>

KWL, on Groklaw: the_flatlander.

Message ID: 181886
Posted By: infosecgroupie
Posted On: 2004-09-17 22:02:00
Subject: Re: What GROKLAW has become

>>> How would you like it if I had just posted something offensive to GL, got my IP banned, dropped my connection and you accidentally got my old IP address? <<<

"Dialup cruft"

An *extremely* common source of hits in my snort and ipchains/iptables logs back when I was on dialup through AT&T.

Now, on Comcast High Speed Internet(tm) I've had the same IP address ever since first signon, although Comcast does not advertise my service as having a static IP address; in fact, I believe Comcast charges more for a "true" static IP address...

As for Groklaw, the whole deal with IP address hit lists is just a small part of the pettiness that has caused me to move on.

i_s_g

Message ID: 181895
Posted By: saltydogmn
Posted On: 2004-09-17 23:18:00
Subject: Re: What SCO has become (QNC)

While I have been to PJ's site hundreds of times, I have never posted there; no particular reason, but I think it's due to my not really having anything to add to the mix. Here, however, when I post, I tend to steer towards the cynical, dry sense of humor(?) posts, because if I even thought of trying to reason with the obvious shills here (yourself included), I'd simply go mad. This whole case is as transparent as a Britney Spears tank top, (mmm, Britney...) and it makes me ill that people like yourself could even fathom trying to stick up for these devious and scheming, but also bumbling, totally incompetent fools.

What do I have at stake here? On the surface, not much. No stock to speak of, in SCOX or IBM. I use Windows XP at home, and Win2K at work. I DO get OSS, though. I've tried RH twice, as well as Mandrake, and finally found a disty (9.2, I think) that worked well with all of my hardware. I despise M$, if for no other reason than they literally get away with everything, and get slapped with a wet noodle for egregious violations. Some day, my workplace will be 100% Microsmurft free, and I'll be the reason why. Soon, I hope.
I have a challenge for you, Q_N_C. When this crap is finally over, and SCO is a smoldering pile of refuse, with Darl and Co. doing hard time, perhaps, would you be man enough to admit here, that you, and all the other longs/paided shills/insiders/scam artists/etc., were WRONG? For most of us here, that alone would be enough. What say you?

Message ID: 181904
Posted By: heimdal31
Posted On: 2004-09-18 00:04:00
Subject: Re: What GROKLAW has become

quality_not_compromis not quality_not_compromise wrote:

<< Then there's the awkward moderation policy. Some posts are worthy of the trash can, but they are left to stay. While more worthy posts are deleted. It would help matters if GROKLAW had a uniform delete policy.>>

in a later post in the same thread infosecgroupie wrote:

<< I did sufficient research to conclusively verify a rumored modification to the Geeklog source code such that selected IP addresses can continue to post, but such posts are rendered invisible to the public at large although they remain visible to the OP.>>

Troll or no, I think these are valid criticisms. First of all, I cannot begin to express my thanks for PJ and for Groklaw. There is no question in my mind that we would not be where we are today were it not for both of them.

I also understand that because of its very success Groklaw attracted what appears to be a coordinated astroturf campaign to fill posts (particularly older ones) with dross comments. Given a comment system that is rather lacking in a number of ways, this was rather effective in making it difficult to use Groklaw as a research source.

Something had to be done and a closed moderation process along with tricking astroturfers (and other posts that I would consider valuable) into believing their posts had not been deleted was an understandable response. It is not, IMHO, the most desirable response.

I think this hidden deletion policy is antithetical to the open source ideal. I have no problem with deleting porn-filled posts. For that matter, I have no problem with a flaming response to pro-SCO posts, but then I come from the Usenet days and even some BBS participation before that, so it seems normal to me. But, it seems to me that you get more value out of a wider diversity of opinions--even of idiocy from idiots who disagree with you. And I think perhaps this IP-filtering has led to a bit too much homogenity at Groklaw.

One of the strengths of strong Open Source projects is their contradictory ability to embrace Groupthink and tolerate flaming dissent and self-criticism. For a project to be successful, you need a dedicated core of people with a central coherent vision. You also need more for a project to continue to be successful. I think many can point to instances in successful open source projects where they became stale from riding on their laurels until eventually someone came in with a radical new idea--an idea that was flamed from the defenders of the status quo. Most of the time these new ideas are idiotic, but sometimes through argument or sheer force of will, these new ideas have been integrated into projects and the project has come out stronger.

