Rick writes: >On Wed, 11 May 2005, Jon Brock wrote: >> It's worth noting that she herself received death threats >> after the article was published. It's not just the "pro-SCO's" >> who are capable of sliminess. > >Indeed. Interesting, and sad. >I've enjoyed reading MOG's headlines for quite some time. >Never got a hint that she was Pro-SCO until this Groklaw scuffle. > >In balance, I've relished everything that I've had time to read >from Groklaw.
Ditto. >But I've always been bothered by PJ's "secrety >identiy" fixation. (Not that there aren't real concerns that would >keep one from being completely open.) I haven't been bothered at all by this. IMHO, people have a right to write/post anonymously. This can make harder to trust such writings, but that's an acceptable tradeoff. Furthermore, most of the material there that I've read has been links, transcriptions or posted by others. >So ... really ... WHO is the slimier here? It is not at all slimy to post anonymously - so the only relevant question is whether MOG's article was slimy. IMHO it clearly was. ALL of the relevant information could have been posted without personal details (such as address information.) >Gotta wonder if it is (forgive me) a bit of a cat fight. Even if that is true, and there is no evidence that it is, that doesn't excuse what MOG did. --henry schaffer ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
