From: pwu@ai.mit.edu (Peng Wu)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: Our Letter to CND-CM:  a reply to cm9211z1(2).gb
Date: 13 Nov 92 19:59:11
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
	<PWU.92Nov12054348@espresso.ai.mit.edu> <101658@bu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: espresso.ai.mit.edu
In-reply-to: lix@thames.bu.edu's message of 12 Nov 92 14:50:36 GMT

    From: lix@thames.bu.edu (Xiaowen Li)
    
    In article <PWU.92Nov12054348@espresso.ai.mit.edu> pwu@ai.mit.edu (Peng Wu) writes:
    >    From: lix@thames.bu.edu (Xiaowen Li)
    >(my stuff deleted)    

Without your original message, I'll have to speak from my own memory of it in
the rest of my reply.

    >
    >I do not understand how some of our people think about law, order, justice,
    >and free press.
    
    It seems I do not understand how you think about these either.
    
I did not have the luxury to explain everything in one post.  Have I done so
you probably would have fallen in sleep in front of the terminal you were
using if you did not hit "n" immediately.

But the two paragraphs which you have quoted in part bellow do reflect my
opinions on certain aspects of the issue.  What a petty that you have deleted
my "lecture" which is a big part of the revealed "Peng Wu Thought" and you
seems to me have missed the point of it.  Evidence?  You said you "do not
understand".  

    >There is one unspoken assumption in the included exchange, which is if Lu
    >Gang's letter had reached the press it would have been published fully.
    
    Where did you find my unspoken assumption? Just curious.
    
Your post gave me the impression that you believe it would have made a
difference if the letter(s) were not handed over to the police.  And the only
difference matters, as implied by your posting, again my impression, would be
that the letter would have been published fully if not censored by police.
Obviously, there were lots of jumps in my reasoning, but I feel they are
reasonable.

    > (lecture based on wrong guess deleted)

You have not show me that your opinion does not use that assumption.  I may be
wrong about your reasoning in particular, but I am sure some of the other
people had that assumption in their mind.  (If I had your original post, I
would not let you off the hook this easy:-)  If I had perceived that you were
the only person had that assumption, I would have e-mailed you instead of
posting to scc.

    >No matter how "reasonable" was Lu Gang's action, he killed several people.
    
    Bad is absolutely bad, no need to understand the reason and meaning of tragedy.
    Is that what you mean? Recently I read a message from a relative of an american
    victim, she said something like: "After one year, I am still trying to understand
    the tragedy, trying to make some sense from it." Immediately after the tragedy,
    while we were still trying to "Hua Qing Jie Xian", the two brothers of the lady
    victim first expressed their sorrow to Lu Gang's parents, before most of us
    thought of that pity old couple. Learn something from american culture, get
    rid of concepts  "Zhu Lian 10 Chu" and "Hua Qing Jie Xian".
    
    >The police had a duty to investigate.
    
    For sure, who questioned this?
    
    >The friend/s was/were required by the law to cooperate.
    >He/they did what he/they should have done when handing over
    >the letters, not what needed an excuse.
    
    Ask our UIOWA friends whether your imagination is true. Or you may review
    reports at that time.

You have made quite a few good points in your "lecture".  However, you have
broke my paragraph into pieces, which was parts of one wholesome argument.

It was my impression that your post favored the opinion that whoever handed
over the letter was not quite agreeable but excusable.  As to the last two
sentence you quoted, they referred to what was said in your post and other
posts before you.  I did not care whether they are facts, as evidenced by the
"/"s in the sentences.  I was talking about a principle of the format 
"IF A THEN B", not about A or B themselves.


PS: If you have a problem with my last sentence, you probably want to read the
first few pages of any book of your choice on mathematical logic.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china