I came across this post by raoulduke_esq on the Yahoo SCO board early this morning and decided to grab a copy before the message, and the entire board, go the way of all flesh September 27th. It's just another example of Pamela Jones' (P.J. to her fawning admirers) inability to deal with alternate points of view.
There used to be a post pointing out IV [Investor Village] post #44067 for AllParadox's take on the Tibitts white-collar crime, right below the inoffensive and content-free "Enron" post here:The awards and recognition given to Groklaw over time have created yet another petty little monster over on Groklaw. The work of gathering and documenting the facts of the various cases was critical, and should be recognized and commended. Unfortunately P.J.s ego has become too entangled with the good work, such that one can't live without the other, and we can't have the facts without the odor of P.J.s presence. The success of Groklaw is the success of the community, not of P.J. Her public statements to the contrary, she'll never truly understand that. Her actions towards others who threaten her pristine vision will always expose the truth of what she really is; an ugly little troll beneath the bridge leading into Groklaw. With the eminent demise of The SCO Group, such a victory becomes ever so bitter sweet, stained by the mere presence of P.J.
From my snapshot of the page, there were nine child & grandchild posts under it, including the ominous "Not Allowed" by sycophant "rocky". When I returned to PJ's blog after reading the IV post and thread, they were all gone.
I thought maybe she'd let go of the extreme pettiness of years past as things settled down, but I guess it has just become ingrained. Through (self) selective cultivation of the echo-chamber population, no act that betrays the purity of the cult of PJ can be countenanced. The stain must be scoured off before the flock becomes confused.
So sad. If she can't see how that makes her more like Dan Lyons than not, she's delusional. It's no wonder outsiders see the extreme group-think of her blog - especially when it's enforced by rigid idea censorship - and come away shaking their heads. I've been around for years and I shake my head. It can't be "freedom" if ideas are filtered.
Those are just my thoughts. If that puts me in the center of the MS & proprietary software/patents/copyright camp, you're certainly free to think what you may. As for me; color me disappointed.
Update September 22nd
This was posted the next day. Raoul caught a lot of grief from P.J. I guess the poor old girl feels all put upon. I decided to wait a few days and check the responses. You can go here and read for yourselves the juvenile comments made in support of P.J.
At first I thought it was an odd coincidence that this morning I found a message from PJ in my mailbox, asking if the "_esq" suffix on my pseudonym indicated that I am, in fact, a lawyer. I politely informed her that no, I am not a lawyer, I just wanted to use the 'nym "raoulduke" for personal reasons. However, it had been claimed by someone else, so I added the suffix to disambiguate it.
She responded to tell me that it's illegal to pretend to be a lawyer, so I would have to change my nym and reregister for another GL account. I replied that I expected the whole SCOX deal to wind down immediately, and that I intended to move on, and good luck in the post-SCOX era.
By now, I'm getting suspicious that this was not a random event. Why should she care now, after, what, 3 or 4 years? I discontinued using the 'nym as the first Grokwars broke out and I saw an ugly underside to the way the site was run. This was after the 2004 SCOForum reporting, and the scan of the program verifying Enderle's keynote speech title was originally titled "Free Software and the Fools Who Use It" that I sent her.
I am no enemy of FOSS, no friend of SCO or MS, and the record shows it. But it appears that I am about to be "disappeared" from GL because there is suddenly some problem with my 'nym. Not that I really care at this point, because I can't wait for this thing to die and I can devote my energies elsewhere.
But it gets worse. I just received a response from PJ after I declined to continue my relationship with GL due to a lack of interest. And I quote the entire text of the message here: "Do you think I don't know what you are writing about me elsewhere?"
Yes, that is the entire text of the message. It appears I was wrong to call it "pettiness"; this is so far beyond that I can not pick a word for it.
From this experience, I have learned a lot about maintaining personal privacy, and sharing 'nyms across multiple communities. And a little bit about net groups and personalities that I have never encountered before. I regret my naivete of expecting the same level of reasonableness of others that I do of myself.
Now, we know that PJ would not troll Y!SCOX of on her own initiative because she thinks very lowly of this board. So someone must have "tipped" her off that her name was being used in vain. All I have to ask of PJ's mole: is it worth it? There is every reason to expect that this incident will be picked as fodder by her detractors, and my response is "Go for it!" I did not initiate this, nor did I blow it out of proportion. I stand by my words and actions. Any blowback on GL from this is purely deserved and not my doing.
Good job, squealer. And all you apologists must be feeling a nice warm glow. I see that SCOX has no corner on the market of hypocrisy. Now I recall why I ditched GL in the first place.