What is so unreasonable about SCO suspecting IBM is behind PJ and groklaw? Groklaw sprung up suddenly. PJ has had no known involvement with OSS before. In fact, nothing is known about PJ's past. She has painstakingly avoided giving out information that might identify her or locate her. She seems to be spending an inordinate amount of time being very passionate on the blog with no visible compensation.

<Allow me to rephrase the question, what cause did she have to fear a threat to expose her as "not who she says she is"?>

See my response to your backlash comment below.

<Now this really is victim-blaming!  If I were to draw up a list of the most obnoxious people in this sorry saga, PJ would be well down the list - certainly lower that either O'Gara or McBride, both of whom have made many inflamatory statements, and with far less factual foundation.  Why is PJ being singled out as the "inciter" here?>

MOG and McBride both received death threats (if you believe them, anyway), so I don't know about singling out. Dispassionate analysis is not the only thing that goes on at groklaw. There is a lot of emotion. Considering the amount of attention they receive at groklaw, they probably see PJ as the instigator.

<It still has no place in law-abiding society, especially one where there is a constitutional right to free speech.>

Intimidation is what we are guessing is beneath the surface. IBM guiding PJ is what SCO is guessing is beneath the surface. Free speech is fine. Merely publishing someone's address or pictures of their home is not against any laws either, AFAIK.

<There isn't, which is why there was no great backlash when McBride said that.  O'Gara's article went way beyond that.>

My guess is McBride didn't get the kind of reaction he was hoping for, so they went further to make the threat (of exposure) more convincing.