From: junglee@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Jung S. Lee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.korean
Subject: Re: Nettiquette or Freedom of speech
Date: 28 Dec 92 17:35:05 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

wjin@cs.uh.edu (W. Woody Jin) writes:

>In article <1992Dec27.055500.14538@u.washington.edu> kaygee@hardy.u.washington.edu (Kevin Giansante) writes:

>>>But you see that can prevent people from speaking out
>>>on something which most of you don't like to hear. 

>Nothing prevents you from doing that.  What nettiquette means is that
>there is always a better way to express yourself nicely.
				^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Why do you speak ?  Because you want to make yourself understood.

Not only I want to persuade you but also I want to speak out so that
all of you realize that there is a person like me in this world. How
about that?  And one more thing on what you said on "nicely", I
express the way I like or prefer, not any other ways. I am not a
salesperson, but an individual stands equally with you speaking out my
feeling and ideas.

>Just think about which way is a good way to do so.
>I always have reverse effect, when I flame others.

I won't take any prisoner on this issue. If you want to express what
you think or feel, go ahead. But don't tell me what I should think and
speak. Just speak for yourself. 

>>>Then how can
>>>one expect to furfill his right? When you give one right to do
>>>something, you give it all. If you give right to have abortion to
>>>people, you cannot say, "Well, you can have abortion but you have
>>>to have permission from your parents or your husband".

>I think that your logic is somewhat misleading.
>You may claim your right but not at the expense of other people's right.

So what's wrong with what I said? If I want to have abotion, and the
right is given to me, why should I go to my parents and get
permission? When you go to vote, you don't go to your parents or any
others to get PERMISSION period.	

>We have seen on this s.c.k, that someone at upenn is continuously posting
>numerours unnecessary articles.  You and he may claim that he has a right 
>freely to do so, but I and many other netters have also rights not to be 
>bothered by him.   

NO, you don't have the right not to be bothered by me or him, but you
have the right to speak loud and clear against me on what I said,
which you don't agree on.
 
	I hope YOU UNDERSTAND YOUR RIGHT BEFORE YOU EXERCISE IT.

>>Well, Mr. Lee, I like your attitude.  You say what you want to say, and
>>you're willing the take heat for it from those who disagree.  I think 
>>your approach is far preferable to the "let's all be nice and not upset
>>each other" school of thought.  Personally, I'm sick of all these self-
>>appointed net police who think they have to tell the rest of us how to 
>>express ourselves according to their imagined rules.

>You've just shown that you are trying to be a police (in this case, a bad
>police).  Why do you think that only you have the right to speak
>freely and others don't ?  Don't they have the right to say, "let's all be
>nice and not upset each other" ? 

there is no police. Did I claim to be a police in s.c.k? I just speak
something which most of you don't want to hear for my sake. Did I
prevent you from speaking against me? Did I take away your right to speak
freely?

>>One of the reasons we don't have a lot of formal government censorship in
>>this country is that we don't NEED to have it; most people seem to be
>>pretty good at censoring themselves, much to the detriment of all of us.
>>
>>Keep talking, Mr. Lee.  Freedom is no good unless you exercise it.

>Since every individual person is different, it is unavoidable that everyone's
>freedom conflicts with each other's.
 ^^^^^^^
Not freedom, you mean interest of individual.

>Freedom is only good when exercised without the expense of other
>people's freedom.

O.K.......  I give you an example, Voting.  That is freedom and right
given to you(I hope you learn it in the elementary school).  You vote
for someone who can mostly benefit interest of group to which you
belong or simply your interest. You think Kim, Y. Sam is better than
Dae Joong.  But others think that if Kim, Y. Sam is elected, they will
loose their jobs.  So there is conflict of interest among your group
and other. Do you say that you vote at others' expense when you vote
for Kim, Y. Sam? No. You just express your opinion by exercising your
right to vote.

>How this can be achieved has been already studied by many other smart
>net people who have many experiences with people like you, and
>the result is informally called, as you already know, Nettiquette.

Again, perhaps many of smart net people dealed with many persons like
me, but not me. You see, I am what I am. I am not what you think I am.

>It is not an absolute rule set which suppresses your freedom of speech.
>It is rather a guide on how not to trepass on others' rights and
>how to resolve when your freedom and other's freedom  conflict.

If it isn't an sbsolute rule, then why are you trying to enforce it?
Leave it as what it's supposed to be. 

>-- 
>____   ____  ____ ____________________________________ (___) _________________
>|  |   |  |  |  |  W. Woody Jin (wjin@cs.uh.edu)       (o o)      Moo.... 
>|  |   |  |__|  |  PhD Student. Research Asst.  o=======\ /  I'm  a Cow Lover.
>|  |   |        |  Dept. of Computer Science   / |     ||O   My wife  was born
>\  |---|  |--|  |  University of Houston      `  ||'---||    in Cow year. Mooo
> \____/|__|  |__| _______________________________^^    ^^_____________________

And you are stydying for what, PhD? Better learn something meaningful in this
country before you go back. Just a piece of my advice.


Jung
Newsgroups: soc.culture.korean