The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/g/giwer.matt/1995/giwer_debate_9508


««■■ R_9508 ■■»»
+++■■■■■ r_950801 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (863)
To:      All                                    30 Jul 95 05:24:00
Subject: *another* conspiracy?                  

CH>  Now, Janet Reno, a blubbering cow who doesn't blubber as 
CH>  much as she blusters, may avoid prison.  It is possible 
CH>  that she will only be proven to be guilty of monumental 
CH>  incompetence.  Never has there been such irrefutable proof 
CH>  of the destruction of affirmative action.  Yes, I think it 
CH>  is entirely possible that she will declare that she ordered 
CH>  the tanks and CS gas at Waco despite the surrender plans 
CH>  worked out by the FBI and BDs.

     Admit she ordered?  Where have you been?  Ten years ago the 
RICO statutes were passed because organized crime was clever 
enough to avoid saying or doing any specific thing that was 
criminal.

     Do you think politicians are any less clever?  

     If you have been watching the hearings, not matter what 
happened no one actually ordered or did anything along the way 
regarding anything.  A course of action 'grew up' and was 
'mutually accepted' and 'concurrance' was given for 'lack of an 
alternative.'

     Were it not for the titles you would not know anyone was in 
charge but one thing for certain, no one ordered anything.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.Jefferson

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (864)
To:      All                                    29 Jul 95 16:18:00
Subject: Bomb The serbs?                        

 #############  Original From: MICHAEL SHIRLEY
 #  stolen   #             To: MATT GIWER
 #   post    #    Date/Number: 07/23/95
 #############             On: DOC'S - 0148 - Controv
               PLEASE address responses to ALL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

MG>     The Serbs don't look like the Vietnamese.  Why bomb them?

        Dumb anyway unless one is prepared to follow it up with a ground
invasion and invading Yugoslavia wouldn't be any funner for us than it
was the Germans who tried that dimwitted stunt back during WW-II. It
especially doesn't help when one considers that Tito had originally
trained his army, even after he got into power, as a guerilla warfare
force. The reason that the Russians never invaded Yugoslavia is that
they didn't want to wind up in the same predicament that Hitler found
himself in. Yugoslavia is a lousy place to fight a war, and the armies
which are currently fighting there are essentially rump elements of
Tito's old army which combined with the fact that they've been killing
each other for quite awhile now, pretty much indicates that unlike us,
they ain't gonna be on a learning curve if we send ground troops. That's
going to translate into casualties and a long war for us, and a
reason for existance for a generation of Yugoslavs who sooner or later
will find themselves at a loss to know what they'd do if peace came
anyway.

---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Religious Right:Their votes are attractive,they are a nuisan

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (865)
To:      All                                    30 Jul 95 03:30:00
Subject: Keri Jewel..witness?                   

 #############  Original From: MARC BLITZ
 #  stolen   #             To: ALL
 #   post    #    Date/Number: 07/24/95
 #############             On: DOC'S - 0131 - Civlib
               PLEASE address responses to ALL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

It's becomming aparent thet the testamony of Kari Jewel at the Waco
hearings is a sham. Keri told of molestation by David Koresh, when she was
10 years old. She told a horror story of abuse, and the committee lapped it
up without checking her veracity.

In a story in the London Sunday Telegraph, reporters found that when the
alleged incident occured, she was living with her mother and grandmother in
California, not at Waco.

Keri's father, a man of dubious backround, and once arrested for failure to
pay child support, is taking her on a tour of the talk show circuit
presently.

The liberals on the committee presented her as a first witness, hoping to
score sympathy points. Of course, the liberal lapdog press in the US never
checked her story, nor did the committee. It took foreign press to expose
the story.

Stay tuned....

More government lies to follow....

.\\arc


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Put taggants in bullshit now.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


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

+++■■■■■ r_950804 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (912)
To:      All                                     1 Aug 95 14:01:00
Subject: Events at ABC                          

                         Recent events

     28 July, ABC's Peter Jennings learns how to start worrying 
and hate the bomb.

     31 July, Mickey Mouse buys ABC.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * If Aristole was straight,why'd he write Posterior Analytics?

