Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ukma!david From: david@ukma.UUCP Newsgroups: news.misc,soc.women Subject: Re: retraction Message-ID: <6756@a.ms.uky.csnet> Date: Tue, 2-Jun-87 10:36:19 EDT Article-I.D.: a.6756 Posted: Tue Jun 2 10:36:19 1987 Date-Received: Fri, 5-Jun-87 01:07:45 EDT References: <9729@clyde.ATT.COM> <3767@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <16895@amdcad.AMD.COM> <3788@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <890@apple.UUCP> Reply-To: david@ms.uky.csnet (David Herron -- Resident E-mail Hack) Organization: U of Kentucky, Mathematical Sciences Lines: 53 Xref: utgpu news.misc:436 soc.women:4208 In article <890@apple.UUCP> ems@apple.UUCP (Mike Smith) writes: >In article <3788@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, era1987@violet.berkeley.edu writes: >> I'm interested to know >> why they would censor feminist or egalitarian views, but not censor porn, >> obscenity or swastikas. I think be may be referring to a couple of the more ... er ... controversial issues of CoEvolution Quarterly (now Whole Earth Review). Porn (very soft porn tho'), obscenity, and swastika's have all appeared in there. But feminist and egalitarian views have also appeared. They will publish just about anything... but they do have lean towards certain things... >> 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. >Did Well buy the hardware or was it donated? If bought, I see no importance >to the legal nature of the source. Many beta test sites take software on >a free or low payment basis in exchange for the burden of debugging. There >are many other sites that pay full price for SW licences and take beta >SW because it is {earlier dilivery, has a needed feature, more fun, etc.}. I've researched this as best as I can. Unfortunately Stewart Brand wasn't very detailed about the funding or other aspects of the WELL when they first announced it. He was simply talking about regional computer networks and the neat things they could be. Anyway, he also talks as if they *own* the WELL, and he mentioned NETI as something like a sister organization. The last point is that another issue has a financial report from the WELL in the back. (CoEv and WER have always included financial reports in every issue; which, BTW, they usually show a loss; in the summer '86 issue the WELL showed a $14000 loss on $44000 in expenses). Also, the WELL's computer is physically located *in* their offices at 27 Gate Five road in Sausalito. At the time the WELL got started, Point was flush with money because they had just done the Whole Earth Software Catalog (v1.0 and v2.0). I'm sure they bought the hardware. As for my opinion on removing peoples' access? I kinda like the Golden Rule myself. ("Thems that gots the gold makes the rules"). Actually, I don't think I really like that rule, but I do live by it because the world lives by that rule. If my boss wanted me to cut off someones access then I would do so. -- ----- David Herron, cbosgd!ukma!david, david@UKMA.BITNET, david@ms.uky.csnet ----- (also "postmaster", "news", and the Usenet map maintainer for Kentucky.) ----- bsmtp-users@ms.uky.csnet for bsmtp discussion ----- bsmtp-users-request@ms.uky.csnet for administrivia