Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!minerva From: minerva@bucket.UUCP (Minerva) Newsgroups: news.admin,misc.legal Subject: Re: Responsibility for postings. Message-ID: <556@bucket.UUCP> Date: Tue, 20-Oct-87 14:34:21 EDT Article-I.D.: bucket.556 Posted: Tue Oct 20 14:34:21 1987 Date-Received: Thu, 22-Oct-87 00:47:50 EDT References: <4611@videovax.Tek.COM> <2294@umn-cs.UUCP> <1606@dasys1.UUCP> <4626@videovax.Tek.COM> <168@ut-emx.UUCP> Reply-To: minerva@bucket.UUCP (Minerva) Organization: Mt. Olympus Lines: 107 Xref: mnetor news.admin:1208 misc.legal:3192 Egads, I thought this had died down. Since it has not, I feel compelled to have my say (everyone else has :-) and in particular, reply to this Werner person. In article <168@ut-emx.UUCP> kraut@ut-emx.UUCP (Werner Uhrig) writes: >It has been many days, probably several weeks, that I have been >meaning to speak up in support of Larry Lippman in this (most >unfortunate) unpleasantness that he finds himself in, simply to let >him (and others) know that there are people on the net who think well >of him and who will support him when attacked unfairly. And where were (are) you when Larry attacks others unfairly? Do you give them your support? Or do just support Larry unconditionally? >I have been on the net for nearly 10 years, and Larry has been an >outstanding participant and contributor for many of those years and I >want to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to him for >that. From Mark Smith, on the other hand, I have yet to see an >article that would lead me to say anything similar. Many have been >distasteful and offensive (to me), demonstrating (to me) that it is not >worth my time to read further what this person has to say. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Here is mine. Larry Lippman has shown himself to be anything *but* an outstanding participant and contributor in soc.women. He has attacked other people quite unfairly, *his* disclaimer being that the person he attacked had said all of these things themselves, and that he was just summarizing for the benefit of the rest of us. Did he, for proof, include the articles to which he was referring? Nope. He told us to go look them up ourselves. And if our sites expire quickly? Too bad. He has since continued to be nothing but a nuisance where his views and opinions are unwelcomed in a group where the focus is women's issues. He has demonstrated to me and others, that it is not worth our time to read further what he has to say. Mark Smith, on the other hand, has made what I feel are valuable contributions to soc.women. You may not like them. Fine. That's no reason to show support for someone who advocates having Mark's account pulled. No matter how obnoxious Larry has been in soc.women (and he's been *real* obnoxious), no one has asked that *his* account be pulled. >Consequently, I cannot say that I am fully informed (who can, really) >on the details regarding the problem Larry seems to have with Mark (or >anyone else) - I *can* say that I'm fairly informed - until recently, Larry Lippman was not in my KILL files. I am a regular reader of soc.women and other newgroups. >but what I have seen leads me to believe that I would >invite Larry to have an account on my machine any day, whereas I feel >embarrassed having to share even the same network with Mark (and I am >willing to chip in a few bucks to the defense fund of anyone that >needs to go to court over cancelling one of Mark's USENET account). Well, to each his own, I suppose. What I have seen is more than you (by your own admission). I strongly suggest that you take a look at all of Larry's articles before you make such an opinion. >In the past, I have made a habit of sending supportive Email to people >who I felt needed and deserved support in order to be able to ignore >some of the more outrageous statements by others, as a public argument >with an obviously unreasonable person does not benefit anyone, really. Ah, you're talking about Larry and his unreasonableness, I take it? No? Could have fooled me. >We can, at least, create the illusion that certain folks have noone >paying the least attention to their articles, and, without any >audience reaction, I am sure even the most obnoxious person will, >eventually, get tired of posting articles or mailing Email-messages >which seem to get ignored completely. This is exactly what I have suggested that my fellow readers of soc.women do in the case of Larry Lippman. I suggest that you take a moment to read that group, Larry's articles in particular, and then let me know if you still have such a high (and inflated) opinion of him. However, this is not good enough for dear Mr. Lippman. He wants to control (personally, it seems) who has access to USENET and who does not. I'd be very, very, careful, Werner. You may say something that your idol here doesn't approve of, and you could be booted off next. >In this spirit, please ignore this article ...((-:, Not bloody likely. Larry didn't bother to ignore Mark's, now did he? :-) > ---Werner (I deny having authored this article, as I am, obviously, > way too busy to have found time to write it; > ask anyone around here ...) Minerva (You'll never get me to deny the authorship of this article. I'm too proud of it; ask anyone around here...) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ( /\ ) | ( \__||__/ ) | Man: Man is the hunter. Woman is the civilizing ( __ __ ) | influence, and when women abandon that role ( / || \ ) | men become... ( || ) | || | Woman: cranky and start wars. || | || | -Nicole Hollander ## | || | ...tektronix!teksce!bucket!minerva -------------------------------------------------------------------------------