PJ's thoughts

Message ID: 188869
Posted By: heimdal31
Posted On: 2004-10-04 22:50:00
Subject: PJ's thoughts

As much as I am already cringing at the troll-storm that this post will stir up, PJ responded to the one thread on Groklaw where I responded to another poster who seemed to have some issues with mitmosnar or I.

PJ responded--and given how much of the discussion has occurred here, I thought I should point her response out, despite some misgivings.

I'll not post one of my long winded statements presenting my opinion and all I will say here is that I have no problem with deletion, just with hidden deletion. If your curious about more, then do a yah.warmcat.com search for my nick and Groklaw. Of course, you may have to wade through some positive statements about Groklaw to find my thoughts.

www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20041004030425829&title=Huh%3F&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=216610#c216746

Message ID: 188876
Posted By: heimdal31
Posted On: 2004-10-04 23:31:00
Subject: Re: PJ's thoughts

<< Wht don't YOU have a website where YOU can show us how it is supposed to be done. All the technology is availabale for free. There are high bandwidth host providers who will get you online for as little as $5 a month.>>

www.threenorth.com/sco

and I'd like to think many useful posts here. Of course, it was never meant to be a Groklaw and I don't want to be PJ. (Couldn't pay me enough and she was doing it for free.) Unfortunately, work and family stopped any additinal development there.

Anyone who wants can do a yah.warmcat.com search for all of my posts.

Since you seem to think our value as people are somehow tied to what we have contributed to the fight against SCO, do you have a body of work to point to because a yahoeuvre search for cdbaric turns up very little that has actually been directed against SCO.

Message ID: 188885
Posted By: heimdal31
Posted On: 2004-10-05 00:04:00
Subject: Re: PJ's thoughts

<< That's it?>>

Yep, pretty pathetic really.

<< I think your contribution vis a vis your website is pathetic. It is UGLY, it is poorly executed and it is one-sided.>>

Agreed. You forgot long-winded with obtuse syntax. That's a big problem of mine.

<< Now, what have I done - lots, but I do it in the real world. I design, install, setup and administer Linux network services including desktops and SMB LANs. I have also replaced a couple SCO servers but to be quite frank, I would have replaced them anyway - they are expensive and undersupported.>>

< no_sarcasm> I'm jealous. Really.</no_sarcasm> I only have a few linux servers I've convinced them to put in at work. For the most part, I have to deal with Bill's crap. <only_some_sarcasm>Maybe that's my problem.</only_some_sarcasm>

Last word is yours. My last word is that PJ posted a good response to some of the issues. Given all the bs we've all thrown about this board, I thought her words were worth looking at.

'nite all

Message ID: 188889
Posted By: stats_for_all
Posted On: 2004-10-05 00:15:00
Subject: !!NO SUBJECT!!

I review Heimdal's site frequently. The J. Cohen history is crucial documentation. He's been on the case from before I knew Yahoo existed. The web log tracking of SCOX inspections of the site make SCOX look like absolute fools. The pages are dense with links, so it is easy to use them for kamikazi raids on cyberspace.

Message ID: 188894
Posted By: b29651
Posted On: 2004-10-05 00:18:00
Subject: Re: PJ's thoughts

sigh
i joined this board back last year
i cant believe we are sinking to this level to attack each other
heimdal does a lot of research and if you had bothered to look on warmcat site you would have found his posts
he is number 11 in the top 50 of posters active on this board
number 9 in recs
that takes a lot of time and effort to have those figures
now back to battling scox
br3n

Message ID: 188901
Posted By: b29651
Posted On: 2004-10-05 00:48:00
Subject: Re: PJ's thoughts

i am trying to be very reasonable
calm and not emotional
how long have you followed groklaw?
br3n

Message ID: 188905
Posted By: b29651
Posted On: 2004-10-05 01:01:00
Subject: Re: PJ's thoughts

cdbaric dont see the nick in the data base
why use a different one?
just curious
and by the way
i found PJ in about may/june 2003
and when we made the last move i now help with quote data base
so i know about both places.i wont take anything from PJ
i have the highest respect for her
but i also know there is more going on.there are battles being fought in their own ways little or large ever how they can
each contributes as to skill level and time.
the battle isnt each other
it has to remain on scox
br3n

Message ID: 188921
Posted By: al_petrofsky
Posted On: 2004-10-05 04:39:00
Subject: Re: PJ's thoughts

Tim Rushing (heimdal31) wrote in the referenced groklaw post:

> I did have some concerns not about posts that are deleted
> (heck, I understand and support the reason my one post was
> deleted out of a concern for copyright violations), but
> about the way posts don't seem to be deleted to the person
> who posted it.

to which PJ responded:

> I have seen your comments. I will do you the honor of
> telling you how I really feel honestly. I frankly think
> that my policies are nobody's business, not to put too
> fine a point on it. You are unlikely to have the whole
> picture, for one thing. It's my decision to make. The
> discussion, fueled, I have absolutely no doubt by you know
> who, was counterproductive and pointless. We're not voting
> on this. It's my decision to make, and I've made it. I
> won't be changing my mind.

I wish she would do us the honor of clearly telling us
whether or not it is intentional that some groklaw posts are
in a state of only being viewable by their author. Instead,
she always leaves it ambiguous as to whether she's answering
that question. Is she just refusing to discuss the wisdom
of the posted policy (whose wisdom Rushing didn't question)
or is she saying that there are also some unposted policies
-- like deceiving some posters -- and that she refuses even
to reveal what those policies are?

(Yes, I did try addressing this question directly to PJ and
MathFox. I got three non-responses. See
scofacts.org/groklaw.html)

I'm also not sure what she means by "The discussion" (the
one that "was counterproductive and pointless"). Does she
mean the 20-post groklaw thread about hidden posts that was
sparked by tomfrayne's post (see Yahoo message #183373), and
of which all but one of the posts was deleted a couple days
later? Or is she referring to some other discussion? And
not knowing that makes it harder for me to guess who "you
know who" is: SCO? Microsoft? SCOfacts? Voldemort? All
four of us, working together?

PJ continued:
> ... I don't feel the need to explain every last reason for
> the decisions I make. For one thing, sometimes it would
> embarrass other people if I told their bad behavior to the
> world. They may do things like that with nasty web sites
> telling half the story or less, and such, but I won't
> behave in such a smarmy way. ...

I don't know whether or not scofacts.org is one of the
"nasty web sites" she's talking about, but, in any case,
I've thrown onto scofacts the whole 98-message
Petrofsky/Jones email record so that all my embarrassing bad
behavior will be revealed to the world and its secrecy
needn't be an impediment to anything:

scofacts.org/groklaw.mbox

The texts of these Yahoo Message Board posts have been licensed for copying and distribution by the Yahoo Message Board users "heimdal31", "stats_for_all", "b29651", "al_petrofsky" under the following license: License: CCL Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0.