|
|
| No, Virginia. Actually, There Is No Santa Claus |
 |
|
Saturday, January 15 2005 @ 09:19 PM EST
|
When you have the job of reporting news, you take on a heavy responsibility. People trust you to tell them the truth. I'm sure you've all heard about the newspaper, the Sun, back in the late 1800s, that answered a little girl's query as to whether there really is a Santa Claus. The child wrote that her daddy had told her that if she read things in the Sun, it was true. They answered her question in print, telling her yes, there really was a Santa Claus. Many have viewed that as an adorable story. I think it was a journalistic failure. The moment they printed that Santa Claus story, they lost their reputation for truth. And what else does a reporter have to offer? If I had been alive back then, I'd have always wondered if what I was reading in the Sun after that was true or just a cute story.
I was told of a more serious LinuxToday scandal by Groklaw member grouch, who left a comment yesterday linking to the stories about it, in which the then-editor in 2001 was guilty of planting comments himself in their Talkback section attacking leaders of the FOSS community and competitors like Newsforge. He did it with false names, of course, and was eventually outed by an honorable man who was a writer there, Paul Ferris, and the guy had to apologize publicly. But, as you see from grouch's long memory, the stench lingers after an incident like that.
I know many of you have read the latest article by Maureen O'Gara about a purportedly impending announcement on January 25th that IBM, Intel and OSDL, with the city of Beaverton were working together to create a consortium to rewrite Linux to remove all code that supposedly infringes Microsoft's patents. You didn't read about it here, you'll note. That's because I didn't believe it was an accurate account. For one thing, I was fairly confident that if something like that were going to be announced on January 25, I'd probably know about it before Maureen O'Gara. Something didn't feel right about that story. Now OSDL has spoken and you can read all about it here on Newsforge: Two OSDL officials, however, told NewsForge that the report was "inflation of reality" and "not close to accurate at all." The officials instead indicated that while ODSL is working with the City of Beaverton and the State of Oregon, those bodies are not, as reported, underwriting the consortium that is "rewriting" the Linux code.
"It's just crazy," said one official, adding that the report's speculation on the patent strategy is "total fabrication as far as we can tell."
"The whole thing with patents -- that we can't figure out," he said, adding that the report was likely a case of putting together some disparate pieces of information incorrectly. Maybe. But can you think of anybody who might like the world to believe that IBM, Intel, OSDL and the city of Beaverton, no less, had conceded that there are patents in Linux that infringe Microsoft's patents? The patent study never said that. The Newsforge article, by the way, has a significant tidbit: it says: "[S]ome of the same patents opened by IBM are ones that Microsoft has laid at least partial claim to," particularly related to Samba. You can read about the Samba issue here. So to the cynics who thought it was just some musty old patents IBM didn't happen to need any more, no doubt you will wish to correct the record, now that you find out you were hasty. Hasty and wrong. Why leap to conclusions until you have all the facts? You can hardly expect to find truth if the facts that you rely on are incomplete. You will note it mentions DCOM in that article. And that reminds me to tell you that the Open Group has just released DCE under the LGPL. You can get read about it and download it here. Why is that important? I wasn't sure myself, so I asked DrStupid to explain it to me in nontechnical terms: From the Open Groups's own referenced FAQ
"DCE is called 'middleware' or 'enabling technology.' It is not intended to exist alone, but instead should be bundled into a vendor's operating system offering, or integrated in by a third-party vendor."
DCE is a technology that makes it easier to create systems where a number of computers (not necessarily running the same OS) act as an integrated whole: e.g. one computer can ask for something to be done without really caring about which other computer does it. There are a number of such technologies already: CORBA, for example. Microsoft's DCOM could have been another - if they had made good on their promise to port it to other OSes.
Up till now, DCE has been an open spec, but specs are one thing - you still have to implement it. Opening up the OSF's code may make DCE a more popular option for building distributed systems, as the developer will save the effort of writing, or the expense of buying, another implementation. That should help to encourage the growth of open standards as well as open source.
So it's one of those things that's not very sexy or obvious to non-geeks, but it's important as another step in the overall shift in the IT industry zeitgeist towards solutions that are open specs and open source.
Another reader explained its significance like this: DCE is the core of a (normally) very expensive solution for secure login and transactions. It is used by the vast majority of sites doing e-commerse for their security and customer management layer.
By being now released (I think the Open Group figured out the Open Source community will fix bugs better), completely open source business solutions (with industrial strength security) are now available. There are, of course, other open source projects on this, but DCE is the de-facto standard as the base for such things. It includes such things as being able to share data with other applications and myriad other abilities -- it is, above all, from a standard. This alone permits Linux solutions which were only previously available on proprietary (Sun mostly, but also MS with a Posix layer) Unixes.
Will the Real PJ Please Stand Up, Please Stand Up
Speaking of talkbacks, if you see any comments on any story anywhere but here on Groklaw allegedly by a P.J., know that it is not me. First of all, I'm PJ, not P.J. No periods. Someone has been placing offensive comments on the Internet and signing them P.J. A quirk in the software inexplicably but helpfully, to me, left the email address of the poster visible when he did it as feedback on the O'Gara story. This isn't the first such incident that I am aware of involving someone pretending to be me, and there have been other individuals recently victimized by such irresponsible behavior. This is just the latest in a smear campaign against me and Groklaw beginning last October. You know what? It's just as bad to place imposter comments as a reader as it is as an editor. Here's why I feel that way. Because the Internet and blogging have changed what media is and how news is gathered. Readers are part of the media now. Groklaw is a clear example of the entire group researching in an open way and presenting information. And if any reader violates trust by creating or spreading misinformation, it is just as damaging as when any editor does it. FUD isn't OK because it comes from an individual instead of a corporation, is it? We all despise corporations that hire people to do astroturfing. What, pray tell, is the difference between you posting as someone you aren't and a corporation hiring someone to do it? You slandering someone or a corporation doing it? That you didn't get a check. But the effect is the same -- it undermines truth and trust. I also believe personally that lying leads to mental instability, because when you lie, you aren't exactly standing on reality any more, are you? And trying to live in that disjointed atmosphere after a while makes it hard not to be skewed.
It didn't happen here, and no one here in the Groklaw family would do that, I trust, but sadly it was necessary to inform you of this incident, so you would know what happened and not be misled. And we do have trolls that appear in waves from time to time with slander and slanted half-truths they want you to believe. Some of them left comments, just as one small example, that DrStupid and grouch had both left Groklaw. As you can see, that too was a lie. We just went over the 8,000 member mark, by the way, speaking of Groklaw, so we are continuing to grow. I will not be posting any comments anywhere but here, so if you see any such from this day forward, you can be 100% certain it's an imposter. Isn't it sad that that is the only way you can know for sure if a comment really came from me? I might have had something worthwhile to say elsewhere, and now it can't happen because I have to protect my good name from venal imposters, determined FUDsters, and childish pranksters. If any editors see such comments, or slanderous remarks about me, feel free to contact me to verify fact from fiction. Blogging, Research and Editorial Ethics And to those out there who think moderation is wrong and that all information wants to be free, I suggest you ponder a bit more deeply. It isn't just editors in mainstream media who are responsible for journalistic integrity. You are too, every time you leave a comment. You are responsible not to tarnish others with misinformation or wild theories or guesses as to motives you can't possibly know. You are responsible to check your facts and not repeat lies and slander and not to assert as a fact something that is merely a possibility. The mainstream usually goes by a two-source rule, for example, meaning if they get a tip, they don't print it until they have it confirmed by a second source. A second *reliable* source. Mistakes happen no matter how hard we try, because we are mere mortals, but if we are careful to follow ethical guidelines, at least we can minimize how often. Now that you are newsgatherers too, I hope that you read up on how the media decides what is and what isn't true, what is and what isn't something to publish. There are ethical issues too. There is a balance between free speech and other people's right of privacy. Here are some links to help you read up on the complex subject of ethics and journalism:
The courts are struggling with this issue too, the tension between the First Amendment and privacy rights. The US District Court in Delaware is joining the 21st century soon and will make court filings available electonically. It's part of new rules that require them to do it, but how to do it without revealing information that enables identity theft, stalkers, rapists, thieves, etc. is the question. Of course, First Amendment purists are raising complaints, and it's good to be zealous on that issue, but they probably have never had a stalking problem. If they had, they'd understand why that court will be removing home addresses, birth dates, and Social Security numbers. If this is a new thought to you, or you immediately take umbrage at the idea of anyone limiting your "right" to say whatever you want, I'm guessing you've never had anyone try to destroy your reputation by posting garbage in your name or printing lies about you. Maybe you've never been the victim of identity theft or tracked by a stalker. If it ever happened to you, you'd be screaming bloody murder. It's only "fun" when it isn't you at the receiving end. And bloggers and readers -- all of us now -- have to live by a code of editorial ethics, or the whole new journalism system breaks down. Others may do what they do, but at least on Groklaw, this is the standard I would like us to strive for. That means, for starters, that if you find a piece of information, you don't assume anything. Example: you are doing research on a lawyer, say a new one assigned to the SCO Group. You know his name and his firm, and you find a case on Google that has the same name but a different firm, and there is a great picture of him that you would love to share. Do you write that this is the guy? No. You can't, unless you contact him and ask, or call the old firm, or find some definitive proof that the two are one and the same. But, you say, I am sure it must be him. No. You think it is. It may be. But there could be two lawyers with the same name in the same state. With a name like Jones, I can testify. I called customer service at a store the other day, and the woman who answered told me her name was Pamela. I said, "Really? Me too." Later in the conversation, she asked me my last name and when I told her Jones, she said, "Get out! Me too!" So be careful to check and keep checking until you are sure or reasonably sure. Does that mean you can never contribute such a piece of information if you can't verify it 100%? No. You can say you tried to verify it, but you were unable to do so, but that it might be the same person. If it's a criminal matter, and he's accused of a crime, I'd never say it was the same guy, until I was 100% positive. It's doubly hard to be calmly careful about research when you find something negative about someone or some company you dislike, but that is precisely when journalistic ethics will most need to come into play. Truth matters. Misinformation doesn't want to be free. It wants to be deleted. To me, the bottom line is this: There isn't a cause in the world that is worth lying for. And if the only way to win is to be vicious, to present slanted, distorted, cruel information, I'd rather lose. The FOSS community is built on ethics. That is part of what draws people to it. And we need to live by those ethics to be a member of the community. It's every bit as important as what license you use. I'd say, personally, it's more important, because licenses such as the GPL were designed to codify the ethics. It stems from the ethics, not the other way around. I am very grateful to Sys-con for doing the responsible and kind thing by removing the comments. If they had left them, there would inevitably be some who would be misled into believing I left those offensive remarks. Even some Groklaw members wrote to ask if it was really me. Probably there were some who just assumed it was. And just like the persistent stench after the LinuxToday incident, slander lingers in the air if not dealt with forcefully. Sometimes, sadly, even then. That's what makes it so evil. There is a scripture someone explained to me once years ago, Micah 3:2 and 3, that speaks about slander. The imagery used compares it to stripping the skin off of someone. And yes. That is exactly how it feels.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: fudisbad on Saturday, January 15 2005 @ 09:37 PM EST |
If required.