It strikes me that Groklaw is definitely lacking an ability to tolerate critical introspection and by IP-filtering dissenters is blocking out that one good idea (or even--and this is perhaps too big a stretch--that one good SCO argument that needs to be countered.)

As an example here on the Yahoo board, go do a Yahouevre search on the poster yoyotogoismyname. He is a very interesting one. For the longest time, I classified him as a ledite clone in my book. But he was likely more pissed then the crunchies were at the PIPE deal. Some think he may have been working for some other big investor, but I don't. I really think he was an investor who could not grok Linux and open source. There was a disconnect between his world view and mine, but I do think that this board was a better place for his dissenting opinions.

Message ID: 181910
Posted By: flimbag
Posted On: 2004-09-18 00:44:00
Subject: Re: What GROKLAW has become

I have to say that Groklaw has been invaluable over the last few weeks, and the quality of the articles posted has improved immensely.

That said, I disagree with some of what you say about PJ. I find her analysis extremely useful, but her comments tend to irritate the heck out of me. For someone so apparently rational, when it comes to trolls, she really seems to join the tin hat brigade.

Like you, I find this board far more tolerant, though I still read Groklaw daily for the same regular posters that you identify.

Message ID: 181926
Posted By: flimbag
Posted On: 2004-09-18 06:12:00
Subject: Re: What GROKLAW has become

> First of all, I cannot begin to express my
> thanks for PJ and for Groklaw. There is no
> question in my mind that we would not be where
> we are today were it not for both of them.

Without wishing to denigrate Groklaw's very real achievement -- I believe that it does an extremely good job of informing people about the status of the various cases, and of translating difficult legal concepts for non-lawyers -- comments like this one always leave me puzzled.

What is it you mean by 'we would not be where we are today'? Are you talking about in terms of the status of the lawsuit? In terms of public perception of the case? Or simply about as a community of people, critical of SCO's actions?

I think that in the latter sense, it's probably true. However, I get really confused when I see people attribute IBM's success in the lawsuit to Groklaw. There were a couple of posts immediately after Tuesday's hearing that thanked PJ, claiming that the victory in that day's hearing wouldn't have been possible without her.

Now if PJ happens to be sitting in on Cravath, Swaine and Moore's strategy meetings, I might be able to buy that, but it seems to me that they've done an extremely good job of running this case, and I don't see any evidence at all of reliance upon Groklaw. Yes, I'm aware that in one of their filings, they once referred to something referenced in a Groklaw article. They've also referenced places like C-net. Surely nobody is suggesting that C-net also deserves credit for *their* role in defeating SCO's legal strategy?

This grandiose thinking among some of the posters does seem rather bizzare to me, and sometimes it seems as though PJ also buys into it. I've certainly never seen her contest it. Groklaw does a really useful job in informing people about the status of the case. That's something that both PJ and many of the regular posters can rightfully be proud of. The speed with which it published feedback from Tuesday's hearing was a classic example of Groklaw at it's best -- providing diverse perspectives, the 'many eyes' at work.

But when people start up with this 'we owe it all to Groklaw', I'm sorry, but the Nazgul have managed their own case from start to finish, and done a phenomenal job of it. Even if they do *read* Groklaw, the strategy that they've employed has clearly been all their own and attempts to give Groklaw and/or PJ the credit for this fail to render to Caesar what is rightfully his.

Message ID: 181954
Posted By: lumber_cartel
Posted On: 2004-09-18 09:39:00
Subject: The biggest problem with GrokLaw

is that it's too much work for PJ to do single-handed while trying to make a living at something else.

It's the basic growth problem. Eventually it'll resolve one way or another; quite possibly just because the storm of SCOX traffic will abate.

Message ID: 181974
Posted By: mck9@swbell.net
Posted On: 2004-09-18 11:23:00
Subject: Re: What GROKLAW has become

>>
Now if PJ happens to be sitting in on Cravath, Swaine and Moore's strategy meetings, I might be able to buy that, but it seems to me that they've done an extremely good job of running this case, and I don't see any evidence at all of reliance upon Groklaw.
<<

In a private email to PJ (mostly about other matters) I once remarked:

>>
We like to think that we're lending IBM a hand, and maybe we are, but IBM has ample resources to carry on the battle without our help.
<<

She responded:

>>
Trust me, we are helping IBM and Red Hat. I know that for a fact.
<<

I don't know what she meant by that, nor did I ever ask. My assumption is that she has behind-the-scenes contact with the IBM and Red Hat legal teams (it would be surprising if she didn't), but that she couldn't properly disclose everything that she has been told.

