OT: SCO Forum

[Fairlight]

This public service announcement was brought to you by D . Thomas Podnar:
> Then you know for sure that SCO, even though smaller, has a hell of a
> lot more employees NOT working on litigation than working on it. I know
> a lot of SCO people in engineering, marketing, channel sales, etc.
> 
> I don't know anybody in the litigation department.

How do you know it's not outsourced?  Even if it's not, simply not knowing
anyone in a department doesn't mean they don't exist.  I don't know anyone
at any of the three-letter agencies in DC, but I'm pretty sure they exist.

> Working with SCO, as a private company and as a public company under
> three regimes, has been a challenge for sure. Disliking them is Ok.
> But at least apply a little intellectual honesty and serve up the real
> reasons, not the drivel that gets propounded over and over.
[snip]
> Untruths, half-truths and mis-truths are wrong, no matter where
> they come from. 

Then saying they're in the right is as much a half-truth as saying
they're in the wrong.  There's no PROOF of either.  When asked for
proof, repeatedly, they've failed to provide anything substantive to the
communities in question that proves their claims.  This may be the way our
legal system works, and it may have to wait to come out in court.  Until it
does, anything else on -either- side of the aisle is speculation, and just
as open to being a half-truth or just plain wrong.

So your comments are no more "right" than Bill's, -and- you're
-potentially- being hypocritical about it, because there's no more
hard proof backing your opinion than there is his, yet you're citing what
should and should not be espoused.  No offense, but that's how it reads
here.

mark->