---
See my bio for copyright details re: this post.
This subliminal message has been brought to you by Microsoft.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- OT I can't resist it. :) - Authored by: Brian S. on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 01:15 AM EST
- OT: Howdy, grouch! - Authored by: Weeble on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 02:04 AM EST
- opus cartoon - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 07:31 AM EST
- opus cartoon - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 01:04 PM EST
- More OSRM FUD? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 07:42 AM EST
- Novell offering FULLY INSTALLABLE Suse9.2 - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 07:51 AM EST
- NatWest (A UK Bank) Online Banking To Support Firefox! - Authored by: Simon G Best on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 10:01 AM EST
- Remote Keystroke Logging and Monitoring in Schools - Authored by: sjgibbs on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 03:05 PM EST
- Chilling Effects (dot org) - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 03:41 PM EST
- Yahoo hacked? - Authored by: Paul Shirley on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 07:41 AM EST
- Site outages? - Authored by: fudisbad on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 07:48 AM EST
- OT on a completely different subject - Authored by: jim Reiter on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 08:11 AM EST
- OT Upset with former-lawyer turned talk show host - Authored by: frk3 on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 01:33 PM EST
- Semi-OT here - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 05:38 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: fudisbad on Saturday, January 15 2005 @ 09:38 PM EST |
---
See my bio for copyright details re: this post.
This subliminal message has been brought to you by Microsoft.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Saturday, January 15 2005 @ 09:50 PM EST |
Here, here!
Beautifully said.
---
Wayne
telnet hatter.twgs.org
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 15 2005 @ 10:18 PM EST |
Thanks, PJ, for doing such a concise and beautiful job of laying out what proper
ethics really should be. There seems to be so little in this world today meeting
those criteria that it's like a breath of fresh air when this outlook is
encountered. May you always maintain your integrity.
Larry N.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jbeadle on Saturday, January 15 2005 @ 10:22 PM EST |
This article may have been needed a long time ago.
Thanks again,
-jb[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ghost on Saturday, January 15 2005 @ 10:31 PM EST |
As much as i agree with you that the truth has to prevail, being a journalist
myself, maybe one of the last, of the kind that considers truth to be the real
story, i have to agree with the sun at that time.
Santa Claus, actually existed, and therefore, it is no lie.
If he exists in the form of the santa claus that climbs down the chimney, to
deliver presents, that's another story, but that is not what was asked. The
newspaper was honest on that.
The phenonomenon you describe, with every story angled, is a quite new thing,
and an effect of the modern society, where everyoe MUST take on a standpoint, as
being neutral and objective, is considered suspect, and not following the norm.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Yes, Virginia. Actually, There Is a Santa Claus - Authored by: turbopro on Saturday, January 15 2005 @ 10:49 PM EST
- The Sun lied - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 15 2005 @ 11:12 PM EST
- The Sun lied - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 15 2005 @ 11:39 PM EST
- The Sun lied - Authored by: Tolerance on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 06:21 AM EST
- The Sun lied - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 01:36 PM EST
- Actually, There Is a Santa Claus!!! - Authored by: penfold on Saturday, January 15 2005 @ 11:19 PM EST
- Yes, Virginia. Actually, There Is a Santa Claus - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 02:04 AM EST
- If you just squint your eyes... - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 06:32 AM EST
- Yes, Virginia. Actually, There Is a Santa Claus - Authored by: cc0028 on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 08:14 AM EST
- Yes, Virginia. Actually, There Is a Santa Claus - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 09:49 AM EST
- No, Virgina. Actually, There Is No Santa Claus - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 10:30 AM EST
- I guess I'm just a Who - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 10:33 AM EST
- The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but... - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 11:09 AM EST
- Yes, Virginia. Actually, There Is a Santa Claus - Authored by: zroh on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 12:33 PM EST
- What about the consequences? - Authored by: zroh on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 12:53 PM EST
- Yes, Virginia. Actually, There Is a Santa Claus - Authored by: Tyro on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 08:04 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 15 2005 @ 10:37 PM EST |
I really like the work you are doing, PJ, but when you write an article about
journalistic responsibility and ethics, and then go on to demean the intent of
1897's "Yes, Virginia, There is a Santa Claus," you begin to concern
me with going too far.
The reason the 1897 article receives attention isn't because the author is
trying to justify Santa Claus, but rather the innocence of the question and the
beauty of the answer.
Santa isn't a true live being. He's inside of everyone and their dreams. He
tries to make the point that it is in your dreams, filled with hope and
devotion, that's where you will find Santa. It's with your thoughts and actions
where you will do good, and that's where you'll find Santa Claus.
To point to this article to say the author was lying is deception in of itself.
Shame on you, PJ! I am saddened that anyone could think that way of the
article.
ers[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- No, Virginia. Actually, There Is No Santa Claus - Authored by: PJ on Saturday, January 15 2005 @ 11:04 PM EST
- No, Virginia. Actually, There Is No Santa Claus - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 15 2005 @ 11:36 PM EST
- Robert, Robert, Robert - Authored by: qu1j0t3 on Saturday, January 15 2005 @ 11:52 PM EST
- No, Virginia. Actually, There Is No Santa Claus - Authored by: rm6990 on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 12:36 AM EST
- No, Virginia. Actually, There Is No Santa Claus - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 01:06 AM EST
- No, Virginia. Actually, There Is No Santa Claus - Authored by: fjalvingh on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 08:22 AM EST
- Meaning vs Fact - Authored by: llanitedave on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 02:02 PM EST
- No, Virginia. Actually, There Is No Santa Claus - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 02:20 AM EST
- No, Virginia. Actually, There Is No Santa Claus - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 09:08 AM EST
- No, Virginia. Actually, There Is No Santa Claus - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 09:16 AM EST
- So PJ, your view of Santa is paramount? - Authored by: tech_nix_yoda on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 01:41 PM EST
- No, Virginia. Actually, There Is No Santa Claus - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 02:31 PM EST
- Actually, There _Is_ A Santa Claus - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 06:23 PM EST
- Yes, Virginia. Actually, There Is A Santa Claus - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 01:11 AM EST
- An EDITORIAL is NOT the same as an Investigation - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 09:36 AM EST
- No, Virginia. Actually, There Is No Santa Claus - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 15 2005 @ 11:33 PM EST
- No, Virginia. Actually, There Is No Santa Claus - Authored by: blacklight on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 12:14 AM EST
- It depends on the meaning of "Santa Claus" - Authored by: CustomDesigned on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 12:34 AM EST
- No, shame on you - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 01:26 AM EST
- stupid lies? - Authored by: NemesisNL on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 04:28 AM EST
- stupid lies? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 07:21 AM EST
- No, shame on you - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 08:38 AM EST
- No, shame on you - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 11:05 AM EST
- Lies to Children - Authored by: feldegast on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 10:21 AM EST
- That's Not What PJ Said - Authored by: llanitedave on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 06:57 PM EST
- No, shame on you - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 08:24 PM EST
- No, shame on you - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 09:59 AM EST
- No, shame on you - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 02:17 PM EST
- No, Virginia. Actually, There Is No Santa Claus - Authored by: turbopro on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 04:38 PM EST
- He told lies beyond the scope of Santa - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 11:59 AM EST
- No, Virginia. Actually, There Is No Santa Claus - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 18 2005 @ 03:28 PM EST
- Hear, hear. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 11:49 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Beyonder on Saturday, January 15 2005 @ 10:38 PM EST |
Well PJ its wonderful to live in a world where you are wearing rose colored
glasses, but the truth is, that sometimes you have to lie, or rather, where you
can't tell the truth.
