LinuxWorld Editorial Machinations 498
James Turner writes "The editors of LinuxWorld Magazine have been fighting a quiet war with the publishers (Sys-Con Media) for half a year, trying to get hack-journalist Maureen O'Gara purged from their site. Well, with O'Gara's recent vile attack on Pamela Jones (which I won't give any more free publicity by linking to), enough is finally enough.
In my latest blog, I've basically told Sys-Con that it's either her or me. I suspect, given the amount of page views O'Gara's tripe brings to the Sys-Con sites, that they'll choose her." James isn't the only one either.
probably a good idea.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Doesn't LinuxWorld have a mediocre track record? (Score:1, Interesting)
My memory may be failing me, but if I recall correctly, wasn't there an issue about LinuxWorld displaying advertisements for Microsoft products, or more specifically the infamous Microsoft Get the Facts [microsoft.com] campaign, promoting Windows Server System 2003 as a better alternative to the leader of the Linux enterprise distributions, Red Hat Enterprise Linux? (Whether or not this is true is not the issue, and is another discussion for another thread.) As I say, I am not sure if I recall the event correctly.
O'Gara Needs to Go (Score:5, Interesting)
So, Pamela Jones could perhaps be a 61-year old Jehovah's Witness who lives in a not so nice apartment. What does that have to do with anything? O'Gara finishes the article hinting that perhaps it is all stolen identity, though she didn't present a news story that would lead you to that conclusion.
I spent the first 23 years of my life as a Jehovah's Witness. I do not believe I am scarred in anyway because of it. If anything, I think I have a lot more respect for my fellow human beings and in general have a deep desire to be a good person. Sure the methodology of learning about the religion is a bit like brainwashing, but they have their religious beliefs like most religions. They just are more strict about the belief and the punishment if one does constantly violates them. If you are going to have faith, I think most religious people would appreciate the JW's strictness.
Did the religion make me paranoid? No. Does it take a lot of your time? Yes, but if you are going to devote your life to being religious then it probably should take a lot of time. Personally I appreciated science too much to put so much faith in religion. I still believe that if any religion has it right though, it is probably the JW's. They read the bible and do what it says. They refuse to pick up arms against another human, they punish sinners through disfellowshipping (total cut off until they have repented of their sins), and they make worship the primary thing in their life not allowing anything else to come first. There are obviously more devoted JW's than others, but that is true of any religion.
So, after reading the crap that passes for journalism from O'Gara, I personally can't wait to see her unemployed. Perhaps she can go get a job at the National Inquirer.
Re:Blog?? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Blog?? (Score:1, Interesting)
If I were the hiring type, I'd certainly be less inclined to hire somebody that drags personal internal squabbles into a public cat fight.
While O'Gara's 'article' was very wanting of professionalism, this public griping isn't much better.
Re:The article's sources (Score:4, Interesting)
> employed a private detective to investigate
> Pamela Jones.
It seems much more likely that O'Gara made the whole thing up. There is no reason to believe that a single word of it is true.
Similar case for Clear Channel Radio (Score:5, Interesting)
WHAS Radio (and Clear Channel Entertainment) fired [64.233.161.104] John Ziegler a few years ago because of similar personal attacks against a fellow "personality".
Up until that point, his talk-show was the highest rated program in the market, and he was getting a pass on a lot of his attitute because he did bring in the advertising money.
But he also went too far, and ultimately got punished for it.
So, here's how we help get rid of Ms. O'Gara:
Check the local bookstores and supermarket magazine racks. For any company that carries this magazine - write them a letter of COMPLAIN about Ms. O'Gara.
Re:Shame (Score:5, Interesting)
You can help by sending emails to the publisher asking for her removal and drop your subscription and don't visit the site if they don't. Remember, if the publisher is keeping her around because she is driving dollars, you and the linux community can fire back by walking away with those dollars.
SCO hired an investigator (Score:2, Interesting)
It's quite simple: Darl McBride and SCOX hired a PI, which then fed O'Gara. You just have to listen to that last bizarro-phone conference with SCOX to see that this is no paranoid delusion.
Re:as much text as I could get... (Score:4, Interesting)
Here's a good bit too:
Wow, nice bit of research there Maureen. You found the key to the whole mistery that is PJ... Pulease! I have known several JW's in my life time, and just like any other religion, some feel like it is their whole life, and others feel that they can best help the church by living a good life and bein an example to others.How about blaming copyrights (Score:3, Interesting)
Of cource I know people would say, well Linux Journal is copyrighted too, to which I would respond - most people who are subscribing would do so as a sign of support for the authors and not because they are the cheaper that the competitors. Besides, I don't know of anything in that publication that couldn't be gotten online anyhow, but people still support it.
Linux World was one of the first that I dropped .. (Score:2, Interesting)
Perhaps a year ago - I was quite surprised to even find them still publishing, though they seemed a bit higher quality than previously I still have no urge to read their content. This incident just confirms my gut estimation of those backing the publication: I am glad they got minimal support from me.
Shameful (Score:3, Interesting)
P.
