Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-lcc!lll-tis!ptsfa!dual!ucbvax!jade!violet.berkeley.edu!era1987
From: era1987@violet.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: news.misc,soc.women
Subject: Re: retraction
Message-ID: <3788@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Sun, 31-May-87 06:48:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: jade.3788
Posted: Sun May 31 06:48:21 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 2-Jun-87 06:27:36 EDT
References: <9729@clyde.ATT.COM> <3767@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <16895@amdcad.AMD.COM>
Sender: usenet@jade.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: era1987@violet.berkeley.edu ()
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 21
Xref: mnetor news.misc:498 soc.women:4146

In article <16895@amdcad.AMD.COM> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes:
>
>So, Mark, could you supply more details on what happened at the Well,
>why you think they turned off your account, and whether you think they
>were justified? Keep in mind that the Well is not a Federally funded
>operation in any sense of the word.

I've reported what they told me.  If you want further details, why not
ask some of the people from the Well who have been making personal attacks
on me here, to supply the details here instead?  I'm interested to know
why they would censor feminist or egalitarian views, but not censor porn,
obscenity or swastikas.

The Well got its hardware from tax exempt entities called NETI and Point
Foundation.  It got its software free on a beta test and probably got a
free newsfeed.  It resells the resources it got for free, and provides
a service for Libertarians and those whose views agree with those of
Well management.  They refused to sell their services to me because my
views differed from theirs.

--Mark