The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/g/giwer.matt/1994/giwer_debate_9411


««■■ R_9411 ■■»»
+++■■■■■ r_941102 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2283)
To:      All                                    30 Oct 94 12:54:00
Subject: SUPREME INDECISION, TW 01              

                     Supreme Indecision, Two
                               by
                           Matt Giwer (c) 1994 

     Now let us compare the intent and purpose of the
Constitution with the Supreme Court's actions regarding it.  The
Constitution was a specific and limited delegation of powers to
the federal government.  It was those powers and none other that
were listed within the Constitution.  The 10th reiterates that
intent for those who are too dull to understand those intentions.
     Beyond those listed powers the government has none.  The
retained rights of the people are all of the rest without need of
being listed.  The retained powers and rights of the people are
simply "all the rest."
     Thus the Supreme Court has only the power to deal with those
specifically delegated powers if the law in question addresses a
delegated power.  If the law does not address a delegated power
then it has only the power to declare it unconstitutional, that
is, that that law addresses a power not delegated to the federal
government.
     Rather what happens is that the Supreme Court has taken the
trend to strike down laws by finding the unlisted rights
mentioned in the 10th amendment.  Thus the question of the people
having a right to privacy is not relevant.  What is relevant is
that the government was not delegated the power to regulate
privacy.  The government was not given the power to determine
what is and is not a private matter.
     The point to this distinction is that in taking upon itself
the power to determine just what the unlisted rights are it also
takes the power to define and limit them.  In this manner it acts
specifically contrary to the 10th Amendment.
     The problem with the courts determining our unlisted rights
is that once having done so it is easily held that if the courts
can not find such an unlisted right then it does not exist.  How
one can find an unlisted right is beyond me.  Further there is
the tendency to try to find every known right in some manner
force fit into the Bill of Rights.  The very term Bill of Rights
is a misnomer in that it is a Bill of Prohibitions specifying
exactly what the government can not do.
     As such the courts are prohibited from determining just what
those unlisted rights are or what their form might be.  The
people are not obligated to formulate specific rights that are to
be excluded from the jurisdiction of the courts.  Simply, if the
government is not delegated a power then the court can not
adjudicate it.  The court can only find that a law addresses some
matter that was not delegated and is therefore null and void.
     Argumentation such as "the court has held it has the power
to" deal with some subject or other is also void.  The court can
not hold they can deal with an undelegated power or an unlisted
right.  But as we have seen the country is on such a legalistic
trip that it holds the courts to be sovereign and the Supreme
Court the final arbiter without recourse.  Clearly this was not
the intention of the Constitution.
     Was we find in Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution

2. In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and
consuls, and those in which a State shall be a party, the Supreme
Court shall have original jurisdiction.  In all the other cases
before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate
jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions and
under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

     Noting here that Congress has the power to except matters
from the jurisdiction of the federal courts.  There also the
power the make general and sweeping guidelines for the actions of
the courts.  Thus it is possible to establish put into law the
specific exclusion of dealing with anything beyond the enumerated
powers.
     It is further possible to ask the court to rule upon the
limits of its own powers however futile that may appear.  And the
futility is the problem.
     We have a government which has evolved into a usurpation of
every unlisted power and right and which works to narrow the
specific prohibitions within the Bill of Rights.  And we have a
national attitude holding the findings of the Supreme Court to be
the same as stone tablets being handed down from the Mount.  Yes
we may disagree profoundly with its findings but also we accept
its findings as immutable without recourse save back through the
same court system.
     This is an attitude that must cease if we are to get the
government back under control.  We object to aspects of the
government's intrusion upon our lives but if the Supreme Court
holds it is somehow a delegated power without being able to quote
from the Constitution we let it stand.  And since the courts are
. 
Continued in the next message...

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10h
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

+++■■■■■ r_941104 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2284)
To:      All                                    30 Oct 94 23:33:00
Subject: HANDGUN BAN                            

BS>  I call your attention to the New York Times, Sunday 23 Oct 
BS>  94, an article "A History of Homicide Surprises the 
BS>  Experts".  I got it in the National Edition printed in 
BS>  Chicago.  I haven't read it yet, but there is a barchart 
BS>  "The Dips and Surges in New York City Homicide Rates".
BS> 
BS>  What is interesting is an apparent surge in homicides 
BS>  starting about 1928 and not settling down until about 1936.  
BS>  By about 1933 the rate was about 50% higher than in 1927, 
BS>  and by 1937 it was back down to the 1927 level.
BS> 
BS>  Was this due to the Great Depression?
BS> 
BS>  The reason I bring it up is that people are always saying 
BS>  that if unemployment and poverty are causes of crime, why 
BS>  didn't we have a hell of a lot of it in the Depression.  
BS>  Well it would seem we did.  Nothing in comparison with 
BS>  today, of course.

     Part of this is false history.  The stock market crash was 
in 1929 so the 1927 baseline is two years off to start.  Next the 
bank failures which caused the real unemployment problems did not 
start seriously until 1931 and not in full swing until 1932 when 
it went to real shit and got FDR in office.  This is not to say 
there was none in 1930 (after all it happened in October, 1929) 
but things happened much more slowly in those days.  Companies 
did not plan ahead an lay off in advance to keep afloat which was 
part of the problem.

     At the tail end the Depression did not end until around 1939 
or 1940 (take your pick) when the US became arms dealer to Europe 
for WW II.

     Thus the dates really coincide with not much of anything 
other than approximately the right decade.  I am reasonably 
certain there were other decades of similar deviance for 
arbitrary begin and end years.  More particularly 1930 to 1940 
would be a more interesting range to compare and 1931 to 1940 
more accurate to my reading of history.  Your reading may vary.

     On the other hand, and I do not have the data at hand, 
homicide was a rather uncommon crime in those days as compared to 
today.  If the data talks about nationwide numbers Chicago 
(Capone and his problems running the Mafia there) alone could 
have tilted them.  Not 50% but certainly it would have made a 
noticeable difference.  

     Today's crime is most easily explained by the baby boom 
after WW II.  Crimes of interest to the statistics are most 
commonly committed by young males.  Yes, the actual "juvenile 
delinquents" started long before the boomers were of crime age but 
if you look at their "crimes" you will not be particularly 
impressed.  West Side Story was considered a reasonable depiction 
of the "worst" of juvenile delinquency in its time.  Trust me, it 
was, believe it or not.  The complaint at the time was the old 
one, that it glorified crime.

     Thus when the boom was coming of crime age (16-28), funny 
thing, crime increased.  Another funny thing, crime has been 
going down for the last 8-10 years and guess when the "boom" 
ended?  Take the years for first born to last born boomer being 
about ten years and you have a period of 22 years more or less.  
And since we are talking roughly mid 60s to mid 80s we have a 
fair correlation.

     We have a residual problem with very young kids having 
become part of violent crime but then anyone who has even a 
nodding acquaintance with the works of Dickens will hardly 
consider this a uniquely American problem.  Being a pickpocket, 
Oliver Twist, may not have been murder but it was a capital 
offense.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * We are here to help you, Jude, I mean Mr. Koresh.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10h
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2289)
To:      Jim Sterling                           31 Oct 94 00:34:00
Subject: 1ST-SPEECH                             

JS>  MG>       One can also judo those who hold against the 2nd by 
JS>  MG>  noting protecting the militia while denying guns is the 
JS>  MG>  same and protecting the press while denying printing 
JS>  MG>  presses.  But then, they are immune to reason.

JS>  I like mine better, to wit:
JS> 
JS>   AMENDMENT II-b
JS> 
JS>  A well-understood press being necessary to the security of 
JS>  a free state, the right of the people to learn and use 
JS>  words shall not be infringed.

     AND ...

     the ability of liberals to read plain english shall be 
imputed.

JS>  AMENDMENT II-c
JS> 
JS>  A well-informed legislature being necessary to the security 
JS>  of a free state, the right of the people to a good 
JS>  education shall not be infringed.

     AND ...

     the ability of liberals to learn shall be imputed.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * I am not a number.  I am a free man.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10h
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2290)
To:      Shane Gouseman                         31 Oct 94 00:39:00
Subject: A FACE ON AIDS II                      

SG> MG>       He WORKS as a volunteer for the Tampa AIDS Network.  
SG> MG>  Note he is healthy enough to work and he lives on welfare 
SG> MG>  and medical benefits.

SG>    You neglected to mention, how long he volunteers.  Is he 
SG>  there for a limited amount of time per day.  What sort of 
SG>  work does he do?  Clarical? Answer phones?

     To quote from what I posted

     =====

     I have two pictures of Herman Easter one from mid 1993 and
the other from 20 October 1993.  The earliest is smiling and
could have any time in his past.  The latter is of him speaking
before an eighth grade class at St. Mary's Episcopal Day School.
I assure you he shows no signs of any disease or illness.

     =====

     I do not know how I could have stated it more clearly.

SG> MG>   Note he has not the slightest sign of any disease.  Note 
SG> MG>  that some time in the three years between 1990 and 1993 he 
SG> MG>  went on welfare, i.e.  ceased productive work.

SG>   Maybe, he didn't have a choice?

     One has to apply and without any disease, only HIV+, that 
means exactly what I said it means.

SG> MG>       This is what I said.  A perfectly health working 
SG> MG>  volunteer gets all welfare and medical benefits the federal 
SG> MG>  and state programs allow simply by showing up and saying 
SG> MG>  HIV+.

SG>    Because someone appears to be "perfectly healthy" doesn't 
SG>  mean that they are.  It seems to me that the guy in the 
SG>  above example, is a person who is trying to pay back for 
SG>  the benefits that he recieves, by volunteering at the AIDS 
SG>  network and going out and talking to kids in schools about 
SG>  the disease that he has.
SG> 
SG>    It also seems to me, that this guy is helping to prevent 
SG>  others from getting this disease, and there-for preventing 
SG>  others from having to get welfare.

     Try reading what I write next time.  If you need a Xerox of 
the article let me know and I will give you an address to send 
an SASE.

SG> MG>   A 93 year old woman barely able to take care of herself 
SG> MG>  and wanting desperately to stay out of a nursing home gets 
SG> MG>  next to nothing and qualified for nothing.

SG>     Seems to me, she must have a financial nest egg that she 
SG>  should be using to support herself.  Alice, should qualify 
SG>  for some other assistance like social security.  There are 
SG>  many programs that help people who are financial trouble.

     Seems to me you did no read what was reported in the press.  
However, if you have contacted her and determined your 
assumptions are correct, please so state.

SG> MG>       Is there any wonder why we are reading that young gays 
SG> MG>  are not using any form of protection?

SG>    Didn't Herman get AIDS from needle sharing?

     I agree, that was his claim.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * My incoming messages have the right of way.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10h
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2291)
To:      Lou Skimming                           31 Oct 94 00:48:00
Subject: ASTRONOMERS ANTI-CHRIST?               

LS>  It is obvious you have read all the wrong books.  Were God 
LS>  not a trinity it would not be so important for you Masons 
LS>  to destroy this knowledge.  I really do not care what 
LS>  twisted beliefs you hold.  You see I am not a Pat Robertson 
LS>  "Christian." None of your Mason friends hold influence over 
LS>  me, thus you can not force me to accept your twisted 
LS>  concept of what is real.  Your brother Carroll Quigley has 
LS>  further testified to your twisted concept of your perfict 
LS>  world.  I know the living God has no place in your sick idea 
LS>  of what is to come.  I fear you not, you have no power over 
LS>  me.  Thus you are free to spread any false doctrine you care 
LS>  to, the educated and the elect will not be effected.  As for 
LS>  the rest, who cares?

     You have dared reveal I am a Mason?  

     You have to die, you know.

---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * I, Matthias Gloriosus, I, messager to 1000s, I am my ideal.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10h
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2292)
To:      Linda Terrell                          31 Oct 94 00:51:00
Subject: ASTRONOMERS ANTI-CHRIST?               

LT> MG>  Such insults are not permitted.  We will call upon your 
LT> MG>  family.  We are not a forgiving people.  May some god have 
LT> MG>  mercy upon them.

LT>         You are in rare form today!  Can I borrow this 
LT>  sometime to toss at some deserving and unenlightened fool?

     You are not permitted to steal 49th degree Mason 
condemnations.  If you do you will have to die also.

---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Sometimes the Middle Class must be destroyed to save it.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10h
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2293)
To:      Sandra Peake                           31 Oct 94 00:54:00
Subject: A MINOR ANALYSIS                       

     Although denial he died is hardly something any religion
would establish, there are other problems.

     Any religion that denies god has sperm is a false religion.
I will grant there are uterine hormonal problems that can turn a
female fetus into a sexually dysfunctional male but that is not a
true male.  One then has to speculate as to what genetic code was
used for the sperm.

     On one hand we have the most likely possibility, that it was
the sperm of god as he is called the son of god.  It is therefore
most likely the god who was his father is the god of Genesis who
was only different from humans in that he had the knowledge of
good and evil and the he lived forever -- as anyone who reads
Genesis will learn.

     The least likely case is that he created at least one male
sperm and mated that with Mary's egg.  This of course begs the
question as to what characteristics did he include in the genetic
code of that sperm.  This however would not make him the son of
god in a physical sense but rather in a spiritual sense.

     This second possibility is most troubling.  It means that
Jesus was in fact god who created either

     a) a genetically deficient fetus that was incapable of
consciousness

     or

     b) the consciousness of the fetus was destroyed so that the
body could be occupied by god

     or

     c) there were the original consciousness and god in the
mind at the same time and the original and natural one suppressed
until death.

     a) contradicts any concepts of perfection and in fact the
fetus was ipso facto not human.

     b) is certainly a power of a god but also the murder of an
innocent.

     c) is a case where a soul was never given its "test" upon
this earth and thus was forever prohibited from entering heaven
but such a life would certainly have driven it mad in any event.

     Given the consequences of the second possibility it appears
most reasonable and in concert with Genesis that the god he was
the son of is in fact the one that only differs from humans at
the moment in that it lives forever.

     Rising again presents problems along with these 
possibilities.  The first offers the least problems while the 
second has an imperfect body or a stolen body living in heaven. 
With the 2nd possibility it asks whether the native soul for the 
body also rose again and experience the post resurrection events.

     Again the human form of the god of Genesis and the prophets 
and of Moses and the father of Jesus appears the most likely.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * I didn't make this world. I only brought it to its knees.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10h
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2294)
To:      Jim Salter                             31 Oct 94 02:53:00
Subject: 1ST-RELIGION                           

JS>         So where are the ATHEIST's tax breaks?

     You never heard of the First Church of Scientology?



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Any answer over three words is no.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10h
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2295)
To:      Michael Pilon                          31 Oct 94 02:59:00
Subject: 70% FAVOUR GUN CONTRO                  

MP>  I think the same applies here as guns have never been a 
MP>  part of our history.  We have had a couple of shootings in 
MP>  Canada this past week so a poll now would certainly be 
MP>  heavily biased.  There was a botched robbery in a small 
MP>  peaceful town, five people were shot..non killed.  

     That would be the same as 50 people shot in the US, per 
capita, that is.

In 
MP>  another a 27 year old "Mature" student shot 2 cousellors 
MP>  and again no one dies, 

     Per capita equal to 20 in the US.

there was also a drive by shooting 
MP>  with a small calibre gun in Winnipeg, 

     Again, equal to 10 in the US.

but the girl was 
MP>  released so it must have been a pelet gun..non the less it 
MP>  is becoming a big issue.  The Primeminister made a good 
MP>  point, register all guns period, we register all cars.  I 
MP>  agree with this !

     But then we probably had less than your per capita numbers 
in that week.  Want to go further?


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * If the gods do not listen, what good are they?

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10h
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2358)
To:      Bob Sillyheimer                         1 Nov 94 00:37:00
Subject: HIV PREVALENCE                         

BS> MG>      I would suggest you either did not see the raw data or 
BS> MG> they  were misinterpreted.  Fact is very simple, 90+% of all 
BS> MG> new  cases are either gay male of IV drug using male.  A 
BS> MG> much smaller  fraction is hetero female who h sex partners 
BS> MG> who are either  bisexual or IV drug using males.

BS>  I'm trying to locate an Internet or FIDO source for actual 
BS>  CDC data.  If I find it, then we'll start getting to the 
BS>  bottom of this.

     And if I get back on the MMWR mailing list I will post from 
th first issue covering it, fourth week of the month if I 
remember correctly.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Though I walk thru the valley, I am the meanest SOB.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10h
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2364)
To:      All                                     1 Nov 94 15:01:00
Subject: CAN STATES SECEDE?     01              

         Is Secession from the United States Permitted?
                               by
                           Matt Giwer (c) 1994 <11/1>

     The common consensus, the majority if you will, hold there
is no right for any state to secede from the United States.  Were
the majority ever right upon anything there might be some
position for the majority thinking.  But, as in the Civil War, it
was no different majority rule or rather victor's justice.
     When one looks to see if something is permitted or not, one
looks for previous examples and the closer the match to the issue
at hand the better.  Thus we consider the post Revolutionary War
colonies and the Articles of Confederation.
     Two years before the end of the Revolutionary War the 1781
Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation.  Four
times the Articles stated it would exist in perpetuity it lasted
only eight years from 1781 to 1789.
     But in ending in 1789 it required the states to withdraw
from the binding, perpetual agreement of the Articles of
Confederation.  There was no objection, no war, no animosity save
perhaps at town meetings at local public houses.  Contrast this
to the Civil war.
     The Constitution of the United States is silent upon how
long it would be in effect.  The only implication of a time limit
was to prohibit amendments that would effect the slavery question
until 1808.  There is a statement of the requirements for the
Constitution to be ratified but not that upon ratification it
would be binding upon all of the states, rather only that it
would come into effect.  It in no manner abolished the Articles
of Confederation nor the alliance formed by it.
     Further, there was the inclusion of the 10th Amendment
specifically reserving to the states and the people the
undelegated powers to the states and the people.  It would appear
since secession was not mentioned that it was a power reserved
to the states as the ratification of the Constitution was by the
states rather than to the people by popular referendum.
     So what was the difference?  The Confederate States fired upon
the federal Ft. Sumpter in South Carolina, the first state to
secede.  What is rarely mentioned is that secession began four
months earlier and had a functioning government for three months
prior to Ft. Sumpter.  It was only after the shooting started
that Lincoln ordered the blockade of southern ports and the
raising of an army and when that happened four additional states
including Virginia seceded to complete the Confederacy.
     The constitutional authority to respond with force comes
from the Article III. Section 3. definition of treason that of
"levying war against them."  Had that been avoided there would
have been no basis for a military response to the creation of the
Confederacy.
     It is clear that both the ratification of the US
Constitution and the formation of the Confederacy followed the
essentially the same paths save for the initiation of
hostilities.  Thus we have the "secession rights" decision having
been "settled" by military force.
     But to take it one step further, the victors held it was not
a war of secession at all but rather a civil war within the
nation rather than the Confederate holding that it was a war
between the states.  The distinction is simply that the north did
not recognize secession in the first place although it did
nothing to respond to the secession and the formation of a new
government until after the initiation of hostilities.
     It would at first appear that any state(s) has the reserved
power of secession if the state simply avoids initiating
hostilities.  Even federal laws clearly hold that for the federal
government to interfere within a state that it must be at the
request of the state.  The only constitutional pretext for
intervention is to preserve a republican form of government
within the states.
     There exists only one annoying precedent in this matter, the
intervention of federal troops into the desegregation issue in
Alabama without the request of the governor who was in fact
leading the issue.  This would be under the doctrine of
protection of the rights of the people under the 14th amendment.
It would appear that in secession a state must also avoid denying
the citizens of the state the benefits deriving from the Federal
government.
     This would appear to apply to not stopping social security
payments and the like but there appears a great silence on
whether the citizens of the state(s) in secession would be
required to pay for such benefits.  It does not appear this would
be sufficient for the federal government initiate hostilities.
     Hostilities would obviously consist of taking over the
mechanism of the government of the state but that would be
denying the citizens of the state a republican form of
. 
Continued in the next message...