Message ID: 181980
Posted By: infosecgroupie
Posted On: 2004-09-18 11:35:00
Subject: Re: What GROKLAW has become

>>> She responded:

>>
Trust me, we are helping IBM and Red Hat. I know that for a fact.
<<<<<

This unfortunately may be a strong symptom of the major problem at Groklaw: PJ has developed an enormous ego but has little maturity, balance or perspective about her place in the larger scheme of things to temper that recently enlarged large ego.

IMO, she has allowed herself to be completely swept away by the relative success of Groklaw (which, anyone who maintains some objectivity will admit, is *actually* the sum of the combined work of its contributors, and *not* the sole labors of PJ alone) and the relentless fawning and bowing and scraping from her partisan supporters.

I would suspect that this may be the very first time in her life where she has either:

1) accomplished much of any note, and
2) received wide acclaim for anything

It's really gone completely to her head.

i_s_g

Message ID: 182000
Posted By: spamsux99
Posted On: 2004-09-18 12:56:00
Subject: Re: What GROKLAW has become

> in a later post in the same thread
> infosecgroupie wrote:
>
><< I did sufficient research to conclusively
> verify a rumored modification to the Geeklog
> source code such that selected IP addresses
> can continue to post, but such posts are
> rendered invisible to the public at large
> although they remain visible to the OP.>>

I can't find the post by infosecgroupie that you are referring to here, care to point it out?

Has anyone else confirmed this IP blocking at groklaw? I have a real simple suggestion. If you think your ip address is being blocked by groklaw, install squid or set apache up for proxying on your box and let someone else confirm it.

Message ID: 182181
Posted By: b29651
Posted On: 2004-09-19 09:20:00
Subject: Re: What GROKLAW has become

i had to think on this before replying to it
scox is know to be very aggressive litigators
suing seems to be a game to fud their stock and draw attention in anyway they can
astroturfers are a know tactic of M$ so why wouldnt scox do this to *salt* the posts with things that scox could sue for defamation or whatever their creative lawyers could dream up
groklaw has been very effective in telling the story for the linux community side but we have also told the other side even when sometimes we wanted to scream with frustration.the posts that i personally have seen deleted contained things that had offensive language in them or were obvious flamebaiters to side track discussions
there are posts that disagree with our points of view still on groklaw.the ones that some refer to (not directed toward anyone)*might* contain comments that could trigger lawsuits because they are too rough accusing fraud or such toward scox and to avoid the possibility of lawsuit and keeping the site up the value has to be weighed by the moderator and i would think PJ has final say in that?
do we want PJ spending time to defend the site so that groklaw becomes another wookie and cant spend enough time disecting scox vs the other cases?
these are questions that have to be weighed and faced?
choices are sometimes hard to make
for myself delete any that are doubtful and keep the eye on the ball(scox)
respectfully br3n

Message ID: 182245
Posted By: heimdal31
Posted On: 2004-09-19 14:10:00
Subject: Re: What GROKLAW has become

<< groklaw has been very effective in telling the story for the linux community side but we have also told the other side even when sometimes we wanted to scream with frustration.the posts that i personally have seen deleted contained things that had offensive language in them or were obvious flamebaiters to side track discussions
there are posts that disagree with our points of view still on groklaw.the ones that some refer to (not directed toward anyone)*might* contain comments that could trigger lawsuits because they are too rough accusing fraud or such toward scox and to avoid the possibility of lawsuit and keeping the site up the value has to be weighed by the moderator and i would think PJ has final say in that?>>

I do agree that PJ has the final say. That doesn't mean that someone that cares about what PJ has created shouldn't say something if they feel decisions are being made that could be detrimental in the long run. As I said in my original post, I understand why the deletion (and the tricking of the poster into thinking their post had not been deleted) policy was implemented. I even think that it can be effective in meeting that purpose--however, I am personally bothered by the fake deletions. I realize that may be because I'm a bit too libertarian when it comes to free speech.

