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
bch@ecsvax.UUCP (Byron C. Howes) (10/07/87)
Can we get this drivel out of news.sysadmin. While wearing other of my hats I might be interested in it, but I find its leaking into one of the newsgroups I must read as part of my work to be a royal pain. As long as I'm here... If anyone called me and tried to get me to yank one of my users ids on the basis of the remarks similar to those attributed to Mark Ethan Smith I would (1) laugh because I'd think it was someone putting me on and (2) hang up once I discovered it was serious. Speaking to one of the few salient points in this brouhaha, however, I suspect that my responsibility for postings on the machine I administer begins and ends with articles posted by me and -- if my director insists -- those persons who are also employed by my organization. I also suspect that if it were determined legally that sites were responsible for all postings that issued forth from them that usenet as we know it would die very quickly. Most system administrators (Mr. Lippman seems to be the exception) do not have time to read and evaluate all articles posted by the users of their sites. Most of us have more important fires to fight. -- Byron Howes usenet/bitnet address: bch@ecsvax
larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) (10/09/87)
In article <3995@ecsvax.UUCP>, bch@ecsvax.UUCP (Byron C. Howes) writes: > If anyone called me and tried to get me to yank one of my users ids on the > basis of the remarks similar to those attributed to Mark Ethan Smith I would > (1) laugh because I'd think it was someone putting me on and (2) hang up > once I discovered it was serious. First of all, the specific issue being addressed involves users who post articles containing serious defamatory statements which have a resonable expectation of causing damage to the business or professional standing of third parties. The issue being addressed does NOT pertain to alleged "free speech" or the proper expression of ideas, however controversial they may be. Your attitude in (2) above that you would "hang up" demonstrates a crass indifference to the responsibilities of an administrator in behalf of his organization, and is precisely the type of attitude that WILL result in someone's determination to "test the legal issues". If a person actually takes the time and spends the money to call you, then it must be a serious matter to SOMEONE. The least that a responsible administrator should do is: (1) ascertain the nature of the caller's problem; (2) find out what action the caller wants you to take; (3) investigate the matter firsthand; and (4) get back to the caller. If you can agree on a course of action fine; if not, you have at least tried to resolve the matter. "Mr. Administrator, when the Plaintiff telephoned you to express his concern about the article in question, did you have any discussion with the Plaintiff about the possibility of posting an apology or retraction, which could have prevented or lessened his damages?" "No. I told him to fuck off, and then I hung up on him." You get my point, Mr. Howes? The above response, by the way, actually happened. Not a good move. <> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York <> UUCP: {allegra|ames|boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry <> VOICE: 716/688-1231 {hplabs|ihnp4|mtune|seismo|utzoo}!/ <> FAX: 716/741-9635 {G1,G2,G3 modes} "Have you hugged your cat today?"
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/
bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron C. Howes) (10/11/87)
In article <2089@kitty.UUCP> larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes: >In article <3995@ecsvax.UUCP>, bch@ecsvax.UUCP (Byron C. Howes) writes: >> If anyone called me and tried to get me to yank one of my users ids on the >> basis of the remarks similar to those attributed to Mark Ethan Smith I would >> (1) laugh because I'd think it was someone putting me on and (2) hang up >> once I discovered it was serious. > > First of all, the specific issue being addressed involves users >who post articles containing serious defamatory statements which have a >resonable expectation of causing damage to the business or professional >standing of third parties. The issue being addressed does NOT pertain to >alleged "free speech" or the proper expression of ideas, however >controversial they may be. I never said it did. Why, pray tell, are you putting words in my mouth like that? I am responding specifically to your assertions about articles posted by Mark Ethan Smith. I assume no greater context or set of principles than do you. I have not seen any evidence of "articles containing serious defama- tory statements which have a reasonable expectation of causing damage to business or professional standing if third parties." I remember correctly Mark's allegedly libelous statement begins "If you're the Larry Lippman I've heard of..." -- a conditional which is deniable by you and nonspecific. Even Mark suggests at this point that you are *not* the Larry Lippman he has heard of. > Your attitude in (2) above that you would "hang up" demonstrates >a crass indifference to the responsibilities of an administrator in behalf >of his organization, and is precisely the type of attitude that WILL result >in someone's determination to "test the legal issues". Absolutely not. My duty as a systems administrator is to keep my systems running in all respects. I am paid for that. I am not paid to pass judgement on the articles people post or to consider the merits of arguments that my users should have their ids pulled. Even one minute spent with some bozo who asserts that she does not like articles posted from my machine is time spent away from my duties. > If a person actually takes the time and spends the money to call you, >then it must be a serious matter to SOMEONE. The least that a responsible >administrator should do is: (1) ascertain the nature of the caller's problem; >(2) find out what action the caller wants you to take; (3) investigate the >matter firsthand; and (4) get back to the caller. If you can agree on a >course of action fine; if not, you have at least tried to resolve the matter. I'll buy (1) and (2) above -- I think that is implicit in my posting, but (3) and (4) seem warrented only if (1) and (2) constitute prima facie indication of a problem. In your case they do not. That was the thrust of my comment. -- Byron C. Howes (bch@ecsvax)
daveb@geac.UUCP (Dave Collier-Brown) (10/13/87)
In article <2089@kitty.UUCP> larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes: || If a person actually takes the time and spends the money to call you, ||then it must be a serious matter to SOMEONE. The least that a responsible ||administrator should do is: (1) ascertain the nature of the caller's problem; ||(2) find out what action the caller wants you to take; (3) investigate the ||matter firsthand; and (4) get back to the caller. If you can agree on a ||course of action fine; if not, you have at least tried to resolve the matter. In article <2582@alvin.mcnc.UUCP> bch@alvin.UUCP (Byron C. Howes) writes: |I'll buy (1) and (2) above -- I think that is implicit in my posting, but |(3) and (4) seem warrented only if (1) and (2) constitute prima facie |indication of a problem. In your case they do not. That was the thrust of |my comment. Bravo, Byron. Larry, Byron *is* a responsible administrator: he works for his employer. Suggesting that a phone call is sufficient to indicate seriousness is not normal business practice (ie, only people who sign their names to letters are seen as serious, since only they thereby can be identified and held responsible for their statements/actions). Go and do thou likewise. --dave -- David Collier-Brown. {mnetor|yetti|utgpu}!geac!daveb Geac Computers International Inc., | Computer Science loses its 350 Steelcase Road,Markham, Ontario, | memory (if not its mind) CANADA, L3R 1B3 (416) 475-0525 x3279 | every 6 months.
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.