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10h
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

+++■■■■■ r_941105 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2484)
To:      All                                     2 Nov 94 10:53:00
Subject: PROP 187 G.F. WILL     01              

Court worsened burden of illegal immigration

by George F. Will

WASHINGTON  - Justice William Brennan, asked if he regretted any 
decision he rendered during his 34 years on the Supreme Court, 
replied, "Hell no, I never thought that I was wrong."  And he 
always ways thought he had a right to impose social policies he 
considered right.  Today's national debate about California's 
Proposition 187, which would deny free public education and some 
other non-emergency public services to illegal Immigrants, arises 
from damage done by Brennan's, and the court's, hubris.  

     In 1982 the court narrowly (5-4) over turned a Texas statute 
denying free public educatIon to illegal immigrants. The majority 
opinion, wrItten by Brennan and joined by Marshall, Powell, 
Blackmun and Stevens, extended the 14th Amendment's guarantee of 
"equal protection of the laws" to people seeking entitlements 
from a state In which their presence was illegal.

     Brennan argued that Texas' statute was unfair because 
Illegal immigrant minors are not responsible for where they are, 
that the law was bad social policy because it might produce an 
underclass, and that therefore the law was unconstitutional. This 
is the familiar non sequitur by which imperial judges turn courts 
into legislatures: whatever the judges deem unfair or unwise must 
be unconstitutional.

     Chief Justice Burger, dissenting and joined by White, 
Rehnquist and O'Connor, noted that "the court makes no attempt to 
disguise the fact that it is acting to make up for Congress' lack 
of 'effective leadership'" regarding immigration.  The court, he 
said, was yet again attempting "speedy and wholesale formulation 
of 'remedies' for the failures - or simply the laggard pace - of 
the political processes of our system of government."

     Brennan did acknowledge that "courts must be attentive to 
congressional policy... [which] might well affect the state's 
prerogatives to afford differential treatment to a particular 
class of aliens." But he was inattentive.  By 1982 Congress had 
made its thinking clear through laws barring illegal aliens from 
Supplemental Security Income and Aid to Families with Dependent 
Children. In 1986, Congress did the same regarding nonemergency 
Medicaid services.

     In 1990 Congress created "Temporary Protected Status" for 
legal or illegal aliens unable to return home because of 
circumstances such as civil disorder.  Congress doing something 
like what PropositIon 187 would do, said people with this status 
are ineligible for most federal benefits.  And this year, in 
providing disaster relief for California, Congress excluded 
illegal aliens from almost all benefits.

     The 1982 decision was part of a pattern of judicial 
usurpations of state and local responsibilities. These 
usurpations have involved courts supplanting democratic 
institutions in formulating policies concerning pornography, 
capital punishment, administration of prisons and mental health 
facilities and public housing, abortion, school financing, 
Christmas displays and many other matters.  Yet critics of 
Proposition 187, which is designed to force the Supreme Court to 
reconsider Its 1982 usurpation regarding policy toward illegal 
immigrants, seem scandalized that Californians are trying to 
reclaim a right of self-determination.

     Critics who denounce Proposition 187 as "immigrant bashing" 
miss a point that evidently is not missed by the approximately 50 
percent of California's Hispanics who support it:  Proposition 
187 concerns not what national immigration policy should be, but 
what state policy should be regarding violators of whatever the 
national law Is.

     Critics of Proposition 187 say, correctly, that government 
by initiative undermines representative government, under which 
the people do not decide issues; they decide who shall decide. 
However, many critics of Proposition 187 are unoffended by 
another subvention of representative government: judicial 
policy-making.  There probably would be no Proposition 187 If 
elected officials, in Washington and Sacramento, had not been 
corrupted by the culture of judicial activism and been delighted, 
as the political class often is, to allow a court to take custody 
of an inconvenient problem.

     When Brennan discovered a new sweep for the 14th Amendment, 
the amendment was 114 years old.  When it was ratified, and for 
. 
Continued in the next message...

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10h
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2485)
To:      All                                     2 Nov 94 10:58:00
Subject: ROYKO:  CYBERCREEPS    01              

Information superhighway crawling with sex creeps

by

MIKE ROYKO

The home computer industry is booming.  And a female friend who 
has spent time on the information  superhighway believes she has 
discovered a reason for its sudden popularity.

"Based on my experience  and  those  of some friends," she said, 
"the computer world appeals to a significant segment of the male 
population.  They are the creeps.  Or maybe in the computer 
world, they should be called 'cybercreeps,' "

     The cybercreep, as she described him, is a person who uses 
his computer and phone to connect to commercial on-line message 
services or the vast Internet.

     Then he hides behind a phony name - "his handle" - and says 
things that would - probably get him punched In the face or or 
arrested if he said them to someone in a public place.

     He Is a high-tech version of a flasher or a telephone 
breather - the Chester the Molester of the l990s.

     "I'm used to it now," says Patricia, the cybercreep expert.  
"But when it first start ed happening, I thought: 'Wow, this is 
sort of like the Tailhook thing without the pinch marks.'

     "As soon as they spot the handle of a woman, it starts.  The 
other night I got a message that said: 'Hi, babe, want to talk 
about sex, straight, oral, whatever you like?'

     "In my entire life, I've never run into anyone in a bar or 
anyplace else who has introduced himself that way."

     Of course not.  If a stranger walked into a neighborhood 
tavern and went up to the nearest female and said: "Hi, babe, 
want to talk about sex, straight, oral, whatever you like?" it's 
possible that those men of the noncreep persuasion might react 
chivalrously by knocking him down and jumping on his chest.

     But while sitting in the privacy of his home, the cybercreep 
can send off any message that emerges from the woolly 
caterpillars nesting in his brain.

     "I had one guy send me a message asking if I had any 
clothes on," Patricia said.  "He wrote: 'I don't.  Want me to 
describe myself?  You'll be impressed.'"

     "I believed him.  Not about being impressed, but about 
sitting there naked.  I could lust see him, some lonely guy with 
no chin and a flabby body like bread dough, sitting there with 
old copies of Hustler and Playmate stacked up around him.

     "Or maybe he's married and his wife went to bed and he said 
he is going to stay up In his den and work on some stuff he 
brought home from the office.  Then he sits there looking for 
someone like me so he can breathe real hard.

     "Really, ask any woman who goes on line where people don't 
have to use real names.  If they use a handle that indicates they 
are women, the cybercreeps come out like a swarm of horny 
insects.

     "So If I want to go on for a serious conversation, 
information, or even for fun, I use a handle that makes it sound 
like I'm a man.  And an old man, because if you use one that 
makes you sound like you are a young guy, maybe attractive, you 
might get hit on by some other young guy.  It can really be a zoo 
out there."

     Actually, I'm not sure if that is an entirely bad thing.

     Consider that there are well over 250 million people in this 
country.  It Is inevitable that several million of them will be 
creeps of one kind or another.  Mother Nature, a prankster at 
times, seems to want it that way.  

     It is essential for a creep to express himself.  Ask any 
shrink.  So the computer provides those millions of creeps who are 
illiterate with a relatively harmless way of expressing their 
creepiness.    

. 
Continued in the next message...

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10h
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2497)
To:      Michael Pilon                           2 Nov 94 15:39:00
Subject: HAMMER AND NAIL                        

MP>  MG> Government

MP>  MG>  When the only tool you have is passing laws, everyone looks 
MP>  MG>  like a criminal.

MP>  Such as food standards, medical standards, highway safety, 
MP>  air traffic standards etc...  Only those guilty of not 
MP>  meeting standards would qualify.  I for one am glad that for 
MP>  instance there is a quality standard on medical supplies.

     In comparison, gun manufacturers maintain quality standards 
on guns.  There is no excuse of "complied with government 
standards," i.e. found a loophole, that lets anyone off of the 
hook.  In fact it is a matter of professionalism and peer review 
and NOT showing a government certificate that keeps junk off of 
the market.

     Question:  Who invented the idea of product recall? 

     Hint:  See above


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Sleeping one mat; awake half a mat; three bowls for rice.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10h
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2498)
To:      All                                     2 Nov 94 16:56:00
Subject: CRIMINAL ALIENS        01              

                  Payment for Federal Criminals
                               by
                           Matt Giwer (c) 1994 <11/2>

     Proposition 187 in California is hardly more than than a
blip in the real confrontation we are facing with the federal
government.  This referendum is to end the federal government's
forcing the states to provide state welfare benefits to people in
violation of federal law, specifically illegal aliens.  As states
can not establish immigration laws nor enforce the federal laws,
the states are acting at the mandated will of the federal
government to give benefits to violators of federal law.
     This is in no way different from mandating the states
provide all state benefits to federal prisoners housed within
the states.  Think of the money it would save the federal
government were all federal prisoners to be put on medicaid.
Consider the savings from having their "housing" subsidized by
rent supplements.  And were prisoners to give food stamps to
prisoners it would save the federal government enormous amounts
of money.
     And in requiring states to give benefits to aliens in
violation of federal law the federal government is acting no
differently.  It is also no different from requiring the states
to provide defense attorney's to those indicted for federal
crimes when the trial is to be in their state.  Not only that but
while we are at it, why not require the states to provide
suitable and free housing for those arrested for federal crimes
in those states?
     The issue here is very clear.  The states are being required
to pay people, support people, provide near eternal benefits to
people who are in direct violation of federal law.  It is not as
though we are talking about drug smugglers who could simply be
arrested and put away at government expense.  These are violators
who are permitted to continue to live in the country at mandated
state expense.
     Of course some of them do work for a living and pay sales
tax and all the other direct and hidden taxes of the states but
then if those are mitigating factors why does it not mitigate the
sentence of those who take a few shots at the president?  You and
I certainly do our best to avoid violating federal law and we do
not justify doing so by saying we pay state taxes.  Yet that
"defense" has been presented on more than one news report.
     This issue goes beyond California.  Florida was the first
and then joined by California and Texas in suing the federal
government for the cost of supporting these violators of federal
law.  It was only in late September this year that US District
Judge Edward Davis held the case could go to trial.  Florida
argues forcing Florida to pay for the health and education
expenses of those in violation of federal law is the same as
"commandeering the state's resources."  "The abdication by the
United States of its policy has unleashed a flood of undocumented
aliens upon this state, and the state has to deal with them
because they're here."
     The best response the federal government could come up with
was, blaming the Immigration and Naturalization Service because
some illegal immigrants escape detection is akin to blaming the
police for not catching every criminal.  This simply ignores the
is not of catching them but paying for those who are known to be
in violation of federal law and to whom the federal government
will do nothing much less send them back where they came from.
     But does not "sending them back where they came from" sound
a bit racist?  Perhaps, but a completely non-racist sounding
statement is to put them in prison for ten years or so as a
penalty for violating our immigration laws.  Let those whose
hearts bleed take their choice of penalties but remember, their
children will still be sent back without parents.
     There are serious reasons to accept the concept of nations
without borders worldwide and I accept them completely.  What I
do not accept is the extension of the social safety net to
non-citizens.  That is primarily as I am against the social
safety net in the first place but if it exists then there must be
limits to it.  Without such limits we have the classic example of
migration between the states of the United States where people
will move for the best welfare benefits.
     The only social benefit the US was founded upon was
opportunity not medical care -- medical care the current
administration says middle class working Americans can not
afford.  The US was certainly not founded upon free education in
the language of one's parents particularly when those parents are
in criminal violation of federal law.
     No matter how the heart bleeds for the children their
parents are unindicted federal felons toward whom the federal
government has taken a "catch as catch can" attitude toward
prosecuting and the penalty for being caught it deportation not
. 
Continued in the next message...

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10h
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

+++■■■■■ r_941109 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2420)
To:      Jack Butler                             6 Nov 94 01:17:00
Subject: 'THE BELL CURVE'                       

JB>  MG> Lets take this to Politics if it gets off topic.

JB>       This is a debate echo, Matt.  I seem to remember an 
JB>  argument we had a while ago about who made the best fast 
JB>  food cheeseburger...  if *that* was on-topic, how could this 
JB>  not be?

     I copied this message from the Science conference (I think) 
just to give the recipient a marker on his BBS for message 
waiting.  Copied to politics also.  This bell curve thing is 
going to mesh science and politics real fast and at least piss 
off the science-type conference moderators.  Not that that 
bothers me but when I do not intend to do so I should make it 
obvious.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Child abuse experts do not reproduce.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2421)
To:      All                                     6 Nov 94 02:11:00
Subject: A DISHONEST STATEMENT                  

     I agree it was a cheap trick, posting a Hitler maybe not 
even real quote in place of a Clinton quote.  Then of course 
posting the real Clinton quote after everyone insisted it was a 
Hitler quote.

     OK.  You got me.  I lied.  I faked it.  I cheated.

     But was I wrong?


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * It is better to be tried by twelve than carried by six.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2422)
To:      All                                     6 Nov 94 02:30:00
Subject: WHITE HOUSE ATTACK                     

     Godfather II

     If history has taught us anything it is that anyone can be 
killed.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * If you wish peace, prepare for war.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2423)
To:      All                                     6 Nov 94 02:46:00
Subject: GUN CONTROL                            

CM> >  Only because you haven't been abused by seeing Rex's 
CM> >  theory.  That theory is that ALL guns and their owners 
CM> >  should be banned.  To Rex, possession of any firearm is 
CM> >  criminal, no matter WHO you are.

CM>  It just amazes me that one cannot seem to realize the 
CM>  simple facts that if all guns were banned, the law abiding 
CM>  citizens would turn them in.  

     But we will not.  Save for the grandfather clause in the 
1994 crime bill there would be 12 million federal criminals right 
now.  And they would not be guaranteed welfare benefits as though 
they were Mexican.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Intruder?  Shoot first, then talk.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2424)
To:      All                                     6 Nov 94 03:43:00
Subject: 40% = 60% DEAD                         

                         Women in Combat
                               by
                           Matt Giwer (c) 1994 <11/5>

     Let us put this straight up front.  I do not not like the
idea of the subject of this message, period, over, out.
     With that out of the way we have to discuss what is
currently the military standard for women.  That standard is 40%
of the standard for men.
     NO!
     I am not interested in discussing the details.  I am not
interested in anything related to the matter other than war.
     War takes no prisoners.  War makes no distinction between
sexes.  The female force is in fact 40% capable against a 100%
capable enemy.  Enough said.
     Why?  To get women killed is the only justification I can
find.  If the point of the feminist movement is to create female
heroines then I would rather have live ones than dead ones.
     I frankly like my women alive and I also like them taking
care of my children and hopefully our children.  Women are nice
people to have around.  Enough sarcasm?
     If they really are capable to the same standards as the
enemy, not to us, but the enemy then let them win their combat
kills.
     But in no way send them into combat being only 40% qualified
against the enemy.
     There being the point.  In no way has any combat experience
been against the 40% training.  Reality is always against the
100% enemy.
     Is this really intended to send women to the slaughter?
     If not, tell me the difference.

                            * * * * *

        Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

    P.O. Box 82541, Tampa, Florida, 33682-2541, 813-969-0362

                  [note new address and phone]



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * BATF Motto "Let God sort out the innocent!"

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2425)
To:      Lester Garrett                          6 Nov 94 06:16:00
Subject: CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY                    

LG>  Care to comment on this one?  I am especially concerned 
LG>  about the fact that, according to the syllabus' summary, 
LG>  "In order to establish a violation of 846, the Government 
LG>  need not prove the commission of any overt acts in 
LG>  furtherance of the conspiracy."  And that finding a 
LG>  criminal conspiracy "'does not make the doing of any act 
LG>  other than the act of conspiring a condition of liability.  
LG>  .  .."  Despite the assertion by Justice O'Connor, is this 
LG>  not awfully close to making it too bloody easy to 
LG>  criminalize speech?

     Consult your local militia.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Matt Giwer, brought to you by the 2nd Amendement.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2439)
To:      Michael Bryant                          7 Nov 94 02:05:00
Subject: EVOLUTION HOAX                         

MB>  MB>         These questions come from Dr. Kent Hovind
MB>  MB>                                   29 Cummings Road
MB>  MB>                                   Pensacola, Fl. 32503
MB>  MB>                                   (904) 479-8987

MB>  MG>  Which only goes to show he is an ignorant ass hole who has 
MB>  MG>  not done his own research.  Must be another Doctor of 
MB>  MG>  Philosophy or Education butting in to demonstrate his 
MB>  MG>  ignorance.

MB>          Are you brave enough to feel confident that you 
MB>          won't be debunked in a debate with Dr.  Hovind? Take 
MB>          the challenge..  prove your case, and get $10,000.  
MB>          Otherwise shut up, and keep believing in your hoax 
MB>          of evolution.  Don't talk about it, call and debate 
MB>          him.  You WILL be debunked fool.

     Where is the good doctor putting up or shutting up?  I am in 
the Tampa Bay area.  

     Please convey to him the challenge is accepted and I will be 
prepared to deal with him and his idiocy.  


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * The 1040, the Torah, the Torah I can read.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

+++■■■■■ r_941111 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2294)
To:      Michael Pilon                           8 Nov 94 00:48:00
Subject: 70% FAVOUR GUN CONTRO                  

MP>  MP>  heavily biased.  There was a botched robbery in a small
MP>  MP>  peaceful town, five people were shot..non killed.

MP>  MG> That would be the same as 50 people shot in the US, per
MP>  MG> capita, that is.

MP> WOuld a shooting in a small town get national coverage ?

     It always does.  That is why people think such crimes are so 
common.  Would you be interested in how many people who lives 
here were surprised Tampa is #4 in the country in violent crime?  
There is so much national coverage that crime "out there? seems 
much more common.  AND the local news does not give any 
particular coverage to Miami which is #1.

MP>  MP>  In another a 27 year old "Mature" student shot 2 cousellors 
MP>  MP>   and again no one dies,

MP>  MG> Per capita equal to 20 in the US.

MP> Again, it got national coverage.....

     The sensational always gets coverage here as I am certain it 
does in Canada.  And if there like here all kinds of local facts 
are left out even in the local coverage.  When was the last time 
(other than from me in this conference) that some 90+% of the 
murders in DC are druggies and drug dealers settling disputes?  
Does that not color matters a bit?  Miami in particular is still 
suffering from the Mariel crime wave plus drugs.  Tampa has drugs 
and a couple of the Far East mafias or at least imitators of 
their ways.  

     Does that make a difference to your thinking?  Then I would 
ask the background of the people committing the above Canadian 
murders.  As I have said to you but certainly to enough Canadians 
here, do you truly believe you personally would go on a crime 
spree if guns were readily available?  Of course not, although I 
have not phrased it as a question.  The just what segment of your 
society is now committing these crimes and for what reasons?

     Perhaps that botched robbery was to buy drugs OR the store 
owner was dealing and skimmed. I don't know but ending a botched 
robbery in a blaze of gunfire is not the act of people who have 
thought it through.  It attracts attention if nothing else.

MP>  MP>  there was also a drive by shooting with a small calibre gun 
MP>  MP>   in Winnipeg,

MP>  MG> Again, equal to 10 in the US.

MP> Did you only have 10 drive bys in the past year ?

     Probably about that many.  They are sensational.  They all 
make the news.  Folks have loved them since Capone invented them.  
They make great promo leads for the evening news particularly if 
more than one person is killed.  But then you mentioned shooting 
not killing.  

MP>  MG>  But then we probably had less than your per capita numbers 
MP>  MG>  in that week.  Want to go further?

MP>  196 were shot in Canada by hand guns last year from what I 
MP>  read in a current ECONOMIST, about 1/6 the per capita rate 
MP>  in the US.  But still too many.....

     Again, I have posted the gross comparison of the US and 
European countries and the "twin city" study of Vancouver / 
Seattle which demonstrates the crime problem is solely 
attributable to racial and ethnic minorities.  As I have 
demonstrated the problem is not guns.  It is minorities.  


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Eat anything that doesn't eat you first.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2295)
To:      Wayne Jones                             8 Nov 94 01:10:00
Subject: 70% FAVOUR GUN CONTR                   

WJ>  -=> Quoting Matt Giwer to Michael Pilon <=-

WJ>  MG> But then we probably had less than your per capita numbers
WJ>  MG> in that week.  Want to go further?

