Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!jade!violet.berkeley.edu!era1987 From: era1987@violet.berkeley.edu Newsgroups: news.misc,soc.women Subject: Re: retraction Message-ID: <3842@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> Date: Wed, 3-Jun-87 03:43:36 EDT Article-I.D.: jade.3842 Posted: Wed Jun 3 03:43:36 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 6-Jun-87 10:33:23 EDT References: <9729@clyde.ATT.COM> <3767@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <16895@amdcad.AMD.COM> <3788@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <16959@amdcad.AMD.COM> Sender: usenet@jade.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: era1987@violet.berkeley.edu () Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 109 Keywords: Stuart Brand, tax shelters, discrimination Summary: Andrew Beals is telling lies. Xref: mnetor news.misc:519 soc.women:4322 In article <16959@amdcad.AMD.COM> bandy@amdcad.AMD.COM (Andy Beals) 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. [...] They refused to sell their services to me >>because my views differed from theirs. > >Mark Smith was tossed off of the Well because of Mark's abuse of host account >privs and for causing large amounts of disruption. There are plenty of Whoa! Nobody was tossed off for disruption. Hosts were given free time even if they spent more than 90% of it disrupting my conference and totally ignored their own--disruptiveness was protected under free speech. The Well admitted there were plenty of hosts more disruptive than I, particularly since, due to their attacks on me, I first stopped posting to any conference but my own, and then withdrew to a private conference when that didn't help. How can I be disrupting my own conference? Why weren't the hosts who disrupted my conference daily by making persistent ad hominem attacks on me considered disruptive? And the punishment for abusing host privileges, although I was not accused of that, and others were, is to have host status (free time) removed, not to have a password pulled. >feminists and egalitarians on the Well, as well as people whose views differ >from the Well management's views. > There was only one other feminist on the Well that I know of when I was tossed off. There had been three others, all paying users, not all female, but all feminists, who left the Well due to the attacks on me. The Well did not seem to mind the loss of income, but seemed to be happy that I would have less support. The Whole Earth Review had published articles opposing abortion and advocating sadomasochism, by women who may have called themselves feminists, but mainstream feminist thought prefers non-dominance relationships and supports free choice. >"Porn" and "obscenity" are in the eyes of the beholder. Porn is in the eyes of the beholder in that if it is specifically porn, rather than erotica, it is designed to appeal to only one sex, and may not be particularly appreciated by the other, exploited, sex. Obscenity is used freely on both the Well and in Whole Earth Review, and has never been seen as offensive enough to censor unless written by a woman. >There are no swastikas on the Well. > >Mark, do you care to elaborate on the swastikas? If you are going to make >such sensationalist claims, you should be backing them up with facts. > Yes, the Well and the Whole Earth Review are both edited by Kevin Kelly. In pulling my password for offensiveness, it was obvious that there were others more offensive than I who did not have their passwords pulled. But Kevin had published swastikas in the Whole Earth Review, and in an editorial, said that they did it to celebrate free speech--to show that they will even publish things that they might personally find offensive. My question is why Kevin finds swastikas less offensive, and therefore within the realm of free speech, than feminism or egalitarianism, which do not seem to meet Kevin's criteria. >>The Well got its hardware from tax exempt entities called NETI and Point >>Foundation. > >The Well got its hardware and software from NETI, a for-profit corporation. >They did this as an investment, as you may have expected. > And what is NETI'S connection with SEVA? Is the Point Foundation, which was said to own half the Well, also a for-profit? NETI, according to some financial statements in the Whole Earth Review, was pouring $30K-$90K per quarter into the Well, which was getting at least $10K/month in user fees and never showed a profit. Is NETI now prepared to write all that off? I heard that nobody working for at their Sausalito offices (Well, Whole Earth Review, Point Foundation) makes more than about $700/month. There don't seem to be any fees that weren't passed on to the customers. Would a management person with all three entities get three $700 salaries per month? >>[...] and probably got a free newsfeed. > >There are very few sites in the USA that have to pay their neighbour to give >them a newsfeed, if any. [This is, of course, not counting phone bills] Are you saying that the Well didn't pay anyone for their newsfeed? I can understand supplying a feed to somebody who isn't going to profit from it, and will help bear the expense, without asking anything in return, but if I knew it were going to somebody who intended to resell it at a profit, I might consider some consideration. >-- >Andrew Scott Beals, {lll-crg,decwrl,allegra}!amdcad!bandy +1 408 749 3683 > From original header: >Keywords: Mark Smith, People's Park, lies I haven't told any lies. Some people have been telling lies about me, that they claim to have learned on the Well in a private conference. I am still trying to find a way to resolve this without legal action. And what about People's Park? I was in Afghanistan when the People's Park riots occurred, not in Berkeley. Is that supposed to be some kind of smear, bandy? Due to the large number of rapists, convicted murderers, pimps, pornographers, and other exploitive sociopaths, I wouldn't set foot in People's Park. One of the former sysops (their term) was associated with the Free Speech movement in Berkeley, and quit the Well about the time they decided to abridge my freedom of speech on the Well, but I don't think that person has hung out in People's Park since the 60's, due to job and family obligations. What was the reference about, bandy? --Mark