the most obvious (and funny) example is the old classic:
whenever a woman asks a man "Does this make my butt look big?"
every man on the planet will tell you, you better lie! and say NO, no matter
what. unless you want a very painful death...
and there are other examples:
undercover police officers
any person that has ever worked in government or military where they are dealing
with secret or classified information.
in fact, in some cases you cant even tell your family or your spouse what your
job is, I've been in that situation.
so as nice as it is to think in general terms you can't lie, the reality is that
it is just not possible or practical. sometimes we do it to spare a persons
feelings, other times to make a complicated situation simple and easy.
some would say this is the difference between little white lies and the regular
type. but that brings back the whole police/govt/military examples above and
handling what could be awkward situations.
but the classic will always be the big butt thing... ;)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Sometimes you actually HAVE to lie - Authored by: PJ on Saturday, January 15 2005 @ 10:57 PM EST
- Sometimes you actually HAVE to lie - Authored by: blacklight on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 12:03 AM EST
- Sometimes you actually HAVE to lie - Authored by: inode_buddha on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 12:32 AM EST
- Sometimes you actually HAVE to lie - Authored by: rm6990 on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 12:40 AM EST
- Sometimes you actually HAVE to lie - Authored by: Latesigner on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 12:55 AM EST
- Especially when refusing to respond reveals information - Authored by: DrHow on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 01:17 AM EST
- You never actually HAVE to lie - Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 01:44 AM EST
- Sometimes you actually HAVE to lie - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 07:20 AM EST
- Cops shouldn't lie - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 08:30 AM EST
- Sometimes you actually HAVE to lie - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 01:44 PM EST
- Sometimes you actually HAVE to lie - Authored by: grouch on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 12:41 AM EST
- The truth is usually a better idea. - Authored by: emmenjay on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 09:22 AM EST
- Sometimes you actually HAVE to lie - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 10:44 AM EST
- Sometimes you actually HAVE to lie - Authored by: Jaywalk on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 05:45 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: garbage on Saturday, January 15 2005 @ 10:55 PM EST |
| This pretty much out's O'gara as an astroturfing lobyyist NOT a journalist. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 15 2005 @ 11:19 PM EST |
Actually, if it's really important to you to be able to post elsewhere in a way
that's verifiable, you could use public key cryptography to sign your posts
(e.g., create and publish a gpg public key here at groklaw, write up the post
for elsewhere in a text editor as one long line, sign it with gpg, make the
post, and also post the gpg signature and instructions on how to verify it (e.g.
copy the post back into a text editor as one long line, save it, and run gpg
over it and the signature)). Then never post elsewhere unless you sign the post
this way, and protect your private key.
Don't let impersonators silence you - ensure that you can make postings that are
provably yours!
(And as a side effect, if some groklaw reader ever felt it necessary to send a
message to you and to be sure that only you could read it, they could encrypt it
to your key!)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Yes, PJ, there is a way to prove a post is yours elsewhere - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 12:59 AM EST
- Yes, PJ, there is a way to prove a post is yours elsewhere - Authored by: ram on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 01:38 AM EST
- Using gpg - Authored by: rsmith on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 06:07 AM EST
- Yes, PJ, there is a way to prove a post is yours elsewhere - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 06:22 AM EST
- Yes, PJ, there is a way to prove a post is yours elsewhere - Authored by: robert on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 06:39 AM EST
- Yes, PJ, there is a way to prove a post is yours elsewhere - Authored by: arch_dude on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 09:53 AM EST
- Yes, PJ, there is a way to prove a post is yours elsewhere - Authored by: MathFox on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 10:17 AM EST
- is the public key from the real PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 05:34 PM EST
- Yes, PJ, there is a way to prove a post is yours elsewhere - Authored by: micheal on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 06:22 PM EST
- Yes, PJ, there is a way to prove a post is yours elsewhere - Authored by: radix2 on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 10:13 PM EST
- Proving [[PJ wrote X]] not the problem - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 11:39 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Brian S. on Saturday, January 15 2005 @ 11:21 PM EST |
| You've hit the heart of the matter and put it into words that no reasonable
person can deny.
It can only make Groklaw stronger and make it harder for
those who can't understand basic human values. Sadly, I fear there will be some
left but they'll be grasping at straws.
Brian S. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 15 2005 @ 11:29 PM EST |
Dear PJ,
Let's see, first you felt you had to quit your job to show your integrity, now
you've said you will only post on Groklaw.Something doesn't seem quite right
with how this is going. There are other ways
1- a simple secure feature would be that whenever you post, off groaklaw you
link back to Groaklaw in a way that it assures it's really you (will this work?
I don't know, but I'm sure there is some Groklorian cleaver enough out there to
create a security feature for you that will work.)
But beyond this, if you keep losing parts of your freedom (like losing your job)
to prove something, your sooner or later going to run into
psychological/emotional problems.
There ARE other ways and techniques to handle the issues that will be ariseing.
And the solutions to there aren't in your law training,
A quick course in creativity
Do not go with your first solution to a important problem. If you ask yourself
to write down at least X creative solutions to a problem before you decide on
the direction to take you will get a better solution.
Go Borg. You have the equivalent of a borg collective consiousness at your
disposal made up of some of fine minds . You got a problem throw it out to
the GrokConsiousness Collective, and see what they come up with.
One last note. I believe there is a Santa Claus, but the more I see how we act
as a species it's the Sanity Clause that I believe doesn't exist.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Saturday, January 15 2005 @ 11:42 PM EST |
""The whole thing with patents -- that we can't figure out," he
said, adding that the report was likely a case of putting together some
disparate pieces of information incorrectly."
Combine incorrectly parts from several bodies including a face that must have
been grafted from someone's butt, give the dead matter artificial life with a
jolt of electricity that would have fried a living human being and voila:
Frankenstein's monster.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cjames on Saturday, January 15 2005 @ 11:42 PM EST |
And to those out there who think moderation is wrong and that all
information wants to be free, I suggest you ponder a bit more
deeply.
Right on.
Benjamin Franklin, argueably the
father of our concept of freedom of the press, refused to publish views that he
didn't agree with in his own newspaper. When challenged, he pointed out that
his opponents had the same right as he did: to print their own views at their
own expense, and distribute as they pleased.
We're all free to create
our own websites, blogs, news sites, whatever we want. And if we decline to
publish views we disagree with, that's not censorship, it's
freedom. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gvc on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 12:00 AM EST |
The original article uses metaphor and irony in a way that no reasonable reader
could mistake its meaning.
Whether or not Virginia was sophisticated enough to recognize these poetic
devices, I know not. But adult readers surely were.
On the matter of whether or not to represent supernatural beings to children as
real, I'm ambivalent. I tried to tell my daughter there was no Santa Claus and
she believed anyway. As far as I'm aware, my disclaimers served only to cause
discord.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jamienk on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 12:01 AM EST |
Thank you so much PJ. These days I'm often among the sceptical WRT journalism,
the US legal system, spin, and Christianity. You inspire me with your brutal
honesty, high empathy, and eloquence. You help me to remember the practical,
psychological nature of trying to figure out and do the right thing. We do it
for our spiritual health and our children's spiritual health. (And I'm Jewish!)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Simon G Best on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 12:59 AM EST |
"No!" yelled the defendant. "The jury's verdict is wrong!" They
had just returned a verdict of guilty. "I have the right to freedom of
expression, and that's a fundamental right. You are violating my
rights!"
"Freedom of expression is not an unconditional right,"
explained the judge.
"Freedom of expression is a fundamental
right," the defendant repeated. "It's fundamental. If I can't express
myself any way I choose, then my right's being denied. The verdict is
wrong!"
"Oh," said the judge. "I see what you mean. You do have a good
point there."
Everyone, including the defendant, was taken aback by
this.
"But," the judge continued, "the jury were exercising
their right to freedom of expression when they expressed their
verdict. And I shall now exercise my same right as I sentence you to
death."
"What?!?" the defendant exclaimed, starting to shake as the
blood visibly drained out of his face.
"The executioner, who shall have
to be appointed, will exercise his right to freedom of expression
through the medium of, let's say, hanging."
"No, that can't be
right!" pleaded the defendant.
"It's been the foundation of your defense
throughout this trial," explained the judge. "You were, as you admitted,
expressing hatred by committing the crime for which you have now been convicted.
We are only following the example that you yourself have set. We, too, are,
and shall be, exercising our same right to freedom of
expression."
"Erm," started the defendant, with wavering voice, "I think
I made a mistake."
---
FOSS IS political. It's just that
the political establishment is out of touch and hasn't caught up. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 01:54 AM EST |
<i>The moment they printed that Santa Claus story, they lost their
reputation
for truth.</i>
Although I tend to agree with the sentiment, I am sure this post will have
readers in the UK rolling in the aisles. "The Sun" never had a
reputation for
the truth. Maybe a reputation for having topless women on page 3. Maybe a
reputation for being the closest thing to a fascist paper there is. Definitely
a
reputation for being written for the lowest common denominator. But not the
truth.
Simon [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rp$eeley on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 03:08 AM EST |
Thanks PJ, for validating my reason for coming here day after day. It feels
mighty good to be able to read the work of one whom I am convinced is honest
beyond reproach and a person of great integrity. It is only the comments here
that I feel the necessity to constantly filter and subject to critical
analysis.