I do think that an unfortunate side effect of the deletion policy has been to homogenize Groklaw a bit too much. Right now, that is probably a strength, but I fear (perhap incorrectly) that going forward it may become a detriment. I do know that I have seen posts disappear that in my mind do not fall into the above categories. (Not my own. The only post I ever had disappear were because of legal concerns that PJ had and I fully understand and support why she deleted that post.)

<< do we want PJ spending time to defend the site so that groklaw becomes another wookie and cant spend enough time disecting scox vs the other cases?>>

Absolutely not. Nor do I want to see Groklaw fall into meta-discussions about how Groklaw is run. But, I do think there may be some value in occasional meta-discussion and a bit more openess. However, I do agree it is PJ's site and that even now she is running it better than I ever could dream of attaining.

<< these are questions that have to be weighed and faced?>>

Agreed.

<< choices are sometimes hard to make
for myself delete any that are doubtful and keep the eye on the ball(scox)>>

Actually, I think the deletion policy could set them up for more danger from lawsuits. By deleting in the way Groklaw is doing, you are admitting that you are in part removing content that could be libelous. I'm willing to bet that puts you in a worse permission in court if you do fail to remove a libelous comment. In other words, if you delete nothing, you could use that as a defense and say that you will delete if you get a complaint. But if your policy is to try to protect others from libel and you fail to do so, you could be in a less defensible position.

Message ID: 182275
Posted By: spamsux99
Posted On: 2004-09-19 15:42:00
Subject: Re: What GROKLAW has become

> As I said in my original post, I understand
> why the deletion (and the tricking of the
> poster into thinking their post had not been
> deleted) policy was implemented. I even think
> that it can be effective in meeting that
> purpose--however, I am personally bothered by
> the fake deletions. I realize that may be
> because I'm a bit too libertarian when it
> comes to free speech.

Again, has anyone else experienced or confirmed this "fake deletion" phenomenon at groklaw other than heimdal31?

I have experienced 1 post of mine on groklaw being "moderated" from view of anyone but myself, but all of my other posts remained visible, logged in or not, from the same IP address, and I was offered an explanation.

Message ID: 182282
Posted By: heimdal31
Posted On: 2004-09-19 16:15:00
Subject: In Defense of Groklaw's importance

<< What is it you mean by 'we would not be where we are today'? Are you talking about in terms of the status of the lawsuit? In terms of public perception of the case? Or simply about as a community of people, critical of SCO's actions?>>

I guess my answer would be "yes" to all.

<< I think that in the latter sense, it's probably true. However, I get really confused when I see people attribute IBM's success in the lawsuit to Groklaw. There were a couple of posts immediately after Tuesday's hearing that thanked PJ, claiming that the victory in that day's hearing wouldn't have been possible without her.

Now if PJ happens to be sitting in on Cravath, Swaine and Moore's strategy meetings, I might be able to buy that, but it seems to me that they've done an extremely good job of running this case, and I don't see any evidence at all of reliance upon Groklaw.>>

I absolutely agree with your implication that CSM could have one this case without our help and without breaking a sweat. I do happen to believe, though, that we are helpful nonetheless. No matter how much money or people CSM had to throw at the problem, it would not have been able to research some of the issues with the speed and depth that Groklaw can do.

However, I meant more than that--in fact, our directly helping the case is a side effect of what I meant. While the Yahoo baord was fighting SCO before anyone had heard of Groklaw and while Slashdot was having daily stories on SCO at the beginning, the fact remains that even today the Yahoo board is relatively obscure and Slashdot's stories scroll off the front page rather quickly. Groklaw provided a focal point early on for those, like me, who wanted to contribute something to the fight--even if it was only helping to clarify and explain things for like minded people.

But, Groklaw quickly became something more and very quickly created a fervent online community. The very existence of such a community, and the influence it had through Groklaw in the wider FOSS community and the media, has likely influenced the way IBM has pursued the case. As I and others have pointed out before, the FOSS reaction to IBM because of its defense/attack of SCO has done more to change the opinion of the company for whom the term FUD was coined than any amount of marketing dollars.