Re:Paranoia will destroy ya (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not paranoia if the really are out to get you, as O'Gara's "article" shows.
Re:Paranoia will destroy ya (Score:3, Interesting)
I read PJ and enjoy her analyses, and I bear her no ill will. Some of the things she puts into her writings have a paranoiac/persecuted edge that has struck me as a bit odd, though.
Now, there's no doubt that Maureen O'Gara has gone over the edge..
Re:probably a good idea.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Nothing against you personally, willCode4Beer.com, but it really puzzles me sometimes why people can be so adamant on the "don't burn bridges" line. It was interesting to read this article [slashdot.org] a day or so ago and see various posts going "ohgodohgodohgod whateveryoudoDON'T BURN YOUR BRIDGES!!!" (actually, now I look again, there were a few that didn't [slashdot.org])
Maybe it's just me, but I reckon that there's nothing wrong with burning a few bridges every now and then. Hell, nuke the damn bridge, leave the area a smoking radioactive wasteland.
Sometimes you need to say that you've had enough and you just don't give a damn about the bridges anymore. :-)
Re:O'Gara Needs to Go (Score:2, Interesting)
It happens that, as a Catholic, I don't accept their premisses. I do not believe that the bible is the sole source of knowledge about God and his revelation. Remember that the first generations of Christians didn't even have a New Testament. But they did have a Church, which is the body of Christ. As Jesus promised, He would be "with us until the end of the world".
So the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, is as important an instrument in understanding God's revelation as the bible is.
Still, I wish more Catholics would be as committed to their faith most JWs are, and follow it through to its logical conclusion.
A few words about Ms O'Gara's article (Score:5, Interesting)
I do not know whether the "facts" alleged in Ms. O'Gara's article are correct or not, and whether or not she (or whoever supplied her the information) is describing the correct PJ or not.
For the sake of argument, in this post, I will assume that Ms. O'Gara is describing the correct PJ (if she did not, that makes her O'Gara's article even worse in my view).
If you boil down Ms. O'Gara's article to the essentials the "facts" alleged about PJ are this:
1. Ms. O'Gara doesn't like PJ's residence
2. Ms. O'Gara doesn't like PJ's car
3. Ms. O'Gara doesn't like the locks on PJ's apartment (Ms O'Gara then criticises PJ for these locks, but then goes on to also criticise PJ for having strange men apparently trying to break into her apartment - rather an odd and self-contradictory position don't you think?)
4. Ms. O'Gara alleges that PJ has been involved in business with her son.
5. Ms. O'Gara alleges that PJ has a fear of being stalked, and criticizes her for this (at the same time PJ tells us that PJ is being pursued if not stalked by Ms. O'Gara herself, as well as two strange men apparently trying to break into PJ's apartment - again, another odd and self-contradictory position, don't you think?)
6. Ms. O'Gara says PJ is older than Ms. O'Gara thought. (Well more fool you O'Gara, PJ never claimed to be any particular age, so who cares what O'Gara thought PJ's age was?)
7. Ms. O'Gara implies criticism of PJ's religious affiliation. (so what? Who cares what PJ's religion is)
8. Ms. O'Gara notes that PJ lives within a few miles of IBM's headquarters (without mentioning so do about a million or more other people too)
9. Ms O'Gara alleges that PJ has a brother with an expensive apartment.
10. Ms O'Gara says she questioned PJ's mother and didn't get clear answers. (So what?). I'd also point out that if PJ is 61, then PJ's mother must be in her 80s or 90s
Well, none of the above, have anything at all to do with the validity or otherwise of PJ's writing. PJ's writing stands for itself, and everybody should judge it on that basis.
The majority of the above, when striped of implied criticism are not particularly unusual - and not one is divergent with any fact that PJ has told us about herself.
The attack on PJ's age, car, religion, housing and brother, are purely gratutious personal attacks. All play to the lowest common denominator and people's prejudice. I really do not care what O'Gara thinks of PJ's car or house.
The self-contradictions in O'Gara's article abound, some of which are noted above.
I note that somebody else on Slashdot has alleged that O'Gara's information comes from SCO's private detectives seeking PJ. I do not know if this allegation is true or not.
I would note however the following:
1. In January 2003, O'Gara published an article about SCO's plans to monetize their IP allegedly in Linux. This was two months before SCO sued IBM. This was six months before SCO announced their Linux IP licensing program. This was long before SCO had made any public statements about their plans for licensing Linux, or alleged infringements in Linux. So where did O'Gara get this information from?
2. On September 18th O'Gara published an article claiming that SCO would sue IBM for a fraud claim, in Monterey, by putting SVR4 code (as opposed to SVR3 code) into AIX5L. [Maureen O'Gara misnames the UNIX versions in her article).
At the time that this was written, the only court document that mentioned fraud, and the AIX 5L was *sealed*, SCO's supplemental memorandum on discovery. This was filed with the court, without permission apparently in August, and properly filed on 13 September 2004.