I hope you know we love you!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 03:27 AM EST |
They answered her question in print, telling her yes, there really was
a
Santa Claus. Many have viewed that as an adorable story. I think it was a
journalistic failure. The moment they printed that Santa Claus story, they lost
their reputation for truth. And what else does a reporter have to offer? If I
had
been alive back then, I'd have always wondered if what I was reading in the
Sun after that was true or just a cute story.
Well, PJ, once again
you have showed us your lack of understanding in
the field of Journalism. I'm
not sure you actually read the article that you linked to
because if
you had you would have notice that it begins by saying that it is
From the
Editorial Page of The New York Sun. Now in the field of
Journalism there is a difference in what you see in the Editorial Page and in
the News section of a newspaper. The Editorial Page is for opinion, the news
section is for the factual and (hopefully) unbiased news. The article that
appeared in the Sun on the Editorial Page about Santa Claus was perfectly fine
and met all journalistic standards. I find it despicable that you compare that
example with what some low-life impostor is doing by posing as you.
If
you're having trouble understanding the difference between the news
section of
a newspaper and the opinion section of a newspaper then I suggest
you read the
following page
from the Boston Globe. In particular you
might want to read about the
differences among reporters (Journalists),
editors, and columnists. From the
Globe and in part: (emphasis added)
What's the difference
between a reporter, editor, and
columnist?
A reporter gathers facts
and information on an event of public interest
and then presents them in a
readable style to inform the reader. The reporter
is supposed to provide
objective observation about events that
editors deem newsworthy.
Reporters are often assigned to "beats," or
particular areas, such as business,
politics, energy, or education.
...
An editor serves many
functions. While specific responsibilities may
differ according to title or
newspaper, an editor may do one or more of the
following: assign reporters,
decide which news events to cover, edit (revise)
reporters' stories, decide
what stories get published, determine where each
story will be placed in the
paper, write headlines, and select photographs for
the paper. At larger
papers, each section (e.g., Business, Sports) has one or
more editors
responsible for the content of that section.
A columnist gives
opinions, usually his or her own. A
columnist is expected to gather
accurate information, just as a reporter
does, and then comment on that
information. A columnist has
more latitude and license than a reporter and is
not constrained by the rule
of impartiality that governs news writing. While
they are subject to the
editing and approval of one or more editors,
columnists can write just about
what they please, as long as it remains within
the boundaries of good taste
and public acceptability, as defined by the
paper.
Here at Groklaw PJ is both the Editor and a
Columnist, but you are not a
reporter/Journalist. PJ, you are a Journalist in
the same way the Al Franken,
Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are, that is none
of you are Journalists. You
are all (PJ included) opinion givers, advocates,
and commentators. Sure you
all want to find and share the truth, but it is the
truth according to your
perspectives. You are all biased and don't even try to
hide your bias, except
that you, PJ, try to claim that you are a
Journalist.
It's sad really. You just showed us all, in plain detail,
that you don't know
the difference between the opinion/editorial section of a
newspaper and the
news section of a newspaper. You even say they they lost
their reputation
for truth because they printed an opinion in the opinion
section of the
newspaper! How low can you go?!
Please try to learn a
bit more about Journalism before you go lecturing
others about it. And quit
calling yourself a Journalist, Journalists report the
unbiased facts. Call
yourself a commentator, columnist, advocate, researcher
or analyst, but please
stop calling yourself a Journalist.
kumaw [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- What's O'Gara then? And what are you? A troll? (n/t) - Authored by: fudisbad on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 03:38 AM EST
- Once again you show your ignorance of Journalism - Authored by: dwmosman on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 04:17 AM EST
- ...speaking of unbiased... - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 04:21 AM EST
- Talking of Opinion... - Authored by: Simon G Best on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 04:26 AM EST
- Another day, another troll (eom) - Authored by: Latesigner on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 04:37 AM EST
- And you have a fancy way of justifying a lie! - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 04:42 AM EST
- Journalists report unbiased facts, on what planet? - Authored by: globularity on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 04:53 AM EST
- Once again you show your ignorance of Journalism - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 04:57 AM EST
- Once again you show your ignorance of Journalism - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 05:16 AM EST
- The world calls me a journalist, actually - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 05:58 AM EST
- Journalist is not a synonym for reporter. - Authored by: cricketjeff on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 06:53 AM EST
- Sorry, PJ's not ignorant - Authored by: mrhartwig on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 10:11 AM EST
- Once again you show your ignorance of Journalism - Authored by: blacklight on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 10:39 AM EST
- Once again you show your ignorance of Journalism - Authored by: cjames on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 02:17 PM EST
- the difference between disagreement and trolling - Authored by: dan_d on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 10:10 PM EST
- It's a blog dude - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 08:49 AM EST
- You're not mad are you? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 09:40 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: mrcreosote on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 04:30 AM EST |
| WRT to defamation on the internet, and especially the question of
juristiction
http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v8n4/nicholson84_text.html
link
---
----------
mrcreosote [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: juhl on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 05:14 AM EST |
I will not be posting any comments anywhere but here, so if you see
any such from this day forward, you can be 100% certain it's an imposter. Isn't
it sad that that is the only way you can know for sure if a comment really came
from me? I might have had something worthwhile to say elsewhere, and now it
can't happen because I have to protect my good name from venal imposters,
determined FUDsters, and childish pranksters.
You don't
have to stop posting comments elsewhere. There's are two very simple ways for
you to let people verify that what is posted on some other site than groklaw is
from the real PJ.
1. Instead of actually posting your comments on the
other site you post it on some specific corner of groklaw where other users are
not able to post, and then post a link. If the link is valid and points to that
specific area of groklaw, then obviously it was posted by you.
2.
Generate a PGP keypair, post the public key on groklaw (in addition to uploading
it to a few keyservers), then whenever you post something on a non-groklaw site
you first type the text into a text document, then you sign it with your private
key and then post the text and the signature. Everyone can then use your public
key, the text and signature to validate that what is posted was signed by you
(well, by your private key, but we have to trust you to keep that secret and
personal).
Personally I think the option to cryptographically sign your
posts would be the best approach.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 06:55 AM EST |
Every other article that is published on groklaw comes with links to reference
material to support the position taken by the author.
This article is notably missing it's supporting references... Why ?
PJ - If you have evidence to support your claims that Santa doesn't exist, then
please provide them... if not - then please withdraw your claims.
That's the process we follow - isn't it - "X" makes some wild
accusations based on what they call "information and belief" and we
all call them a fool and ask for the evidence.. Then when they can't provide the
evidence we provide the proof that they were wrong.
So without supporting evidence, the article is just a puff piece of fluffy
sensationalist journalism... the sort of unfounded press release we expect from
SCOX ...
Oh no ! ( Sarcasm mode enabled ) - PJ - Does that make you the DARLing of the
anti-santa brigade ? :-)
The simple fact of the matter that Santa does exist. I can provide photographic
evidence and eye-witnesses.
If Santa hasn't been popping in to provide you with Xmas presents then it says
more about you than it does about Santa.
The "chubby guy with a white beard and a coke" representation is a
fantastical representation created by Coca-Cola to sell brown bubbly water - the
real santa is a lot scarier a character to meet, and most of the countries in
europe have a traditional santa character ( who travels under some of his lesser
known names "Nick" ) that has existed in the past, and still travels
around today.
The "American" "Capitalist" way has taken the very spirit of
christmas and commercialised it to death...
Next thing we'll hear you say that the Thanksgiving day turkey doesn't exist
either... or the tooth fairy, or iraq's WMD, or Darl's evidence.
So - PJ - where is your supporting evidence... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 06:58 AM EST |
There are a number of daily papers in the UK. I refuse to read any of
them.
- The Times - this is read by folks who think they run the
country.
- The Daily Telegraph - this is read by the folks who
do run the country.
- The Daily Mail - This is read by their
wives
- The Sun - This is read by folks who don't care who runs the
country, just as long as they have big tits.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Israel Pattison on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 07:55 AM EST |
PJ,
I want to take issue with your interpretation of the "Yes,
Virginia..." story.
First, let me say that I think that it is inappropriate for parents to mislead
their children, even about something as innocuous as Santa Claus.
As for whether the Sun was correct in publishing the answer to Virginia's letter
-- this is entirely appropriate for exactly the reasons you support in your
article -- editorial license.
You seem to suggest that everything in a publication must reflect jouralistic
ethics and fact. So when I pick up my paper in the morning, everything in there
must be fact, correct? Editorials? Advertising?
Virginia's letter was a letter to the editor. I will assume that it was
published in the paper's editorial page. I had always assumed that that
particular page was a safe harbor for opinion. I sure hope that it is, because
the stuff I read there is often an abomination, much less fact.
Yesterday's "Virginia" were people writing in to say that a beloved
figure in the history of the University of North Carolina was worthy of the
honors she had received, even though she was a white supremicist. "Yes,
Virginia, there is a Santa Claus."
Journalism is no safe harbor for free speech, and most Americans don't
understand that. And free speech is certainly not the same thing as truth.
Judging by today's media environment, free speech is actually the opposite of
truth. You simply hope that the editor of the journalism outlet that you choose
is honorable.
