I think you have it backwards.  We don't care who PJ is, or what her motives are simply because the work she posts is logically correct and testable.  We know that if we did into it we will find opinion based on verifiable fact.  Her editorial policy on the comments section is something else again, and of course that is the basis of the Grokwars.  You know, it is rather interesting Maureen never bothered bringing that subject up, it is probably Groklaw's weakest point.  If MoG is taking the time to try to knock Groklaw down a notch or two, that would work a lot better than a couple of east coast addresses and a stack of Jehovah's Witness pamphlets.  But as usual, I digress.

We look at Darl, Rob, and Maureen differently because their writings and speech are not logically correct or testable.  In Darl's case he is a proven liar (million's of lines of directly copied code for example).  When you know someone is lying to you, THEN motive becomes important because you want to know why they are not telling you the truth, if not what the truth actually is.

While tracking outright lies is a bit tougher with the other two (although I think Maureen's last piece is a total whacked out lie, and I strongly suspect she knew the cause of death in Val's case from the beginning),  they have both written some stuff that looks really thin on facts.  Oh yeah, and Dan Lyons.  We know exactly what his slant was, because we gave him the quotes and saw how he spun them.  Actually I have two other journalists I have worked with, one of whom has quoted me directly.  Never seen anything quite like what Lyons did.

If we ever do catch PJ in a lie, then her motives will suddenly become important to us.

I am assuming for the moment that O'Gara mostly has her facts right.  If she were making the whole thing up she could have done better.  After all the huffing and puffing about how PJ was not who she claimed to be, O'Gara finds that PJ was in fact -- exactly who she claimed to be.

Unfazed, O'Gara publishes her findings as if they constituted some kind of shocking exposé.  The most damning thing she can think of is to accuse PJ of being a Jehovah's witness.  The second most damning thing is that PJ lives in Westchester, an area populated exclusively, it seems, by IBM puppets.

Why does O'Gara even bother?

Perhaps she thinks she is burnishing her image as an investigative reporter by finally tracking down her elusive quarry.  Of course the real tracking was probably done by a private dick, and O'Gara may not even have paid him herself.

No doubt some hotheads will do something vengeful in return -- publishing O'Gara's medical records and credit history on the Internet, or something like that.  Then she can write an indignant article about Linux loonies.  We've seen that script performed before.

Perhaps SCOG plans some kind of legal assault on Groklaw, now that they have located its founder.  I doubt it, but we'll see.

However one thing O'Gara's poison pen has already done, almost without a doubt, is to make PJ fear for her safety.  I think that's the real goal.

It's unlikely that SCOG would really engage some kind of goon squad.  They may not need to -- all it takes is one Biff or Ledite acting on his own, and SCOG's hands (and O'Gara's) are clean.

Even if nobody tries to do anything to PJ, it's something she needs to worry about.  SCOG is exploiting PJ's well-known penchant for paranoia.  She may feel a need to move elsewhere, or to go underground, crashing with friends and supporters and posting from Starbucks.

SCOG's hope may be that PJ cannot be very effective under those conditions.  She will be spending so much time tending to the mundane needs of concealment that she will have to neglect Groklaw.  She may be unable to work as a paralegal and will therefore suffer financially.

A quick search on white pages, and switchboard .com

P Jones.  Lists literally hundreds of entries for New York alone.

what are the odds that they actually found the real PJ?

and why is a 61 year old paralegal still working, as much as PJ was during the earlier days.  Also during the earlier Days PJ would post large amounts of information at night, and only sleep a little bit.

I am sorry Of all the active 60 year old people I know they need more than a few minutes sleep. yet less could be done by a 40 year old like Pj has stated in the past she was.  

Like SCO's evidence of contract or copyright infringements,  MOG's facts don't add up.

Now for a sense of irony.  if there is a SCO forum 2005 PJ should attend secretly and ruin the keynote speech, by showing the world just how wrong SCO and it's supporters are and have been.  Followed shortly afterwards by an exit.

