Let me get this straight. IBM, along with other companies, sponsors ibiblio way back in 2000, when The SCO Group was still a Linux company. At the time, ibiblio starts hosting hundreds of sites for free, and all the sites have to do is fit the basic criteria (basically, non-profit and interesting).
The next year The SCO Group buys Santa Cruz's server division and a couple years later sues IBM. Groklaw, hosted at a free service, starts covering it. Groklaw gets popular, has to move, goes to hosting provided by a reader, melts that server, and finally applies to ibiblio. Groklaw is accepted since it meets the criteria.
You are being dishonest and need to remove the tin foil hat if you actually can twist that into Groklaw being influentially funded by IBM, or being an IBM front.
I'd love to get the time machine that IBM had to know to commit funding to ibiblio in order to counter a UNIX suit three years in the future by a then Linux company.
His point is, and yes its a stupid one but lets not overlook it:
IBM still gives money (we dont know how much) to ibiblio, the question he needs to be asked is aside from editorial content / debate, is there anything facutally wrong on the site regarding sco v ibm? All groklaw does is put up the public court documents from the case and then comment on it.
Your point is more than valid if we through out every article from a site that takes money from MS (say in the form of a grant, or advertising) you would not be able to use any of it.