Editors have tough choices to make in their outlet. They must make good
business choices as well as journalistic choices. I would venture a guess that
when the "Yes, Virginia,..." letter was published, there were more
than one newspaper in that particular outlet. Certainly this editor was
thinking about "Customer Sat." as much as he was thinking about
dashing the hopes of a little girl.
You mention the part of Virginia's letter where she suggests that newspapers
know everything and always tell the truth (she didn't say that, but it is
implied). Shame on her. The real problem with this letter is that a little
girl who knows enough to write to the newspaper is either a) using her childish
innocense to extract her desired answer, or b) demonstrating her ignorance as to
the nature of journalism. This demonstrates a breakdown in the parenting and
education of a little girl, not a breakdown of the journalistic ethics of this
particular editor.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 08:27 AM EST |
Yet totally ignore the journalistic "ethics" on display at CBS News
over the past three or four months? How can anyone make a statement about
journalistic ethics and miss that? Hey, maybe "Yes, Virginia, There is a Santa
Claus" was fake but accurate, too. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 08:52 AM EST |
There is a definate shift of late on groklaw that I find less then pleasing.
Groklaw was _the_ site for legal news updates, and had the occasional
interesting editorial.
Now it seems that, while the legal news continues, the editorial content is
becoming more extreme, and thus less interesting to those of us who realise that
in the real world, dissenting opinions are allowed.
free an open source software/philosophy is fine and useful, but has it's fair
share of extremists. Groklaw was always a bit pushy (rightly so), but now
appears to be little more then a corporation bashers club. People who disagree
are hounded and forced to either give up coming here or post anonymously.
I've stopped using my login, because I don't really feel the need to use it any
more. Also, I strongly disagree with the stance taken by groklaw recently.
extremism, no matter how dresed up in rightousness, leaves a bitter taste.
I haven't posted for a while, and now only visit groklaw to see if there is any
useful ibm/sco news. When there has been it also manages to appear on slashdot,
which is at least a little more honest. The frequency of new news of relevence
to the sco case appearing here is reducing, and given that I have no interest in
most of the heavily biased editorial content, there is precious little reason to
be here at all.
I did think I should add my voice to those who are expressing concern about
groklaw at the moment though. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Why is this surprising now? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 09:24 AM EST
- Fanatic - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 04:36 PM EST
- hogwash - Authored by: PJ on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 08:21 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 08:55 AM EST |
PJ wrote the article - she made the claims that santa doesn't exist - she
doesn't provide any evidence.... she has to support her claims ( otherwise we
do what SCO did - which is claim any rubbish at all is true and then make it the
responsibility of the other guy to prove it's not true )
It doesn't matter what the topic is - PJ has provided nothing to support her
claims - and that isn't the norm for groklaw.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 09:17 AM EST |
Oh please!
Does your journalistic ethic hold that society advances best when the naievet'e
of children is aggressively expunged? Have you watched too many Star Trek
episodes, Ms. Spock?
Put in a groklaw context:
Let the children, while they are children, believe that lawsuits are designed to
seek the truth.
They will find out soon enough that lawsuits are most often designed to stretch
it.
Russ
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Kevin on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 10:38 AM EST |
| When my daughter was six years old, she encountered
schoolmates who took delight
in shattering the illusions
of the younger children (as older schoolmates
will).
Our household had never made a fuss about Santa Claus -
Christmas gifts
were from Mommy and Daddy, and the
picture on Santa's lap at a department store
was "because
we wanted a cute picture." Nevertheless, she absorbed
some of the
myth just through the general culture - and
asked with quite a long face, "is
there a Santa Claus?
My schoolmates say there isn't."
I read her the
Sun's piece, explaining that it
was answering the same question from
another little girl.
At the end, she said, "but this doesn't say anything
about
the man with a beard that brings presents."
"Doesn't it?"
Well,
maybe it sort of does. But it doesn't really
matter, does it? Christmas happens
anyway."
"Yes, honey, that's right."
I submit this is evidence that even a
six-year-old
can recognize an opinion piece - written to entertain -
and
distinguish it from factual reporting.
Your witness.
---
73 de ke9tv/2,
Kevin (P.S. My surname is not McBride!) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tredman on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 10:45 AM EST |
I mean, wow. SCO can blatently and patently lie in court (or at the very least
conflict with published evidence), Microsoft can bully the industry with it's
predatory tactics, but let PJ express an opinion on journalistic integrity, and
watch the sparks fly!
In terms of how I felt about the article:
* I always felt that the Sun article was a wonderful piece of metaphorical and
philosophical opinion, and had every right to be expressed in the Editorial
section. Like many well-researched and oft talked about pieces of prose and
poetry, its wisdom lies not in the literal interpretation, but the idea of what
it means.
* At almost any news outlet, whether online or dead tree, there's going to be
both ends of the spectrum. Some reporters show an unearthly amount of
integrity, and some do anything they can just to get their name in print. Most
are somewhere in the middle. The problem always is that the vocal minority are
just that....very vocal. In the US, we live in a society of extremes. Often
times, it's the folks in the middle that seem to not have a voice.
* Maureen's a nut. I love her. If it weren't for her, we'd have one less thing
to talk about. But don't mistake my affection for her bumbling ways as approval
for the things she does. I have affection, too, for SCO and Microsoft, but in
the same way that I have affection for a wild raccoon. They're interesting to
watch, but I wouldn't want to get too close and lose a finger.
* I have some minor quibbles about the explanation of DCE/RPC. DCE is meant for
distributed communications. Security is one implementation of that, but in a
secure transaction environment, DCE/RPC is only a small part of that. To say
that DCE/RPC is a "solution for secure login and transactions" is akin
to saying that a car engine is a solution for driving a car. While true, it
also ignores things like the steering wheel/gas pedals (application interface),
keyless entry (security) and chassis (host environment). DCE/RPC is not a
security solution, any more than an engine is a car. I will concede, however,
that it can be a fundamental piece of it.
* You not expressing your opinions on other forums is exactly what those that
impersonate you are hoping for. Without you there to verify your identity,
imposters post unchallenged. As another poster pointed out, it's just as
heinous as "forcing" you out of OSRM. If you're worried about what
your opponents will say about you, you can pretty much count on the fact that
they have spin prepared for most any situation. It doesn't matter what you do,
they will continue to attack you. If that's going to happen anyway, it might as
well be with your voice being heard loud and clear. My suggestion? Learn to
love GnuPG. In fact, that's not a bad suggestion for alot of people here,
particularly the more prolific anonymous posters, like Quatermass.
* Can't much disagree with your thoughts on factual posting.
These are my opinions. I have just as much right to them as PJ has to hers and
everybody else here has to theirs. Keep it clean, keep it fair, keep it
factual, but for the love of all that is holy, keep it flowing.
Tim
p.s. I was going to digitally sign this document, but Geeklog doesn't like to
play with GPG signatures, since the "Plain Old Text" option inserts
newlines into the original document. "HTML Formatted" has issues as
well. Have to talk to the Geeklog people about incorporating public key
functionality into it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: emmenjay on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 11:23 AM EST |
Hi PJ
It is with a little trepidation that I write in criticism of you, because most
of your work is so very good. However, I suspect that you have missed the point
of the ancient editorial from "The New York Sun".
There is always a delicate balance between truth and make-believe, when
communicating with children. From Enid Blyton to J.R.R. Tolkien, imagination
and fantasy have enriched the lives of children and adults alike.
How would you have responded to the letter? Squash the enjoyment of thousands
of young children? I suspect not.
The editorial paints Santa Claus, not as a real figure, but as an embodiment of
the love and generosity that are sometimes called "Christmas Spirit".
For what it is worth, I taught my children that Santa Claus was
"make-believe" from the beginning. They always new it was pretending,
but we still enjoyed it. I think that is the best way to handle such things.
However I knew that many parents did things differently, and my children were
always taught not to spoil other children's illusions.
Modern journalism is riddled with lies and deception and it is an evil stain on
society. Though I think that the example you chose was inappropriate, I think
your main points stand unchallenged.
Regards
Michael J Smith
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 11:45 AM EST |
Integrity and all PJ - you did not disproove the existance
of SC. You did not point out ONE factual mistake by Francis P. Church. And
without any proof at all concluded:
"The moment they printed that Santa Claus story, they lost their reputation
for truth".
Here is my undeniable proof:
1. SC is a MYTH KNOWN by many people.
2. for a MYTH to EXIST in needs to be KNOWN as a MYTH
by at least one person.
3. Prooved: SC as a MYTH exists.
The story in the "SUN" was about the MYTH (or Idea) of SC.
Therefor you stand corrected.
and a cherry on the top - just for the fun of it:
4. SC believed to be based on a real story of Saint Nicholas
5. Saint's remains where kept by the vatican.
6. in 1963 Italian scientist was allowed to check the remains and take x-ray
images.
7. according to those images 50 (2003) years later - Caroline Wilconson
(atropologist from Manchester University) reconstructed Saint's face with help
from computers.
http://www.utro.ru/articles/2004/12/21/388665.shtml
(russian)
Conclusion - Integrity of "The New York Sun" stays intact.
Regards,
Boris Ratner.
Israel.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: subdude on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 11:47 AM EST |
I remember when my youngest daughter explained to me that there was no Santa
Claus. I immediately feigned distress and began looking around in panic.