Because of the community reaction--and that is influenced and directed more by Groklaw than any other online phenomenon--IBM cannot settle and they cannot get away with a narrow victory on a technicality. For IBM to maintain this incredible marketing goodwill, bought at a price that is cheap in terms of marketing campaigns, they have to crush SCO.

That is what I meant when I said that we would not be where we were today without PJ and Groklaw. I think it is obvious. So, even if you don't credit that the legal research on Groklaw helps SCO's opponents, I think you have to admit that the case likely would not be where it is today without the indirect influence that Groklaw has on the case by mere fact of its existence.

P.S. I donated to Groklaw today.

Message ID: 182283
Posted By: b29651
Posted On: 2004-09-19 16:16:00
Subject: Re: What GROKLAW has become

< Actually, I think the deletion policy could set them up for more danger from lawsuits. By deleting in the way Groklaw is doing, you are admitting that you are in part removing content that could be libelous. I'm willing to bet that puts you in a worse permission in court if you do fail to remove a libelous comment. In other words, if you delete nothing, you could use that as a defense and say that you will delete if you get a complaint. But if your policy is to try to protect others from libel and you fail to do so, you could be in a less defensible position.>
this is an area that i am not familiar with
you may be right
but PJ has posted that she has friends that are lawyers and she does talk to them so would hope that she has some knowledge of where to draw the line ?
i fell Groklaw is growing and changing.it isnt fully developed yet
there may be many changes over time or there may be few.they could be major one or minor, i dont know
i just feel selfish in one respect and sorry for feeling this way but right now i just want to see scox defeated and if groklaw wasnt being effective scox wouldnt be putting up a web site for their own legal .docs
br3n

Message ID: 182288
Posted By: al_petrofsky
Posted On: 2004-09-19 16:53:00
Subject: Hidden posts on Groklaw

> has anyone else experienced or confirmed this "fake
> deletion" phenomenon at groklaw other than heimdal31?

Yes. Infosecgroupie reported it a while back, and heimdal31
and w4rmc47 confirmed it for me when I was recently the
target.

From August 27 to September 5 I made eight posts to groklaw,
all on-topic to the threads in which they were posted.

None of them were deleted, but no one responded to any of
them, which was surprising and a bit mysterious. In one
case, just below one of my posts (about emergency motion
rules in the District of Nevada) an anonymous post appeared
that was obviously plagiarized from mine (or from a similar
post I made at Yahoo). My post generated zero responses
while the anonymous post generated two, without anyone
commenting on the similarity between my post and the
anonymous one.

I finally discovered that I had been wasting my time talking
to no one. The posts were only being included in pages
generated for connections that were either logged in as me
or were coming from my internet address.

I sent PJ and MathFox three emails asking if there was a
technical problem or if groklaw was intentionally deceiving
me into thinking the posts were publicly viewable. PJ
replied each time, but consistently ignored the question,
while giving conflicting answers about whether the posts
were deleted at all. MathFox remained silent. I conclude
that groklaw is indeed programmed to deceive people like
this, but PJ and MathFox are not honest enough to admit it.

Please see the deleted posts and the email about them at
scofacts.org/groklaw.html

I'm pointing all this out (1) so that people will know not
to assume that groklaw is actually propagating their posts
unless they've checked on this from other locations and (2)
so that people can see some of the deleted posts and have
some data to form an impression of what the criteria for
deletion are in practice. (I think a much better way for
people to know this would be for posts to be marked
something like slashdot's -1, instead of being deleted, with
an option allowing people to peruse the -1 posts
occasionally if they're curious. If this actually created a
storage space problem, the -1 posts could be automatically
deleted after some number of days.)

Call me a fool for not realizing what was happening sooner,
but for ten days there I really thought I was contributing
to a discussion and not just talking to myself. I will now
be following PJ's surprising advice (see her first email
reply) to "redirect [my] energy into more positive channels"
rather than attempting to contribute to groklaw.

Posted By: bindicap
Posted On: 2004-09-19 09:31 pm
Subject: You picked the fight with Groklaw, Al

Not sure what to say to you, Al. You worked hard for the accomplishment you proudly report. I note the complete absence of any desire to patch things up in your message.

Since you've so ably chronicled your peculiar view of Groklaw's faults, I figure i might as well show you a (very uncharitable) view of your own actions. From my own limited experience, I have completely no sympathy for someone who can't get along with PJ in email.

