rcj@moss.ATT.COM (10/06/87)
OK, Larry, pull up a chair. Here's some mustard and ketchup -- mayo is available if you want it. Here are some of your words, I have taken great care to include enough context with each quote to ensure that you won't be able to weasel out with the age-old "out of context" stuff: You recently answered an article of Mikki Barry's, stating your 'reason for seeking restriction of "Smith" net access': > What I DO give a damn about is when "Smith" abuses Net privileges >by making false representations of fact which defame people or organizations, You then go on to give Mikki an example of such defamation from "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. The above would not win a libel case in any court of the land. You yourself stated that identification was one of the three requirements for libel, and the above does not constitute identification by any stretch of the imagination. > I believe that "Smith" should either prove the above statements >by giving verifiable details such as names, places, dates and times, OR >post suitable retractions and apologies. We're glad you "believe" that Mark should do that. You, of course, are quite entitled to voice that opinion. Just as you were quite entitled to voice this: > No Usenet site should have anonymous users. Usenet is not (or >SHOULD not) be conducted as a juvenile BBS. Usenet feeds are propagated >in part by institutions using public funds. Public funds should not be >used to propagate the whimsical, irresponsible ravings of a person who >uses fraud and deception in concealing their identity. If "Smith" wishes >to engage in such anonymous activity, let him/her/it confine postings >to privately owned BBS's - not Usenet. > I view the presence of anonymous and deceptive posters as a cancer >which seriously undermines the quality and integrity of Usenet. I call upon >any system administrator having "Smith" accounts to: > >1. Post to the Net any identifying information in their possession > about "Smith". > >2. Revoke any accounts (such as "Smith's") which have pseudonyms. But, Larry! Contradiction City, here, guy! "Smith", as you call him, did not use fraud in any way. He is using his legal name, not just in his postings but to get accounts in the first place. He hasn't concealed his identity at all. Could it be that you have made a libelous statement yourself? I don't know; let's ask a self-proclaimed expert on the subject -- you: > What one canNOT state without incurring liability (unless it is true) >is: > >6. X has committed criminal acts. > > Stating (6) above in writing constitutes libel, provided that: (1) >the statement is in fact false and (2) the person making the statement knew >it to be false. Proving that the person making the false statement did so >with "intent" to commit harm may or may not be an issue, depending upon >circumstances. > All it takes to "weasel" out of a libelous situation is to use a >"qualified" form of making the statement, such as (1) to (5) above, and >to establish SOME "information and belief" for making the statement. Gee, Larry, you sure did say pretty clearly that X (that's "Smith" to you, Larry) has committed criminal acts, alright. And, gosh, (1) is a winner, since the statement is in fact false. And (2), well, only you and your hairdresser know for sure, eh, Larry old bean? Could go either way in the old courtroom, yessir! Oh, but you could always do what you "believe" Mark should do -- yeah, that's the ticket! You can retract your statement! Hold on a minute, I'll run back through all the back-articles in news.admin and news.sysadmin. Uh, oh. Larry, why didn't I find a retraction from you in there somewhere? Could it be that we don't practice what we preach? Sow wild oats on Saturday night and pray for drought on Sunday morning? Well. Isn't that special. I don't agree with Mark's wild statements concerning certain system administrators, either. Fortunately, most of them just considered that the source of those statements is sometimes a little off-the-wall, and they tactfully ignored the statements. Maybe you could learn to do the same -- Mark doesn't freak like that very often. And when she does, at least she's moaning about what's supposedly (and maybe actually, who knows?) been done to her, and not advocating doing things to other people. You, on the other hand, evidenced rather the opposite tendency at the end of one of the little missives I quoted above -- you know, the one where you advocated restricting Mark's net access? >If someone tries to "bait" me into further antagonistic discussion, >I will do the best I can to resist temptation and keep quiet; however, I >promise nothing, since I am a tough old SOB who doesn't take shit from >anyone, and who doesn't back down from a fight. I'm not baiting you, Larry, I'm asking you to take your hypocrisy, your over-reactions, and your down-right meanness and shove them up your ass. Of course, the above is only my *opinion* of what you should do with the "qualities" that, *in my opinion*, you possess in inordinate amounts. Opinionatedly yours, The MAD Programmer -- 201-386-6409 (Cornet 232) ^^^^ new extension alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd allegra ]!moss!rcj ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua watmath ]!clyde!rcj
larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) (10/07/87)