My 6 year old daughter sensed the theatre of the moment and endeavored to
comfort and reassure me, like the wonderful mother she will someday become, that
Santa Claus really did exist.
When I inquired in a forlorn voice about the Easter Bunny, she also assured me
that that cotton-tailed gentlemen was also the real thing.
When we dropped out of roll and I asked how she determined that there was no
Santa Claus, she just smiled and stated that she had figured it out after
hearing from some older kids at school. She also shared that she had been
harbouring some serious doubts for some time even before that.
Maureen O'Gara is in the fact manufacturing business. She can look forward to a
wonderful future in the grocery store tabloid publishing business reporting on
the exploits of bat boy and Sasquatch.
People who would imitate your signiture 'PJ' in order to discredit you have
obviously not found what they wanted in your own words so seek to create words
to put in your mouth.
Keep up the great work PJ.
Have a nice Sunday morning everybody.
"Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things". George
Carlin[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Simon G Best on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 12:08 PM EST |
This is turning into the stuff of legend - Groklaw having a flame-war on the
issue of whether or not Santa Claus is real! This must surely be a classic
moment in the making.
In the hope of pouring whatever it is that Titan's
lakes are made of onto the flames, I'd like to assert that Santa Claus - who is
himself a marketing ploy - is a FUDSTER!!!!1!!
'You'd better behave
all year long, otherwise Santa Claus won't bring you anything for
Christmas!' That's how the FUD goes. Will Santa bring me anything for
Christmas? Am I being good enough? Am I doing my weekly chores well enough?
What will I do if all my friends have nice, new toys, and I've got
nothing? It's all FUD.
---
FOSS IS political. It's just
that the political establishment is out of touch and hasn't caught up. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tryfan on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 01:21 PM EST |
> Why leap to conclusions until you have all the facts?
> You can hardly expect to find truth if the facts that
> you rely on are incomplete.
With all respects; that's impossible to avoid. All
conclusions will have to be drawn before you know "all the
facts" - otherwise, there would never be any conclusions.
Which may be the truest way to do it, but very slow :-)
(some people may consider this as OT but, being a
journalist myself, I think not).
Goran J [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 03:52 PM EST |
There are thousands of Santa Clauses. If you don't believe me, visit a mall
anywhere in America in early December and you'll find all the proof you need.
The irony of this PJ editoral is twofold... to begin with, it is an opinion
presented as fact, which is what it was meant to attack. This is a classic case
of a Jungian shadow projection.
Secondly, the assumptions made about Santa Claus are many and unlisted. PJ
assumed that her particular internal vision of Santa Claus is the same one
shared by the world, and the only valid definition of Santa Claus that can be
used. Again, this is what the article was meant to attack. I'm not sure that
this is a shadow projection so much as it is a lack of thought about the subject
and the example.
Quoting "scripture?" More opinion presented as fact... even worse: it
is from an unfounded, unproven, non fact-based fantastical religious work
written by many anonymous authors of unknown background. Or you can say that
"god" wrote it, in which case we're back to writing editorials in the
absense of fact.
Truth is not important; truth is, in a large sense, a lie, as it does not
require fact and relies primarily on opinion and belief. Facts are all that
matter to the scientist and the journalist, and they are the only valid basis
for any kind of non-fiction work.
I mourn Groklaw. It used to be a site that presented facts; it has now grown
into a blog for PJ to whine about opinions she disagrees with, and to verbalize
her shadow projections onto the victim of the week (this week: The Sun). Yes,
corporate FUD sucks, SCO sucks, Maureen O'Gara sucks. Their lies, blunders, and
ignorance are self-evident, and astrotrolls are obvious to the educated. What
ever happened to Groklaw the information site, where you go when you want to
know more but don't know where to look? This article should be deleted from the
site, along with all of the other ridiculous editorials and uneducated
commentary.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: digger53 on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 04:17 PM EST |
The Rick Nelson song, with the line"
"You can't please everyone, so you've got to please yourself."
Really, there's nothing you can do to please the anti-Linux crowd, unless you
turn on the Linux community & denounce it & maybe swear allegiane to MS,
too. Why deny yourself the option of never posting anywhere else? Quitting
your job didn't stop Linux's enemies from attacking you, neither will not
posting elsewhere. Seems like you've gotten some good suggestions above on how
you can. Please don't put yourself in a self-imposed prison that will
accomplish nothing but to diminish you own freedom. Your choice.
BTW, I don't see how the Sun writer was some lousy flack who discredited himself
or the paper. To me, his reply looks compassionate, rather than dishonest.
There is honesty and then there is brutal honesty. Should he have been brutally
honest? "No Virginia, there is no Santa Claus, your parents are liars, and
you are a naive fool for entertaining the notion!" That would have been an
honest reply, but was it a necessary reply or appropriate response to a child?
Are there no examples of definitive journalistic dishonesty in the last decade
or two?
Meanwhile, aren't we a bit silly to burning all these electrons over a little
girl's letter and and editor's response, so long ago they are dust? The enemies
of software libre must be howling with glee.
Thanks again for Groklaw. Love this site.--jim
---
When all else fails, follow directions.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cheros on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 05:08 PM EST |
The mean of the commentary left here is quite amusing in a
sad sort of way. I personally am not 100% with you on the
article above, but am quietly sitting back to see where
it'll lead. It feels like something that escaped
early ;-)
However, from what I read here it's quite evident that
you're not allowed to be a normal human being with own
opinions. It appears that you have to be absolutely
perfect.
Well, that's just plain silly.
A person is IMHO defined as the sum of their actions, not
by a single act. I think the aggregate rather speaks for
itself - no worries there.
The good news is that it'll weed out those with a rather
thin basis of opinion (mainly GTs, Groklaw Trollers). I
just hope regulars don't get too excited ;-).
"Work - something to throw yourself at and forget about
everything" - "Oh, a bit like a combine harvester then" -
slightly paraphrased from Tom Holt "Falling Sideways".
Have a nice day, = Ch = [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 06:24 PM EST |
You can stop spinning in your grave. Rumors of my demise are greatly
exaggerated. They are being naughty here in Grinchland. I'll be back next
Christmas as usual. If you doubt it, read the poems and look at the movies.
The Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny are also concerned. Don't let the FUD get
you down. Remember, no matter what, Mardi Gras is coming.
Happy Holidays from your obediaent servant,
Santa Clause
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 07:41 PM EST |
PJ + Eminem (Its Just Wrong!)
PJ Listerning to Eminem :-<>
...LOL
Please Stand Up, Please Stand Up [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jeff on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 10:25 PM EST |
My wife and I have a nearly 2 year old daughter and we have had many discussions
about how to handle this. I don't like the whole Santa Claus thing because I
don't want to lie to my daughter. However, I can understand my wife's point of
view as well.
In the end, we decided that if my daughter asks questions about Santa, I will
simply refer her to my wife. I won't go out of my way to expose the truth and I
won't actively participate in the lie.
It is not a perfect solution but I feel that it is a good compromise.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 10:29 PM EST |
Ok it's an opinion piece, and ok her view is extreme ( I
believe Santa Clause is as good a super naural being as
the next), but so what. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: fxbushman on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 11:04 PM EST |
Just astounding! PJ disses Santa Claus and immediately a lynch mob forms. Not
what I expected from this group, which must lean heavily toward folks with a
science background - you know, people who can be expected to teach their
children to base their beliefs on evidence? I will add my $0.02 worth: It is
NEVER OK to lie to children and it is a really bad idea to even hint to your
child that it is OK to develop a belief system that involves powerful old guys
with long white beards who practice magic and live at the north pole or in
never-never land or anywhere else. You can encourage a child's creative
imagination without planting the seeds of a crippling belief system. My 2-yr old
grandson, for example, is nuts about Thomas the Train, whom he imbues with a
personality, but at the same time he knows it is just a toy.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: BobRoberts on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 09:01 AM EST |
Ar-ro-gant
adj.
1. Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or
self-importance.
2. Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority
toward others: an arrogant contempt for the weak.
My boss told me one time, when I had threatend to quit (that'll show him) he
said, "This company made money long before you were here, and it will make
money long after your gone. The doors won't shut because you leave." I
really took that to heart. I was (not just arrogance) a very busy and extremely
productive employee but I was not the lynch pin and the fate of the company did
not rest on my shoulders.
There is a fine line between being right and being arrogant. I think that as
the open source community pulls closer together, we should make sure we don't
become the very thing we stand against.
Is this post a troll? You could make a good case.
Is it a slam on PJ? No more to her than to all of us.
I think groklaw is the greatest thing since sliced bread but Groklaw is far
from being "a blog". PJ created and entity, something that will be
here long after PJ is gone.
I posted a few month ago, I was really getting into this. I was overwhelmed by
the amount of information. I asked about the infamous a+b=c? question. It was
an honest question I had. I was belittled and shouted down. I felt like an
idiot. All I had was an honest question. I became a troll, schill, and various
other (not so nice) things.
Next time you read a "troll" please bear that in mind.
Oh, and there is a santa claus. She got me socks.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 09:20 AM EST |
NORAD has tracked his delivery progress
every year
since 1955.
So there. :-p
Regards,
One of Santas
Elves
(the one with the lubricant and rope to pull fatty out of the
chimney when he gets stuck).
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Brian S. on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 09:22 AM EST |
A quick guide to DISINFORMATON.
