gardosik@ficc.uu.net (tom gardosik) (12/14/89)
In article <1989Dec13.105316.17987@twwells.com>, bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes: > In article <37942@ames.arc.nasa.gov> hettinger@krypton.arc.nasa.gov writes: > : In rec.humor I read a particularly brutal series of > : sadistic jokes dealing with child abuse and pedophilia posted > > :... > > : Am I right or wrong? What constitutes abuse of the net? > > Free speech includes the right to say things offensive. If it did > not, free speech would be a travesty. I'm not sure where the idea came from that you can be as abusive and/or childish as you please simply because you are protected by the relative anonymity of the network. Anything that is offensive said face to face is just as offensive posted. I am not not concerned with abuse of the net, that is really irrelevant to the problem that started this discussion. My concern is letting people believe that they can say whatever they feel like saying as long as they post to the "correct group" or add a smiley face. Sure you can say anything, but be prepared to accept whatever criticism or adverse reaction that results from what you say. Not everything goes! There are some things beyond the pale to some people. It is no defense to simply mutter the incantation "First Amendment Rights" as an excuse to say whatever you please. With all rights come responsibilities. You are responsible for your words, and if you believe that they will not bear repeating to your superiors, don't post them for the world to see. > You were wrong. I disagree. He was right. > Let's be real. Those were jokes. J-O-K-E-S. Words in a computer. > Nothing more. To confuse words with their denoted actions is a > sign of a serious psychological problem. You should see someone > about that. See what I mean? Because of the privacy afforded by the computer (I don't know you, you don't know me), instead of just making whatever contribution you have to make, you add on a gratuitous insult. You cannot do this in real life for very long. -- -- -- I'm always right, and I never lie.
bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) (12/15/89)
In article <7290@ficc.uu.net> gardosik@ficc.uu.net (tom gardosik) writes: : In article <1989Dec13.105316.17987@twwells.com>, bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes: : > In article <37942@ames.arc.nasa.gov> hettinger@krypton.arc.nasa.gov writes: : > : In rec.humor I read a particularly brutal series of : > : sadistic jokes dealing with child abuse and pedophilia posted : > : > :... : > : > : Am I right or wrong? What constitutes abuse of the net? : > : > Free speech includes the right to say things offensive. If it did : > not, free speech would be a travesty. [I'll add that the person who edited my message left out the next part of my message: "With that aside, the net is not a public resource; free speech is not relevant, except as in it influences the customs of the net." I really do hate it when people take me out of context.] : I'm not sure where the idea came from that you can be as abusive : and/or childish as you please simply because you are protected : by the relative anonymity of the network. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I advocate any such thing. Note that my signature is on the bottom of my message. Note that my phone number and my address are in the mail maps. I don't believe in this pseudo-anonymity. I certainly don't hide behind it. My net persona is not all that different from my real-life persona. Ask my co-workers, or, for that matter, the company president, who have, on occasion, felt my wrath. I still have my job. Actually, I think you'd find, if you asked any of them, that my net persona is rather mild in comparison to how I can get in person. : Sure you can say anything, but be prepared to accept whatever : criticism or adverse reaction that results from what you say. No duh. Which has nothing to do with the point I was making. There is a difference between "this is wrong and should be forbidden" and "this is stupid so be prepared to take the consequences". Posting sufficiently sick jokes falls into the second category, not the first. : > Let's be real. Those were jokes. J-O-K-E-S. Words in a computer. : > Nothing more. To confuse words with their denoted actions is a : > sign of a serious psychological problem. You should see someone : > about that. : : See what I mean? Because of the privacy afforded by the computer : (I don't know you, you don't know me), instead of just making : whatever contribution you have to make, you add on a : gratuitous insult. One man's observation is another's insult. I meant exactly what I said, not as an insult but as an important point: treating the words as the thing, a practice all too common with certain kinds of moralists, is a sickness. On the strength of the posting I replied to, I concluded that that person has that problem. --- Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh | sunvice } !twwells!bill bill@twwells.com
campbell@redsox.bsw.com (Larry Campbell) (12/20/89)
In article <7290@ficc.uu.net> gardosik@ficc.uu.net (tom gardosik) writes:
-See what I mean? Because of the privacy afforded by the computer
-(I don't know you, you don't know me), instead of just making
-whatever contribution you have to make, you add on a
-gratuitous insult. You cannot do this in real life for very
-long.
What do you mean, "real life"? What's Usenet? Some sort of mass shared
hallucination? Unless the drugs *still* haven't worn off after all these
years, this *is* real life.
--
Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc.
campbell@bsw.com 120 Fulton Street
wjh12!redsox!campbell Boston, MA 02109chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) (12/21/89)
According to campbell@redsox.bsw.com (Larry Campbell), in news.misc: >In article <7290@ficc.uu.net> gardosik@ficc.uu.net (tom gardosik) writes: >-See what I mean? Because of the privacy afforded by the computer >-(I don't know you, you don't know me), instead of just making >-whatever contribution you have to make, you add on a >-gratuitous insult. You cannot do this in real life for very >-long. > >What do you mean, "real life"? What's Usenet? Some sort of mass shared >hallucination? Unless the drugs *still* haven't worn off after all these >years, this *is* real life. I nominate Larry Campbell for: The First Annual Rich Rosen Memorial Get A Life Award -- You may redistribute this article only to those who may freely do likewise. Chip Salzenberg at A T Engineering; <chip@ateng.com> or <uunet!ateng!chip> "The Usenet, in a very real sense, does not exist."