Posted on 03/18/2007 7:52:24 PM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
LMAO! "stupid" is somebody claiming Jokelaw is independent of IBM when IBM is paying to host their website. Or claiming Jokelaw info is accurate when they've been denying that connection and even caught covering up for illegal hacking. But since it does involve "leftist loons" and illegal hacking, it's no surprise you 2 are here defending it.
It shows information publicly released back in 2000. We knew this, you apparently didn't, otherwise you wouldn't think it's some new evidence. There's nothing here to deny.
That IBM funds ibiblio is meaningless, and we've told you this before. PJ knows as much about IBM's funding as any public person does since she has no connection with ibiblio other than being hosted there, just like I have no relation with my hosting company except for paying them a few dollars a month.
If you think IBM has influence, then start your own pro-SCO site and ask ibiblio to host it. In the interview, the ibiblio guy says they would.
Jokelaw routinely posts bogus information
When we post about stories we rely on actual documentation found on Groklaw. You have yet to show how any of that is bogus.
More lies as expected, when in fact you've been contending for years that IBM's only contribution were the original servers donated prior to Jokelaw's existence, while the facts show the contributions are quote "ongoing". Trying to claim none of the commentary from the "leftist loon" website was ever posted here is another ridiculous lie as well, but another perfect example of the BS you're known for.
Good point, that contributions are ongoing is new information. Red Hat signed on to years of contribution in the beginning, and I guess IBM did, too.
It still changes nothing. IBM donates to UNCH. IBM donates to hundreds of universities, as does Microsoft.
Trying to claim none of the commentary from the "leftist loon" website was ever posted here
That was never claimed. What is claimed is that we do not rely on the commentary for debate. It's the court documents that win our debates because SCO is losing and the facts in the documents represent that. You and SCO don't like that being made public and easily accessible, so you do the only thing you can do -- attempt personal attacks.
However, the commentary has sometimes been useful. Did you know what the judge meant when he said "That Proctor & Gamble case brings back so many happy memories."? I didn't, until the commentary pointed it out.
IBM is no more paying to host groklaw than MS is paying to host webites at the rather large number of universities to which they donate or to which they pay for advertising.
I saw an Add for MS on slashdot the other day does that mean any pro MS material on that site is driven by ms "paying to host" their site?
"Or claiming Jokelaw info is accurate"
Can you find any instance of them altering the court documents they are publishing?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.