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (913)
To:      All                                     1 Aug 95 21:25:00
Subject: new MILITIA conferen                   

 #############  Original From: BILL BAUER
 #  stolen   #             To: MATT GIWER
 #   post    #    Date/Number: 07/30/95
 #############             On: DOC'S - 0730 - Rights_Rongs
               PLEASE address responses to ALL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

> NEC is Wayne Fusco, 1:3603/20050.
 
> If you are interested please request your SYSOP to request
> this conference be backboned.
 
> Rules?  I am working on them.  Nothing seriously
> restrictive, simply stick to the subject and "put up or shut up."
> IOW, don't say citizen militias are illegal without citing the
> law making them illegal.  Without a law, nothing is illegal.
 
Way to go, Matt!
 
Let me try to give you some insight into getting this thing on the
bone.
 
First thing is to be sure it is listed as an echo on the local bone
where 1:3603 resides. Once it is on the local echo, you need to work
to get as many out of area BBS systems to take it by polling for it
from 1:3603/20050.
 
I will do that immediately via netmail. Then you also need to inform
your NEC that you wish to work towards getting the echo on the national
backbone. Since the militia issue is so controversial and many people
have their own personal thoughts on such subjects as militias, smoking
and other issues your agenda may run into some conflicts. You need to
watch out for problems from that angle just in case they raise their
ugly little heads.
 
You need to get other sysops from other areas asking for your echo
to be placed on the backbone too. There are quite a few more little
tricks you need to be aware of and I will point them out to you in
a short time. But let's work towards getting these steps done first.
Keep me informed as to your progress on the above steps on a continual
basis so I can know where you are at and can give you the next steps
to take. We should be able to get this thing on the national backbone
within a couple of months if we are lucky.
 
Bill Bauer

--- DB 1.58/004358
 * Origin: -=[MAGNA CARTA NEWS SERVICE]=- (1:147/113)
                                     
---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Matt Giwer, the jack booted thug of cyberspace.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (914)
To:      All                                     2 Aug 95 03:45:00
Subject: Reno fears Linda Thompson              

     I am still at a loss for ridicule at the level it was earned 
by Janet Reno.  

     That nerfbrain credited Linda Thompson with serious 
consideration as to the security of FBI operations at Waco.

     The "little general" as so many want to call her was a 
sufficient threat for MS General Reno (Damn, the Little General 
versus the Big General) and they are equally afraid of each 
other.  In fact the Big General made command decisions based upon 
the Little General.  

     This was her stomping grounds before she grew to national 
fame and national threat status as a major cause of the 
government's actions at Waco.

=====

     Sorry.  This almost sounds like I am serious.  The insanity 
of it is that Janet Reno took Linda Thompson seriously and said 
so under oath. 

     Is there anyone still questioning that Reno is third best 
Democrat Woman Hilary could find for the job?


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * If cabbages are legal, are 1000 cabbages illegal?

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (915)
To:      All                                     2 Aug 95 00:15:00
Subject: Reno take LT seriously                 

     News FLASH!!!!

     Hot from the Waco hearings!!!!!!

     Janet Reno was AFRAID of Linda Thompson's call for the 
militia to show up in Waco.  

     Linda Thompson frightened Janet Reno into taking violent 
action.

     Reno was afraid that Linda Thompson's "militia" would 
compromise the security of the "perimeter."  

=====

     Everyone who has been laughing at Linda Thompson, Janet Reno 
says you were wrong.  Janet Reno took Linda Thompson as a serious 
threat.  You were all wrong...

=====
     
     Rather we now have the sight of a fruitcase like Janet Reno 
taking a nutcase like Linda Thompson seriously enough to use her 
as a justification for Justice Department actions at Waco.

     Never forget, someone who took Linda Thompson seriously was 
in charge of Waco.  


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Janet Reno takes Linda Thompson seriously!