Astroturf @ Disinfopedia
Astroturfing @
Wikipedia
Astroturf: Interest Group Lobbying and Corporate
Strategy Umich.edu
PDF
Online Viral Marketing Services
..............'Seeding'
is the online distribution activity involved in kickstarting the spread of your
viral material. The material could be a digital game, a digital video clip, or
any digital data of a size and type that can be transported easily on the
Internet. We seed the material to our ever-changing network of largely
non-commercial online routes, including viral web sites, blogs, discussion
forums and our 'Alphamailer' emailbase. After seeding, the audience, not the
originator of the message, is in control of spread. The material has a life of
its own and anyone who likes it can view it and pass it on. This provides brands
with very valuable peer-to-peer endorsement...............
DMC.co.uk
The first AdTI attempt to create FUD about Open
Source:
BW2375 MAY 30,2002 9:29 PACIFIC 12:29
EASTERN
( BW)(DC-ALEXIS-DE-TOCQUEVILLE) Open Source Software May Offer
Target for Terrorists, According to Study by Alexis de Tocqueville Institution's
Committee for the Common Defense
Business Editors
WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 30, 2002--Terrorists trying to hack or disrupt
U.S. computer networks might find it easier if the federal government attempts
to switch to "open source" as some groups propose.
"Opening the Open
Source Debate", a soon to be released white paper by Alexis de Tocqueville
Institution details the complex issues surrounding open source, particularly if
federal agencies such as the Department of Defense or the
Federal..................... Businesswire Press Release May
2002
Did MS Pay for Open-Source Scare?
Authors of a new
report on the perils of open source software are being very closed-mouth about
their funding sources.
"Opening the Open Source Debate," a white paper slated
to be released Friday by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, indicates that
open-source software is inherently less secure than proprietary software. The
report warns governments against relying on open-source software for national
security.......... A Microsoft spokesman confirmed that Microsoft provides
funding to the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution.
"We support a diverse
array of public policy organizations with which we share a common interest or
public policy agenda such as the de Tocqueville Institution," the spokesman
wrote in an e-mail.
Microsoft did not respond to requests for comment on
whether the company directly sponsored the debate paper. De Tocqueville
Institute president Ken Brown and chairman Gregory Fossedal refused to comment
on whether Microsoft sponsored the report...................... Wired 5 June
2002
Anti-open source ‘whitepaper’ devastated
By Thomas C
Greene in Washington
Published Tuesday 11th June 2002 02:16 GMT
Roaring
Penguin's David Skoll has written a fine rebuttal to the ADTI whitepaper. With
his permission we're reproducing it whole and unedited:
The Alexis de
Tocqueville Institution (AdTI) has finally published its white paper entitled
"Opening the Open Source Debate". My earlier comments were based on media
reports and e-mail correspondence with the paper's author. This document was
written after I read the actual white paper. (The original link seems not to
work; I managed to grab a copy of the paper before AdTI pulled it. This link may
work.)
The AdTI's very weak and poorly-researched paper opens no debate. It
simply confirms that Microsoft paid AdTI to come up with something -- anything
-- to stem the growing adoption of open-source (especially GPL'd) software by
business and government. Let's take a look at the paper in
detail.................. The Reg.
Astroturfing is alive and kicking against Groklaw.
It's sometimes harder to distinguish in blog comment form but its "just as real"
as this pathetic attempt by AdTI in June 2002 Brian S.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Naich on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 09:29 AM EST |
1) No known species of reindeer can fly. BUT there are 300,000
species of living organisms yet to be classified, and while most
of these are insects and germs, this does not COMPLETELY rule out
flying reindeer which only Santa has ever seen.
2) There are 2 billion children (persons under 18) in the world.
BUT since Santa doesn't (appear) to handle the Muslim, Hindu,
Jewish and Buddhist cihldren, that reduces the workload to to 15%
of the total - 378 million according to Population Reference
Bureau. At an average (census) rate of 3.5 children per
household, that's 91.8 million homes. One presumes there's at
least one good child in each.
3) Santa has 31 hours of Christmas to work with, thanks to the
different time zones and the rotation of the earth, assuming he
travels east to west (which seemes logical). This works out to
822.6 visits per second. This is to say that for each Christian
household with good children, Santa has 1/1000th of a second to
park, hop out of the sleigh, jump down the chimney, fill the
stockings, distribute the remaining presents under the tree, eat
whatever snacks have been left, get back up the chimney, get back
into the sleigh and move on to the next house. Assuming that
each of these 91.8 million stops are evenly distributed around
the earth (which, of course, we know to be false but for the
purposes of our calculations we will accept), we are now talking
about .78 miles per household, a total trip of 75-1/2 million
miles, not counting stops to do what most of us must do at least
once every 31 hours, plus feeding and etc.
This means that Santa's sleigh is moving at 650 miles per second,
3,000 times the speed of sound. For purposes of comparison, the
fastest man- made vehicle on earth, the Ulysses space probe,
moves at a poky 27.4 miles per second - a conventional reindeer
can run, tops, 15 miles per hour.
4) The payload on the sleigh adds another interesting element.
Assuming that each child gets nothing more than a medium-sized
lego set (2 pounds), the sleigh is carrying 321,300 tons, not
counting Santa, who is invariably described as overweight. On
land, conventional reindeer can pull no more than 300 pounds.
Even granting that "flying reindeer" (see point #1) could pull
TEN TIMES the normal anount, we cannot do the job with eight, or
even nine. We need 214,200 reindeer. This increases the payload
- not even counting the weight of the sleigh - to 353,430 tons.
Again, for comparison - this is four times the weight of the
Queen Elizabeth.
5) 353,000 tons travelling at 650 miles per second creates
enourmous air resistance - this will heat the reindeer up in the
same fashion as spacecrafts re-entering the earth's atmosphere.
The lead pair of reindeer will absorb 14.3 QUINTILLION joules of
energy. Per second. Each. In short, they will burst into flame
almost instantaneously, exposing the reindeer behind them, and
create deafening sonic booms in their wake. The entire reindeer
team will be vaporized within 4.26 thousandths of a second.
Santa, meanwhile, will be subjected to centrifugal forces
17,500.06 times greater than gravity. A 250-pound Santa (which
seems ludicrously slim) would be pinned to the back of his sleigh
by 4,315,015 pounds of force.
In conclusion - If Santa ever DID deliver presents on Christmas
Eve, he's dead now.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 09:42 AM EST |
"To me, the bottom line is this: There isn't a cause in the world that is
worth lying for. And if the only way to win is to be vicious, to present
slanted, distorted, cruel information, I'd rather lose."
Sir Winston Churchill was probably the greatest democratic leader ever, Abraham
Lincoln excepted. Sir Winston Churchill never lied to his people about the Nazi
successes, each of which could and would send him into a deep funk for days at a
time. And he never lied about to his people about Great Britain's perilous
situation in the early years of WWII, although of course he did not delve into
the details but carried the burden of their knwowledge. I never had the chance
to read his speeches in full until I was about to go to graduate school, and I
did it on my own time. It is amazing how words spoken from beyond the grave can
have such a powerful effect on the living.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Santa_Claus on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 10:01 AM EST |
| Please, leave me alone. Sometimes I wish I was a myth! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 10:25 AM EST |
"The child wrote that her daddy had told her that if she read things in the
Sun, it was true. They answered her question in print, telling her yes, there
really was a Santa Claus."
As a Buddhist and therefore an outsider to the Christian religion, I view
Christmas both as a celebration of the birth of baby Jesus and a reeneactment of
a specific episode of the Nativity where Three Kings give baby Jesus various
gifts - And thus, anyone who receives gifts on Christmas Day gets to play the
role of baby Jesus. However, do excuse me if I don't delve any further into the
details and try to explain away phrases like "Thanks for the chainsaw,
honey!" or "You just gave that .357 Magnum I always wanted!" - I
do want to remain sane, if you don't mind.
I would give Christmas gifts to my Christian girlfriends as a gesture of love
toward them and respect toward their religion, but I was always ambivalent about
being at the receiving end: on one hand, I understand the intent of the gesture
and respect it. On the other hand, I am a Buddhist and not a Christian. Over
all, I was glad that they were with me and their presence was the one gift that
mattered to me.
Does Santa Claus exist? Yes, in the sense that everyone who gives gifts on
Christmas Day gets to be Santa Claus.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 11:18 AM EST |
I think PJ would have gotten a better rational discussion using the Bush Memo
story from CBS then the Sun.
Oh wait.
Dang.
TNY[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 12:04 PM EST |
Now that ms o'gara has authored and published an article that has been disproven
by statements from those whom she claimed gave her the information, could this
be used as evidence that she is working as a partner of proprietary o/s
suppliers ( sco microsoft ect...) trying to manipulate the public and is trying
to get the court to unseal confidential documents, not for the public interest,
but for the benefit of whomever she may be partnered with and/or herself?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: grouch on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 01:19 PM EST |
Wow! It is absolutely amazing how many comments came out with no other
purpose than to
distract from the
points of PJ's article. Did every bridge contribute? Looks like there were quite
a few people here shining light on the
mangy
critters, though.
There was a great deal of response regarding the
existence of Santa Claus. Why? Is that of overwhelming importance? Is it just
that it provided an opportunity for those with some grudge against PJ to vent?
Are there some "journalists" who accept a bit of payola to slant things a
certain way but pretend they're objective, and do not want anyone looking too
closely?