I guess I should start with my overall take on O'Gara's story:

I don't see anything wrong with O'Gara including the publicly-listed groklaw.com registration address and phone number in her story. I also don't have a problem with her pointing out the registrant's prior business connections with Medabiliti. I also think it's reasonable for O'Gara to wonder if there is an IBM-Groklaw connection and to investigate that possibility. I think such an investigation could reasonably include tracking down Jones's current location (which was apparently Connecticut at some point recently).

Had O'Gara found an IBM connection, or something else relevant, I would have wanted to know the details of the path that led to the conclusion. However, because she found nothing, it was pointless and intrusive to publish the Connecticut address, and I agree with the majority that that was a serious breach of ethics.

In PJ's "Intimidation" article on Monday, she declined to confirm or deny any of the facts asserted in O'Gara's article, and I can respect that.

In yesterday's "Ethics" article, however, she makes statements that, as best I can determine, are false and known to her to be false, including false accusations directed at SCO and Dan Lyons, made in the same breath as complaints about false accusations against her.

Specifically, she repeats an old accusation that Lyons told the world that she lived in White Plains, but she's never provided any evidence of that. He once called her a "White Plains, NY paralegal", but he never said where she lived.

She also says that Lyons "had his facts wrong", but she's never specifically denied working as a paralegal in White Plains. Groklaw's listed address is less than a mile from the state and federal courthouses in White Plains. There are no courts in the unincorporated area known as Hartsdale.

She then accuses SCO of "repeating the false information from Dan Lyons that I supposedly lived in White Plains". I don't believe Groklaw has ever given any evidence that SCO said she lived in White Plains.

Blake Stowell was once reported to have said "Pamela Jones lives ... less than 10 miles from IBM's worldwide headquarters". The address listed as Pamela Jones's address on the groklaw.com registration is within 10 miles of IBM's headquarters in Armonk.

Lastly, the Pamela Jones who writes groklaw articles makes the strange assertion that the Pamela Jones who registered the groklaw.com domain does not "have anything to do with running Groklaw".

At the start of this article on ethics, she wrote:

[O'Gara] never contacted me before running the story to ask if her facts were true or false. That is a very basic requirement.

Accordingly, I did send the email below to groklaw before posting this comment, but I did not receive any response.

Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 15:09:03 -0700

From: Al Petrofsky <al@petrofsky.org>

To: Pamela Jones <pj@groklaw.com>

Subject: Questions about facts in your "Ethics" story



I see you wrote at



  http://groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050512132312302 



that Dan Lyons "told the world I lived in White Plains" and that "I

didn't live in White Plains, so he had his facts wrong".



Could you tell me where and when Lyons told the world this?  I know he

described you in the article at



  http://forbes.com/2003/12/16/cx_dl_1216linux.html



as "a White Plains, NY paralegal".  Are you saying that you never

worked as a paralegal in White Plains?



You also say:



  [SCO has] been attacking my reputation for a long time now,

  including repeating the false information from Dan Lyons that I

  supposedly lived in White Plains



Do you have a citation for that?  I know that David Halperin wrote on

March 1, 2004 that Blake Stowell said:



  http://linuxinsider.com/story/32990.html



  "Pamela Jones lives ... less than 10 miles from IBM's worldwide

  headquarters"



Are you saying that you did not live within 10 miles of Armonk in

2004?



Lastly, with respect to Maureen O'Gara's article, you write:



  neither of the individuals in the article have anything to do with

  running Groklaw



There are half a dozen individuals mentioned in the article.  Do I

understand correctly that by "neither of the individuals" you mean

neither of the two whose addresses were given, a Pamela Jones and a

Barbara Sharnik?  If the Pamela Jones of 304 N Central Ave in

Hartsdale and phone number 914 761 7423 has nothing to do with running

Groklaw, then why do the records of dialog.com show that name,

address, and phone number for the registrant of groklaw.com?