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (916)
To:      Lester Garrett                          2 Aug 95 01:03:00
Subject: This 'N That                           

LG>  BTW, congrats on your new Echo.  Now you too can get to be 
LG>  called all kinds of nice names {grin}.  Oh, yes, while it 
LG>  certainly isn't required, if you're going to moderate that 
LG>  thing for any length of time I do suggest that you get 
LG>  yourself a node number.  Given your disposition and the 
LG>  folks you'll be banging heads with, you may need it {grin}

     Moi?

LG>  Oh what the hell, I'll repost it right after this one.

     Be certain to encourage it be requested every place you can.  
There are going to be congressional hearings on militias in 
September so it is certain to grow in interest.  


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Put taggants in bullshit now.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (917)
To:      Lester Garrett                          2 Aug 95 01:11:00
Subject: USCONSTITUTION                         

LG> In a message to Bob Klahn, dated 26 Jul 95, Matt Giwer wrote:

LG>      BK> And when you are qualified to write one of those thick
LG>      BK> volumes, please let me know.  Until then my dictionary
LG>      BK> definition will be good enough to tell me what form of
LG>      BK> government we have.

LG>  MG> If I had said this about you I would get a warning from the
LG>  MG> moderator.

LG>  That's because I have to stop you _before_ you work up a 
LG>  good head of steam, otherwise I'll have to lay in a hefty 
LG>  supply of Pepto-B  {grin}

     You mean we are in agreement that his knowledge of 
government is limited to the dictionary?


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 *               Let God sort out the BATF.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (918)
To:      Bob Klahn                               2 Aug 95 01:11:00
Subject: USCONSTITUTION                         

LG> In a message to Bob Klahn, dated 26 Jul 95, Matt Giwer wrote:

LG>      BK> And when you are qualified to write one of those thick
LG>      BK> volumes, please let me know.  Until then my dictionary
LG>      BK> definition will be good enough to tell me what form of
LG>      BK> government we have.

LG>  MG> If I had said this about you I would get a warning from the
LG>  MG> moderator.

LG>  That's because I have to stop you _before_ you work up a 
LG>  good head of steam, otherwise I'll have to lay in a hefty 
LG>  supply of Pepto-B  {grin}

     You mean we are in agreement that his knowledge of 
government is limited to the dictionary?


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 *               Let God sort out the BATF.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


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

+++■■■■■ r_950805 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (981)
To:      All                                     3 Aug 95 02:32:00
Subject: *another* conspiracy?                  

MD>  MG>       If you have been watching the hearings, not matter 
MD>  MG>  what happened no one actually ordered or did anything along 
MD>  MG>  the way regarding anything.  A course of action 'grew up' 
MD>  MG>  and was 'mutually accepted' and 'concurrance' was given for 
MD>  MG>  'lack of an alternative.'

MD>  I remark to myself about that every time I watch the 
MD>  hearings.  No one seems to know anything, like children 
MD>  steadfastly denying having their hands in the cookie jar.
MD> 
MD>  It was as if the the entire operation was inspired by God, 
MD>  as if all the officers and commanders had a dream one night 
MD>  and collectively decided to follow it without knowing why.
MD> 
MD>  Of course, who can blame them? It's quite obvious the White 
MD>  House has decided to circle the wagons on this issue 
MD>  instead of comming up with a good story and throwing a few 
MD>  officals to the gallows.  The poor officers are just denying 
MD>  knowledge of everything and hope the whole thing blows 
MD>  over.

     Don't they wish it would blow over.  From what I saw I have 
enough material for a year and I am going to have enough tapes on 
hand to record every word when C-SPAN replays the tapes this 
month.  It is something like a reverse Kafka Trial.  This is the 
board of inquiry on everyone involved in "The Trial."  They were 
all implacably moved by events beyond their control.  It is like 
"The Prisoner" with a Number One.  At least fiction has to make 
sense.

     This is the kind of crap I would expect AT WORST from the 
folks in the field, the enlisted, faced with something new and 
following the book.  Yet here we see the entire officer corp from 
the "five star" on down pretending to follow the manual and to 
evaluate everything on face value as though they had no outside 
resources -- cut off from the chain of command, so to speak.  