WJ>          Well the total that you had mentioned would be 
WJ>          eighty people shot in the USA that week, remember 
WJ>          shot not killed.  

     The rest of his message implies he was using shot when more 
correctly it should have been killed.  Note his "six times" 
reference which runs around 12,000 to the US which is about the 
handgun murder rate.  I believe I presumed correctly on this 
basis.

So have you added up the figures 
WJ>          yet.  Mabey we could start with all of the 
WJ>          shootings in the USA in one year and divide it by 
WJ>          52.  Tell us is that more than 80.  Want to go 
WJ>          further.  

     Certainly.  Want 30 million minority members?


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * The Stone Age is too good for them.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2296)
To:      Michael Pilon                           8 Nov 94 01:15:00
Subject: HAMMER AND NAIL                        

MP>  MG>  In comparison, gun manufacturers maintain quality standards 
MP>  MG>  on guns.  There is no excuse of "complied with government 
MP>  MG>  standards," i.e.  found a loophole, that lets anyone off of 
MP>  MG>  the hook.

MP>  DOn't you just hate it when the old Saturday night special 
MP>  lets you down at that Special Moment ;-(

     IF you have been following events in the US long enough you 
would know that term had NOTHING to do with reliability.  What 
you would know was that it referred to used guns and very good 
quality guns that were being imported.  You would also know the 
term was invented by Senator Howard Metzenbaum of Ohio in 
reference to the ragtime song Niggertown Saturday Night.  You 
would further know it was intended to price guns out of the reach 
of them "poor niggers."  

     The Black / Jewish hatred in this country is deep and it has 
been going on for a very long time.

MP>  MG>  In fact it is a matter of professionalism and peer review 
MP>  MG>  and NOT showing a government certificate that keeps junk 
MP>  MG>  off of the market.

MP>  In some cases no doubt.  But the world of electronics is a 
MP>  fine example where mass production at a cheap price is 
MP>  playing havoc with ham operators.  

     I believe we were discussing guns and NOT electronics.
     
MP>  It was my signal not his substandard stereo.

     When you find a "substandard" gun on the market, let the gun 
magazines know immediately.  They will be all over it like a 
cheap suit.  It does happen.  It also leads to near immediate 
review by the manufacturer and if correct a product recall.

MP>  MG> Question:  Who invented the idea of product recall?

MP>  There must be varying degrees of quality in guns, 

     The answer is, gun manufacturers.

I have no 
MP>  idea.  But if a gun misfires a lot it would be a know fact 
MP>  quite soon! 

     Good sir.  Before a gun is introduced to the market they are 
shipped to gun magazines, of which we must have at least 10 large 
circulation ones and I have no idea how many small ones.  They 
are reviewed quite carefully.  Generally they are fired on the 
order 1000 times, often as many as 5000 times as part of the 
review.  

     At this point I am thinking that a proper and complete 
answer to just your one sentence would require a very long 
message just to address all the points that are relevant.  But 
let me try to keep it as short as possible.

     Misfires per se are generally a problem with the cartridge 
not with the gun.  The more common related problem is with 
automatics and that is a "fail to feed" fault.  That is generally 
caused by the type of cartridge used.  Also when it is identified 
in the reviews (as those 1000+ cartridges are always of a 
sampling of the market for autos) that there is a problem with a 
certain type or types of cartridge it is corrected by the 
manufacturer.  

     And this "fix" is almost always something a local gunsmith 
can do.

     FURTHER, no rational person ever considers a gun to be a buy 
and use thing like a car.  It is standard procedure to take any 
gun to the range and firing whatever is planned to use in it 
before ever relying on it.  It is like test driving a car by 
renting the same model for a week before buying.

     Further, I did one time get a bad gun from Smith & Wesson 
but I did not get around to the range firing for a full year.  I 
took it back to the store with no receipt or anything and the 
store's gunsmith fixed it for free and billed S&W for the repair 
with the comment, "it should never have left the factory like 
that."

     That is the standard in the gun business.  And in line with 
the above there is no "mail in your warranty registration" 
nonsense.  Guns are warranted, period.  And in case you think 
there is a loophole, importers and their distributors act just 
like the standards of US manufacturers.  I frankly can not 
imagine any gun manufacturer having any other standard.

But if a video recorder has no capability to 
MP>  reject a radio signal only the parties involved would know.
MP> 
MP>  Sadly in Canada the ham has no protection.  In the US the 
MP>  FCC does have a more enlightened apporach, thank god for 
MP>  the sake of US hams....

     All other businesses would do well to follow the example of 
the gun industry.  But then who is willing to pay the extra for 
that kind of standard when the item is not intrinsically 
dangerous?  My Mauser HSc came with the factory test target.  US 
companies not not generally ship it with the gun but they all all 
test fired one way or another.  I some how do not think a much 
more dangerous thing in any way you look at it like a car is 
properly "tested" by driving it onto and off of the shipping 
trailer.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * "Bill and Al's Bogus Adventure."  DEMs '92

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2297)
To:      John Clifton                            8 Nov 94 01:47:00
Subject: SCHOOLS                                

JC> CT>            Are you suggesting that these abilities can only
JC> CT> be acquired in some formal setting?

JC> >     Not a formal setting per se as I know of none that deal
JC> > with teaching visualizations of rotations.

JC>      The "schools" likely don't teach visualizations of
JC> rotations because they don't know how to go about it and there
JC> isn't the discipline of a marketplace to make them do what is
JC> difficult or unpleasant for them.

     It difficult to imagine going to school to solve jigsaw 
puzzles but then it is a common and fun problem.  Taking things 
apart and putting them together is more commonly male than female 
while, when they were popular, jigsaw puzzles didn't have much 
sexual preference.  Were there tests in the popular days men and 
women should be equal on 2D but men better at 3D.  

     That is a guess but my son managed to get most or more of my 
IQ and he isn't worth shit physically assembling things but then 
when he was a kid there wasn't much to take apart.  For me, I 
took apart anything that got in my reach like a wind up clock.

     Yet, to take part of it back, (helps to at least look at the 
book) the book in question finds no difference in IQ results when 
they are "verbal and visual" and "visual only" and those visuals 
are usually rotations.

JC> > I knew one of those officially labeled attention deficit
JC> > disorder kids who was being "trained" to be an orderly who
JC> > could fix any bike he found.  The "school" never thought to
JC> > train him to do that.  It was too white collar oriented.

JC>      No doubt.  Why is it "white collar oriented?"  Because the
JC> folks who run schools are allowed to operate in a vacuum where
JC> the money keeps rolling in, regardless of how they perform.

     Actually it is one of the top "private" special schools in 
the DC area.  It would take a while to remember the name but I 
can give you directions ...  
     
     My point is that they just did not think in terms of 
traditional labor.  Hell, the kid might have had the talent to be 
a good machinist.  I mean I saw him after school with a bike in 
pretty bad condition and the next day riding it to deliver it.  
The kid was good at 17.

JC>      I'm sure I don't have to tell you the sort of reaction I
JC> get when I suggest to my colleagues that they take a look at the
JC> curriculum with regard to how well it prepares students for the
JC> workplace.  You'd think I was some fundy speaking in tongues.

     Quite well understood.  Everyone has to go to college and 
get an office job.  

     Of course consider the looks I got when I was at SofTech and 
said that I could teach programming in trade school.  


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * You only get six fouls per game.  Make them count.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2329)
To:      Michael Bryant                          8 Nov 94 20:23:00
Subject: EVOLUTION HOAX                         

MB>  LT>  We "believe" evolution happened and happens.  Just like 
MB>  LT>  creationists "believe" that "God" created it all then 
MB>  LT>  flooded it.

MB>          Then the theory of evolution is nothing more than a 
MB>          dream with no proof to it.  Thanks for answering the 
MB>          question.  Evolution is debunked.

     Rather, as Darwin held, if evolution did happen it explains 
many otherwise unexplainable things.  As creation can explain 
nothing of interest to anyone beyond childhood it is certainly a 
more useful concept.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 *                I come in peace.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2330)
To:      Michael Bryant                          8 Nov 94 20:27:00
Subject: EVOLUTION HOAX                         

MB>  I have some questions that I would like for the believers 
MB>  in the Theory of Evolution to answer for me.

MB> 1) Where did the space for the universe come from?

     This is not relevant to evolution.

MB> 2) Where did matter come from?

     From energy.

MB> 3) Where did the laws of the universe come from?

     There are none.  There is only our perception of things.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Do you expect the poor to hire you?

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2331)
To:      Michael Bryant                          8 Nov 94 20:29:00
Subject: EVOLUTION HOAX                         

MB>  4) How did matter get so perfectly organized?

     What organized?  It fell into place.  Condos on the first 
day of creation would have been impressive, not spheres that did 
no more than fall together.

MB>  5) Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

     Energy was lost when things fell together.  That is a 
concept in physics going back over 200 years.  Where have you 
been?  Reading a bible?

MB>  6) When, where, why and how did life come from dead matter?

     In 4004 BC on a Fall afternoon.  You want me to tell you 
next how the elephant got his trunk?

MB>  7) When, where, why and how did life learn to reproduce 
MB>  itself?

     Are you implying you are the only person who needed a sex 
education class to find out?

MB>  8) With whom did the first cell capable of sexual 
MB>  reproduction reproduce?

     There are no cells capable of sexual reproduction.  You have 
been spending too much time reading the dirty parts of the bible.

MB>  9) Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of 
MB>  it's kind since this would only make more mouths to feed 
MB>  and decrease the chances of survival?

     Plants have wants?  Are you a Jain or a Hindu?

MB>  10) How can mutations (recombining of the genetic 
MB>  code) 

     Which is your question?  Mutations OR recombining the 
genetic code?  They are not the same you know.  Oh.  I guess you 
did not know.

create any new improved varieties?(Recombining english 
MB>  letters will never produce chinese books.)

     Where ever did you get the idea they were improved?

MB>  11) Is it possible that similarities in design between 
MB>  different  animals prove a common creator instead of a 
MB>  common ancestor?

     No.  

     The lack of six legged mammals disproves a creator, or if 
there really is one, it is not very creative, very lacking in 
inspiration.  It should have been rejected from god college early 
on.

MB>  12) Since natural selection only works with the genetic 
MB>  information available and tends only to keep a species 
MB>  stable, How do you explain increasing complexity in the 
MB>  genetic code?

     If you are the first to provide evidence of increasing 
complexity you have a good shot at a trip to Sweden to collect 
your prize.

MB>  13) When, where, why, and how did: 


MB>   A.  Single-celled plants become multicelled?(Where are the 
MB>   two- and three- celled intermediates?)

     They are all around you and to be found in any decent 
biology text.  Why are you not looking?

MB>  B.  Single-celled animals evolve?

     Something had to eat all that algae.  It was polluting 
everything in sight.

MB>  C.  Fish change to amphibians?

     They wished real hard.

MB>  D.  Amphibians change to reptiles?

     Are you sure you don't want to know how the elephant got its 
trunk?

MB>  E.  Reptiles change to birds?

     Where did you get this idea?  It is dinosaurs and birds 
having a common ancestry.

MB>  After you answer the questions above, please look carefully 
MB>  at your answers and answer these questions.

     Certainly.

MB>  1) Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and 
MB>  scientifically provable, or do you just _believe_ that it 
MB>  may have happened the way you have answered?

     Absolutely certain. 

MB>  (Do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)

     It certainly does not come from tribal legends of primitive 
goat herders like yours beliefs do.

MB>  2) Do your answers show _more_ or _less_ faith than the 
MB>  person who says "God must have designed it"?

     As the "designed" argument was tossed out shortly after 
Acquinas stated it, I have no idea why you would make such a 
primitive and foolish assertion.

MB>  3) Should we continue to use outdated, disproven, 
MB>  questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the 
MB>  theory of evolution because we don't have a suitable 
MB>  substitute( piltdown man, recapitulation theory, 
MB>  archeopteryx, lucy, java man, neanderthal man, etc.)?

     You would prefer believing children's stories created by 
primitive tribesmen?

MB>  These questions come from Dr.  Kent Hovind

     He is an idiot too.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Stand aside!  I write large messages.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2332)
To:      Paul Lawson                             8 Nov 94 20:50:00
Subject: EVOLUTION HOAX                         

PL>  MB>  Then the theory of evolution is nothing more than a dream 
PL>  MB>  with no proof to it.  Thanks for answering the question.  
PL>  MB>  Evolution is debunked.

PL>       Hmmmm, this sounds amazingly like a fair definition of 
PL>       religion...  A dream with no proof to it.  Except I'd 
PL>       say that religion was fabricated on hope, hope that 
PL>       there is an exsistance after this life.  

     No way.  Judaism has no formal basis for an afterlife.  That 
was purely "non revealed" thoughts of men.  Afterlives are 
relatively recent, barely 2500 years old and then they were 
rather dreary places, very like Philadelphia.  

     And if you look at the state of afterlives in 33 AD they 
were really not that much better.  It is clear from inspection 
that the "evil" simply ceased to exist rather than were punished 
save for one story that appears quite out of character for his 
story telling style.

     Most all the gibberish Christians spout is directly 
attributable to a person who invented it and they are not 
considered prophets.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Take and forget is not an oath of office.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2336)
To:      Jeff Welch                              8 Nov 94 21:15:00
Subject: EXECUTIONS                             

JW> JB>  KS>  Until we are recognizably gods, I'd suggest we have no 
JW> JB>  KS>  business in the life and death business, George.

JW> JB>       I disagree, Kate.  There are some crimes so henious 
JW> JB> and horrible that the most appropriate punishment is death.  
JW> JB> I truly believe that those persons convicted of such 
JW> JB> terrible crimes forfeit I their right to continue 
JW> JB> breathing.

JW>  The assumption here is that a conviction means the 
JW>  individual convicted actually committed the crime.
JW> 
JW>  What crimes are so "horrible and heinous" that they justify 
JW>  executing someone who did *not* commit them?

     The alternative is what was done prior to there being 
"crimes against the state."  That is vendetta, real Hatfield & 
McCoy stuff.  

     The present issue against capital punishment is just how 
long people are going to put up with life instead execution.  

JW> JB>       While mistakes can be and are made in this area, I am 
JW> JB> confident that in the majority of the cases, the person 
JW> JB> convicted is the correct person.

JW>  So, you really feel it is not only acceptable, but 
JW>  *necessary* to execute the innocent?

     It is necessary to kill those who murder unless there is to 
be an arbitrary relationship between crime and punishment.

JW> JB> The safeguard against executing the wrong person is not an 
JW> JB> end to executions, but an expansion of a prisoner's right to 
JW> JB> habeus corpus.

JW>  How about expanding on *that* a bit.  How does one bring 
JW>  back the dead, exactly?

     Were that possible then the crime of murder would not be so 
heinous and rank so highly in the merited punishment.

     Perhaps you missed the first post.

                       Debt to the Victim
                               by
                           Matt Giwer (c) 1994 <4/22>

     We have a long out of date concept in our criminal justice
system.  That is there exists a debt to society.  Not only is it
out of date, it was never right to begin with.
     If there is a debt incurred it is to the victim of the
crime.  If the government assumes a duty with regard to crime
(instead of vendetta) it is to collect that debt and make a best
effort to assure there are no future victims.
     We struggle under an arbitrary notion that there must be a
one for one correlation between the crime and the punishment.
Thus we determine the various forms of murder to be the and rank
crimes under them.  Next we rank the punishments for those crimes
in the same order of severity.
     This leads us to a nicely philosophical system where we can
debate crime and punishment ordering for hours within our courts.
It leads to the consideration of mitigating circumstances to
raise or lower the severity of the crime and thus the punishment.
This lock step connection between crime and punishment leads only
to endless disagreement.
     A practical or functional system of crime and punishment
would completely divorce the two issues.  Crimes are actions we
do not wish to occur.  Punishments are things that reduce those
actions.
     There is one further point of importance.  If the punishment
to reduce the crime exceeds our sensibilities then the law
creating that crime needs be repealed.  There is no purpose to
imposing ineffective punishments.
     Our present system recognizes only a debt to society and as
such it claims a right to prevent personal retribution by the
victim.  Were this not the case there would be no moral
justification to preventing personal retribution, vengeance if you
will.  Over time it evolved this debt into an intellectual
abstraction rather than a productive activity.
     In doing so the debt aspect became an issue of mass interest
rather than personal interest.  This system leads to our justice
system standing separate and apart from the norms of society.
     Let us consider the death from both illness and murder of
the young and the old.  For illness we will spend any money to
save an eight week old from death but we hope and eighty year old
has a statement prohibiting heroic measures.  However in law the
murder of either has the same consequences and in fact evokes
similar outrage that the extremes of age were harmed.
     This occurs as we have a philosophical view of crime rather
than a functional view.  Certainly in both cases there is no
justification for the punishment being other than death for the
murderer.  But why would me make different judgements as to the
same death from illness?
     We have emotions involved.  We have elevated our emotions to
a philosophy of crime and punishment to no observable benefit.
We are willing to take a rational view of medicine but not of
crime.
     Had we a rational view of crime we would be looking for a
vaccine to prevent crime much as we look for a vaccine to prevent
disease.  We would not be concerned with searching for better and
better methods to punish crime.  Rather we would be searching for
means of prevention of crime.
     It was truly a radical idea when Pasteur suggested giving
the person a minor form of the disease to prevent the disease.
It shocked the sensibilities of many.  It also worked.
     It shocks the sensibilities of many to consider corporal
punishment as a means of crime prevention.  However, if it works
why not use it?  It is better to suffer the repetition of the
crime?
     And this method would also make us face a more serious
problem we have.  We have many crimes that no amount of
conventional punishment will reduce such as drugs.  We will have
to directly address whether it is truly worth the administration
of the effective penalty to have a reduction in the crime.
     We may be faced with actually repealing some laws where the
only effective penalties are far in excess of the personal debt
incurred by the commission of the crime.  It is difficult to
justify a person is harmed by selling a person a drug and if so
who was harmed most, the buyer or the seller?
     Obviously the buyer was saved the immediate pain of
withdrawal while the seller was encouraged to continue in a very
dangerous occupation.  But as there would no longer be a debt to
society as a functional concept it is not obvious society was a
party to any harm in this transaction.  There would no longer be
the assumption of a common level of harm to all people and that
it was done to the buyer.
     The harm to society essentially evaporates under this
approach save for things like terrorism and assassination.
Additionally we would no longer suffer the immorality of exacting
punishment as revenge as some god would do without regard to
preventing the crime.  We would no longer have to play god.



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 *                I come in peace.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2337)
To:      David North                             8 Nov 94 21:45:00
Subject: STATE RTKBA 1/4                        

DN>     Wish I could catch you before you start xeroxing, Jim, but
DN>   here they all are, anyway.
DN> =============================
DN>           Forty-three (43) states have constitutional guarantees
DN>        on the right to keep and bear arms.


     Thank you for the list AND

DN>        ALASKA: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the
DN>        security of a free state, the right of the people to keep
DN>        and bear arms shall not be infringed."  Alaska Const. art.
DN>        I, S 19

     That Alaska's constitution was approved by Congress in the 
late 1950s AFTER all modern weapons were invented certainly means 
the meaning of the words has not changed since 1958.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Tonya Harding, Spokeswoman for Full Contact Figure Skating.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2339)
To:      Carole Thomas                           9 Nov 94 01:45:00
Subject: 'THE BELL CURVE'       01              

CT> MG>       On the other hand, I have had many people back in the 
CT> MG>  Navy come to me with a hard problem.  After the first fews 
CT> MG>  times I got a reputation.  I also noticed that I would 
CT> MG>  rarely get a word in edgewise before I was being thanked 
CT> MG>  for the help.  I sort of file that away.

CT>       I assume these people were involved with the same sort 
CT>  of problems, in more or less the same sort of capacity as 
CT>  you were, so that you could lead each other somewhere 
CT>  without having to spend a lot of time defining terms.

