Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!think!ames!sdcsvax!ucbvax!hplabs!motsj1!mcdchg!clyde!rcj
From: rcj@moss.ATT.COM
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin
Subject: Larry Lippman chokes on his own words
Message-ID: <14896@clyde.ATT.COM>
Date: Mon, 5-Oct-87 22:05:40 EDT
Article-I.D.: clyde.14896
Posted: Mon Oct  5 22:05:40 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 9-Oct-87 04:19:46 EDT
Sender: nuucp@clyde.ATT.COM
Reply-To: rcj@clyde.ATT.COM (Curtis Jackson)
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany NJ
Lines: 113

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