     It is damned hard to put my experience with the gov any 
place in what this organization pretends to be but ...

     The only thing I would find acceptable as a response at 
these hearings (granted what I heard were known two years ago) 
would be a progress report on a top to bottom overhaul of the 
organization.

     At this point, very seriously, I would be drafting laws to 
prohibit the BATF and FBI from using anything more than standard 
issue 9mm sidearms and swiss army knives as they have not 
demonstrated the competence to use anything else.  

     I not the slightest qualms about this judgment.  As a 
trivial example, they use a gas they have not researched save to 
find examples of it being safe.  As a complex example they decide 
upon courses of action without the slightest consideration of how 
it will be perceived.  

     "This is not an attack" and 37mm rounds are fired on the 
average of one a minute for six hours while the building is being 
brought down and killing people in the process.  

     Seriously just what would constitute an attack if not this 
wanton killing? -- forget the gas for the moment.  The only 
justification is that there were some rounds coming from the 
building in exchange for the 37mm rounds or for the gas or 
whatever, it is open to speculation.  

     I know we are not in Kansas any more.  And the entire 
hearings are pretending there really is no one behind the 
curtain.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Justice investigated Waco.Like Liddy investigating Watergate

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (982)
To:      Mark David                              3 Aug 95 02:32:00
Subject: *another* conspiracy?                  

MD>  MG>       If you have been watching the hearings, not matter 
MD>  MG>  what happened no one actually ordered or did anything along 
MD>  MG>  the way regarding anything.  A course of action 'grew up' 
MD>  MG>  and was 'mutually accepted' and 'concurrance' was given for 
MD>  MG>  'lack of an alternative.'

MD>  I remark to myself about that every time I watch the 
MD>  hearings.  No one seems to know anything, like children 
MD>  steadfastly denying having their hands in the cookie jar.
MD> 
MD>  It was as if the the entire operation was inspired by God, 
MD>  as if all the officers and commanders had a dream one night 
MD>  and collectively decided to follow it without knowing why.
MD> 
MD>  Of course, who can blame them? It's quite obvious the White 
MD>  House has decided to circle the wagons on this issue 
MD>  instead of comming up with a good story and throwing a few 
MD>  officals to the gallows.  The poor officers are just denying 
MD>  knowledge of everything and hope the whole thing blows 
MD>  over.

     Don't they wish it would blow over.  From what I saw I have 
enough material for a year and I am going to have enough tapes on 
hand to record every word when C-SPAN replays the tapes this 
month.  It is something like a reverse Kafka Trial.  This is the 
board of inquiry on everyone involved in "The Trial."  They were 
all implacably moved by events beyond their control.  It is like 
"The Prisoner" with a Number One.  At least fiction has to make 
sense.

     This is the kind of crap I would expect AT WORST from the 
folks in the field, the enlisted, faced with something new and 
following the book.  Yet here we see the entire officer corp from 
the "five star" on down pretending to follow the manual and to 
evaluate everything on face value as though they had no outside 
resources -- cut off from the chain of command, so to speak.  

     It is damned hard to put my experience with the gov any 
place in what this organization pretends to be but ...

     The only thing I would find acceptable as a response at 
these hearings (granted what I heard were known two years ago) 
would be a progress report on a top to bottom overhaul of the 
organization.

     At this point, very seriously, I would be drafting laws to 
prohibit the BATF and FBI from using anything more than standard 
issue 9mm sidearms and swiss army knives as they have not 
demonstrated the competence to use anything else.  

     I not the slightest qualms about this judgment.  As a 
trivial example, they use a gas they have not researched save to 
find examples of it being safe.  As a complex example they decide 
upon courses of action without the slightest consideration of how 
it will be perceived.  

     "This is not an attack" and 37mm rounds are fired on the 
average of one a minute for six hours while the building is being 
brought down and killing people in the process.  