     Actually I was realizing I was not saying much of anything 
that could have made a difference.  It was strange realizing what 
was happening.

CT> CT>     It is unlikely you could brainstorm with much
CT> CT>  hope of problem solving success with one who does not
CT> CT>  comprehend your references, much less your vocabulary, even
CT> CT>  your sentence structure.

CT> MG>      Now you are getting personal.  But I make a distinction

CT>      Not personal.  And anyway I comprehend your references, your
CT> vocabulary, even your sentence structure.

     To get the sentence structure you have to be as weird as I.
     
CT> MG>  between what came to be called brainstorming and what it 
CT> MG>  really was when it started.  When it started it would be 
CT> MG>  something like the CEO calling in his top people to discuss 
CT> MG>  a company wide problem.  His top people knew more about 
CT> MG>  their own fields than he or anyone else in the meeting did.  
CT> MG>  Thus it was a pooling of specialized knowledge.

CT>       I don't see any important distinction between your 
CT>  description and brainstorming as generally defined today.

CT> MG>       When it became something to "teach" for $400 per 
CT> MG>  student the independent and unique knowledge aspect was 
CT> MG>  lost and it became something that "had to work" because it 
CT> MG>  worked in different

CT>       So after much discussion you've arrived at the best 
CT>  solution to a particular problem or group of problems and 
CT>  now you pass that information on encapsulized to a new 
CT>  audience.  Sounds good to me.

     No we didn't.  We never played the brainstorm game.  We 
simply had the old time planning sessions.  The only trick was 
finding some poor sucker to chair the meeting.  But the 
difference ...

     The brainstorming process as taught was simply to bring 
together a large number of people and look for new ideas 
regardless of merit, applicability, whatever.  The "course" went 
into all kind of $400 worth of time filling details of what to 
do.  

     Rather a serious meeting only had those with the unique 
knowledge and skills were invited in the first place.  We 
mirrored the original and very normal procedure before it became 
a fad.  When you have intelligent people in a group most all can 
recognize the validity of the specialized knowledge of others 
when they have spent their time becoming specialists in their 
job.   

CT> MG>   circumstances.  When people with roughly the same 
CT> MG>   backgrounds and same knowledge of a subject got together 
CT> MG>   to deal with a new problem there was not much they could 
CT> MG>   produce different from what anyone of them could.

CT>        Maybe there is a difference in the problems dealt 
CT>   with here, that is whether we're talking about machinery 
CT>   or people.  My experience is with people problems and even 
CT>   though the participants in a discussion have similar 
CT>   backgrounds and knowledge, if they are intelligent people, 
                                 ~~
CT>   capable of considering antecedents and consequences, there 
CT>   will be a good possibility of differing solutions being 
CT>   offered.

     You have an IF there.  There is also a presumption with that 
if.  If I may create a saying?  

     Bringing together a dozens specialists in the same field 
creates a committee.  Bringing together a dozens specialists in 
different fields creates a solution.

CT> MG>  It would appear easier to think illogically than to speak 
CT> MG>  illogically.  It also brings of a question of conducting a 
CT> MG>  test in silence vice letting people mutter under their 
CT> MG>  breathe at least.

CT>       I like that.  Without a doubt, verbalizing  thoughts 
CT>  has the potential for forcing order.  Nobody likes to sound 
CT>  foolish.

     Most people find the fear is worse than the fact.  The minds 
of the listeners work to find order in nonsense statements.  The 
worst risk of a public speaker is being misunderstood but then 
politicians don't care if it gets them votes.

     I am going to post Reagan's "Altzheimer's" public letter some 
day soon.  A careful reading of what it does not say will prove 
the case of people people filling in the blanks.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Justic, unlike revenge, is best served warm and bleeding.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

+++■■■■■ r_941112 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2321)
To:      All                                     9 Nov 94 16:13:00
Subject: NEWS YOU MAY HAVE MISSED               

Washington Times

2 November 1994

Canada cuts quota on migrants

     OTTAWA -- Canada said yesterday it is reducing, for the 
first time in a decade, the number of immigrants it will accept 
and that preference will be given to skilled workers and 
businessmen.

     Immigration and Citizenship Minister Sergio Marchi said the 
immigration quota will be reduced to between 190,000 and 215,000 
in 1995; this year's target was 250,000.

     Canada was built by European settlers but increased its flow 
of immigrants threefold since 1985 by taking in increasing 
numbers of Asians, particularly from Hong Kong.

     Economic recession, high unemployment and a fiscal crisis 
have led to more calls from conservatives to cut immigration and 
stop immigrants from living off welfare.

     Racist groups have become outspoken in blaming rising urban 
crime on excessive immigration.

U.S. hits tanks in Kuwait exercise

     Adera Range, Kuwait -- B-1 and B-52 bombers flew nonstop 
from bases in the United States and bombed the Kuwaiti desert 
yesterday to remind Iraq of the global reach of U.S. military 
power following a flare-up of tension at the site of the Gulf 
War.     



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Linda Thompson, loose cannon on deck.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2355)
To:      All                                    10 Nov 94 02:21:00
Subject: THE 1994 ELECTIONS                     

                      The 1994 Election   
                               by
                           Matt Giwer (c) 1994 <11/10>

     It is not very hard to see what happened this election day.
President Clinton the the Democrats were given full and complete
credit for what they have accomplished.  And the voters have said
they do not look what they have done.
     Every Democrat was tied to President Clinton's coattails and
the entire Congress was changed.  It was not a vote against
incumbents as no incumbent Republicans lost in Congress or in the
states.  It was in fact a clear statement that the Clinton and
democrat liberal accomplishments are rejected.
     This is no different from Bush being rejected in 1992.  Bush
promised something and he was rejected with full credit given for
what he had accomplished.
     What we have here is the rather cynical attitude on both
sides that people will in fact always vote their pocketbooks. The
idea that incumbents should win in a good economy is now down the
tubes.  They do not.  Bush was not rejected because of the
economy, rather that he made a contract and he broke it.  There
were new taxes.
     Clinton made at least a dozen contracts with America and he
broke everyone of them.  There are no two ways to look at it.
President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton is a lying son of a
bitch.  And there is no way to hold the voters did not see that.
     But there is an indication that voters are still looking for
something.  The House Republican contract with America was
clearly and unquestionably something the voters also deliberately
chose.  Whatever is in that contract, that combined with what
Clinton and company accomplished, was enough reason to reverse
the power in the House after forty years.
     The Clinton and liberal spin on this is now that the people
still want the Clinton change despite the fact it is not what
Clinton was elected on.  It is a very strange attitude for a
purportedly intelligent person to hold.  It is difficult to
believe that Clinton really believes people want what he
delivered rather than what he promised in his 1992 campaign.
     I do admit I am become rather tired to the point of avidly
skeptical that Clinton has some sort of high IQ.  It is not as
though he has demonstrated it in any public forum.  We keep
hearing that he reads ten books a day or some such thing but
there is no sign of doing that in what he says.  We hear a lot of
things about this person from the White House propagandists but
we see no evidence of them being true.
     And no where is this more clear than in his post election
press conference.  Several times he appeared ready to break out
in tears when for the first time the press was not buying his
opening remarks.  His answers were not insightful.  They
addressed nothing of substance regarding the election.
     Rather his remarks and answers were based upon the
electorate really wanting what he had delivered.  He demonstrated
no ability to comprehend the meaning of the voting in any manner.
And this is an intelligent man?  Pardon me.  Everyone but Clinton
gets it.

                  It's the Clinton, stupid.

     Now it is granted the incumbent party generally loses seats
in an off year election.  But it is also generally true that in
presidential election years he carries candidates from his party
into office so that over the four years it is generally a wash.
When Clinton won the presidential election he carried no one with
him.
     Clinton was truly the last man left standing in the
primaries.  The system used by the Democrats to select a
candidate means that he had to become the candidate and that had
nothing to do with being the best candidate.  Once in office he
was a much in trouble with his own party as he was with the
Republicans.
     No matter what he might have wanted to do personally he was
in constant conflict with his party to get it.  Rather than face
down his own party he grinned away his disagreements with them.
And in so doing he and his party liberals became a single image
in the minds of the voters.
     All of this taken into account the failing is in arrogance.
Knowing there would be a good economy they all bet that they
could pass anything they wanted and as long as the economy was
good they could stay in office.  They were very wrong.
     That arrogance of power was such that there is a good chance
the Republican majority can put amendments to the Constitutional
before the states on a balanced budget, term limits, you name it,
even prayer in schools.  And in doing so the Republicans can join
with Democrat conservatives in the states to ratify them.
[n.b.  Submitting amendments to the Constitution to the states
for ratification does not require Presidential concurrence.]
     The only thing Conservatives need concern themselves with at
this point is a similar arrogance.  They need not work with
Clinton, rather only create a majority constituency that will
agree Clinton is blocking what they wish.  With that position
they need only find a winning Presidential candidate against a
near empty field for the liberals.
     The message is clear.  Conservatives are in.  Liberals are
out.
     And it means the country gets a conservative agenda for at
least the next two years.  Reagan and Bush working against a
liberal Congress had the ability to appeal to the people for
support for their platform.  Clinton does not have that ability.
     Clinton is now simply one person in the White House and
nothing more than that.  He has no control over the political
agenda as he has no venue to introduce anything in either house
that can get out of committee without Conservative approval.
For example, Clinton's next year's budget goes directly to the
Republican controlled House Ways and Means Committee.  Perhaps
they will not declare it dead on arrival as happened to Reagan's
budgets.
     The people have rejected Clinton and everything he and his
fellow liberals have accomplished.  And in so doing Clinton is
now a lame duck president for the next 27 months.  He has no way
to accomplish much of anything in his favor in that time.
     Worse yet, his fellow Democrats who can appear to have had a
conservative change of heart are going to spend their time
distancing themselves from him, that is not supporting him making
the Republican majority even greater.  At least six of them in
the Senate will be looking at a Presidential bid and that will
require they out conservative the Conservatives.  When it comes
to questionable issues or getting that 2/3rds majority for
constitutional amendments it will the be presidential candidate
wannabes who will provide it.  Right or wrong even liberals are
not dumb enough to ride dead jackass.

                            * * * * *

        Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

    P.O. Box 82541, Tampa, Florida, 33682-2541, 813-969-0362

                  [note new address and phone]



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Waco lesson 2.  Obey or die.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

+++■■■■■ r_941113 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2401)
To:      All                                    10 Nov 94 16:36:00
Subject: NANCY REAGAN ON OLLIE NOR              

                     What does Reagan know?
                               by
                           Matt Giwer (c) 1994 <10/11>

     And when did she know it?  Not Ronald, Nancy.  The good Mrs.
Reagan has told the country that Oliver North lied to her
husband.  What is her source for this knowledge?
     Was it not Ronald Reagan who stated he did not talk to
North?  So what conversation(s) is she referring to where North
had an opportunity to lie?  What was she doing in those meetings
and just what were her background knowledge to judge what was and
was not a lie?
     This certainly does not speak well of her husband's denial
of knowledge of events.  Consider the possible "lies" he could
have told.  It is not imaginable he was directly asked, "Are you
dealing arms for hostages?," without assuming there was more than
adequate knowledge of what was going on to ask a question that
specific.
     Could the lies have simply been assurances that every was
legal?  That is not an assertion to be made unless asked.  The
answer it not one that would be taken from a Lt. Colonel without
much more senior confirmation.  And if there was enough suspicion
to ask the question then there would have been an investigation
rather than a simple "are you guilty of something" inquiry.
     By this defense she is indicating her husband knew much more
about what was going on than he has stated.  And in the ability
to claim North was lying it could only refer to some aspect of
what was going on and not to the entire affair.  Thus her
condemnation of North is in fact to condemnation of her husband
in the same breath.
     She should some day learn to keep out of partisan politics.

                            * * * * *

        Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

    P.O. Box 82541, Tampa, Florida, 33682-2541, 813-969-0362

                  [note new address and phone]



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Of the people, by the people, and for the people or else!

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2402)
To:      All                                    10 Nov 94 17:46:00
Subject: THE 1994 ELECTION, PT. 2               

                 Clinton and the 1994 Election
                               by
                           Matt Giwer (c) 1994 <11/10>

     Clinton has had two days to think over Tuesday's election
and he still does not get it.  He is still trying to convince
himself that the vote was a vindication of his program in some
manner despite every fact about the election.
     He continues to imply that he is "the middle" of politics
despite the clear election results of the loss of so many of his
compatriots in the his idea of the middle.  From the most senior
down to the most junior, they were kicked out.  Everyone but a
couple who was identified as clearly defending the president or
being a key part of passing his agenda is gone.
     The only notable exception at this point is Ted Kennedy and
the other might become Diane Feinstein but even should the latter
manage re-election it is still so close it requires the absentee
ballots be counted.  That Clinton can possibly think that the
people who were his most vocal supporters are gone.  How can he
possibly take that as support for what he clearly considers his
middle?
     If he truly believes that then he is delusional.  If he is
still trying to spin doctor the results he needs to try a
different approach.  This is making him look like a fool.
     And there is little help coming from his supporters.  The
trick of spin doctoring is to find a plausible alternate
explanation.  Some liberal should have been able to find a spin
by now but if so none has come up with it.
     It looks like they are all simply in shock; that they could
not prepare themselves for the actually occurrence of what they
and everyone knew would happen.  Even the magnitude of it was
easily predictable.  Either side could hope it might or might not
happen but certainly there was enough warning to work out some
sort of face saving spin in advance.
     As they have no spin prepared how can they possibly hold
there is any support for Clinton style economic policies?
Without a spin how can they make a claim there is support for
health care reform?  Without a basis to work from how can they
make a case for any part of the Clinton agenda?
     Passage of the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs is
part of the both the Clinton and the Republican agenda.  As with
most things Clinton wanted it was not really part of the Democrat
agenda.  But when it passes there is no way Clinton can take the
credit away from the Republicans. 
     As Clinton failed to plan for defeat he is now totally
defeated. He has at most whatever fraction of his 43%
constituency that it left.  That is the best he can ask to call
their Congressmen as Reagan did so effectively.
     For example he is now saying he is in favor of some of the
points of the Republican Contract with America.  Had he only
supported those points before the election his claim to support
some points now would not ring so hollow.  And were he able to do
so he might be able to regain some of the credibility he started
losing immediately after his election in 1992.
     But now he has nothing to build upon and he does not appear
to realize it as yet.  He appears to be attempting to find
something to say rather simply keeping his mouth shut.  He does
not realize he has lost the initiative in any legislative action.
     It is about time Clinton found a dutch uncle rather than a
sensitivity counselor to talk with him.

                            * * * * *

        Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

    P.O. Box 82541, Tampa, Florida, 33682-2541, 813-969-0362

                  [note new address and phone]



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * W.A.C.O, acronym, Washington Approved Cook Out

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

+++■■■■■ r_941115 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2432)
To:      Michael Pilon                          10 Nov 94 22:10:00
Subject: 40% = 60% DEAD                         

MP>  MG>  Let us put this straight up front.  I do not not like the 
MP>  MG>  idea of the subject of this message, period, over, out.
MP>  MG> 
MP>  MG>  With that out of the way we have to discuss what is 
MP>  MG>  currently the military standard for women.  That standard 
MP>  MG>  is 40% of the standard for men.
MP>  MG> 
MP>  MG>  NO!

MP>      MGen Lew McKenzie of Sarejavo fame was involved in a 
MP>  study of women in combat for the canadian Forces.  He spoke 
MP>  to a group of feminists at an Ottawa University.  They spoke 
MP>  at length about equality, opportunity, ability.  He then 
MP>  painted a picture , he said if he were a Russian commander 
MP>  ( this was] before the end of the cold war some 10 years 
MP>  ago) he would send his meanest cossacks, kidnap a woman, 
MP>  and when the troops woke up the next day they would see her 
MP>  naked, abused body tied to a post facing the Canadians.  He 
MP>  said that would guarantee a high defection or ineffective 
MP>  rate of clsoe to 40% or whatever the feminists were aiming 
MP>  for.  

     That is potentially what Iraq had in mind with their 
treatment of the US female pilot they captured.  

     Your guy sounds like he knows how to think Russian or 
perhaps rather that he knows how to think in the first place.  It 
is quite strange that no matter how many war stories are told the 
reality of war just does not register on people.  And I will say 
particularly women if for no other reason than this country has 
very few citizens that have lost female relatives in combat.  

But it was a moot point, when they called for 
MP>  volunteers for a 6 month trial for women soldiers only 2 
MP>  stepped forward !

     That sounds like a very rational position.  If you do not 
have to fight, do not fight.  Any rational army would run away.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Innocense is a pesky technicality in Israel.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2433)
To:      William Willaford                      10 Nov 94 22:14:00
Subject: EVOLUTION HOAX                         

WW> MG>MB>         These questions come from Dr. Kent Hovind
WW>   >MB>                                   29 Cummings Road
WW>   >MB>                                   Pensacola, Fl. 32503
WW>   >MB>                                   (904) 479-8987

WW> MG>     Which only goes to show he is an ignorant ass hole who has
WW>   >not done his own research.  Must be another Doctor of Philosophy
WW>   >or Education butting in to demonstrate his ignorance.

WW>  Before ASSuming he hasn't done his research, try asking him 
WW>  to show you his conclusions to his own questions...

     The person posting this already shown me how this Doctor of 
Theology got where he is, by ignorance.  About half of the 
"question" on evolution had nothing to do with evolution.  That 
means he is a stupid shit or a liar or both.  His ignorance of 
evolution (that is NOT having done his research) is established 
by his questions.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * A power granted is a power abused.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2434)
To:      Chris Baugh                            10 Nov 94 22:18:00
Subject: SMOKING                                

CB>  MG>  Now that some nerf brain judge in California has found its 
CB>  MG>  gas chamber cruel and unusual the state is considering the 
CB>  MG>  use of second hand smoke in place of cyanide.

CB>  That would make it hard for the cameras to capture the 
CB>  whole event.

     But think of the terrible, lingering death he would suffer.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Reach out and offend someone.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2443)
To:      Michael Pilon                          11 Nov 94 16:43:00
Subject: 70% FAVOUR GUN CONTRO                  

MP>  MG>  Again, I have posted the gross comparison of the US and 
MP>  MG>  European countries and the "twin city" study of Vancouver / 
MP>  MG>  Seattle which demonstrates the crime problem is solely 
MP>  MG>  attributable to racial and ethnic minorities.  As I have 
MP>  MG>  demonstrated the problem is not guns.  It is minorities.

MP>  What about economic communities.  Are there more murders in 
MP>  poor areas, and if the minorities are poor is this a factor 
MP>  Are there a lot of murders in middle class black, hispanic 
MP>  or Asian areas ?

     So we take the extreme condition, that it is all caused by 
poverty.  It only makes matter look worse for the minorities in 
poverty.

JB>  MG>                          CRIMES PER 100,000 POPULATION

JB>  MG>                                 American   American
JB>  MG>                         U.S.A.   Whites    Blacks
JB>  MG>                        ------   ------    ------
JB>  MG> Murder                   9.3      5.1      43.4
JB>  MG> Robbery                263.0     126      1343

JB>  MG>  Source: _Uniform Crime Reports_ for U.S.  data, _The 
JB>  MG>          Economist_ for European data.  European data for 
JB>  MG>          1990; American data for 1992.


JB>  How do the figures presented for American whites and blacks 
JB>  relate to the figures presented for the U.S.A.?

     Finally some actually asks the question rather than telling 
me it can not be right because of "other" factors.  White are 84% 
of the population, blacks 12%.  On that alone it means that the 
difference between the 5.1 and the 9.3 is accounted for by 
blacks.

     BUT let us consider those "other" factors and presume all 
crime is caused by poverty (watch them change their tune after 
this one.)

     Roughly 1/3 of blacks and 1/10 of whites are below the 
poverty line.  So there are roughly 21 million whites and 10 
blacks below the poverty line.  (Data from 1994 Information 
Please Almanac pages 828 and 829.)  