Apparently PJ was uncomfortable hosting audio from the Nevada hearing until she could be sure to maintain good relations with the court, so you flamed her even as you said several other people were hosting it instead and availability was good. I read she contacted a lawyer and the court herself to get a definitive opinion, and you flamed her for that too, of all things, instead of bending to your say-so. When she pointed out "no ruling on whether to transfer ... moot at this time" despite your report that it was denied, you then flamed her for that. Thereafter you flip-flopped back and forth, alternately showing her up or pretending to apologize. In the final order we see after all that it was never so clear -- the order submitted by one side was hand edited by the judge because of the confusing situation. Then some days after I presume that PJ had finally gotten her own assurances from the court by phone and Groklaw had posted a transcript, you decided to post a letter from the court saying the same thing with a smarmy annotation by you.

You flamed PJ in private email and publicly on boards. You even smugly wrote "I'm such an ass" (or very similar) as you posted one such message for all to see. So you decided to champion a nitpick and smear campaign to malign Groklaw as you posted bait to make trouble. Now you report today that you accomplished all you could hope for there. Surely you're not really surprised?

I'm actually posting all this only because I think that Al is at base a sharp guy who can learn and make changes on reflection, and so there is a small possibility for positive development. If I didn't think so, I wouldn't bother.

Message ID: 182327
Posted By: jjjacq
Posted On: 2004-09-19 20:18:00
Subject: Re: Hidden posts on Groklaw

I thought this was standard practice on any blog, not just Groklaw.

You as author of a 'new' post can see and edit it, delete it at any time.

Others can only see it when one of the editors gives it the 'OK' (which may take a while if they're busy, or asleep, at the time).

I take it it is a new post you're talking about, not a reply in a thread. Replies should not suffer this fate :^)

Message ID: 182329
Posted By: spamsux99
Posted On: 2004-09-19 20:43:00
Subject: Re: Hidden posts on Groklaw

No, they are not the only ones. I have been on the receiving end of being written off as a troll and had my posts "hidden" on groklaw.

Right after the startup of OSRM and grokline I posted on groklaw that I had a problem with grokline and groklaw asking the "community" to "contribute" to grokline without knowing exactly how the information was going to be used by OSRM. I expressed myself in a rather nasty, sarcastic tone.

The problem I have is with the reaction from PJ. I was told my signature was innappropriate, at the time my signature was "We don't believe in the pay out the ass business model". Well, I had posted quite a few times previously with that sig, and nobody had complained.

At the time, my previous posts were still visible to all, with the same sig. The post about OSRM was not. I changed my sig, I don't recall if the OSRM post ever showed back up.

I consider honesty and integrity as extremely important in dealing with the "community", and don't feel I was treated with either in this situation. I don't blame them for having a problem with my post and demeanor. I do have a problem with dealing with it in a underhanded manner.

I have seen someone post about this hidden post thing, and could not confirm it myself, I saw the post that they claimed was blocked. It might have been infosecgroupie, I can't remember. Regardless, I would prefer to rule out technical issues before acusing groklaw of outright dishonesty like this. A real simple confirmation would be for someone who is being blocked to install a proxy server and let the rest of us access it to verify.

I believe geeklog lets you group people and allow only that group to see certain posts, but I don't believe it has the capability to do the same by IP address. If they have hacked geeklog to do this, it might explain the frequent crashes under load.

I don't take myself and my gripes that damned seriously, life is too short. I posted a parody about the entire situation on badpenguins.com (Stranger in a Strange Land) and washed my hands of posting much on groklaw. I have little of value to add anyway.

Message ID: 182335
Posted By: mitmosnar
Posted On: 2004-09-19 20:56:00
Subject: Groklaw stole my lawn gnomes!

Groklaw's cyber tentacles have breached the physical world! Not content to rule the content of each individual web browser on Earth with their sinister faux SQL glitches (it's not a bug...it's a feature!), the superevil PJ and her crew of zombie necromancers are training their cumbersome tinfoil headgear on reality, censoring the physical world with icy abandon.
Just this morning, I discovered that the delightful resin gnomes I purchased at Wal Mart last year had disappeared from my front lawn in the night! This heinous crime was clearly revenge for my less than emphatic reaction to the OSRM patent report.
Run for the hills!