     Seriously just what would constitute an attack if not this 
wanton killing? -- forget the gas for the moment.  The only 
justification is that there were some rounds coming from the 
building in exchange for the 37mm rounds or for the gas or 
whatever, it is open to speculation.  

     I know we are not in Kansas any more.  And the entire 
hearings are pretending there really is no one behind the 
curtain.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Justice investigated Waco.Like Liddy investigating Watergate

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (983)
To:      All                                     3 Aug 95 03:12:00
Subject: *another* conspiracy?                  

TB>  MG>  If you have been watching the hearings, not matter what 
TB>  MG>  happened no one actually ordered or did anything along the 
TB>  MG>  way regarding anything.  A course of action 'grew up' and 
TB>  MG>  was 'mutually accepted' and 'concurrance' was given for 
TB>  MG>  'lack of an alternative.'
TB>  MG> 
TB>  MG>  Were it not for the titles you would not know anyone was in 
TB>  MG>  charge but one thing for certain, no one ordered anything.

TB>  That pretty much sums it up.  Reno said she accepted 
TB>  responsibility two years ago when it occured, yet no one is 
TB>  holding her accountable.
TB> 
TB>  One reason is because the feds and media have dehumanized 
TB>  the Davidians at Mt.  Carmel so much it is now ok to kill 
TB>  them.  They aren't human you know....:(

     Again it is difficult to connect my government experience to 
this and by the grace of god I never had this magnitude of screw 
up -- but I was close.

     I have been questioned the hard way.  If there were a 
parallel to this situation I would have been the desk jockey at 
BATF that approved the field operations, the HQ contact, the 
coordinator, the one that gets the field what they need once we 
have agreed on the job.  If that is a parallel (big IF there) 
then there is not the slightest excuse for this presumption of 
following the book.

     There is policy at HQ but not in writing, there is only law 
and after that it is all thinking and the thinking comes first, 
not at a last resort, "when all else fails, think," kind of 
operation.  If this is the caliber of federal law enforcement 
then there needs be a law banning the federal government from all 
law enforcement without the request of local law enforcement.

     This is grunt level, by the book, don't think it might hurt 
you, kind of law enforcement at the highest levels.  It is like 
General MacArthur explaining the loss of the Philippines by 
saying he did everything but deal with the Japanese Army rather 
dealing with what everyone told him about the Japanese Army.  

     This is literally dealing with people who have testified 
they did not think but relied upon others to do their thinking 
for them without questioning the credentials of the other 
thinkers.  

     I have often noted this Attorney General was the third best 
Democrat woman for the job Hilary could find.  That is a 
condemnation of the political appointment system, not of Clinton.  
But what is worse it appears that such qualifications are the 
best we get for the management of the BATF, Treasury, HRT and 
Justice.

     These children are not qualified to do the job they are 
charged with.  That is clear from the hearings.  They are being 
permitted to exercise powers they are not mentally or emotionally 
equipped to handle.  If they are the best we have then we need 
better.

     In the interim they need be deprived of the powers they have 
been given until they demonstrate better competence in the 
execution of the law.

     I do not see any serious way to question this observation.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * The Constitution is not a technicality.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (984)
To:      Travis Beard                            3 Aug 95 03:12:00
Subject: *another* conspiracy?                  

TB>  MG>  If you have been watching the hearings, not matter what 
TB>  MG>  happened no one actually ordered or did anything along the 
TB>  MG>  way regarding anything.  A course of action 'grew up' and 
TB>  MG>  was 'mutually accepted' and 'concurrance' was given for 
TB>  MG>  'lack of an alternative.'
TB>  MG> 
TB>  MG>  Were it not for the titles you would not know anyone was in 
TB>  MG>  charge but one thing for certain, no one ordered anything.

TB>  That pretty much sums it up.  Reno said she accepted 
TB>  responsibility two years ago when it occured, yet no one is 
TB>  holding her accountable.
TB> 
TB>  One reason is because the feds and media have dehumanized 
TB>  the Davidians at Mt.  Carmel so much it is now ok to kill 
TB>  them.  They aren't human you know....:(

     Again it is difficult to connect my government experience to 
this and by the grace of god I never had this magnitude of screw 
up -- but I was close.

