Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!novavax!twwells!bill
From: bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells)
Newsgroups: news.misc
Subject: Re: What constitutes abuse of the net?
Message-ID: <1989Dec14.190653.5809@twwells.com>
Date: 14 Dec 89 19:06:53 GMT
References: <37942@ames.arc.nasa.gov> <1989Dec13.105316.17987@twwells.com> <7290@ficc.uu.net>
Organization: None, Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Lines: 68

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