Message ID: 182346
Posted By: mitmosnar
Posted On: 2004-09-19 22:28:00
Subject: 'post deletion regime'?

You mean it's moderated, right?
Actually, I did blow a gasket on Groklaw and here about the OSRM report, and my posts are still there.
I have had many posts deleted from Groklaw, and couldn't give a fiddler's fart about it. It's not a public soapbox. People seem to have an overactive sense of entitlement about this, but thankfully they can come here to publicly suck their thumbs and spread half-baked idiotic rumours about Mathfox hacking Geeklog to hide their car keys or whatever.
Try this: email PJ and ask here why your post is gone. I have read the al/t_t_b complaints, and can safely say that if someone petulantly demanded attention while flaming me in their pursuit of message board glory, I wouldn't have been a fraction as charitable as PJ was with them.

Thanks again,

Message ID: 182352
Posted By: al_petrofsky
Posted On: 2004-09-19 22:53:00
Subject: Re: fight with Groklaw (1/2)

> Since you've so ably chronicled your peculiar view of
> Groklaw's faults, I figure i might as well show you a
> (very uncharitable) view of your own actions.

Thank you. This is helpful feedback.

> From my own limited experience, I have completely no
> sympathy for someone who can't get along with PJ in email.

I also had a limited experience (April to July) of getting
along with PJ in email.

> Apparently PJ was uncomfortable hosting audio from the
> Nevada hearing until she could be sure to maintain good
> relations with the court, so you flamed her even as you
> said several other people were hosting it instead and
> availability was good.

I didn't have a problem with her being cautious. As I wrote
to her:

> Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 21:29:39 -0700

> I can appreciate that you're more timid. For one thing,
> if you're really paranoid (which you do have some reason
> to be), you have to assume I'm lying and that I actually
> snuck a recorder into the courtroom. I don't begrudge you
> wanting to get information directly from the court.

I did have a problem with her spreading FUD around to other
people hosting the audio, without giving any legal reason
for it (that's the sort of behavior I thought we all shared
a distaste for).

> I read she contacted a lawyer and the court herself to get
> a definitive opinion, and you flamed her for that too, of
> all things, instead of bending to your say-so.

I have no idea what you're construing as being a flame for
those actions.

[continued in child posting]

Message ID: 182353
Posted By: al_petrofsky
Posted On: 2004-09-19 22:56:00
Subject: Re: fight with Groklaw (2/2)

[continued from parent]

> When she pointed out "no ruling on whether to transfer
> ... moot at this time" despite your report that it was
> denied, you then flamed her for that.

I flamed her for claiming I "did damage to linux" without
having any evidence of that.

The motion was clearly never "moot". See message #155174.

> Thereafter you flip-flopped back and forth, alternately
> showing her up or pretending to apologize. In the final
> order we see after all that it was never so clear -- the
> order submitted by one side was hand edited by the judge
> because of the confusing situation.

Read the letters at scofacts.org/AZ-2004-08-03.pdf
As SCO's counsel and I both correctly deduced from the
hearing, Judge Jones's intent was to deny the motion.
AutoZone and PJ (who, after the September 9 hearing, both
have a record of pretty badly misreading Judge Jones)
thought otherwise, which is why Jones had to correct
AutoZone's order.

> Then some days after I presume that PJ had finally gotten
> her own assurances from the court by phone and Groklaw had
> posted a transcript, you decided to post a letter from the
> court saying the same thing with a smarmy annotation by
> you.

"Saying the same thing"? The letter stated that the audio
could be distributed freely. When did Groklaw ever say
that? And why does groklaw continue not to make the audios
(two of them at this point) available nor to let people know
they are available? (All while PJ continues to download
them from scofacts, and even to use the scofacts August 9
transcript without attribution. Where's the caution there?)

> You flamed PJ in private email and publicly on boards. You
> even smugly wrote "I'm such an ass" (or very similar) as
> you posted one such message for all to see.

As I pointed out in that message, #155174, my smarminess is
not as asinine as PJ's unfounded (and never retracted)
accusation that my accurate report "did damage".

> So you decided to champion a nitpick and smear campaign to
> malign Groklaw as you posted bait to make trouble. Now you
> report today that you accomplished all you could hope for
> there. Surely you're not really surprised?

I really was surprised, which is why it took me so long to
catch on. I would have been less surprised had she simply
started deleting all my posts. I wasn't expecting the
deception.