     I have been questioned the hard way.  If there were a 
parallel to this situation I would have been the desk jockey at 
BATF that approved the field operations, the HQ contact, the 
coordinator, the one that gets the field what they need once we 
have agreed on the job.  If that is a parallel (big IF there) 
then there is not the slightest excuse for this presumption of 
following the book.

     There is policy at HQ but not in writing, there is only law 
and after that it is all thinking and the thinking comes first, 
not at a last resort, "when all else fails, think," kind of 
operation.  If this is the caliber of federal law enforcement 
then there needs be a law banning the federal government from all 
law enforcement without the request of local law enforcement.

     This is grunt level, by the book, don't think it might hurt 
you, kind of law enforcement at the highest levels.  It is like 
General MacArthur explaining the loss of the Philippines by 
saying he did everything but deal with the Japanese Army rather 
dealing with what everyone told him about the Japanese Army.  

     This is literally dealing with people who have testified 
they did not think but relied upon others to do their thinking 
for them without questioning the credentials of the other 
thinkers.  

     I have often noted this Attorney General was the third best 
Democrat woman for the job Hilary could find.  That is a 
condemnation of the political appointment system, not of Clinton.  
But what is worse it appears that such qualifications are the 
best we get for the management of the BATF, Treasury, HRT and 
Justice.

     These children are not qualified to do the job they are 
charged with.  That is clear from the hearings.  They are being 
permitted to exercise powers they are not mentally or emotionally 
equipped to handle.  If they are the best we have then we need 
better.

     In the interim they need be deprived of the powers they have 
been given until they demonstrate better competence in the 
execution of the law.

     I do not see any serious way to question this observation.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * The Constitution is not a technicality.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (985)
To:      All                                     3 Aug 95 05:00:00
Subject: Waco and cs                            

JS> MG>      I guess this is a great one from today's (Thursday's) 
JS> MG> Waco hearings.  Including Wednesday's also for that matter.
JS> MG> 
JS> MG>      There is no question the gas used was toxic to the 
JS> MG> point of lethal.
JS> MG> 
JS> MG>      All the disagreement is over the amount used, that is, 
JS> MG> the concentration.
JS> MG> 
JS> MG>      What is the debate?

JS>  Geez, you don't even mention the propellant used, which is 
JS>  lethal and explosive, to administer the CS.

     You want a technical paper?  

     I have enough data on CS and the propellant that the FBI 
used that if Koresh had used it and the people died he would not 
only be charged with 1st degree murder but after a speedy trial 
and a slow execution his body would be desecrated and buried in 
unhallowed ground.

     If Koresh had done exactly the same thing to the FBI 
building in DC as they did to him what would be the penalty under 
law?  Let us presume that the head of the FBI was for the moment 
a criminal and Koresh did the same thing to everyone including 
the kids in day care in the building (yes, Virginia, it does have 
a day care facility.)  

     "This is not an attack" as Koresh's tanks put tear gas into 
the building and fire 37mm gas grenades and to hell with the 
innocent who did not come out to live in his internment camps.

     Certainly there is a difference as the FBI is a law 
enforcement organization and Koresh was not.  But the actions 
taken to get one person in each organization to the detriment 
and the ultimate death of all the rest is not something that 
could be introduced in court.

     "Your honor, Mr. Koresh consulted many experts and found one 
that said there was no risk from CS gas or its propellant and 
therefore felt he was risking no life in its use.  Therefore he 
can not be found guilty of first degree murder."
     
     What is so hard to understand about this?  

     "WE DID THE BEST WE COULD."

     That applies to both sides.  In giving the BATF and the FBI 
powers they have testified to not being able to deal with in an 
adult manner we have found they should not be permitted these 
powers in the first place.  

     The issue it not who is in charge, the issue is who is able 
to responsibly able to discharge the responsibility of the job.  
It is clear the BATF and the FBI are not.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * If cabbages are legal, are 1000 cabbages illegal?