A flashy headline to fish for "hits" is one thing; distorting the
news itself for those "hits" is quite another. Direct payoffs for promoting an
agenda are not the only way to get
drip-feed
FUD to work. In fact, those who pay for such a tactic count on having it
mirrored by publications that simply jump on any controversial band-wagon that
rolls along.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Kanth on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 03:17 PM EST |
*Note : this is humor and opinion*
SCO REPORTS LINUX TOVALDS TURNED UPON BY OWN COMMUNITY.
Linux Torvalds was reported by members of his own community of possibly fudging
the truth in his statements by various members of the linux community.
Linus, who had earlier stated "I admit it. I was just a front-man for the
real fathers of Linux, the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus," had his alibi
"Santa Claus" ripped apart on public boards by some of his closest
supporters in the community.
SCO CEO Darling McBride was quoted as stating, "See if he will tell us
Santa Claus wrote Linux, and the community obviously can disprove "Santa
Clause" then Linus must be fibbing. And if Linus can be evasive about this,
then it is almost certain he has not come clean about our IP being in Linux!
This proves it! Even his own community is turning against him! We are
Winning!"
McBride further postulated that his company will file an overlength memo to the
courts proving that Linus has made many evasive comments in the past. They are
also working on tracking down Santa Claus and the mysterious Tooth Fairy.
Linux experts find it is a sad day to see the open source community catch
Torvalds in apparent cohorts with Santa Claus. "My poor Gentoo
installation.. if Linus's can not produce this Santa Claus, we will be thoroghly
debunked.. what else may he have done?," one Linux Enthusist commented.
----
As a personal note, Rock on PJ. I don't really see the issues you presented in
your blog as right and wrong. We all agree or disagree based upon our personal
ethics, morality, philosophical outlook on life, etc. But this is _your_ blog.
While I might not agree, it has been one entertaining read for the day.
-Kanth
IANAL, Nor are any of the above comments meant to be taken at any value except
humor. I would not accuse anyone of lying/fibbing/exaggeration/or sarcasm ;)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 06:00 PM EST |
Does this really destroy your trust?
You're a discerning reader, did you miss that the piece in question is an
editorial (i.e. an expression of an editor's opinion)? I quote:
"He exists as certainly as love and generosity and
devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give
to your life its highest beauty and joy."
This delimits the scope of how Santa Claus exists. Just like love, it is
impossible to externally prove his existence: it is a property of an organized
system. I'm sure that the editor knew that Virginia was asking about a portly,
elderly gentleman with fanciful transportation. But he appears to have been
careful enought to cast his answer with appropriate "wrapping" to
ensure he didn't lie, and yet allowed the discerning reader (such as yourself)
to understand the reality of a "jolly old elf".
What worries me is the false "facts" reported every day. Think about
CBS, recently ... Certainly we can find examples of (essentially) every news
organization reporting "false facts", and not even warning us by
placing them in an "opinion".
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 08:58 PM EST |
PJ...learn the difference between "editorial" and "news
story" and you will understand Frank Church's reply to Virginia.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 09:20 PM EST |
PJ: Clicking a little deeper in the link you provided about the -Virginia-
letter reveals:
"In the past, the O'Hanlon family had written to the 'Question and Answer'
column in The Sun to settle matters of fact. Philip recommended his daughter
write to their favorite newspaper seeking an answer to one of the most famous
questions of all time."
Had the reply been in that column, you might be justified in your
skepticism...however, the answer was delegated to the "Editorial" page
for obvious reasons. Repeat: Editorial.
Nice link page about Virginia's letter, BTW. :-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 09:29 PM EST |
Here's where Mr. Church puts his CYA...
"Nobody sees Santa Claus, but that is no sign that there is no Santa Claus.
The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can
see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that's
no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the
wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world."
Now, PJ, don't tell us there are no such things as fairies.
TTYL. Gotta run and put my tooth under my pillow tonight.
:-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 09:40 PM EST |
On 12/24/04, NOAA reported seeing Santa on radar...Doppler Radar even. It was
on all the major TV and cable networks. Would a government agency lie to the
public????
Denny Crane
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 18 2005 @ 02:57 AM EST |
if i were writing the origainal "santa" aritical (my PJ, you are
really catching flak for that one, dont let it get to you ^_-) i think i would
have written a bit on the history of santa, what St. Nick did to be sainted.
(the real reason im posting:)
the other thing i really read was the clark artical... which while making some
good points (which i agree with), seems to only referance articals clark himself
wrote! Ill admit i didnt take much time to check too heavily, but i imagine if i
were gonna reference somone withu the same name as i, i would be shure to make
that distinction clear.
Oninoshiko
may i never be so famous that i have to prove i am who i say i am.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 18 2005 @ 08:26 AM EST |
By telling a visual lie, using a doctored <a
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/18/science/space/18star.html?ex=110701
0217&ei=1&en=7742a85eeac43e92">image</a>,
of the <a
href="http://sights.seindal.dk/img/orig/9456.jpg">Farnese
Atlas</a>, the New York Times has shown that it is no better than a
supermarket tabloid.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jig on Tuesday, January 18 2005 @ 06:43 PM EST |
for all intence and purposes, there really IS a Santa Claus, at least for the
little girl, and many other small children. truth doesn't have to be all
inclusive, even in court, let alone journalism, and acknowledging that is
probably a higher truth than telling a little girl that santa is a hoax. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 19 2005 @ 11:17 AM EST |
So...I assume Punxsutawney Phil is also a myth.
The Web site that perpetuates the "Yes, Virginia" story, upon deeper
investigation, is reporting on the rodent forecaster of mid-Winter dating back
to Virginia's childhood era (1800s).
http://www.stormfax.com/ghogday.htm
Will PJ see her shadow next month? Will there be six more weeks of Winter?
Four more years of W?
Denny Crane[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 02:03 PM EST |
I am stunned that there is a debate on this at all.
I am a 49 Year-Old Computer Consultant with a B.Sc. and a scientific world-view.
I am also married and have two children. I have knowledge; experience, skill and
I have been around. FWIW, my family are atheists. I have repaired a carburetor.
I dare say that I have likely read a lot more about science, the philosophy of
science, matters of cosmology, philosophy, etc. than the average person denying
the existence of Santa Claus.
My wife has a Ph.D. in psychology and is a registered psychologist in Ontario
(requires additional education, training, internship and a battery of exams).
Her area of expertise is early childhood development and she consults to all of
the local school boards where we live. She does (amongst other things) testing
and statistics for the boards. We both gave a great deal of thought to
discussions about Santa Claus with our children.
There is nothing wrong with either my wife’s or my own senses or sensibility. I
think our training, skill, background and life experience qualify us as well as
anyone on this board to render an opinion on this matter.
For our children (and us), there is a Santa Claus.
The fact that one does not understand something or is unable to apprehend it
with their senses does not constitute proof of its non-existence. You might be
color-blind and unable to distinguish red from green. This does not at all
constitute proof that there is no difference between red and green. You can't
see it. That is all.
Again, there is a Santa Claus.
I don't intend this to insult the messengers. However, the message that there is
not a Santa Claus seems to me to be shallow, naive, positivist, mean-spirited
and immature.
A four-year-old might have no conception of the feeling of romantic love. It
really does not exist, for him. That may prove to him that it does not exist
(for him). But it hardly affects the facticity of romantic love. He will likely
grow into belief as he experiences it for himself.
This year, as always, we left milk and cookies for Santa and carrots for his
reindeer. In the morning, they were all gone and everyone’s stockings were
filled with gifts. We had a nice Christmas.
I feel sad for the children of the people who would deny Santa Claus. It puts me
in mind of the following famous passage. Sadly, I doubt the skeptics will quite
understand it.
From ‘Hard Times” by Charles Dickens
Chapter I — The One Thing Needful
“NOW, what I want is, Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts
alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out everything else. You
can only form the minds of reasoning animals upon Facts: nothing else will ever
be of any service to them. This is the principle on which I bring up my own
children, and this is the principle on which I bring up these children. Stick to
Facts, sir!”
The scene was a plain, bare, monotonous vault of a schoolroom, and the speaker’s
square forefinger emphasized his observations by underscoring every sentence
with a line on the schoolmaster’s sleeve. The emphasis was helped by the
speaker’s square wall of a forehead, which had his eyebrows for its base, while
his eyes found commodious cellarage in two dark caves, overshadowed by the wall.
The emphasis was helped by the speaker’s mouth, which was wide, thin, and hard
set. The emphasis was helped by the speaker’s voice, which was inflexible, dry,
and dictatorial. The emphasis was helped by the speaker’s hair, which bristled
on the skirts of his bald head, a plantation of firs to keep the wind from its
shining surface, all covered with knobs, like the crust of a plum pie, as if the
head had scarcely warehouse-room for the hard facts stored inside. The speaker’s
obstinate carriage, square coat, square legs, square shoulders, — nay, his very
neckcloth, trained to take him by the throat with an unaccommodating grasp, like
a stubborn fact, as it was, — all helped the emphasis.
“In this life, we want nothing but Facts, sir; nothing but Facts!”
The speaker, and the schoolmaster, and the third grown person present, all
backed a little, and swept with their eyes the inclined plane of little vessels
then and there arranged in order, ready to have imperial gallons of facts poured
into them until they were full to the brim.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