     Just to keep things simple that is roughly 2 to 1 and the 
ratio of the murder rates is 8 to 1.  That puts poverty level 
blacks 16 times more likely to murder and 22 times more likely to 
commit robbery.

     Be prepared to read the howls from those who insist it is a 
matter of socioeconomic levels.  I did give them fair warning on 
this for over a week.  Your timing of the question was excellent.  
Thank you.

     Want to guess what they will use for a comeback? 


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Life's purpose is the other SOB dying for his beliefs.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2444)
To:      All                                    11 Nov 94 16:44:00
Subject: PJ ON HAITI                            

     Our success in Haiti was clearly the threat of force and the 
threat that Jimmy Carter would keep coming back.

     PJ O'Rourke (roughly)

---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * The Hansen Brothers; my kind of debaters.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2445)
To:      Paul Lawson                            11 Nov 94 16:46:00
Subject: EVOLUTION HOAX                         

PL>  MG>  No way.  Judaism has no formal basis for an afterlife.  
PL>  MG>  That was purely "non revealed" thoughts of men.  Afterlives 
PL>  MG>  are

PL>       To be honest I have only a passing aquaintance with 
PL>       Judaism So there is no "official" referance to what is 
PL>       supposed to happen after the second coming?  That's 
PL>       not a challenge, just a simple question.  :)

     The 2nd coming is clearly a Christian addition.

PL>  MG>  relatively recent, barely 2500 years old and then they were 
PL>  MG>  rather dreary places, very like Philadelphia.

PL>       That's still preferable to being worm bait I'd think.  
PL>       I'm agnostic but I certainly hope that there is an 
PL>       afterlife, I just don't know how it would work but I 
PL>       can hope anyway.  ;)

     Perhaps one maintains consciousness while the worms feast.  
Think about it.

PL>  MG>  And if you look at the state of afterlives in 33 AD they 
PL>  MG>  were really not that much better.  It is clear from 
PL>  MG>  inspection that the "evil" simply ceased to exist rather 
PL>  MG>  than were punished save for one story that appears quite 
PL>  MG>  out of character for his story telling style.

PL>       Still that insinuates that individual existance in 
PL>       some form will continue.

     Of course but it was thinking that cannot be traced back 
further than 600 BC so I hear and it is certainly not supported 
by much of the rest of what at least the Christians recognize as 
the right books.  Consider all the places where the punishment is 
to the descendants of the bad guy with no threat to him personally.  
Were there such an idea we would certainly expect to read threats 
the person himself would rot in hell.

PL>  MG>  Most all the gibberish Christians spout is directly 
PL>  MG>  attributable to a person who invented it and they are not 
PL>  MG>  considered prophets.

PL>       I agree, the flavor of gibberish is directly related 
PL>       to the inventor of that particular sect.  Kinda funny 
PL>       how many people have broken off to start their own 
PL>       "true" religion, it's amazing to me that anyone 
PL>       believes any of them!

     Man is the only animal with the true religion.  Several of 
them.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Ye shall know them by their personal.dct.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2446)
To:      Michael Pilon                          11 Nov 94 16:51:00
Subject: HAMMER AND NAIL                        

MP>  MG>  The Black / Jewish hatred in this country is deep and it 
MP>  MG>  has been going on for a very long time.

MP>  That is something I find hard to understand as both have 
MP>  been oppressed.

     I don't explain it but the Schwarzes and the Hymies do not 
like each other much at all.

MP>  MP>  stereos and other poor quality electronics are
MP>  MP>  playing havoc with ham operators.

MP>  MG> I believe we were discussing guns and NOT electronics.

MP>  No you mentionned quality control, I don't own guns , nor 
MP>  care to but I am familiar with electronics..

     Then you should hope some day the electronics industry is a 
responsible as the gun industry.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Gun Control:  Hope over experience.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2447)
To:      All                                    11 Nov 94 18:49:00
Subject: OREGON SUICIDE LAW                     

               Oregon Pharmacy        555-1234

                         Dr. Kavorkian

                       Suicide capsules
     

                    Take only as directed.

---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Janet Reno, the third best woman for the job.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2450)
To:      All                                    11 Nov 94 19:59:00
Subject: THE GAY MILITARY                       

     Given Clinton has gotten away with his policy on gays in the 
military and that Newt is not making an issue of it, it is time 
for some long range investment.

     As such I am starting a "Designer Uniforms" franchise.  In 
accord with that I need designers.  Emphasis will be upon 
uniforms that make a statement.  Bold, dashing, daring will be 
the theme.  Something that says the man has arrived.  That the 
man is all he can be.  Think colorful; think combat ready.

     Initial emphasis will be on leather including heeled 
jackboots.  

     Alternate non-lethal weapons such as whips will be 
considered.  

     All submissive submissions will be considered.



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Only the married human male mates in captivity.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2451)
To:      All                                    11 Nov 94 20:26:00
Subject: 1994 ELECTIONS, 3                      

     Minor note on the results of the election.  The Balanced 
Budget Amendment and the Term Limits Amendment will be presented 
to the states for ratification.  They do NOT require any 
participation from the President for the process.  


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Live fast, love well, and have a glorious end.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

+++■■■■■ r_941118 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2329)
To:      Shane Gouseman                         14 Nov 94 22:03:00
Subject: A FACE ON AIDS II                      

SG> MG> SG>    You neglected to mention, how long he volunteers.  Is he
SG> MG> SG>  there for a limited amount of time per day.  What sort of
SG> MG> SG>  work does he do?  Clarical? Answer phones?
SG> MG>      =====
SG> MG>      To quote from what I posted
SG> MG>      =====
SG> MG>       I have two pictures of Herman Easter one from mid 1993 
SG> MG>  and the other from 20 October 1993.  The earliest is 
SG> MG>  smiling and could have any time in his past.  The latter is 
SG> MG>  of him speaking before an eighth grade class at St.  Mary's 
SG> MG>  Episcopal Day School.  I assure you he shows no signs of any 
SG> MG>  disease or illness.
SG> MG>      =====
SG> MG>      I do not know how I could have stated it more clearly.

SG>    Clearly?  None of this has anything to do with my 
SG>  origional questions, about what he does for his volunteer 
SG>  work AT THE TAMPA AIDS NETWORK.

     In regard to your original questions, he stands up before 
school classes and discusses the subject as I noted.  I further 
noted that, more important than the kind work he does, that he 
has no signs of any of the ARC diseases.  Without those signs 
there is no incapacitation.

SG> MG> SG>     It also seems to me, that this guy is helping to prevent 
SG> MG> SG>   others from getting this disease, and there-for preventing 
SG> MG> SG>   others from having to get welfare.

SG> MG>       Try reading what I write next time.  If you need a 
SG> MG>  Xerox of the article let me know and I will give you an 
SG> MG>  address to send an SASE.

SG>    I read our WHOLE message.  If you are making judgments 
SG>  based on the artical alone, then that is your progotive.  
SG>  But, you have to look at the big picture.

     The big picture is exactly as I have stated it.  A person 
who can barely move around and can only rarely wash herself gets 
no benefits while an active person (no matter what limited duties 
he might perform) gets every benefit under the sun.  How can I 
make this issue more clear?

SG> MG> SG> MG>   A 93 year old woman barely able to take care of herself
SG> MG> SG> MG>  and wanting desperately to stay out of a nursing home gets
SG> MG> SG> MG>  next to nothing and qualified for nothing.

SG> MG> SG>     Seems to me, she must have a financial nest egg that she
SG> MG> SG>  should be using to support herself.  Alice, should qualify
SG> MG> SG>  for some other assistance like social security.  There are
SG> MG> SG>  many programs that help people who are financial trouble.

SG> MG>       Seems to me you did no read what was reported in the 
SG> MG>  press.  However, if you have contacted her and determined 
SG> MG>  your assumptions are correct, please so state.

SG>   Maybe, you did not read the bottom part of my statement?

     Nothing contradicted what I posted.  There is NO financial 
nestegg involved save the ownership of the home and for Medicaid, 
at least in this state there are no financial "nestegg" 
requirements and for in home services it is something over $60 
thousand in assets.  

     And I note you have no idea what you are talking about.

SG> MG> SG> MG>        Is there any wonder why we are reading that young 
SG> MG> SG> MG>   gays are not using any form of protection?

SG> MG> SG>    Didn't Herman get AIDS from needle sharing?

SG> MG>      I agree, that was his claim.

SG>    Then what does his needle sharing, have to do with "young 
SG>  gays, not using any form of protection?"  AIDS is not a 
SG>  homosexual disease, it is a sexually transmitted disease.  
SG>  It doesn't care if your hetro or homo.

     In this country, over 90% of the AIDS cases are homosexual 
or needle sharing or both.  If you add the homosexual and both 
cases that accounts for more than half the cases.  NO ONE 
seriously suggests that AIDS did not get into the IV drug using 
community via homosexuals.  

     Neither this country nor the western world has any 
heterosexual rooted problem with the disease.  It has all come 
from homosexuality and that includes the blood products for 
hemophiliacs.  You can not change history.  That is the way it 
is.  

     There is also no indication it will become a heterosexual 
problem in any Western country.  That is a fact also.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * "Give Corruption a Chance."  Matt Giwer

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2337)
To:      Shane Gouseman                         14 Nov 94 22:38:00
Subject: A FACE ON AIDS II                      

SG> MG> SG>     You neglected to mention, how long he volunteers.  Is he 
SG> MG> SG>   there for a limited amount of time per day.  What sort of 
SG> MG> SG>   work does he do?  Clarical?  Answer phones?

SG> MG>      From the picture, whatever he does includes stand up talks
SG> MG> to school kids.

SG>    In the above, I'm asking for more information about what 
SG>  all does he do, as a volunteer.  It doesn't take much 
SG>  effort to type letters, or answer phones.

     I do not see what your problem is here.  I post a message on 
a woman over 90 who qualifies for nothing and can barely move 
around and compare that to a person who, as I repeated, lectures 
standing up to school kids.  

SG> MG> SG>   Maybe, he didn't have a choice?

SG> MG>       Being only HIV+ means it was voluntary.  It has 
SG> MG>  nothing to do with having any disease and it is 
SG> MG>  asymptomatic.

SG>   I don't think he asked to be HIV+, do you?

     Asking is not the same as choice.  He chose to violate the 
law and use drugs.  Given the date from which he claims the 
infection it was well known at the time it could pass the 
disease.  That makes it voluntary.  You are taking the position 
that a person did not choose to die simply because he did choose 
to drive 100 mph on residential streets.  You might not ask to be 
dead but jumping off of a bridge is a very good imitation of 
same.

SG> MG> SG>    Because someone appears to be "perfectly healthy" doesn't
SG> MG> SG>   mean that they are.

SG> MG>      Yes it does.

SG>    In the begining stages of a cold, you may appear to be 
SG>  "perfectly healthy" yet still be able to pass it on to 
SG>  others.

     Sorry about that but asymptomatic HIV+ is perfectly healthy.  
Read up on the subject.

SG> MG> SG>   It seems to me that the guy in the
SG> MG> SG>   above example, is a person who is trying to pay back for
SG> MG> SG>   the benefits that he recieves, by volunteering at the AIDS
SG> MG> SG>   network and going out and talking to kids in schools about
SG> MG> SG>   the disease that he has.

SG> MG>      There is no justification for his receiving benefits in the
SG> MG> first place, which is my point.

SG>    None the less.  He is working to prevent others from 
SG>  making the same mistakes that he did.  How many others will 
SG>  not get AIDS because they listened to him?  How much money 
SG>  can we save because of his efforts?

     He can just as easily have a real job and volunteer in his 
spare time.  My point being that he has no need for what he is 
getting in the first place.

SG> MG>      Listen up.  HIV+ is no reason for getting on welfare.

SG>   Then I hope you will follow your own leade.

     What does that mean?

SG> MG>      I have no idea what seems to you or why it would.  I am
SG> MG> recounting what is in the papers.

SG>    Then it seems to me, your making crack judgements based 
SG>  on a incomplete newspaper artical.  You should at least 
SG>  have ALL the facts before you make a judgement.  That is my 
SG>  opinion.

     I clearly stated that my only point in looking into it was 
that I was invited to put a face on AIDS and this was the face I 
found.  I had no control over what I found and I reported it 
factually with little judgement in the articles.

SG> MG> SG> MG>       Is there any wonder why we are reading that young gays 
SG> MG> SG> MG>  are not using any form of protection?

SG> MG> SG>    Didn't Herman get AIDS from needle sharing?

SG> MG>      And?

SG>    What does his needle sharing have to do with "young 
SG>  gays?"  Hetrosexual young people who engage in sexual 
SG>  activity risk getting the AIDS virus as well.  Wether you 
SG>  are gay or straight, unprotected sex is a risky business.

     He knew better as does everyone who speaks english in this 
country.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Are you posting with your eyes open or using The Force.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2339)
To:      Travis Beard                           14 Nov 94 22:47:00
Subject: EXECUTIONS                             

TB>  MG>  It is necessary to kill those who murder unless there is to 
TB>  MG>  be an arbitrary relationship between crime and punishment.

TB> Violence begets violence.

     Truisms ain't for shit.

TB>  As Calvin would say....how does violence solve problems?

     Calvin of Hobbes fame?  That is answer enough.  As for John 
Calvin, look at who he dealt with and how.

TB>  When the murderer used violence they were trying to solve a 
TB>  problem.  

     The problem of not having enough money for drugs?  Give us 
all a break on this one.

It didn't work.  What inductive reasoning do you 
TB>  have to justify using violence to solve problems?

     It works.  Next question?  As a minimum the dead do not kill 
again.

TB>  MG>  A practical or functional system of crime and punishment 
TB>  MG>  would completely divorce the two issues.  Crimes are 
TB>  MG>  actions we do not wish to occur.  Punishments are things 
TB>  MG>  that reduce those actions.

TB> Wrong! Punishment should never be confused with deterrence.

     There is no confusion.  It works.  Remember Willie Horton?  
Were he executed rather than furloughed two people would be alive 
today that are not because he murdered them.  Two for one sounds 
fine to me.

TB>  MG>  There is one further point of importance.  If the 
TB>  MG>  punishment to reduce the crime exceeds our sensibilities 
TB>  MG>  then the law creating that crime needs be repealed.  There 
TB>  MG>  is no purpose to imposing ineffective punishments.

TB> Correct. Malum prohibitum laws lead to excessive punishments.

     Not the point here.  Rather that death does no exceed 
sensibilities when the crime is a greater shock than the 
punishment.

TB>  MG>  Our present system recognizes only a debt to society and as 
TB>  MG>  such it claims a right to prevent personal retribution by 
TB>  MG>  the victim.  Were this not the case there would be no moral 
TB>  MG>  justification to preventing personal retribution, vengeance 
TB>  MG>  if you will.  Over time it evolved this debt into an 
TB>  MG>  intellectual abstraction rather than a productive activity.  
TB>  MG>  In doing so the debt aspect became an issue of mass 
TB>  MG>  interest rather than personal interest.  This system leads 
TB>  MG>  to our justice system standing separate and apart from the 
TB>  MG>  norms of society.

TB>  If it didn't then law enforcement would be required to 
TB>  protect individuals.  It can't and won;t.

     And that of course supports an armed citizenry where it is 
the word of the survivor against the dead criminal.  I believe I 
have always suggested that.  Thus real retribution for a crime 
would be extracted at the time of its occurrence rather than 
wasting millions to achieve the same result.  

TB>  MG>  Had we a rational view of crime we would be looking for a 
TB>  MG>  vaccine to prevent crime much as we look for a vaccine to 
TB>  MG>  prevent disease.

TB>  And capital punishment cannot accomplish that.  Neither can 
TB>  any punishment in fact since punishment is not designed to 
TB>  deter.

     Capital punishment prevents repetition as in Willie Horton.  
Yes, very clearly, capital punishment is for justice and vengeance 
rather than prevention.  Prevention could be accomplished by 
speedy trials and slow executions but that is not within the 
realm of public sensibility these days.

TB>  MG>  We would not be concerned with searching for better and 
TB>  MG>  better methods to punish crime.  Rather we would be 
TB>  MG>  searching for means of prevention of crime.

TB>  Education and inculturation work fine.  The problem is that 
TB>  Americans want instant gratification.

     The evidence that exists is that crime is completely racial.

TB>  Let me ask you something Matt.  Do you NOT murder because 
TB>  you are afraid of that last table at the end of the hall.  
TB>  or because you were taught it was wrong to murder?

     I do not murder.  Defense is another matter and I have not 
the slighest compunction.  Those that think in terms of murder to 
get what they want are the problem.

TB>  MG>  It was truly a radical idea when Pasteur suggested giving 
TB>  MG>  the person a minor form of the disease to prevent the 
TB>  MG>  disease.  It shocked the sensibilities of many.  It also 
TB>  MG>  worked.

TB>  Bacteria and viruses can not THINK!!!!! Humans can.  That is 
TB>  a very bad analogy.

     There is little evidence that criminals, particularly 
violent ones, think rationally.  Rather it is more or less 
clearly IQ based.  Whatever those folks consider thinking the 
rest of us do not think much of it.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * I didn't make this world. I only brought it to its knees.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2341)
To:      David North                            14 Nov 94 23:12:00
Subject: STATE RTKBA 1/4                        

DN>  MG>  That Alaska's constitution was approved by Congress in the 
DN>  MG>  late 1950s AFTER all modern weapons were invented certainly 
DN>  MG>  means the meaning of the words has not changed since 1958.

DN>          DOES kind of throw out the "they didn't mean 
DN>    semi-automatic rifles, they meant single shot guns" 
DN>    contention, doesn't it ? I'll keep that one in mind.
DN> 
DN>    Idaho's provisions should make life interesting for the 
DN>    Brady II implementation, if II still reads the way it did 
DN>    last spring.  When it says "no licensing, no registration" 
DN>    in a state consti- tution, and a newer Federal law says 
DN>    "each state must enact laws requiring registration and 
DN>    licensing", times just HAVE to get more interesting.

     Brady II is dead else we throw out both parties.  Clinton 
can not introduce it next session.  Until House rules are 
changed it can not even come to the floor.  Nor until such a rule 
change no bill can be amended from the floor.  Further such 
mandates to the states are already dead as per the federal 
decision on the background check.  Bad law is dead meat before 
the Constitution.

     Support your state's 10th amendment resolution.
     


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * That which does not destroy us makes us greater.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2342)
To:      John Clifton                           14 Nov 94 23:16:00
Subject: THE 1994 ELECTIONS                     

JC> >  ...  there is a good chance the Republican majority can put 
JC> >  amendments to the Constitution before the states on a 
JC> >  balanced budget, term limits, you name it, even prayer in 
JC> >  schools.

JC>      They don't have the numbers for this--yet.

     Add that they had 50 votes this year in many cases to their 
gains and see how close that is to 2/3rds.

JC> >  The only thing Conservatives need concern themselves with 
JC> >  at this point is a similar arrogance.  They need not work 
JC> >  with Clinton, rather only create a majority constituency 
JC> >  that will agree Clinton is blocking what they wish.

JC>       They'd better not mortally wound Clinton early on.  If 
JC>  he doesn't run and the Demos put up a moderate--say, a Sam 
JC>  Nunn type--the GOP could have difficulty grabbing the White 
JC>  House.  Won't happen, however, because the Demos are still 
JC>  liberals at heart.

     There is no evidence the voters want what The Clintons would 
call "center" types.  

JC> >  For example, Clinton's next year's budget goes directly to 
JC> >  the Republican controlled House Ways and Means Committee.  
JC> >  Perhaps they will not declare it dead on arrival as 
JC> >  happened to Reagan's budgets.

JC>      He he he

JC>       You can *bet* the family farm his budget will indeed 
JC>  be DOA at Capitol Hill.

     The Clintons are now impotent (or frigid, take your choice.)  
They have no claim to a public majority and no way to combat the 
new Congress.

JC> >      The people have rejected Clinton and everything he and 
JC> >  his fellow liberals have accomplished.  And in so doing 
JC> >  Clinton is now a lame duck president for the next 27 
JC> >  months.  He has no way to accomplish much of anything in 
JC> >  his favor in that time.