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (986)
To:      Bob Klahn                               3 Aug 95 03:42:00
Subject: WACO HEARINGS NOT PAR                  

BK>  MG>      As an example of what he said were ATF's abuses, Brooks 
BK>  MG>  introduced Louis and Kimberly Katona of Bucyrus, Ohio, who 
BK>  MG>  described an ATF raid on their House in 1992 to seize more 
BK>  MG>  than $100,000 worth of weapons they had collected.

BK>   The conservative (right wing rag) Detroit News reported 
BK>   that case was a fraud.  The ATF, in a video made By L.  
BK>   Katona, behaved themselves properly.

     Interesting but the edited out preface to this was a 
Democrat committee chairman having SCHEDULED hearings on BATF 
abuses.  

     The point was that claims of partisanship in this hearing is 
a fucking lie.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * The perimeter can't be controlled.L. Thompson is coming.Reno

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


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

+++■■■■■ r_950807 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (884)
To:      Lester Garrett                          4 Aug 95 18:10:00
Subject: Keri Jewel..witness?                   

LG>  MG>  It's becomming aparent thet the testamony of Kari Jewel at 
LG>  MG>  the Waco hearings is a sham.  Keri told of molestation by 
LG>  MG>  David Koresh, when she was 10 years old.  She told a horror 
LG>  MG>  story of abuse, and the committee lapped it up without 
LG>  MG>  checking her veracity.
LG>  MG> 
LG>  MG>  In a story in the London Sunday Telegraph, reporters found 
LG>  MG>  that when the alleged incident occured, she was living with 
LG>  MG>  her mother and grandmother in California, not at Waco.  .  .  

LG>  While I have previously heard reports that Kari has in the 
LG>  past given conflicting testimony of the events, this is the 
LG>  first I've heard of your story.  If you have the text of 
LG>  the London Telegraph article, how about posting relevant 
LG>  excerpts.

     It is one of the things I am looking for.  This is the paper 
that is doing more than any US paper investigating Whitewater.  
At first I was thinking it was a tabloid but then I came across a 
reference to the London Times confirming one of its stories.  

     Now if it were on the internet ...


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.Jefferson

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (885)
To:      Bob Klahn                               5 Aug 95 00:46:00
Subject: NRA VS TRUTH                           

BK>   BTW, I agree the BATF is not empowered to enforce laws 
BK>   against child abuse.  OTOH, if they have knowledge of it 
BK>   they do have the same obligation any other citizen has to 
BK>   make their information available to the proper 
BK>   authorities.  And I suspect they would be required to 
BK>   co-operate with other agencies when their activities 
BK>   overlap.  Such as a firearms investigation of a suspected 
BK>   child abuser.

     And then one must consider they had no new information.  
Everything they had was not only stale but already investigated 
and dismissed.  


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Don't fight crime, fight criminals.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (886)
To:      Seth Williamson                         5 Aug 95 00:58:00
Subject: Religion/Evolutn                       

SW> LG> In the first place you have misrepresented the theory of 
SW> LG> evolution, which is a theory of _process_, by erroneously 
SW> LG> attempting to associate it with cosmogony, i.e.  with a 
SW> LG> theory of origin.
SW> LG> 
SW> LG> In the second, your god suffers the same objection:  Ex 
SW> LG> nihilo nihil fit.

SW>  Wrong.  He didn't come from nothing.  His existence is 
SW>  prior to all categories of time and space.  He is uncreated 
SW>  and has always existed.

     I have read the bible very carefully, cover to cover even, 
and I have not found that assertion.  Would you care to direct to 
towards it?  In fact I find nothing regarding any space-time 
cosmology in it.

     But first! before you do that, demonstrate that there is any 
validity to the bible.  

     Then we can get down to the serious discussion.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Professional wrestling is real.  The moon walk was a fake.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (887)
To:      All                                     5 Aug 95 05:48:00
Subject: The MILITIA Conference                 

     For the conference to discuss the militia, ask your SYSOP to 
request it on the backbone.  In September there are going to be 
Congressional hearings.  Get in on line for the latest 
information and more.