Please note that I am only interested in any on-the-record responses

you may have to these queries.	Accordingly, I will assume any

response you make to this email is on-the-record and I will feel free

to publish it.



-Al Petrofsky





http://openaccess.dialog.com/ip/forms/PTCDomainNames.html



  Record Date: October 10, 2002    Type: WhoWas



  Domain Information



     groklaw.com



     Status: Registered

     Registrar: NetworkSolutions, Inc.

     Expires: September 26, 2003

     Created: September 26, 2002



  Registrant Information

     Name: Jones, Pamela

     Address: 304 N Central

      Hartsdale, NY 10530

      US



  Administrative Contact

     Name: Jones, Pamela

     Email: pjones@law.com

     Address: Hartsdale, NY 10530

      US

     Telephone: 914 7617423



  Technical Contact

     Name: VeriSign, Inc.

     Email: namehost@WORLDNIC.NET

     Organization: VeriSign, Inc.

     Address: 21355 Ridgetop Circle

      Dulles, VA 20166

      US

     Telephone: 1-888-642-9675



  Name Servers

     ns45.worldnic.com - 216.168.225.175

     ns46.worldnic.com - 216.168.225.176



  Dialog(R) File Number 225 Accession Number 182494644

What did I do wrong?

(quote)
X-Gmail-Received: 2c08426d349b50caadd865c99024677093a44fd3
 Delivered-To: cdbaric@gmail.com
 Received: by 10.38.65.34 with SMTP id n34cs6324rna;
        Tue, 10 May 2005 13:00:55 -0700 (PDT)
 Received: by 10.36.72.4 with SMTP id u4mr1740349nza;
        Tue, 10 May 2005 13:00:55 -0700 (PDT)
 Received: from mail709.megamailservers.com (mail709.megamailservers.com [69.49.98.19])
        by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id 15si947754nzp.2005.05.10.13.00.55;
        Tue, 10 May 2005 13:00:55 -0700 (PDT)
 Received-SPF: neutral (gmail.com: 69.49.98.19 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of paperboy@g2news.com)
 X-Authenticated-User: paperboy.g2news.com
 Received: from server (h-68-165-139-210.nycmny83.covad.net [68.165.139.210])
        (authenticated bits=0)
        by mail709.megamailservers.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j4AK0rlt000770
        for <cdbaric@gmail.com>; Tue, 10 May 2005 16:00:54 -0400
 From: paperboy@g2news.com
 Reply-To: <paperboy@g2news.com>
 To: "'CD Baric'" <cdbaric@gmail.com>
 Subject: RE: Maureen O'Gara gets dumped...
 Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 16:10:48 -0400
 Message-ID: <17d601c5559c$5ba9a1f0$0c01a8c0@server>
 MIME-Version: 1.0
 Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
 X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441
 Importance: Normal
 In-Reply-To: <f5911f9d05051009574643a03a@mail.gmail.com>
 X-UID: 22366
 X-Length: 2714

shut up and go back to the cave.

paperboy@g2news.com <mailto:paperboy@g2news.com>
G2 Computer Intelligence www.g2news.com <http://www.g2news.com>
323 Glen Cove Avenue; Sea Cliff, NY 11579 USA
516-759-7025; FAX 516-759-7028

-----Original Message-----
From: CD Baric [mailto:cdbaric@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 12:58 PM
To: paperboy@g2news.com
Subject: Maureen O'Gara gets dumped...

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha...

You are a lazy hack that picked the wrong person to attack.

You got exactly what you deserved.

I hope PJ decides to sue you as well.

Goodbye Mo,

Bar
(end quote)

You will notice O'Gara uses Microsoft Outlook as her email agent.

Where is my O'Gara diary article?

I just the better part of an hour writing a little synopsis of the Maureen O'Gara affair!

What the Hell happend to all my work!

8^|

There were just too many comments I wanted to rate!

I'm back, baby! (Until Jeff gongs me again)

8^)