JC>       A truly smart individual in Clinton's spot could 
JC>  position himself in the center and make life very difficult 
JC>  for the GOP.  Clinton won't do it, however.

     There is no indication what the "center" might be much less 
that people want Clinton's definition of it might mean.

JC> >  Right or wrong even liberals are not dumb enough to ride 
JC> >  dead jackass.

JC>       They did exactly that for the past couple of years.  
JC>  Don't be surprised if they never climb off.

     They will not.  They are too stupid for that.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * The 1040, the Torah, the Torah I can read.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2350)
To:      All                                    15 Nov 94 15:07:00
Subject: BLYTHELY IGNORANT CLINTON              

     He still doesn't get it.

     Clinton has said he can go along with a school prayer 
amendment.  

     One more time, Billie Jeff, the President is not involved in 
the amendment process.  

     What an idiot.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Tonya Harding, Spokeswoman for Full Contact Figure Skating.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2369)
To:      All                                    15 Nov 94 20:43:00
Subject: IMPOSING LIBERTY ON US                 

                Imposing Liberty upon Ourselves
                               by
                           Matt Giwer (c) 1994 <11/15>

     We were told over two hundred years ago by those who founded
our country that the requirement to preserve our country was a
well educated citizenry.  Today our educational standards are
such that high school graduates can not name them much less what
they said.  And it is not only the standards of teaching but that
in many cases students are not even being taught the material in
the first place.
     We do have a democracy and just a week ago we demonstrated
it but what did we demonstrate?  Exit polls in Seattle found 70%
of the voters against Tom Foley their candidate would become
Speaker of the House.  Given the nationwide results that
misunderstanding may or may not have saved Foley's job but in his
district what can explain such an error?
     When I was suffering the slings and arrows of puberty we had
world history, American history and civics.  The courses were in
that order and were one year each.  The civics year covered the
operation of government at all levels.
     I will grant that passing was only knowing 70% of the
material at examination time.  I will grant for most that was the
peak of the learning curve but it was three related years of
study.  But it was three levels of acculturation, first the
world, then the nation, and finally how the nation work.
     I find nothing wrong with that sequence nor do I find
anything wrong with the content.  Simply because I studied it
that way does not mean there are not other ways to accomplish the
same objective.  But there is something we do not hear much about
today, regardless of the manner in which the subjects are being
covered, the objective.
     What other objective is there save to achieve the original
stated and necessary objective, a well educated electorate for
the preservation of our form of government?  Perhaps
unsurprisingly I have not heard that objective stated once in at
least twenty years.
     By whatever name those courses go these days, I have heard
they should have other objectives such as increasing personal
self esteem, that they should increase the student's awareness of
where his ancestors came from.  And these ideas are accepted with
an air of superiority.  Those who disagree are viewed as some
sort of racist low life.
     And they get away with inserting completely irrelevant
purposes into the course material because we are not dedicated to
the purpose of the course material in the first place.  That
purpose is in fact the preservation of our republican form of
government as embodied in the Constitution of the United States
and in the constitutions of the several states.  There is no
other legitimate purpose for this part of education.
     We can not maintain a strong citizen government by turning
out people who know more about the land of their ancestors than
they do about the culture of the United States.  We can not
maintain our democratic principles with a citizenry doing nothing
but living their lives feeling good about themselves because they
were told their ancestors did something worthwhile.
     Now there are some faced with learning the purpose of this
education for the first time who might say they only want it in
addition.  To those I would answer I regret there is not more
education toward the objective of strengthening our government.
And I would not stop at these three subjects.
     We only have twelve years at most to educate our children.
We only have them for a fixed number of hours in their lives
where we can require them to learn what is necessary for life in
this country.  Education is not only for the student.  It is also
for the country.
     The concept of education has focused solely upon its
benefits to the student.  We have forgotten the student must be
prepared to preserve the benefits of liberty for themselves and
ourselves by preserving our country and our constitution.
Knowledgeable citizen participation in our political institutions,
even if only by the vote, is as essential as participation in the
military in time of war.
     Yet today we squander the precious few hours we have to
prepare our children for this essential task in life are
squandered on things of no benefit.  If students must learn to
think better of themselves it it better to take the hours from
arithmetic than from the history / civics.  It is better to miss
a play of Shakespeare than to miss the thoughts of Thomas
Jefferson.  Not learning the latest ideas on the right foods to
eat is infinitely better than not learning the enduring thoughts
upon which our country continues to operate.
     Some would hold we have no right to impose upon our children
but rather they should be taught ideas from other cultures.  To
them I would point out they are very, very unlikely to ever get
close enough to those other countries to have to care.  And
again, learning the cultural history of Southeast Asia takes
hours away from learning the cultural history of the United
States.
     The United States does have a cultural.  It is a polyglot
culture.  It is a fluid culture.  And there is no other culture
like it on earth.  It is uniquely ours.  If only to increase its
rate of change it is our duty to preserve exactly that.
     Our ability to have the culture derives directly from our
political institutions.  Our culture is not what it is now rather
our culture is our ability to take the best from other cultures
and discard the worst.  We do not preserve that ability by
wasting time upon the culture that people's ancestors had the
wisdom to leave.
     Perhaps we can say the best thing we can teach our children
is the wisdom of all of our ancestors.  And their wisdom was
leaving where they came from in order to come here.  And for
those whose ancestors came here by force we may salute the wisdom
of their more recent ancestors in not taking up the many offers
to pay their way back where they came from.
     This is the country we are preserving and it is time we got
back to doing that and only that.

                            * * * * *

        Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

    P.O. Box 82541, Tampa, Florida, 33682-2541, 813-969-0362

                  [note new address and phone]



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * 6 dead, 22 wounded, a law against guns.  Some excuse.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

+++■■■■■ r_941120 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2266)
To:      All                                    16 Nov 94 20:54:00
Subject: CLINTON OFFERS TO HELP                 

     And now Clinton has said he will support three of the 
constitutional amendments in the Contract by adding school 
prayer.

     Don't you folks think it is about time he read his 
constitution and found he is not a part of it? 

     Certainly were he to politic for them it would only hurt.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * I am Ozyharriet, Family of Families

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2282)
To:      Michael Pilon                          17 Nov 94 03:05:00
Subject: 40% = 60% DEAD                         

MP>  MP>  But it was a moot point, when they called for volunteers 
MP>  MP>   for a 6 month trial for women soldiers only 2 stepped 
MP>  MP>   forward !

MP>  MG>  That sounds like a very rational position.  If you do not 
MP>  MG>  have to fight, do not fight.  Any rational army would run 
MP>  MG>  away.

MP>  Indeed, it is the little guy who dies and the politicos who 
MP>  give the speeches and erect the statues.  I was at a 
MP>  Remembrance ceremony Nov 11 which is s big dat in Canada.  

     Veterans' Day here.  National Holiday.  A rather nice one 
also unlike James Earl Ray Day.

MP>  The Silver Cross mother representing mothers of fallen 
MP>  military men was 102.  I also saw one of two living Victoria 
MP>  Cross recipients, seeing that medal really made my day.

     Sounds like you have come to terms with your age since we 
first met here.  It is time we think for our countries rather 
than for ourselves.  In general they are the only children we 
have left.     


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * I am not a number.  I am a free man.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2283)
To:      All                                    17 Nov 94 03:13:00
Subject: FOR THOSE WHO MISSED I 01              

 ##########  Original From: MATT GIWER
 # STOLEN #             To: REX BENNETT
 #  STUFF #    Date/Number: 11/17/94 - Not Yet Posted
 ##########             On: DOC'S - 0004 - Baychat
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

RB> MG>  1.  THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT
RB> MG> 
RB> MG>  A balanced budget/tax limitation amendment and a 
RB> MG>  legislative line-item veto to restore fiscal responsibility 
RB> MG>  to an out-of-control Congress, requiring them to live under 
RB> MG>  the same budget constraints as families and businesses.

RB>   While the line-item-veto may prove good, an amendment to 
RB>   the Constitution requiring a balanced budget can prove 
RB>   economically fatal to the United States in times of 
RB>   economic crisis, or even during times of economic cycles, 
RB>   and remove all flexibility to respond to unforeseen 
RB>   circumstance thereby worsening already bad economic 
RB>   situations.  

     Good sir, I believe we have met at a couple of gatherings.  
You did not appear to be a teenager by any stretch.  Therefore, 
unless you have been much more fortunate in life than me you have 
had a few economic crisis -- or whatever the plural is.  I never 
had the slightest idea that going into even greater debt would in 
some manner alleviate the current crisis.  You appear to be of 
the mentality that gets a new credit card to pay off the old.

While it may work for state governments (who 
RB>   do not have responsibility for manipulating the economy) 
RB>   it can be fatal on a national basis.  

     Speaking of which, manipulating the economy is on the hit 
list along with welfare.

Also those citizens 
RB>   in dire need will find a government that turns a blind eye 
RB>   as was of the case in the early days of the history of 
RB>   this country.  This is a very dangerous act that is far 
RB>   more dangerous than any deficit has ever been.  

     What are you expecting?  Liberals forming militias?  

RB>   Unfortunately, too many people do not understand just how 
RB>   dangerous this is.  

     An armed liberal is truly dangerous but then when their 
objective is welfare it is clearly theft.

We can find ourselves in a state of 
RB>   perpetual recession and witness a menacing deterioration 
RB>   of the nation's infrastructure and public support 
RB>   structure.  The end result can be to place all power into 
RB>   the hands of the very wealthy and leave the average 
RB>   citizen powerless in the face of an unresponsive 
RB>   government.

     I can see why you do not believe there is a ballot box after 
last week.  

RB> MG>  2.  THE TAKING BACK OF OUR STREETS ACT
RB> MG> 
RB> MG>  An anti-crime package including stronger 
RB> MG>  truth-in-sentencing, 'good faith' exclusionary rule 
RB> MG>  exemptions, effective death penalty provisions, and cuts in 
RB> MG>  social spending from this summer's 'crime' bill to fund 
RB> MG>  prison construction and additional law enforcement to keep 
RB> MG>  people secure in their neighborhoods and kids safe in their 
RB> MG>  schools.

RB>   Far too much emphasis is being placed on Federal 
RB>   involvement in crime reduction leading toward an ever 
RB>   growing system of police state powers that make the 
RB>   average citizen powerless against the state.  

     Now you are sounding libertarian.  It is good to see the 
expected turn around happening so quickly.

Couple this 
RB>   with a Federal government that grows ever more callous 
RB>   toward the economic needs of the people while controlling 
RB>   the people's actions through increased police powers and 
RB>   you have the structure for a "third world" style of 
RB>   government.  

     But remember we are turning away from the liberal fascist 
form of government.  That in itself is good.

This trend is exceedingly *DANGEROUS* and 
RB>   needs to be turned around.  The people are being 
RB>   conditioned by the constant barrage of media 
RB>   "crime-events" to doubt their own capabilities to stem 
RB>   crime in their own communities and to accept government 
RB>   control of all aspects of their lives.  This is the road 
RB>   to fascism and to the destruction of democracy!

     It appears you are supporting dancing classes and midnight 
basketball.  Why?

RB>   A false image of crime has been created and this needs to 
RB>   be exposed.  Get the federal government OUT of crime 
RB>   control!

     Very Libertarian.  You must have been paying attention to my 
articles.

RB> MG>  3.  THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT
RB> MG> 
RB> MG>  Discourage illegitimacy and teen pregnancy by prohibiting 
RB> MG>  welfare to minor mothers and denying increased AFDC for 
RB> MG>  additional children while on welfare, cut spending for 
RB> MG>  welfare programs, and enact a tough two-years-and-out 
RB> MG>  provision with work requirements to promote individual 
RB> MG>  responsibility.

RB>   What this means is to turn poor people, who are largely an 
RB>   uneducated class, into a perpetual under class with no 
RB>   hope for a future and no where to turn for help.  Any 
RB>   attempt to counter government neglect by organization will 
RB>   be met with vastly increased police powers.  It will 
RB>   create a new class to replace the suppressed "nigger 
RB>   class" that followed the civil war.  This is already 
RB>   happening to some extent and will be vastly broadened 
RB>   under Republican domination.

     Try reading what it says and not knee-jerking.  It says that 
additional children will not be rewarded.  It says the 
Republicans have more faith in people and truly believe they can 
take care of themselves just as well as they did before the Great 
Society programs started.  And, as you know, there has been no 
measurable change because of those wasted 5 trillion dollars.  
Therefore ceasing to waste more money will make no difference 
either.

RB> MG>  4.  THE FAMILY REINFORCEMENT ACT
RB> MG> 
RB> MG>  Child support enforcement, tax incentives for adoption, 
RB> MG>  strengthening rights of parents in their children's 
RB> MG>  education, stronger child pornography laws, and an elderly 
RB> MG>  dependent care tax credit to reinforce the central role of 
RB> MG>  families in American society.

RB>   Single people will be forced to pay the taxes of those who 
RB>   wanted to be treated as a privileged class for bearing 
. 
Continued in the next message...

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2284)
To:      Bob Sillyheimer                        17 Nov 94 03:19:00
Subject: NEWS YOU MAY HAVE MISSED               

BS> MG>Canada cuts quota on migrants

BS> MG>     OTTAWA -- Canada said yesterday it is reducing, for the  first time
BS> in
BS> MG>decade, the number of immigrants it will accept  and that preference
BS> will be
BS> MG>given to skilled workers and  businessmen.

BS> They should have done that 50 years ago, before letting certain Krauts
BS> in.

     I am not aware they ever did.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * The Hansen Brothers; my kind of debaters.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2285)
To:      Michael Pilon                          17 Nov 94 03:19:00
Subject: THE GAY MILITARY                       

MP>  MG> man is all he can be.  Think colorful; think combat ready.

MP>  Matt, how about mood berets.  It can get a man down knowing 
MP>  he will forever be under a green beret.  What sort of 
MP>  statement is that ? How about camoflage (sp? to match one's 
MP>  colours, heavens if you are an earth tone fine but a blue 
MP>  or a] purple..talk about standing out in a crowd let alone 
MP>  in a field or a forest ! Sure tight combats are derigueuer 
MP>  today but what about the man who wants to feel free and 
MP>  loose while still maintaining combat readiness, I say the 
MP>  baggy look can make a combat ready statement ! And those 
MP>  boots..ucky ucky, a flat heel for the tall man and elevator 
MP>  heels for the short man, with todays lightweight synthetics 
MP>  its up up and away for even the petite ranger .  And what 
MP>  about formal wear, is a bow tie still in, oh I hope so and 
MP>  with flair any man can make an entrance that will have them 
MP>  gushing for days.  The British used to wear a Sam Brown with 
MP>  their service dress, and what officer wouldn't look oh so 
MP>  masculin with his Sam Brown....oh do harken back to 1775 
MP>  when the US won the war but lost the fashion.
MP> 
MP>  Okay enough of this I'll be persona non grata among the 
MP>  gays and homophiles but I just can't resist a good fashion 
MP>  statement ;-)

     You are hired!


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Reach out and offend someone.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2286)
To:      All                                    17 Nov 94 04:38:00
Subject: OREGON SUICIDE LAW                     

JS> MG>                Oregon Pharmacy        555-1234

JS> MG>                          Dr. Kavorkian

JS> MG>                        Suicide capsules


JS> MG>                     Take only as directed.

JS>  Matt, you have already been warned against posting 
JS>  off-topic messages on the Science Echo.  This message has 
JS>  absolutely no bearing on the subject matter of this echo.  
JS>  I assume that your posting it here was a mistake, for which 
JS>  you will apologize, and not a deliberate attempt to test 
JS>  the resolve of the moderator...  for which you may have your 
JS>  access cut.
JS> 
JS>  It's up to you, Matt...  what'll it be?  An admission of 
JS>  error and an apology or netmail to your Sysop?

     I don't give a rat's ass, frankly.  I do keep a good 
accounting of the rules as posted monthly and I find none from 
this conference yet that is the duty of the moderator as per Fido 
rules.  I have been here quite some time but no rules.

     Further, if science cannot have humor it is not where I got 
my degree.  And if pharmacy is not a science then my deceased 
second wife with a Ph.D. in Pharmacology was way off base in her 
education and in her teaching of medical school at Tufts.  

     And if you are completely humor deficient the line

               Take only as directed

does raise the issue that is essential to the entire issue of any 
science.

     Once a law is passed as in Oregon then there is a technical 
requirement not to simply "mis-prescribe" a drug but also to 
develop the "perfect" suicide drug.  

     If there is no place for the applications of science to be 
discussed in a science conference just where can it be discussed 
rationally and without politics?  

     I presume you realize there is now a market for drug 
companies to produce the proverbial "black capsule" for public 
consumption so to speak.  

     There are going to be truth in labeling laws applied to 
these drugs.  There are going to be lawsuits if the person does 
not die as a result.  

     And if a science conference is not the place to discuss such 
matters then I can not imagine where it should be discussed.  We 
have people here (presumably) who will be tasked with developing 
the 100% effective suicide pill.  Is it not a valid point to 
discuss the FDA approval of it?  The field test results 
themselves should yield volumes of discussion.

     A moderator is also permitted to apologize without comment.  
Yours will be accepted as such.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * To much of a good thing is a gift from the gods.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2287)
To:      Rex Bennett                            17 Nov 94 05:20:00
Subject: DID YOU MISS IT? /1                    

RB> MG> 1.  THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT

     It is good to see you going national.  May I point out it is 
not considered good form to do multiple posts as you have just 
done?

     The problem is not that you have done it but that I will 
respond in the same manner.  Thus every answer gets spread across 
every conference as you will soon notice.  It turns into chain 
mail.  I will give you a list of my national conference postings 
if that will work for you.

     When you make these national you post to ALL not to me.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Child abuse experts have no children.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2309)
To:      All                                    17 Nov 94 15:26:00
Subject: ZOOKEEPER DAVE                         

     A couple days ago a man named Dave from Fairfield CA called 
the Limbaugh show.  This person was angry but Rush let him go on 
and finally he came out with a zoo analogy.  From that point on 
he became "Zookeeper Dave" on radio and TV.  

     Today, 17th, he gets through again and effectively 
threatened his life.  It is good to see liberals responding true 
to form.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Resistance to the EPA is obedience to God.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 20060 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2323)
To:      All                                    17 Nov 94 20:40:00
Subject: CALIF PROP 187                         

SS> BB> Just wait a minute, lets take a few steps back and look at 
SS> BB> the situation.  First of all, illegal emigrants are just 
SS> BB> that, they are illegal.  They broke the law entering this 
SS> BB> country.  Second, constitutional rights are only offered to 
SS> BB> US Citizens and legal emigrants.

SS>  BZZZZZZZTTTT!  Wrong.  Constitutional rights are available 
SS>  to ALL in this country, not just citizens.
SS> 
SS>  Whether this extends to entitlements is entirely another 
SS>  matter.

     Certain enumerated rights are specifically protected while 
all others are retained to the states and people without 
enumeration.  I have read it a couple of times and no place do I 
find any right to benefits being protected.  That would under the 
state constitution so far as I can tell.  

     The issue comes down to the 14th amendment specifically 

14th Amendment
Sect. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States and of the State wherein they reside.  No State
shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^^^^^^^^^^
or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction
                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
the equal protection of the laws.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

     Note that the requirement is only to be in the state not to 
be either a citizen of the state or of the United States.  The 
laws states the conditions for state services and long as they 
are in the state they can get them.  For example, several nations 
have counselor offices in Los Angeles.  They can send their 
children to public schools without prejudice although their 
countries customarily contribute to the states when that happens.

     The complicating questions are, are social services and 
schooling in fact privileges and is it proper to use persons born 
in the US as a vehicle for finding their illegal parents?  That 
latter is a question in that such things as asking children to if 
their parents use drugs and then arresting the parents is 
generally frowned upon by the courts.  


