"Muellers churlish comments" Ouch :-)

Posted Apr 13, 2011 20:41 UTC (Wed) by SilverWave (guest, #55000)
In reply to: Updegrove's Groklaw article by FlorianMueller
Parent article: Groklaw shutting down in May

Pamela Jones and Groklaw: An Appreciation:

"Along the way, I gained ample evidence (as if any were necessary, Florian Muellers churlish comments aside) that PJ is a living, breathing, committed and passionate advocate for the causes that she and Groklaw stand for. I wont share any personal details of our (always electronic) conversations, but suffice it to say that she has ample reasons to defend her privacy, and also that she deserves a well-earned rest."

Hmm... you are not being "churlish" again now are you?

Updegrove vouches for "PJ" being a real person based ONLY on electronic correspondence

Posted Apr 14, 2011 4:41 UTC (Thu) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] (5 responses)

I you look at what you just quoted, the interesting part is not what Updegrove says about me but his admission that all the communication he ever had with PJ was "always electronic" correspondence, nevertheless he talks about "ample evidence" that "PJ" is real. That's self-contradictory beyond imagination and I've never seen a lawyer with a lower evidence standard than Updegrove.

Updegrove vouches for "PJ" being a real person based ONLY on electronic correspondence

Posted Apr 14, 2011 19:09 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (4 responses)

All the communication I've ever had with my boss is electronic, but I don't suspect her of being a robot. All the communication I've ever had with Mark Twain is not only written but posthumous, but I don't suspect him of being fictional. It is possible to read writing for style and content and to draw conclusions about the people writing from what is written. I have difficulty believing that you don't know this.

Updegrove vouches for "PJ" being a real person based ONLY on electronic correspondence

Posted Apr 14, 2011 19:12 UTC (Thu) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] (3 responses)

You attack a strawman with the "robot" thing. Concerning consistency of style, text analysis tools like Gender Guesser suggest that the articles published under the "PJ" pseudonym were written by at least two different persons (one male and one female).

Updegrove vouches for "PJ" being a real person based ONLY on electronic correspondence

Posted Apr 14, 2011 19:34 UTC (Thu) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (2 responses)

if someone walked up to you and handed you a drivers license saying that they were Pamala Jones, I suspect at this point that you would suspect them of getting a fake drivers license.

Updegrove vouches for "PJ" being a real person based ONLY on electronic correspondence

Posted Apr 14, 2011 19:38 UTC (Thu) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] (1 responses)

It's unbelievable how Groklaw's desperate defenders blow things out of proportion and set up so many strawmen.

We're talking about an avatar who never published a photo, never appeared at an industry conference or awards ceremony, never disclosed a past or current employer or client. Those are the facts. You can't change those facts -- which you obviously don't like -- by making claims like the one about a driver's license.

We're far from requesting a driver's license in this case. We're talking about an avatar that hasn't disclosed any of what I listed above; as Sam Varghese explained on iTWire, Groklaw was quite obviously a full-time effort but never disclosed its funding source; articles published under the "PJ" pseudonym were, according to text analysis tools like Gender Guesser, written by at least two different persons; differences in punctuation previously suggested more than one person behind the avatar.

Updegrove vouches for "PJ" being a real person based ONLY on electronic correspondence

Posted Apr 14, 2011 23:49 UTC (Thu) by DOT (subscriber, #58786) [Link]

The only relevant disclosure here is the funding question. We don't know who funds project Pamela Jones. We also don't know who funds project Florian Mueller. Hypocrisy demands that one of those criticizes the other for their secrecy, and actually supports invasion of privacy of that other. When someone doesn't want to give up her privacy, that doesn't give you the right to take it from her forcefully.

Disclosures aside, what's really important here is actual contributions. One of them publishes truths and half-truths that help the open source community a great deal. The other publishes truths and half-truths to hinder the open source community. One wonders why this piece of work won't make any friends here.

"Muellers churlish comments" Ouch :-)