Booted from Groklaw

Well, what I expected has happened: Groklaw’s PJ has had enough of my disagreeing with her and objecting to having most of my words ignored and the few remaining ones twisted, and has revoked my Groklaw account:

So, you come full circle, attacking me and Groklaw. I assume that means you don’t wish to be a member of Groklaw now, taking into consideration that membership implies a desire to help out here?

As I said in my reply:

Well, I still wish to help out Groklaw, but it’s obvious that you, and the folks here, don’t want my help – and it’s been obvious ever since update #3 to this article. I was just too optimistic to see it.

That’s why I have my own blog: so I can tell my side of the story without having you ignore the majority of what I say and twist the rest to attack me. Enjoy the company of your fellow Kool-Aid drinkers.

I had to post that reply as Anonymous, since I was unable to log in.

The writing was on the wall when she picked one statement out of my long post, replied to it with a vicious attack on my credentials as an open source community member, and ignored all the rest of what I wrote. I can now only assume she did so because she found the facts inconvenient.

She is of course entirely within her rights to kick me out. Nevertheless, I think that she did so, after doing to me what she has, speaks far more to her true integrity and support for the community – especially those parts of it that dare to disagree with her in even the slightest detail – than it does to mine. In one comment, early on, the poster expressed pleasure that I had come to engage them, unlike SCO, which refused to do so despite repeated requests. I now understand why they didn’t, and cannot recommend in good conscience that anyone else who Groklaw decides is a mean, nasty, Microsoft-backed enemy of open source – whether the accusation is true or not – go there and try to set the record straight.

Nevertheless, I recognize that the site still has a role to play, as long as PJ’s obvious pro-IBM bias is understood up front. Accordingly, I’ve sent them a $25 contribution. We’ll see if they keep it. No, I don’t expect a thing in return.

Update: PJ refunded my contribution with no comment.

Update 2: Well, no comment directly to me in the PayPal transaction. She posted:

All right, Jay, what kind of hypocritical game is this? You just made a contribution to Groklaw financially.

I seriously don’t want your money, considering all the circumstances, and I want you to tell us why you sent it, given your remarks.

I posted the last paragraph of this posting in reply, and added:

Despite your accusations that you don’t think I told it like it is, and despite your continued twisting of my words, I still believe that. My contribution is yours for the asking, no strings attached.

It is, too.

7 Comments

  1. Former Groklaw Supporter
    Posted 16 April 2010 at 01:25 | Permalink | Reply

    It seems that she has “vanished” a few of your comments, too. You’ll still be able to see them, provided you keep the same IP/Groklaw cookie. Nobody else will, though, unless they remember it or, like me, posted in a vanished thread.

    I’ve seen so many other folks get threatened with the loss of their account or banishment if they disagree with PJ that I don’t think anyone can get a fair hearing over there. If she did it like normal forums did, where deleted posts are edited to say {scrubbed} (or something similar) and where there was a team of moderators, it might be a fair place to debate things, but PJ appears to want exclusive control.

    I have a feeling, which I cannot substantiate, that the whole control freak thing is what drove out all of her former partners. Maybe that’s why she likes Apple so much? Control freaks probably would understand each other better than I do. I never saw how iFart got through the application process, personally, or what was wrong with IAmRich…

  2. Former Groklaw Supporter
    Posted 17 April 2010 at 17:07 | Permalink | Reply

    Yes, Phil, you have been disappeared. I see that, once again, PJ shows a complete lack of awareness about how normal message boards are run. I would reply there, but I would just get sneakily deleted, so there’s no point. She seems to maintain that she’s merely “moderating” rather than abusing moderation to shape people’s opinion about what the “community” thinks. The reason there’s more of a fuss this time is that she’s turned against the community, or at least a segment thereof.

    Frankly, even though I knew about her powers for a long time, I never saw her abuse them so brazenly. I never caught her editing important words out of a post with no note of it. I mean, someone actually used the word “extortion” in a way that might give rise to a defamation lawsuit and she silently removes that and vanishes the replies! Normal people write {SCRUBBED} into a post to let you KNOW what they did. Doing it the way she does would get you kicked out of a position as a message board admin most places (and I’ve been an admin for a LOT of message boards). The sneak-delete thing, well, I could understand it if you had viagra spammers or someone posting nothing but racial ephitets (neither of those being hypothetical examples), but when you do that to people who argue with you, you cross a line.

    Anyhow, would someone like to add that information to Wikipedia? I think it’s a perfectly valid controversy. And I can supply screenshots (or so can you with those “empty” links) if we need a nice display of exactly how it works. If they complain, you can cite this place for verification and point out that “Wikipedia is NOT censored.” There aren’t any valid reasons to reject it, anyhow, and it seems like Wikipedia has notes about previous partners PJ has run out of the place which I would expect her to want buried.

  3. Jacques Lajeunesse
    Posted 26 May 2010 at 16:27 | Permalink | Reply

    Gotta remember folks… this woman is paranoid… not because of a mental illness, but because she HAS to. She has been hounded, persecuted, and who knows all the hate mail she has received from paid SCO goons.

    Now, on a bad day… a “seemingly” innocent comment and she blows up…

    Guess what… happens to ALL of us… happens at work… at home… where ever…

    Fortunately, for us it happens… in front of a few people… for her it happens on the web… we all know what that means…

    She may fess up and get over it… or she may not…

    Guess what that makes her a human being.

  4. Wally Bass
    Posted 7 July 2010 at 14:30 | Permalink | Reply

    >>Jacques Lajeunesse: Gotta remember folks… this woman is paranoid… not because of a mental illness, but because she HAS to.<<

    That's fine, as far as it goes. But people that are paranoid about something — which includes most of us — don't have to be in denial of it. Mature people are generally capable of reflecting on their own paranoias.

    A major problem over at GL is the schizophrenic treatment of PJ's paranoia by GL followers. Occasionally, someone such as yourself will acknowledge this reality, but IMO by far the more frequent outcome is that people pointing out PJ's paranoia are immediately denounced as "trolls," and are viciously attacked by a collection of disciples that can only be described as a mob. And I think that it can only be said that PJ has encouraged such behavior over the years — she certainly has made little attempt to put a lid on it.

    Inability to reflect on one's self, plus an inability to establish enough trust in anyone that shows a degree of independence/backbone/whatever that would permit PJ to "hear" feedback on things like this are, IMO, not generally not acceptable traits for someone who wants to call themself a journalist.

  5. Jack
    Posted 13 August 2010 at 12:34 | Permalink | Reply

    PJ has a history of silencing her critics. How can a person who so clearly objects to personal freedom and freedom of expression be a “software freedom” defender is beyond me.

  6. Roger Bowler
    Posted 24 August 2010 at 09:45 | Permalink | Reply

    This article is also an interesting read…
    http://linux-blog.org/disagreements-groklaw-deletion/

2 Trackbacks

  1. By Groklaw accused of censorship | ZDNet on 19 November 2010 at 15:03

    […] who is quite public in his complaints is Jay Maynard, maintainer of TurboHercules. As he wrote on his blog, “The writing was on the wall was when she picked one statement out of my long post, replied […]

  2. By Breaking News | Theory Report on 21 November 2010 at 12:34

    […] he wrote on his blog, “The writing was on the wall was when she picked one statement out of my long post, replied to […]

Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *

*
*