We have not seen this document, but we know that it exists, because IBM's reply memo has recently been unseale
I'm engaging in a personal boycott (Score:5, Interesting)
Date: May 9, 2005 11:10 AM
Subject: boycott of your products due to SYS-CON
I'm writing to inform you I am engaging in a personal boycott of all your publications due to your affiliation Maureen O'Gara, who is
currently stalking the Groklaw author Pamela Jones.
O'Gara's most recent "article" consisted of personal information about Ms. Jones, including her home address and disparaging comments about
Ms. Jones' living conditions.
The article contained a number of offensive comments about the Jehovah Witnesses, under the guise of "accusing" Ms. Jones of being one.
I will not purchase any products or services from any firms who do business with SYS-CON while a paranoid, delusional pseudo journalist such as Maureen O'Gara remains on your payroll.
I am writing your advertisers to inform them of this decision, so they are aware that their use of your site for advertising purposes is
costing them business.
From: Michael Perone
To: *********
Date: May 9, 2005 11:24 AM
Subject: RE: boycott of your products due to SYS-CON
Michael Perone
Call me 650 292 1523
To: Michael Perone
Date: May 9, 2005 11:42 AM
Subject: Re: boycott of your products due to SYS-CON
I'm afraid I can't call you during the day today, as I am at work and need to keep my line available for client calls.
I have noting against Barracuda Networks aside from your advertising with a company that employs a stalker disguising herself as a journalist.
You can see a copy of the article in question at
http://www.clientservernews.com/ [clientservernews.com]
The above link does not contain the photographs of the home of Pamela Jones that ran in other online publications running the article.
So long as Maureen O'Gara is employed by SYS-CON, I will not purchase any products from any company that advertises on their sites or in their publications. If SYS-CON fires Maureen O'Gara or a company ceases advertising with SYS-CON sites and publications, then I would have no reason to avoid their products.
From: Michael Perone
To: ***********
Date: May 9, 2005 11:46 AM
Subject: RE: boycott of your products due to SYS-CON
We don't emplyy this person according to our records.
To: Michael Perone
Date: May 9, 2005 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: boycott of your products due to SYS-CON
I know you don't employ Maureen O'Gara, however, you advertise on web sites owned and operated by SYS-CON, who does employ her. So long as your advertisements run on SYS-CON owned sites, and Maureen O'Gara remains a SYS-CON employee, then I will not purchase your products.
This is nothing personal, I'm informing all of the companies that advertise on SYS-CON sites of the same thing.
Matthew Miller
You'll Like This Bit (Score:5, Interesting)
After the "bozo sues open source" story last week from O'Gara, I sent an email to SugarCRM, whose ad was running next to the story. For those not in the know, SugarCRM is an open source CRM suite that is highly regarded in the CRM market. I figured they might like to know that they were advertising in a journal that is constantly attacking open source while claiming to be about "Linux Business News".
Well, their marketing person got back to me and said they don't run ads on Linux Business News - only with Sys-con's LinuxWorld site.
So I wrote back explaining that I just checked and the ad was right there, and described the ad.
She got back to me saying that they didn't even KNOW the ad was running on that site, as they only had a contract with Sys-con to run on LinuxWorld - and she would be checking their ad rep at Sys-con about it.
So it looks like Linux Business News is running ads unbeknownst to the companies involved (either that or SugarCRM never understood their contract). I find that somewhat bizarre. Is there some business benefit to LBN running ads without the knowledge of the companies involved?
MOG Uncovers Securities Law Violation (Score:3, Interesting)
1. In January 2003, O'Gara published an article about SCO's plans to monetize their IP allegedly in Linux. This was two months before SCO sued IBM. This was six months before SCO announced their Linux IP licensing program. This was long before SCO had made any public statements about their plans for licensing Linux, or alleged infringements in Linux. So where did O'Gara get this information from?
Securities laws prohibit purchases and sales of securities on the basis of material non-public information. The sales of SCOX stock by SCOX insiders over the past 2+ years have been pursuant to so-called "10b5-1 plans" -- basically, pursuant to SEC Rule 10b5-1, a purchase or sale is _not_ deemed to be on the basis of material non-public if it is made pursuant to a plan entered into before the person involved possessed material non-public information. The idea is that an executive could adopt a plan to sell his holdings over time (say, 10,000 shares per month, every month) and not have the validity of the sales questioned as a result of the subsequent acquisition of material non-public information. If you look at many of the "Form 4" documents filed by SCOX insiders, which describe sales of securities, they state that they were made pursuant 10b5-1 plans (the first I saw was a Robert C. Bench filing of March 12, 2003). I believe (though I cannot find the reference right now) that SCOX has stated that the plans were adopted in February 2003, shortly before they "discovered" the alleged IP violations and engaged the Boies lawfirm -- the lawsuit itself was announced around March 7, 2003. If MOG published information suggesting SCOX intended to embark on the IBM and related lawsuits in Jan 03, any Feb 03 10b5-1 plans would have been adopted "too late" to immunize SCOX insiders against charges that they adopted such plans while in possession of material non-public information.