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Double O Limbaugh, License to annoy.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 20060 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

+++■■■■■ r_941121 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2319)
To:      Jack Wilder                            17 Nov 94 22:48:00
Subject: EVOLUTION HOAX                         

JW>  MG>  Of course but it was thinking that cannot be traced back 
JW>  MG>  further than 600 BC so I hear and it is certainly not 
JW>  MG>  supported by much of the rest of what at least the 
JW>  MG>  Christians recognize as

JW>         I think you will find that the egyptians were of
JW>   the belief in an afterlife well before 600 BC.

     Mea Culpa.  Quite correct.  I had in mind the near eastern 
phoenician cultures.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Stand aside!  I write large messages.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 20060 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2324)
To:      Michael Pilon                          17 Nov 94 23:18:00
Subject: 70% FAVOUR GUN CONTRO                  

MP>  MG>  Just to keep things simple that is roughly 2 to 1 and the 
MP>  MG>  ratio of the murder rates is 8 to 1.  That puts poverty 
MP>  MG>  level blacks 16 times more likely to murder and 22 times 
MP>  MG>  more likely to commit robbery.
MP>  MG> 
MP>  MG>  Be prepared to read the howls from those who insist it is a 
MP>  MG>  matter of socioeconomic levels.  I did give them fair 
MP>  MG>  warning on this for over a week.  Your timing of the 
MP>  MG>  question was excellent.  Thank you.

MP>  The US is going through some very severe problems.  One in 
MP>  my opinion is that for the first time since 1776 there is 
MP>  really no discernible ennemy.  
     
     I think I can name one or two times between then and now 
where we lacked an enemy of interest.

So a nation geared up for so 
MP>  long will not grind to a sudden halt.  There is a right wing 
MP>  backlash going on that may not be entirely without 
MP>  redeeming value.  Your facts are a case in point.  White 
MP>  America is becoming impatient with the inner city problems 
MP>  and are getting fed up with it being attributed to racism.  
MP>  Some blacks have dared to point the finger at some segments 
MP>  of the black community.
MP> 
MP>      The problem will only get better when the black 
MP>  community starts to accept the fact that their leadership 
MP>  has fed them a program of no hope based solely on their 
MP>  dependence on the white community.  The proposition of the 
MP>  minority as victim is wearing thin, the US is a land where 
MP>  there can be opportunity if one is to work for it.  I have 
MP>  seen blacks on TV complaining that they have top work 20% 
MP>  harder..which may be true but many seem to be working 30% 
MP>  less.  We have all met blacks who have taken the bull by the 
MP>  horn and fit in to a hard working profession and been 
MP>  accepted because they measure up to the standard.

     Anyone complaining about having to work hard is a loser from 
the start.

MP>      Any person who prides himself on his efforts will 
MP>  readily accept someone else who measures up.  This is most 
MP>  apparent in sports, it is the most professions and from 
MP>  Americans whom I have met it is true in all aspects of 
MP>  life.  Only the very ignorant in the US want to reamin 
MP>  segregated, the intelligent want everyone to get ahead 
MP>  because for simply economic reason everyone will benefit.

MP>      I await the howls but doubt if anyone can find much 
MP>  fault if your figures are in fact accurate, 

     They are as accurate as I can make then and they pass any 
sanity check for them I can think of.  They are certainly "close 
enough."

which you say 
MP>  they are.

     Since I did the follow up that considered socioeconomic 
factors those who had something else to blame have not responded.  


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Never assume conspiracy where stupidity will suffice.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 20060 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2325)
To:      Carole Thomas                          17 Nov 94 23:23:00
Subject: 'THE BELL CURVE'       01              

CT> MG>       Bringing together a dozens specialists in the same 
CT> MG>  field creates a committee.  Bringing together a dozens 
CT> MG>  specialists in different fields creates a solution.

CT>            Returning to my sub-premise of the differences 
CT>  between people problems and inanimate object problems, 
CT>  specialists in social problems may bring similar learning 
CT>  to the meeting, but they also bring a wide range of moral, 
CT>  ethical, cultural, religious values to the table and these 
CT>  will have an important bearing on any suggestions for human 
CT>  intervention that they may offer.  Realizing that there are 
CT>  rarely any absolute solutions to the problems that people 
CT>  present, it is useful to consider these additional 
CT>  non-formal attitudes when offered by a reasonable person.  
CT>  Technical solutions are inappropriate for human questions.

     I really can not hold there is a difference when there is 
any more than family or close friends involved.  

     Any solution that costs money is technical.  It is denial of 
that reality that creates so many half-ass solutions to human 
problems.  One can bring in every factor in the human condition 
but once finite resources are introduced feelings have to go out 
the window else the books don't balance.  Witness entitlement 
programs.

CT> MG>       I am going to post Reagan's "Altzheimer's" public 
CT> MG>  letter some day soon.  A careful reading of what it does 
CT> MG>  not say will prove the case of people people filling in the 
CT> MG>  blanks.

CT>           Alzheimer's, not alt.zheimer's.

     My sentence structure, your punctuation.  Which reminds me 
to get around to scanning it in.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 *                Barney Must Die!

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 20060 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2327)
To:      Carole Thomas                          17 Nov 94 23:51:00
Subject: 'THE BELL CURVE'       02              

CT> MG>       And the voice interface, the fuzzy logic and 
CT> MG>  artificial intelligence efforts of today are working to 
CT> MG>  produce that kind of computer.

CT>            But none of this will do anything to bridge the 
CT>  widening gap between the cognitive elite and the key 
CT>  punchers.  "Dumbing down" (computer language in this case) 
CT>  does nothing to increase understanding.

     Agreed.  But I do not see computers being a venue for 
increasing the gap.  

CT> MG>       And of course the efforts at an "intuitive" interface 
CT> MG>  that have been going on since before Apple stole the idea 
CT> MG>  from ARC do appear to work for everyone save those who can 
CT> MG>  think logically.

CT>       ARC?...Association of Retarded Citizens..American Red 
CT>  Cross..Aids Related Complex...Jeanne d'Arc...Alien Rights 
CT>  Conference?

     Sorry about that, PARC, Palo Alto Research Center, owned by 
Xerox.  

     But here the issue is the dream of "intuitive" interaction 
with computers to reduce that gap.  The problem is still out 
there to be solved but there is a serious effort in that 
direction.  As someone at COMDEX got on TV to point out, the 
computer can still only do the specific jobs the software permits 
rather than what the user wants.  What the user wants is the 
objective.  

     I see computers as no different from cars in the early days.  
Back then you needed to be a good mechanic to own one.  These 
days anyone can get a license.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * One Finger is all a real American needs.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 20060 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

+++■■■■■ r_941126 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2375)
To:      All                                    23 Nov 94 03:37:00
Subject: SURVIVAL                               

Harper's Magazine, December 1994

Harper's Index, page 13

Factor by which the mortality rate of the homeless urban 
non-white American exceeds that of the housed non-whites : 2

Factor by which the mortality of rate of homeless urban white 
Americans exceeds that of housed whites : 5

=====

     It appears to me to say that non-whites survive better than 
whites while homeless.  

     Does that really mean there is a jungle out there?
     
     Comments are encouraged, the more outraged the better.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Take and forget is not an oath of office.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 20060 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2378)
To:      Shane Gouseman                         23 Nov 94 16:51:00
Subject: A FACE ON AIDS II                      

SG> MG>  It doesn't bother you that Herman was using needles in the 
SG> MG>  first place?!

SG>    Not at all.  He could have gotten it from having sex with 
SG>  the wrong person.  The cause isn't relavent anymore, just 
SG>  the fact that he is going to die, a very SLOW and PAINFUL 
SG>  death.  NO ONE deserves that, no matter what they have 
SG>  done.  Murder someone, and you get a quick execution.

     And the point is at the moment he is for all intents and 
purposes asymptomatic.

SG>    Well, If it was HIS MONEY, then he must have been working 
SG>  hard to earn it.  This is my presumption based on the fact 
SG>  that the origional poster didn't state that he had a 
SG>  criminal record.  Then again Herman, will never see 93 now 
SG>  will he?

     Why should he not be working for a living now?

SG>    Seems to me, that he had a work ethic, how else would he 
SG>  have been able to finance his drug habbit?

     That was not included in the articles.

SG> MG>   But that's the way society (nowadays) wants people to be, 
SG> MG>  dependant on the government for everything.

SG>    Not at all.  You can get AIDS from sexual contact (hetro 
SG>  or homo), exchange of blood, needle sharing or other 
SG>  contact which can exchange bodily fluid.  (Ex.  Dentist's)  
SG>  AIDS is a very expensive disease to fight, so do we let 
SG>  those who need financial help die a more painful death?

     AIDS is a set of diseases where every penny spent is a total 
waste.  The only honest this is to prescribe pain killers and 
send the home.  Everything else is a waste.  But then, he is ONLY 
HIV+.  

SG> MG>  Grow up people and take responsibility for your own 
SG> MG>  actions.  No one but yourself makes the choice that you 
SG> MG>  want to be a drug user and may possibly get AIDS from your 
SG> MG>  decision.

SG>    And if you get AIDS from your dentist, or from a 
SG>  operation, I expect you to take the responsibility for 
SG>  yourself, and sue no one or go on public assistance.

     After the dental folks gave up trying to understand how 
someone could get AIDS in a dental situation one of his lovers 
admitted the patients were deliberately infected.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Never assume conspiracy where stupidity will suffice.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 20060 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2379)
To:      Wayne Jones                            23 Nov 94 17:04:00
Subject: A FACE ON AIDS II                      

WJ>          If not why?  Does the mosquito filter the blood, 
WJ>          does it somehow purify it?  If this is true, why do 
WJ>          we not have a cure by now?   Just a few thoughts 
WJ>          for the day.

     What a mosquito does is digests it.  They one bite once per 
eating period.  Thus there is no way to transmit it.

     And it has been tested with migrant workers.  One would 
expect it to be present equally in children and adults if 
mosquitoes could transmit it.  It is not.  They show the same pre 
and post distribution of the disease as in a population living in 
air conditioning.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * "Beware the low profit."  Giwer 1:1

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 20060 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

+++■■■■■ r_941127 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2491)
To:      David Lentz                            23 Nov 94 23:25:00
Subject: WATERGATE MEMORIES                     

DL>  The fact of Libby's anger and your account of Dean's 
DL>  testimony appear to be related.

     I didn't type in the entire article but back then Dean's 
memory was the most quoted by the press in bringing down Nixon.  
He has good reason to dislike the man.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Marriage is grand.  Divorce is twenty grand.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 20060 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2492)
To:      All                                    24 Nov 94 01:35:00
Subject: BLYTHELY IGNORANT CLINTON              

JC> MG> JC>  He's on a high from firing those Cattle Guards out west.

JC> MG> I miss the reference.

JC>  On a recent trip out west (somewhere like Iowa) the Prez 
JC>  caught hell from the farmers about the grazing rights etc.  
JC>  In response, upon hearing there were more than 50,000 
JC>  Cattle Guards he advised the SecAg to fire half of them.
JC> 
JC>  It didn't work too well when they found that cattle guards 
JC>  were the metal gratings used on access roads to pastures 
JC>  that allowed vehicles to cross over but to keep the cattle 
JC>  from wandering out.

     I thought I had heard them all.  The man is a genius.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Were the police at Wal-Mart?

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 20060 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2493)
To:      All                                    24 Nov 94 04:47:00
Subject: THE NEXT ELECTION                      

     Given this last election and despite everything anyone might 
detract from this, unless there is some great change from this 
year, the next presidential candidate needs the endorsement of 
Rush Limbaugh to win.  This is not to tout him rather to point 
out that politics is very strange.  

     Consider the facts.  If you make the strange assumption that 
all of his listeners are "mind numbed robots" then he has 20 
million voters in his pocket ready to vote for the candidate he 
endorses.  

     If they are not such robots then there is a decent fraction 
of them that are listening because he is saying what they like to 
hear.

     In either case he can deliver something on the order of 20 
million votes and that is the largest voting block in the 
country.  It is nearly half of what elected Clinton.

     Later I may get around to an article on how a talk show host 
can possibly become a political force in this country.  At the 
moment I am thinking is shows a very sad state of affairs.  Not 
that Limbaugh is so prominent.  Rather that elected officials 
have become so weak.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Even I am impressed.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 20060 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2494)
To:      All                                    25 Nov 94 03:55:00
Subject: CHICAGO VOTING SCANDAL                 

 ##########  Original From: KEVIN CARLIN
 # STOLEN #             To: ALL
 #  STUFF #    Date/Number: 11/23/94 - 0001982
 ##########             On: DOC'S - 0437 - Politics
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The dead vote has now been fully counted in Chicago, and with 8,392 of the
deceased voting in Illinois' Fifth Congressional District Dan Rostenkowski
(D) failed for the first time to receive a majority of votes among
Chicago's highly esteemed dead voters, considered by many to be the most
active voting bloc of its type.  Just two years ago Rep. Rostenkowski
fought to assure the dead Social Security benefits in perpetuity.

Shaken by this unexpected sea change in the behavior of a critical voting
bloc, local Democrats were at a loss to explain the shift, which also
escaped detection in exit polling.  Leaders of the dead bloc could not be
reached for comment.

In a related story, Chicago district attorneys have announced the discovery
of a little known law forbidding the dead from voting, and are planning to
try all 8,392 of the dead for voter fraud.  In a statement reaffirming that
all nonCongresspersons, even the "respiratorally challenged", must be held
accountable to the law for their actions, a DA office spokesman insisted
that the stern anti-crime mood of the public leaves no choice but
prosecution to the fullest extent of the law. 

                                                        -- Kevin

---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Resistance to the EPA is obedience to God.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 20060 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2495)
To:      George Noonan                          25 Nov 94 05:59:00
Subject: BELL SHAPED CURVE                      

GN>  cities.  As late as 1953 I knew men in the Army, 
GN>  professional privates, who signed for their pay with an 
GN>  "X".  These were damn good soldiers.  Durning the war they 
GN>  might have been made even a sargent.  But back at the 
GN>  barracks they were privates again.  Today there is no place 
GN>  in the Army for these people.  And there is no place in 
GN>  industry for those who can use a pick and a shovel, but who 
GN>  don't have the smarts to learn to use a back-hoe either.  
GN>  And as we get to more and more a technological society a 
GN>  greater and greater percentage of our potential work force 
GN>  are being phased out for lack of intelligence.  YOU tell me 
GN>  what we should do with them!

     Are not the burger flipping jobs giving them employment in 
line with their economic worth?


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Child abuse experts have no children.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 20060 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2496)
To:      All                                    25 Nov 94 16:34:00
Subject: ETHICS AGAINST TOYS 4 TOT              

     Clinton has changed a Christmas tradition for the Marines.  

     In case anyone notices the Marines are missing from the Toys 
for Tots campaign this year, it is all due to the ethics rules 
signed by Clinton in 1993.  Spokesman for the Marine Corp said it 
took a year to understand how to implement it all.  

     Under the rules the Marines are prohibited for "soliciting 
services or materials" as are all government employees under the 
new ethics rules.  The prohibitions extends to the use of 
government equipment (trucks and such) in support of the toy 
collection campaign.

     It appears Clinton has fit the image of the Grinch.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Bureau of Firearms, Alcohol, Religion and Tobacco

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 20060 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2497)
To:      Moody Blues                            25 Nov 94 18:28:00
Subject: A MINOR ANALYSIS                       

MB>  I have been watching a series of programs on a local 
MB>  Christian TV station about rock and roll...  talk about 
MB>  spin!!!
MB> 
MB>     Did you know:
MB> 
MB>  1.  The Beatles are agents of Satan?
MB> 
MB>  2.  The Beatles have satanic signs on their albums? (Yellow 
MB>  Submarine Album, note the hand at the top, middle of the 
MB>  album...)
MB> 
MB>  3.  Simon and Garfunkel, Elvis, CCR are agents of Satan or 
MB>  have satanic verses or references to satanic 
MB>  ideas/rituals...  (the Rolling Stones too...  note their 
MB>  song, "Sympathy for the Devil")

     It is all true but only fundies can hear it.  It is a form 
of psychological warfare.



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * "Beware the low profit."  Giwer 1:1

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 20060 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2498)
To:      Bob Sillyheimer                        25 Nov 94 19:47:00
Subject: HETS>50 OF NEW AIDS                    

BS>  If someone is making an assertion about how many with AIDS 
BS>  are homosexual, it is absolutely relevant to point out 
BS>  those who are, in truth, heterosexual.

     It is also relevant to point out that over 90% of them are 
IV drug users.  Thus the issue is not sexual transmission but 
blood transmission.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Though I walk thru the valley, I am the meanest SOB.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 20060 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

+++■■■■■ r_941128 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2488)
To:      All                                    26 Nov 94 01:18:00
Subject: V. A. DAY                              

     For those who wish to start counting down, the liberation of 
America will be complete on 12 November 1996, Victory in America 
Day.

---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Liberals roasting on an open fire, Jack Frost nipping at

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 20060 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2489)
To:      Carole Thomas                          26 Nov 94 03:28:00
Subject: 'THE BELL CURVE'       01              

CT> MG>       I really can not hold there is a difference when there 
CT> MG>  is any more than family or close friends involved.

CT>       The government has become the surrogate family.  

     Then there comes a time in every good family when the child 
declines to do something for themselves and is invited to leave.  
There is no indication that is a general help but then there is 
no indication things are different if they stay at home.  

Since 
CT>  they don't really know the problem party as a family might, 
CT>  the best they can do is to make a lot of assumptions.  But, 
CT>  of course, the lack of family involvement is usually what 
CT>  brings them to the welfare office in the first place.

     The inability of the government to act as a concerned family 
or friend or neighbor is what keeps them on the system.  

CT>       Entitlement programs are definitely out of control.  

     That was the point of creating them.  So that there would be 
no controls.  They were sold under the guise that they had to 
work so any temporary deficit would disappear in the long run.

CT>  What is anyone entitled to anyway?  And why are families 
CT>  determined to be beyond responsibility?  What kind of 
CT>  nonsense is it to have statistics of children below the 
CT>  poverty line when it is their parents who are the real 
CT>  statistic?

     "For the children" was and still is a good enough reason for 
most people for the Waco massacre.  Post the parents and not the 
children and it is harder to make the hearts bleed.  Make the 
case that the problems stem from irresponsible adults rather than 
from children and it puts a different complexion on everything.

     It has been a matter of selling a case by spin control from 
the beginning and it only now when there is no denying the 
failure that a discussion can be held without name calling.  It 
has been nothing but a political gambit from the beginning.  

     What I am finding interesting is that the press is now 
tending to side with winners in their reporting.  Perhaps that 
will mean the end of the obligatory weekly news coverage of the 
plight of the poor and be replaced by one on how they cause it 
themselves.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Life's purpose is the other SOB dying for his beliefs.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 20060 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2490)
To:      Jolene Post                            26 Nov 94 03:51:00
Subject: ANIT-ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT PL              

JP>  Anti-illegal immigrant plan faces obstacles
JP> 
JP>      By Adrian Croft
JP> 
JP>      SAN FRANCISCO (Reuter) - A controversial anti-illegal 
JP>  immigration measure passed by California voters faced 
JP>  mounting obstacles Thursday after two courts blocked it and 
JP>  the state schools chief pledged not to implement it.

JP>      California's newly-elected schools chief, Delaine 
JP>  Eastin, said Wednesday she did not plan to enforce 
JP>  Proposition 187 even if the courts did not block it.

     One of the people who filed a suit against 187 was the head 
of the LA Board of Education.  At the next meeting citizens 
turned out demanding his resignation.  I would presume the head 
of the state would simply be impeached.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * The tuna doesn't taste the same without the dolphin.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 20060 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2491)
To:      Tad Cook                               26 Nov 94 03:56:00
Subject: ANTI-ENVIRONMENTAL MYTHS               

TC>                 Environmental Research Foundation

     Nice bit of propaganda.

TC> ANTI-ENVIRONMENTAL MYTHS ANSWERED

TC> MYTH No. 1: The public is fed up with extremist environmental
TC> regulations

TC>  FACT: The anti-environment movement is really a loose
TC>  coalition of industry lobbies and other special interests
TC>  that create storefronts to make themselves look like
TC>  grass-roots groups.

