Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!bellcore!faline!ulysses!ucbvax!jade!violet.berkeley.edu!skyler
From: skyler@violet.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.sysadmin
Subject: Re: Working for the Government
Message-ID: <5797@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Fri, 6-Nov-87 01:33:02 EST
Article-I.D.: jade.5797
Posted: Fri Nov  6 01:33:02 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 8-Nov-87 11:44:46 EST
References: <5624@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <1750@geac.UUCP> <2199@kitty.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@jade.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: skyler@violet.berkeley.edu.UUCP ()
Lines: 58
Keywords: evasion again
Xref: mnetor news.admin:1353 news.sysadmin:443

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