hyland@esosun.UUCP (Steve Hyland) (01/01/70)
In article <1325@ttidca.TTI.COM> regard@ttidcb.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) writes: >If it were, the next month would be taken up with the retractions, as the >last month has been taken up with flaming crap. >Do we need to clutter up the bandwidth with cheers from the peanut gallery? >Adrienne Regard {philabs,trwrb,psivax}!ttidca!ttidcb!regard Hear ! Hear ! This whole thing with Mark and Larry, et al. is just getting out of hand. Look, I don't like some people's tirades any more than anyone else. They are free to write what they will. And I am free to IGNORE them. There is too much valuable discussion in this group to risk losing that to personal vendettas. Think of this like our version of London's Speaker's Corner. Some of the speakers make you laugh, some of the speakers make you think and some of the speakers make you so mad you want to throw stones...but you don't. But everyone can have their turn. Steve Hyland SAIC "There's a seeker born every second" -- 'Happy' Harry Cox
campbell@maynard.BSW.COM (Larry Campbell) (10/06/87)
There's been much heat and little light here lately, but there is a kernel
of potentially serious trouble I'd like to illuminate. I also find Mark
Smith intensely obnoxious, but that alone isn't reason for me or anyone
else to try to deny her net access. However, if the following quote
is accurate, we're talking serious legal jeopardy:
<>Message-ID: <1412@dasys1.UUCP>
<>References: <931@nscpdc.NSC.COM> <7443@sri-unix.ARPA> <2038@kitty.UUCP>
<>Reply-To: msmith@dasys1.UUCP (Mark E. Smith)
<>
<>$$> If you're the same Larry Lippman I've heard of, you've produced
<>$$> porn for your friends and to sell products, and are not in the least
<>$$> bit reasonably objective on the subject.
This quote has been presented twice now, and no denials from Mark Smith
seem to be forthcoming. Either the quote is fabricated, in which case
Larry Lippman is a jerk (or worse), or the quote is accurate, in which case
Miss Smith could well be looking at the wrong end of a solid libel suit.
I don't think there's much more worth saying until we hear Mark Smith's
statement regarding the above quote. Well, Mark? What say you?
--
Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc.
Internet: campbell@maynard.bsw.com 120 Fulton Street, Boston MA 02109
uucp: {husc6,mirror,think}!maynard!campbell +1 617 367 6846regard@ttidca.TTI.COM (Adrienne Regard) (10/07/87)
In article <995@maynard.BSW.COM> campbell@maynard.UUCP (Larry Campbell) writes: > (lots of stuff about denying access, accusations, counter-accusations > and who hasn't yet said what to whom in denial or affirmation). Sometimes you people amaze me. (Not just you, Larry, since others have presented your point before). This is a public BB. Tracing postings from a vast network to the fingers of one user is not possible. People can say things in public AND THEN CHOOSE TO SAY THINGS IN PRIVATE. Nobody on the net owes anybody else ANYTHING, let alone apologies or explanations. It may be CIVIL to offer either or both, but it certainly isn't mandatory. If it were, the next month would be taken up with the retractions, as the last month has been taken up with flaming crap. Do we need to clutter up the bandwidth with cheers from the peanut gallery? -- "See - the thing is - I'm an absolutist. I mean, kind of. . .in a way. . ." -(Denise) Adrienne Regard {philabs,trwrb,psivax}!ttidca!ttidcb!regard
msmith@dasys1.UUCP (Mark E. Smith) (10/10/87)
In article <995@maynard.BSW.COM> campbell@maynard.UUCP (Larry Campbell) writes: >to illuminate. I also find Mark >Smith intensely obnoxious, but that alone isn't reason for me or anyone >else to try to deny her net access. How >[...] >Larry Lippman is a jerk (or worse), or the quote is accurate, in which case >Miss Smith could well be looking at the wrong end of a solid libel suit. > >I don't think there's much more worth saying until we hear Mark Smith's >statement regarding the above quote. Well, Mark? What say you? It happens that many years ago I had a close friend who had a friend whose name was the same or phonetically identical to Lippman's. This friend, who had once been busted for pornography, regaled me with tales of his friend Larry, whom I've never met. When this Lippman came on the net and was incredibly rude, made thinly disguised personal attacks, and disregarded netiquette for the purpose of disrupting soc.women, I noticed that this one also was a defender of pornography and wondered if they could be the same person. If you'll go back to my original article, I stated that if this is *not* the same person, I could hardly be held liable for mistaking one defender of pornography for another of the same name and similar attitudes. Now Larry Campbell sees only two alternatives. She suggests that either this is the same Lippman I'd heard of, or that I'm facing a libel suit. Miss Campbell should study the original article, and the responses by others, before she assumes that there are only two alternatives. Lippman has suggested there might be a mistaken identity and given several reasons why, but has not denied being the same person. I agree that there might be a mistaken identity, as I stated to begin with, but if we are awaiting anyone's denial, it would be Larry the Lip's, not Larry the Camp's, or mine. Porn is a nine billion dollar a year business in this country, despite the fact that nobody we know ever buys any. And my local phonebook has 4 Lipman's, 4 Lippman's, and 2 Lippmann's, so if I made a reasonable mistake in thinking that this defender of porn is a person who is also a defender of porn and has the same or a similar name and similar attitudes towards women, I could be expected to apologize, but I doubt if I could be held legally liable for such a mistake, if it was a mistake. Of course I wonder how many computer professionals can swear under oath that they never produced porn for friends. Never ran off a printout of a naked woman? Never showed an x-rated video for business associates? Well I'm proud of all three of you, but you're not the ones involved in this little discussion. Look how many men take particular delight in exposing my sex. Do you think they are not doing that because I'm a woman? Do you think that they do this without thinking it harmless and good clean fun to sexually expose women? I highly recommend Anthony Astrachan's 1986 book by Anchor Press/Doubleday, entitled, "How Men Feel," for an excellent exposition of the reasons men sexualize women, particularly in the workplace and in other places where sex is not relevant, like here. And if anyone is confused as to why Miss Campbell used diminutive terms to refer to me, and why I used them right back at her, I recommend reading the past year of articles in soc.women. Please direct follow-ups only to soc.women. Come to think of it, wasn't Campbell one of the ones disturbed about cross-posting? ;-) --Mark -- Mark Ethan Smith {allegra,philabs,cmcl2}!phri\ Big Electric Cat Public Unix {bellcore,cmcl2}!cucard!dasys1!msmith New York, NY, USA {philabs}!tg/
dag@chinet.UUCP (Daniel A. Glasser) (10/14/87)
Does anyone remember the "rabbit!bimmler" debacle of some years ago? Maybe we ought to add a new group -- alt.lippman or some such for these discussions -- better yet, alt.flame.lippman . :) Daniel A. Glasser ...!ihnp4!chinet!dag ...!ihnp4!mwc!dag ...!ihnp4!mwc!gorgon!dag One of those things that goes "BUMP!!! (ouch!)" in the night.