> I'm actually posting all this only because I think that Al
> is at base a sharp guy who can learn and make changes on
> reflection, and so there is a small possibility for
> positive development. If I didn't think so, I wouldn't
> bother.

Thank you for the compliment. I originally had a similar
opinion of PJ, but to date she has never acknowledged any of
these errors.

Message ID: 182367
Posted By: infosecgroupie
Posted On: 2004-09-20 00:04:00
Subject: Re: Hidden posts on Groklaw

>>> but for ten days there I really thought I was contributing to a discussion and not just talking to myself.<<<

(I've been gone all day).

I'll be damned.

I mean, I pretty much *knew* this was happening, and that's just how I felt when I finally went to the effort to "prove" that my hypothesis was true, and I ended up with the exact same thought:

"I've been talking to myself all this time."

At least I have the consolation of having provided PJ with some hearty laughs at my expense.

Petty little...

i_s_g

Message ID: 182371
Posted By: infosecgroupie
Posted On: 2004-09-20 00:32:00
Subject: Re: fight with Groklaw (2/2)

>>> I wasn't expecting the deception.

/* snippage */

but to date she has never acknowledged any of
these errors. <<<

And this is probably the clearest example of the worst part of the problem with PJ:

1) A blatant, childish, petty, secret little deception: allowing people on her enemies list to post, but rendering their posts invisible to all but themselves;

2) A complete refusal to admit to the facts of what she's doing, let alone try to justify or explain why she would do such a petty thing.

I mean, come on here, folks: this is the behavior of a very small and very weak little person.

Period.

i_s_g

Message ID: 182372
Posted By: heimdal31
Posted On: 2004-09-20 00:46:00
Subject: Re: fight with Groklaw (2/2)

<< I mean, come on here, folks: this is the behavior of a very small and very weak little person.>>

I disagree, rather strongly here. And you can flame all you want in response, because I'm heading up to bed.

I do not like the hidden posts. However, I happen to think it was a not terribly well thought out policy in response to what was likely an organized campaign to poison the well. A policy, in fact that probably worked rather well in stopping that poisoning.

Unfortunately, I do think it wasn't that well thought out because it will engender a negative reaction in many involved in FOSS. People who believe "information wants to be free" are not people who are immediately going to see the value in doing this. Moreover, if individuals are granted this ability without any type of oversight from other moderators, then it is rife for abuse--even if you don't think it has been abused yet.

I'm willing to bet that a good percentage of decent posters here on this board who were handed the same power for the Yahoo board would have banished biff and ledite. As much as they piss me off at times, I think that would be a bad thing.

Moreover, I bet that a smaller percentage of the posters here would use it to banish a wider group of people--and I'll bet some would include me in that list. I know there are many that don't like my posts on Groklaw recently, but I think that even recently, I still had some good things to contribute that were clearly on-topic.

I'm not saying that there are individuals around PJ that can hide all posts from an individual, but the very fact that people think their might be is detrimental. If Groklaw is doing this, then I'd prefer to have them openly say it can happen and I'd also like to see them say that all such decisions are reviewed by a group of moderators.

But, no, I do not think that hiding posts on Groklaw makes a person petty. Instead, it was a policy whose implications weren't considered as fully as they should have been.

Message ID: 182421
Posted By: mitmosnar
Posted On: 2004-09-20 07:41:00
Subject: Re: fight with Groklaw (2/2)

'I mean, come on here, folks: this is the behavior of a very small and very weak little person.

Period.'

Indeed it is, although there appears to be more than one here.

I thought you stated on your crying towel of a website that you were done pissing on Groklaw's back. Apparently not. In fact, the pitch is in danger of shattering my monitor.

Listen, idiotstick: no one hacked Geeklog to make your posts only visible to you.
That is just insane.

You should read yourself sometime.

The texts of these Yahoo Message Board posts have been licensed for copying and distribution by the Yahoo Message Board users "quality_not_compromise", "infosecgroupie", "cat_herder_5263", "b29651", "karl_w_lewis", "saltydogmn", "heimdal31", "flimbag", "lumber_cartel", "mck9@swbell.net", "spamsux99", "al_petrofsky", "bindicap", "jjjacq", "mitmosnar" under the following license: License: CCL Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0.