skyler@violet.berkeley.edu (10/25/87)
Mr. Lippman has accused me of making a false statement. I will clarify: 1) Mr. Lippman has made at least three attempts to get Mark Ethan Smith's accounts pulled--once by calling the Big Electric Cat and twice on news.admin and news.sysadmin. During the course of those attempts, he claimed that Mark Ethan Smith was a pseudonym. 2) In Article 21371@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Michael Robinson said to Mr. Lippman: >You mentioned that your firm is associated with the Government and has >connections. Just out of curiousity, does part of your relationship with >the government involve using these valuable resources to attack vocal >feminists and disrupt a privately run news network? Just a thought. It's >not like things like that haven't happened before. Michael Robinson was referring to two items: A) An article in which Mr. Lippman says he will: >report back to the Net; even though I happen to be in Buffalo, NY, I have >the resources available to me to obtain this information from any U.S. >District Court, regardless of location. B) A claim that Mr. Lippman made in email to Michael Robinson: [From hplabs!kitty!larry@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU Sun Oct 18 22:24:03 1987] >Wrong, chum. It's not the least bit inconvenient. And you >DON'T KNOW my level of committment. And you also have a short memory >concerning my available resources - the article in which I shattered >your naivete about the FBI and the legal system should have clued you in >that my organization has some government affiliation. 3) Then there is Mr. Lippman's threat to Michael Robinson: In Message-ID: <2133@kitty.UUCP> >(You're wrong, friend. I am serious. And I do have a "presence" in the >state of California, even though I am in Buffalo, NY. And I'm no person >you want to tangle with, so cool your threatening email.) I will say it again. The combination of these three points is very disturbing. Exactly what is Mr. Lippman's government affiliation? Why is he on a campaign to discredit Mark Ethan Smith and anyone who defends him? I know that Mr. Lippman will now begin attacking me. I would not be surprised if he contacted my SA. But I also know that, despite his article in soc.women suggesting that he was done with his attacks on Mark Ethan Smith, he will almost certainly continue to do so in these groups. It seemed to me of vital importance, therefore, that the readers of news.admin and news.sysadmin understand him as the readers of soc.women have come to. (I would not normally post email, by the way, but happen to feel that this was a special and serious case.) -skyler usenet ucbvax!jade!violet!skyler arpa skyler@violet.berkeley.edu
daveb@geac.UUCP (11/02/87)
In article <5624@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> skyler@violet.berkeley.edu () writes: >I will say it again. The combination of these three points is very >disturbing. Exactly what is Mr. Lippman's government affiliation? Why >is he on a campaign to discredit Mark Ethan Smith and anyone who defends >him? Sorry to take so long to respond, but I had to get someone else to do some research.... Mr Lippman **may** be connected with the US government in some way, but if he[1] is, it doesn't appear to be on the defense side. A search of the NATO suppliers and consultants list(s) turned up one German company with a similar name, and no close matches in Canada or the US. I suspect that Mr. Lippman is merely a competent user of an electronic search system, like QuickLaw here. And even I can figure out how to use it (well, I **used** to know how to use it five years ago). Since he is posting an affiliation without a disclaimer, I suspect he is merely lying. --dave (is Larry real?) c-b -- 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.
larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) (11/04/87)
In article <1750@geac.UUCP>, daveb@geac.UUCP writes: > In article <5624@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> skyler@violet.berkeley.edu () writes: > >I will say it again. The combination of these three points is very > >disturbing. Exactly what is Mr. Lippman's government affiliation? Why > >is he on a campaign to discredit Mark Ethan Smith and anyone who defends > >him? > > Mr Lippman **may** be connected with the US government in some > way, but if he[1] is, it doesn't appear to be on the defense side. > A search of the NATO suppliers and consultants list(s) turned up one > German company with a similar name, and no close matches in Canada > or the US. > Since he is posting an affiliation without a disclaimer, I > suspect he is merely lying. Thank you for your research. You are missing the point on one issue, however. I NEVER STATED in any Usenet article that I or my organization had any "government affiliation". I certainly never made the statement in email to some asshole at UCB, which was the next variation on Ms. Skyler's claim. A little common sense dictates that if such an allegation were fact, I would certainly not make such a statement on the Net or in email to a hostile party (the asshole in question). I don't care if people want to "speculate" in this matter; I just don't wish to be attributed with making a statement which in fact I did not make, thank you. <> 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?"
skyler@violet.berkeley.edu (11/06/87)
In article <2199@kitty.UUCP> larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes: >In article <1750@geac.UUCP>, daveb@geac.UUCP writes: >> Mr Lippman **may** be connected with the US government in some >> way, but if he[1] is, it doesn't appear to be on the defense side. >> A search of the NATO suppliers and consultants list(s) turned up one >> German company with a similar name, and no close matches in Canada >> or the US. >> Since he is posting an affiliation without a disclaimer, I >> suspect he is merely lying. > Thank you for your research. You are missing the point on one >issue, however. I NEVER STATED in any Usenet article that I or my >organization had any "government affiliation". Mr. Lippman has been engaging in a policy of sounding like he is denying something when he actually is not. He claimed, in email (and other people remember his making this claim on the net,) that his job provided him with something like special information on organizations like the FBI. You can email me for the exact quote or look it up on the previous article in this newsgroup. He does not deny that he wrote the letter in question, (because he did) but he will try use innuendo to suggest that he might not have. The following is an example of that tactic: >I certainly never made >the statement in email to some asshole at UCB, which was the next variation >on Ms. Skyler's claim. No, he did not make the statement that his job provided him with government affiliation, (nor did he send the mail to an asshole,) but he did send the letter previously quoted. I had initially posted this to news.admin because I was concerned about the threats that Mr. Lippman was making. I think he still is a threat to net news, as he has demonstrated that he will not only engage in innuendo, ad hominem, and other time-honored tactics, but will contact the system administrator of anyone who disagrees with him, will admit to being in soc.women to bother women there (both not exactly time- honored, but common, tactics) and will post home addresses and contact previous employers of people. (There is the distinct possibility that he has given news articles to previous employers of the person in question.) There is the strong possibility that the previous employer (the Navy, by the way) will use those articles in a court case which may or may not happen. That will bring the net into exactly the situation which members of this newsgroup have frequently discussed with trepidation--a legal ruling regarding the net. From the email I have received, it has become clear that my fears that he would succeed in censorship were unfounded. There are still a variety of other problems upon which I would very, very much appreciate the advice of these readers: what should the readers of soc.women do? what should someone (like myself) who has disagreed with Mr. Lippman do given that he has demonstrated he will contact system administrators and previous employers? how ethical was it to give potential parties to a lawsuit newsnet articles? Thanks, skyler usenet ucbvax!jade!violet!skyler arpa skyler@viol cons, letat dac