     But people are still fed up with it.

TC>  MYTH No.  2: Unbridled environmental regulation has resulted
TC>  in the loss of thousands of jobs in forestry, mining,
TC>  recreation, and other industries.
TC>
TC>  FACT: This is one of the anti-environment lobby's favorite
TC>  fairy tales.  Environmental regulation has taken the rap for
TC>  jobs lost to everything from mechanization, exportation,
TC>  and economic downturns, to downright corporate
TC>  profiteering.  In fact, environmental protection is a
TC>  growth industry.  Every year, the environmental industry
TC>  grows by five to six percent and what is today a $200
TC>  billion a year international industry, is projected to rise
TC>  to a $300 billion dollar a year industry by the end of the
TC>  decade.

     At best this means that factory workers get to change to
being hazardous waste, minimum wage clean up crews who have to
chase jobs around the country.

     BUT it does not address the net loss of jobs in the least.

TC>  MYTH No.  3: For over 100 years, public lands have been
TC>  available for grazing sheep and cattle.  Now,
TC>  preservationists are threatening to lock up the land and
TC>  put family livestock operations out of business by
TC>  increasing grazing fees.
TC>
TC>  FACT: Only two percent of all livestock operators graze
TC>  their cattle on public lands.

     The fraction is irrelevant.  The fact is it is not a myth in
that is it exactly what is happening.

The government's cheap
TC>  grazing fees give an unfair competitive advantage to
TC>  corporations and wealthy individual operators over small
TC>  family ranchers, who must pay the full cost of grazing
TC>  their cattle on private lands.

     Class warfare won't sell your case but IF it is ONLY two
percent then it is too little too worry about as that bit of
propaganda has just said.

Meanwhile, livestock
TC>  overgrazing has eroded soils and despoiled riparian
TC>  [stream-side] areas, taking a huge toll on wildlife
TC>  habitat, and the scenic, archaeological, and recreational
TC>  values of public land that all Americans own.

     And people are sick and tired of animals being put before
people.

TC>  MYTH No.  4: We don't need to save every endangered species
TC>  and subspecies, particularly when people's jobs are at
TC>  stake.

TC>  FACT: While extinction is a natural part of evolution,
TC>  human activities have accelerated it 10,000 times.

     This is a econut myth.  There is no evidence for it.

Natural
TC>  selection is the process for strengthening biodiversity,
TC>  while the unnatural selection prompted by people
TC>  artificially robs the Earth of its most important genetic
TC>  resources.

     Ah, the christian fundamentalist viewpoint that humans are
special creation, not natural and therefore human actions are
unnatural.

TC>  The genetic information inside one mouse would fill all 15
TC>  editions of the Encyclopedia Britannica published since
TC>  1768.

     Irrelevant to putting rats ahead of people.

It is this wealth of information which provides
TC>  scientists with the key to new miracle cures like taxol
TC>  (derived from the Pacific Yew tree),

     That is a flat out lie.

which benefits women
TC>  suffering from ovarian and breast cancer, and digitalis
TC>  (derived from the purple foxglove), a drug used to treat
TC>  over three million Americans suffering from heart disease.

     Only very, very rarely.  Most all the natural ones are
primitive compared to the manufactured ones.

TC>  The cure for diseases like AIDS may be hidden in one of the
TC>  100 species which become extinct every day.

     That clearly misrepresents the nature of AIDS.

And many jobs
TC>  rely on the health of species and ecosystems --from a
TC>  billion dollar fishing industry to the pharmaceutical
TC>  industry.  The annual value of drugs derived from plants
TC>  alone is over $40 billion.

     $40 billion is so small compared to the environmental $300
billion growth industry mentioned above it is not important.

TC>  MYTH No.  5.  Wetlands regulation has denied ordinary
TC>  citizens opportunities to build homes and businesses.  If
TC>  protecting the environment is in the interest of "the
TC>  public good," then the public ought to compensate
TC>  individuals for the lost value of their property.
TC>
TC>  FACT: The number of individuals who are denied the total
TC>  use of their property from wetlands regulation are few and
TC>  far between.

     So you admit it is true.  Then why is it called a myth?

In fact, over 98 percent of permit
TC>  applications for building in wetlands are approved.

     After years of uncompensated losses while awaiting approval
and extensive, uncompensated changes.



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Eat anything that doesn't eat you first.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 20060 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2492)
To:      Tad Cook                               26 Nov 94 03:57:00
Subject: ANTI-ENVIRONMENTAL MYTHS               

TC>  Wetlands regulation protects millions of American property
TC>  owners whose homes would be flooded and access to clean
TC>  water disrupted by unregulated development.

     It goes from few and far between to millions in only one
paragraph.  And then throws in the lie that wetlands laws have
nothing to do with building in flood prone areas.

Not only do
TC>  more than 40 percent of endangered species rely on wetlands
TC>  habitat, wetlands support billion dollar commercial and
TC>  recreational fishing industries.

     Putting endangered species before people is also crap.

TC>  MYTH No.  6: Much of the so-called "wetlands" acreage
TC>  protected by the Clean Water Act are not really wetlands.
TC>  Some areas aren't even wet.

TC>  FACT: It is true that not every wetland appears wet.  But,
TC>  does the inability to distinguish between a priceless
TC>  diamond and a worthless piece of glass make the diamond any
TC>  less valuable?

     False analogy and a primitive propaganda technique.

TC>  filtering out pollutants.  Determining which wetlands merit
TC>  protection requires competent scientific judgments, not
TC>  political rhetoric driven by profit-hungry special
TC>  interests.

     Marxist arguments don't sell any more.

TC>  MYTH No.  7: "Global warming" is a myth generated by
TC>  scientists in the pockets of the environmental lobby; the
TC>  extreme predictions of the past several years have not come
TC>  true.  This is the environmentalists' traditional Chicken
TC>  Little approach to obstructing development and economic
TC>  growth.
TC>
TC>  FACT: Global climate change has been established by
TC>  credible scientists as a real threat to public health and
TC>  safety.

     Not one word of rebuttal to what is claimed to be a myth.
Pretty shoddy propaganda if you ask me.

TC>  MYTH No.  8: All public lands should be managed for multiple
TC>  use: mineral/hydrocarbon development, timber harvest,
TC>  grazing, and public recreation.  All these activities can be
TC>  safely conducted in national parks and wilderness areas
TC>  without destroying critical ecosystems.

TC>  FACT: The Federal Land Policy Management Act (P.L.  94-579)
TC>  requires the federal government and the Secretary of the
TC>  Interior to carry out "...a combination of balanced and
TC>  diverse resource uses that takes into account the long-term
TC>  needs of future generations for renewable and non-renewable
TC>  resources including, but not limited, to recreation, range,
TC>  timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish and natural
TC>  scenic, scientific and historical values;

     So it is not a myth but a statement in conformance with the
law.  Can you see the point?

TC>  MYTH No.  9: Environmentalists essentially practice pagan
TC>  tree worship.  Environmentalists are disconnected from
TC>  what's important to people.  They're anti-God and
TC>  anti-American.
TC>
TC>  FACT: This argument is based in as little truth as the
TC>  absurd McCarthy-era witch hunts of the 1950s with suspected
TC>  "communists" lurking behind every door.

     McCarthy would have been closer on you folks.  You bring of
the evil rich in 6 of the 10 non-myths.  That is class warfare,
that is marxism.

Today, more than 80
TC>  percent of Americans consider themselves
TC>  "environmentalists," and conservation is as patriotic as
TC>  motherhood and apple pie.

     Conservation is not environmentalism.

TC>  The conservation ethic has its foundation in
TC>  Judeo-Christian faiths.  The Book of Genesis tells of God
TC>  giving humankind dominion over his creation.  Those who
TC>  suggest destroying natural resources destroy not only God's
TC>  gift, but the resources essential to the survival of
TC>  humankind.

     And another response that does not deny the allegation but
rather talks around it.

TC>  MYTH No.  10: Nature is a hierarchy, and humans are at the
TC>  top of the heap.  Science can achieve a balance between the
TC>  needs of people and the environment, and can even improve
TC>  on natural systems.  Extreme environmentalists stand in the
TC>  way of human progress and threaten the quality of human
TC>  life.
TC>
TC>  FACT: The fate of the natural world and survival of humans
TC>  are inextricably linked.  The environmental movement has
TC>  made great strides over the past twenty years to improve
TC>  the quality of life for people --from improving air and
TC>  water quality by pressing for the Clean Water and Clean Air
TC>  Acts, to warning communities about the danger of toxic
TC>  releases from manufacturers.  The naive belief that
TC>  corporate scientists can replace what nature took thousands
TC>  of years to create will deprive our children of natural
TC>  resources.

     Science and engineering did everything.  Eco-nuts have
spread only lies and propaganda such as this piece of amateurish
propaganda.  See them for the liars they are.

TC>  Contact: Environmental Working Gropup: 1718 Connecticut
TC>  Avenue, NW; Suite 600, Washington D.C.  20009; 202-667-6982.
TC>  --Peter Montague

     Posted on 14 conferences on 7 networks.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Liberals roasting on an open fire, Jack Frost nipping at
<*>



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * I am Ozyharriet, Family of Families

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 20060 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2493)
To:      Brad Stiles                            26 Nov 94 04:00:00
Subject: BATF WANTS NEW COPTERS                 

BS>      It is a facility on the Internet that allows one to 
BS>  send anonymous mail.  One send's one's mail to the anon 
BS>  server, the server replaces your address with one it 
BS>  generates, and then sends the mail on to it's intended 
BS>  recipient.  I believe that the servers will also route 
BS>  replies back to the original author.

     Is it true the CIA runs all these servers?



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * "Beware the low profit."  Giwer 1:1

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 20060 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2494)
To:      Gary Mirkin                            26 Nov 94 04:02:00
Subject: BEND OVER... THE GOP                   

GM>  regulations.  Now the electorate has fired the Democratic 
GM>  Congress.  I think that Mr.  Clinton and his wife are next 
GM>  in line to get a pink slip.

     The both already have several.



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Some times I wonder why it took Jason so long to snap.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 20060 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2495)
To:      Lester Garrett                         26 Nov 94 04:09:00
Subject: CRIME BILL                             

LG>  Well, so much for the those innocent men who've been 
LG>  released from death row years after their convictions only 
LG>  after the newly developed DNA techniques were finally able 
LG>  to establish their innocence.  You want blood so badly you 
LG>  don't care how many innocent men you have to kill to get 
LG>  it.  Hopefully, one day it'll be you or yours on the other 
LG>  end of your proposal.

     Not quite on the same subject but I just thought of it.  Go 
back 100 years.  The forensics has just been invented and not 
doing very much yet.  In the 1930s (I think) finger prints first 
become generally acceptable evidence.  Name a dozen other things 
along the way and now DNA testing.

     Consider over those years it has become not become a cut and 
dried case to get a conviction.  Individual criminals are not 
getting any more clever in their crimes.  Yet all of this 
technology appears to have no bearing upon getting a conviction.  
If anything it is getting harder.  

     In any other area the application of technology makes 
achieving the ends simpler, easier or faster.  In crime it 
appears to have no effect whatsoever.  

     I do not have any conclusions from this yet but I find it 
interesting.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * "Give Corruption a Chance."  Matt Giwer

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 20060 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2496)
To:      Travis Beard                           26 Nov 94 04:20:00
Subject: EXECUTIONS                             

TB>  TB> Violence begets violence.

TB>  MG> Truisms ain't for shit.

TB> Great comeback, Matt. And you point is?

     Because it is all the uneducated can grasp does not sanctify 
it.

TB>  TB>  As Calvin would say....how does violence solve problems?

TB>  MG>  Calvin of Hobbes fame?  That is answer enough.  As for John 
TB>  MG>  Calvin, look at who he dealt with and how.

TB>  Ah yes attack to messenger rather than the message.  You did 
TB>  not get off the hook when you resort to logical fallacy.  
TB>  Try again.

     Shooting a cartoon character with a cartoon quote is not 
quite in the same league as your criticism.  If you would like to 
cite the sayings of Dennis the Menace towards the same end I 
would respond similarly.

     That you find words to live by in the comic strips is 
something I would not have believed until now that you have so 
stated.

TB>  MG>  The problem of not having enough money for drugs?  Give us 
TB>  MG>  all a break on this one.

TB>  What do drugs have to do with this? Are you saying that 
TB>  killing to get drugs is NOT an attempted solution?  The 
TB>  point is that people murder to try and solve a problem.  It 
TB>  doesn't matter WHAT the problem is.  Murder is not the 
TB>  solution.

     When a person creates their own problems it is not relevant 
to say they were solving a problem by another means.  The means 
of solving a drug problem is to stop using drugs.

TB>  TB>  It didn't work.  What inductive reasoning do you have to 
TB>  TB>   justify using violence to solve problems?

TB>  MG> It works.

TB>  hehe.  "It works."  That is not inductive reasoning nor a 
TB>  justification because you have not shown it works.

     Since when is success a grounds for rejection of a method?  
Why should reasoning be required when simple observation will 
suffice?

TB>  Now clearly shpw how the problem is solved then we will go 
TB>  from there.

     Florida had a problem with Ted Bundy.  Problem solved.

     Or do you think electrocuting Bundy will cause more Bundies 
to arise?

TB>  MG> Next question?  As a minimum the dead do not kill
TB>  MG> again.

TB> That is not the problem. Therefore it is not a solution.

     It works every time.  

TB>  Now I shall lead you with baby steps:  Clearly write down 
TB>  the problem.

     Murderers.

TB>  TB> Wrong! Punishment should never be confused with deterrence.

TB>  MG> There is no confusion.  It works.  Remember Willie Horton?

TB> It works to solve what, Matt?  C'mon now do you need a hint?

     Obviously I need a hint as I can not see how an executed 
Willie Horton could have been released to murder again.  Please 
tell me how he could have outside of Hollywood.

TB>  MG>  Were he executed rather than furloughed two people would be 
TB>  MG>  alive today that are not because he murdered them.  Two for 
TB>  MG>  one sounds fine to me.

TB> That is mere conjecture.

     I can not see it is conjecture that an executed murderer can 
not murder again.  Please be specific in your response as to how 
that is possible.

TB>  TB>  Correct.  Malum prohibitum laws lead to excessive 
TB>  TB>  punishments.

TB>  MG> Not the point here.  Rather that death does no exceed
TB>  MG> sensibilities when the crime is a greater shock than the
TB>  MG> punishment.

TB> Wait a minute, I was agreeing with you and now you object?

     As the subject was the death penalty pro and con I have no 
idea what part of the death penalty you consider excessive to 
make the claim of agreement.

TB>  TB>  And capital punishment cannot accomplish that.  Neither can
TB>  TB>  any punishment in fact since punishment is not designed to
TB>  TB>  deter.

TB>  MG> Capital punishment prevents repetition as in Willie Horton.

TB>  But to use your analogy, you want "to prevent disease." 
TB>  This is NOT the same as preventing Willie Horton from 
TB>  repeating murder.

     While searching for better means one does not give up 
existing means when the existing means work.     

TB>  Disease in the way you use it is analogous to all murder, 
TB>  not just one.

TB>  Therefore your solution is invalid.

     I offered no solution simply a better, long term approach.  
Consider the problem with prison in general.  Some decades ago 
the punishment approach was abandoned in favor of rehabilitation 
which has not shown any notable success.  Rather a rational 
person continues what at least achieves a known level of success 
and experiments with other methods until a better one is found.

     A rational person does not declare a change should be made 
without empirical data.



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 *         The Purple Pedophile must die!

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 20060 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2497)
To:      Travis Beard                           26 Nov 94 04:50:00
Subject: EXECUTIONS                             

TB>  MG>  Yes, very clearly, capital punishment is for justice and 
TB>  MG>  vengeance rather than prevention.  Prevention could be 
TB>  MG>  accomplished by speedy trials and slow executions but that 
TB>  MG>  is not within the realm of public sensibility these days.

TB>  They tried that in the old days.  It didn't work then.  What 
TB>  makes you think it will work now?

     There were no Willie Hortons in the old days.  It worked to 
that extent.  It may be a fallacy of the data but murder has 
increased as the death penalty has decreased.  On the face of it, 
getting rid of the death penalty has certainly done nothing to 
reduce the murder rate.  Had there been a decrease certainly I 
would support its elimination.

TB>  MG>  I do not murder.  Defense is another matter and I have not 
TB>  MG>  the slighest compunction.  Those that think in terms of 
TB>  MG>  murder to get what they want are the problem.

TB>  Murder as a solution to a problem is a problem.  Ok and you 
TB>  think executing those who kill to solve a problem should be 
TB>  killed.

     When the reason for doing is, as in drugs, they need relief 
from the need but choose to kill rather than to quit.  That is a 
free choice to kill others rather than to suffer personally.  
They make the choice, they not only dry out in prison they die 
for it.

TB>  MG>  There is little evidence that criminals, particularly 
TB>  MG>  violent ones, think rationally.

TB>  So now it is ok to execute them if they don't think 
TB>  rationally, but this then implies if they murdered 
TB>  rationally they should escape the execution.

     It implies nothing.  What might be called rational murder is 
legally called premeditated and considered almost the worst of 
all.

TB>  Who decide who think rationally Matt?

     Anyone who can do so.  I for one.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * I never apologize.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 20060 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

+++■■■■■ r_941130 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2453)
To:      Lanny Roff                             26 Nov 94 23:06:00
Subject: SURVIVAL                               

LR>  MG> Harper's Magazine, December 1994

LR>  MG> Harper's Index, page 13

LR>  MG> Factor by which the mortality rate of the homeless urban
LR>  MG> non-white American exceeds that of the housed non-whites : 2

LR>  MG> Factor by which the mortality of rate of homeless urban white
LR>  MG> Americans exceeds that of housed whites : 5

LR>          What it really says Matt, is that the homeless die 
LR>          more readily than people who live in houses.   Go 
LR>          figure!

     The joke was, why the difference by race?

---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Janet Reno, the third best woman for the job.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 20060 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2454)
To:      Carole Thomas                          27 Nov 94 05:31:00
Subject: 'THE BELL CURVE'       02              

CT> MG>      Agreed.  But I do not see computers being a venue for
CT> MG> increasing the gap.

CT> MG>       I see computers as no different from cars in the early 
CT> MG>  days.  Back then you needed to be a good mechanic to own 
CT> MG>  one.  These days anyone can get a license.

CT>       You might consider taking cars one step further in 
CT>  order to get to the position I'm taking.  Automobiles 
CT>  opened up possibilities that had not existed before; 
CT>  opportunities to travel to places unknown before, to see 
CT>  things unseen, to meet people unknown.  But how many have 
CT>  ever used their cars in this fashion?  The great majority 
CT>  of people continued to live and die within a very 
CT>  circumscribed world nothwitstanding the virtual 
CT>  universality of the drivers license in this country.  And I 
CT>  see it that way with the computer as well.

     As with the car and the computer there appears to be no 
difference between the train and the car.  As to the contention 
of widening the gap, I still do not see that holds.  The same gap 
as always but in a different area.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Child abuse experts do not reproduce.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 20060 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2470)
To:      All                                    27 Nov 94 15:54:00
Subject: DEMS ON 94                             

     The Dems hold the election was not in favor of the Contract 
With America by saying the voter generally didn't know about it.  
Let's work with that premise.  

     The Dems ran against Reaganomics and that was rejected.  Does 
that mean the Dems failed to communicate their anti-Reaganomics 
position or that the voters want Reaganomics?

     Is it the Dem claim that the voters did not vote for any 
organized position that presented to them?  

     Fine.  That leaves us with the necessary Dem position that 
the switch was based upon nothing involved in any campaign but on 
their own perceptions.  

     "Their own perceptions" were that Dems should retire early.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Liberals roasting on an open fire, Jack Frost nipping at

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10 
 * Origin: DOC'S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603!  (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 20060 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»


Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.