Slashdot: News for Nerds


Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Deeper and deeper...

talks_to_birds (2488) writes | more than 9 years ago

User Journal 2

It's interesting (as much as any of this is interesting :-/ ) how much space Pamela is now using to discuss Pamela, and to discuss the "attacks" on Groklaw.

Yes. More "attacks".

  • "An Enderle Blow by Blow

    Dated: Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 12:57 PM EDT
It's interesting (as much as any of this is interesting :-/ ) how much space Pamela is now using to discuss Pamela, and to discuss the "attacks" on Groklaw.

Yes. More "attacks".

  • "An Enderle Blow by Blow

    Dated: Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 12:57 PM EDT

    I should probably preface my remarks by explaining that by "blow by blow" I don't mean anything physical, and this is not a threat against Rob Enderle. He seems a bit on edge lately, and I surely don't wish to send him over the top, while he's brooding about Groklaw. Because he went on and on about carrying guns in his keynote speech at SCOForum last week, I expect keeping him calm is the prudent course. At least, that is what my friends are telling me. The word blow can mean many things. The wind can blow, for example, or think blow as in blowhard. Here I use blow by blow to mean step by step..."

huh.. After expending so much effort explaining her choice of words, and how Pamela is *not* trying to imply any correlation between violence and Robert Enderle, all the while bringing up guns, and how he's "brooding about Groklaw", why not just use different words?

Could be that the entire monologue is deliberate and self-referential. "I've got to use these words, because they convey just exactly what I want to imply about Robert Enderle, even though I'm also going to expend a lot of energy explaining that while I said *this* I didn't mean *that*."

But why not just say so? Doesn't make as good press, perhaps, now that Pamela is a "journalist".

Pamela finishes off with this descent into more self-referential paranoia:

  • "...Why All the Attacks on Groklaw?

    So, bottom line: why all the attacks on Groklaw all of a sudden? And why no Enderle apology? He didn't even apologize for his foul language. I will give you my theory. I noticed that Darl McBride in his speech at SCOForum made some predictions, after he took a jab at Groklaw too. He said he commended "open blogs" and sites like Slashdot, where everyone is free to say whatever they wish. He falsely claimed that any time anything positive is left as a comment on Groklaw, I remove it. Actually, I have no recollection of ever seeing a positive comment about SCO here on Groklaw and I certainly haven't removed any as a result. Really. And he predicted that "open blogs" like Slashdot will start to tell SCO's side of the story, and then the media will get to understand what is really going on.

    I interpret this to mean that SCO is arranging an astroturf campaign. How else could he predict future behavior on Slashdot? I also understand that they must have left comments on Groklaw that got deleted by moderators. I can't recall that I have ever seen any comments deleted that were positive toward SCO. I do delete bad language and obvious trolls.

    They call it astroturf because it's phony, as in phony grass.

    Ah, yes. The corporate version of free speech. So, I suggest that if and when you read nonsense about Groklaw ("I used to love Groklaw, but now PJ [fill in the blank]"), just consider the likely source. Of course, an astroturf campaign depends upon a non-moderated site, which explains McBride's sudden fondness for Slashdot.

    I do promise them one thing. I'll report on any SCO astroturf campaigns I see, as I now believe McBride's prediction indicates they will happen. This is why Enderle really can't say he's sorry, I expect. If the campaign is set to go forward, and this speech marked the kick-off, an apology would get in the way."

It's all about Groklaw, all the time.

Groklaw: a legend in Pamela's mind.

And, yeah, that's the way it is now: if you disagree with Pamela, suddenly, clearly, obviously you're a nasty AstroTurfer®

Clearly on the payroll, clearly just doing what you're told, clearly a nasty, nasty person.


OK, Pamela, whatever you say.


cancel ×


A convenient get out clause (1)

SimianOverlord (727643) | more than 9 years ago | (#9952419)

Yeah, I assume her preface was meant to be funny. And to subtly suggest things about Stowell i.e. use of the word blowhard. Pretty childish really.

Nice get out clause in her phrase "I do delete...obvious trolls"

What are obvious trolls on Groklaw? It's pretty obvious that a post which supports SCO is bound to get a lot of bites. So how would she tell the difference between a genuinely pro SCO post and an "obvious troll"? If it was well reasoned? Would it be allowed to stand even then? I have my doubts. It seems a circular argument to claim not to delete any pro-SCO comments except "obvious trolls". After all, she is the one deciding what is a troll, and there is no way for her to tell the poster's genuine opinion from maliciously invented rhetoric.

I felt her whole essay on Blake Stowell was ill judged and frankly rather stupid (either SCO cleaned up the language, or she was getting awfully upset over the liberal use of the term "BS"). Yes, Stowell was rude. But I read the transcript: he was very vague on any actual details. He seemed to be throwing assertions out there without bothering to give his reasons for them, such as when he said to ignore the (many setbacks to SCO in) other cases - IBM is the only one that matters. Or when he said SCO was the little guy trying to get what was owed them. (hahahahah!!) These are not points that can be dissected on Groklaw, because it is opinion and smokescreen. You cannot debate someone who gives you nothing to debate over, you can only assert you disagree with them. So PJ makes the article into something of a personal blog, acting like she's never been so insulted in her life, rather than just depriving him of the oxygen of publicity. Frankly, if that was the best he could do, he's not an opponent worth wasting time over.

To be honest if SCO can make this more about personalities than hard facts, then they will be relieved. Hard facts is where they have difficulties. I feel they are succeeding to some extent on Groklaw. A newbie reading that article for the first time would hardly feel confident they were getting the unvarnished truth in other articles.

And you do realise you will be accused of astroturfing for SCO in the next PJ conspiracy theory, right? Uses Slashdot...negative about Groklaw...posts 'trolls' to!

Re:A convenient get out clause (1)

talks_to_birds (2488) | more than 9 years ago | (#9970526)

>>> And you do realise you will be accused of astroturfing for SCO in the next PJ conspiracy theory, right? Uses Slashdot...negative about Groklaw...posts 'trolls' to! <<<

Actually, I've been outed both on Yahoo! Finance SCOX in my one signon incarnation there (infosecgroupie) and in at least one signon at Groklaw (talks_to_birds), so they're certainly watching for me ;-)

Not that I could care less...


Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account