In article <14896@clyde.ATT.COM>, rcj@moss.ATT.COM writes: > You recently answered an article of Mikki Barry's, stating your 'reason > for seeking restriction of "Smith" net access': > > You then go on to give Mikki an example of such defamation from "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. > > The above would not win a libel case in any court of the land. You > yourself stated that identification was one of the three requirements > for libel, and the above does not constitute identification by any stretch > of the imagination. Sorry, Mr. Justice Jackson, but in the instant matter there is substantial appellate case law in New York and other states which supports that sufficient identification has been made. One, of many examples, to wit: "That defamation is adroitly veiled in form of question does not rob it of defamatory character." Meany v Loew's Hotels, Inc., 1968, 29 A.D.2d 850, 288 N.Y.S.2d 217. You seem pretty certain of yourself when you say: > The above would not win a libel case in any court of the land. Do you have some legal experience (not necessarily being an attorney) in your background to qualify such a profound statement? I seem to recall that you posted your resume to the Net about a year ago, and that you were a computer programmer in your early 20's. In a recent article you posted, <14876@clyde.ATT.COM>, rcj@clyde.ATT.COM (Curtis Jackson) writes: > My name is Curtis Jackson, and I want a laptop portable computer. > Being a rank amateur in the field of home computing, I'm asking for > advice, experiences, and even used equipment. If your alleged paid profession is in the field of computing, and you describe yourself a "rank amateur" on what might be considered a rather common topic pertaining to computers, could you enlighten the Net by categorizing your level of expertise on legal matters? > But, Larry! Contradiction City, here, guy! "Smith", as you call him, > did not use fraud in any way. He is using his legal name, not just in > his postings but to get accounts in the first place. He hasn't concealed > his identity at all. Could it be that you have made a libelous statement > yourself? I don't know; let's ask a self-proclaimed expert on the subject > -- you: You represent as FACT that "Smith" is "using his legal name". Can you give us some proof of that, Curtis? Proof that I could check out, and possibly use in a court of law? Like "Smith"'s: (1) telephone number? (2) address? (3) occupation? (4) employer? (5) place and date of birth? (6) original name? (7) date and court location at which a name change allegedly occured? ANY VERIFIABLE FACT, Curtis? > > What one canNOT state without incurring liability (unless it is true) > >is: > >6. X has committed criminal acts. > Gee, Larry, you sure did say pretty clearly that X (that's "Smith" to you, > Larry) has committed criminal acts, alright. X is not "Smith" to me or anyone else. X is a variable used for the sake of a multi-part example. If you would like to prove otherwise, more power to you. > Maybe you could learn to do > the same -- Mark doesn't freak like that very often. And when she does, > at least she's moaning about what's supposedly (and maybe actually, who > knows?) been done to her, and not advocating doing things to other people. What??? You state that Mark "freak"'s, and you claim that she "moan's" about "supposed" [as opposed to real] acts done to her. Is there any possibility that you are making an imputation relating to Mark's sanity? I mean, why, oh why, Curtis, would you even use a word like "freaks"??? Uh oh, Curtis. You just landed in Libel City, to wit: "It is actionable per se, in a publication, to impute to another insanity or impairment of mental faculties." Moore v Francis, 121 NY 199, 23 NE 1127. > I'm not baiting you, Larry, I'm asking you to take your hypocrisy, your > over-reactions, and your down-right meanness and shove them up your ass. You have just demonstrated a degree of maturity and wisdom for which AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany should be proud to have in one of their employees. Especially an employee who posts to Usenet from an AT&T-owned computer site. > The MAD Programmer -- 201-386-6409 (Cornet 232) > ^^^^ new extension > alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd allegra ]!moss!rcj > ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua watmath ]!clyde!rcj MAD? That's right! Yeah, that's the ticket! [I watch SNL, too, Curtis.] <> 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?"
faigin@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Daniel P Faigin) (10/07/87)
Larry: You are a poster whose opinion on technical issues I admire and respect greatly. However, this battle with Mark Smith has gotten out of hand. One bit of advice, sir: Let it go. Consider. You are have a much more derogatory effect on your good name with this continual battle of postings that Mark ever did. I venture to say that 99% of the net ignored what Mark said about you, why can't you. I, too, have gotten into these pissing matches. You usually don't win, and you come out looking like a fool. If you wish to pursue legal action, then do so. If you took the time and trouble, you should be able to find what you want. Consider: Mark proably lives in the SF Bay area, as evidenced by Mark's application in person to have an account on UCBVAX. Mark probably drives (consult the DMV), may have a phone number (call 411) and probably has other evidence. If it is worth that much trouble to you. I find the best approach, however, to people like this is to remain calm, rational, and to live your own life. Let those who you feel have offended be on their own; why give them the pleasure of your reaction. Let it go. Daniel -- W: UNiSYS/Defense Systems/System Development Group 2400 Colorado MD 91-01;Santa Monica CA 90406;213/829-7511 x6393 H: 8333 Columbus Avenue #17; Sepulveda CA 91343 Email: (uucp) faigin@sdcrdcf.UUCP (arpa) faigin@RDCF.SM.UNISYS.COM
lad@eplrx7.UUCP (Lawrence Dziegielewski) (10/08/87)
This "Larry Lippman' thing has degraded to the point where Mr. Lippman is
now picking apart the resume of one Curtis Jackson publicly on the net.
I think I've read enough about Mark Smith and Larry Lippman, so:
FLAME ON:
GIVE IT A REST YOU BOZOS!!!!
FLAME OFF:
PS - My resume is not available.
--
Lawrence A. Dziegielewski | E.I. Dupont Co.
{uunet!dgis!psuvax1}!eplrx7!lad | Engineering Physics Lab
Cash-We-Serve 76127,104 | Wilmington, Delaware 19898
MABELL: (302) 695-1311 | Mail Stop: E357-318