     Originating from Doc's Place.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Clinton now has a shot at the Chancelorship.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (888)
To:      Bob Klahn                               5 Aug 95 01:16:00
Subject: TRYING TO STIR THINGS                  

BK>  AD>  can't really view the Bible as inerrant any more.  Not 
BK>  AD>  since I saw that file BIBLE3.TXT, that showed several 
BK>  AD>  specific in- consistencies--and shattered my already-shaky 
BK>  AD>  faith...  But

BK>   The bible was never inerrant.  As someone said about 
BK>   biblical references to creation," The real purpose of the 
BK>   bible is to tell us how life is to be lived, not how it 
BK>   came to be."

     It is a clumsy hodgepodge of primitive life at best.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Laws without moral force have no standing.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (889)
To:      Bob Klahn                               5 Aug 95 01:23:00
Subject: WACO                                   

BK>  LG>  ???  You were there?  You saw Koresh do it?  You know for a 
BK>  LG>  fact that it was Koresh?  I suggest that you immediately 
BK>  LG>  contact the committee and let them know that you are in 
BK>  LG>  possession of information which neither they nor any of the 
BK>  LG>  other witness who have testified before the committee seems 
BK>  LG>  to possess.

BK>   Nope, they already have the information I have on this.  
BK>   And the evidence is that they did it themselves.  Unless 
BK>   you have information to the contrary, that is.  

     Expecting proof of a negative is dumb.  It is no different 
from requiring you to prove you were not kidnapped as a child and 
replaced with an exact copy.

Should you 
BK>   be able to show the guilt of the federal agents, I will 
BK>   turn my wrath against them.

     Then you have no information to support your statement.  Are 
you so poorly able to reason that you do not realize it?

BK>  LG>  It is one thing to suggest that there appears to be 
BK>  LG>  evidence that some of the Davidians may have set the 
BK>  LG>  fire(s).  But to state that Koresh did is worse than 
BK>  LG>  disingenuous, it is an outright fabrication of what we 
BK>  LG>  know.

BK>   If you hired a contractor to build a house, you might say 
BK>   you built a house, when someone else did the actual work.  
BK>   Al Capone ran booze into Chicago, though he may not have 
BK>   touched a single drop of the illegal booze himself.  He 
BK>   gave the orders, directed the work, etc.  To that extent I 
BK>   say Koresh did it.  He may not have touched the gas cans 
BK>   himself, but he ran the show.

     Get to the committee and tell them your evidence in support 
of this claim.  And while you are at it, you should also tell 
them who Koresh ordered to kill him as he did not appear to have 
committed suicide.

     You truly need to improve your reasoning skills.  You have 
NO evidence.  YOU are speculating.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 *               Ban Assault Fertilizer now!

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


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

+++■■■■■ r_950810 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (792)
To:      All                                     7 Aug 95 19:34:00
Subject: A dog named Sex                        

 #############  Original From: GRAMPS KIERSARGE
 #  stolen   #             To: THE CREW
 #   post    #    Date/Number: 07/29/95
 #############             On: DOC'S - 0784 - Night_S_
               PLEASE address responses to ALL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I understand that Art read this one on the air the other day so for those
who missed it..  Here It is...

> A Dog Named Sex

Message number 14410 in "Net Mail"
Date: 11-17-94  12:25
To:   Gramps Kiersarge
Subj: this is cute.. (fwd)

SC > A friend of mine forwarded this to me today... thought it was pretty
SC > funny so am passing it on to you.  Hope you find it amusing!


> SEX IS A MAN'S BEST FRIEND

Usually everyone who has a dog calls him Rover or something.

I call mine ``Sex''.

Well, Sex is a very embarrassing name.  One day I took Sex for a walk
and he ran away from me.  I spent hours looking for that dog.  A cop
came along and asked me what I was doing in the alley at 4 o'clock in
the morning.  I said I was looking for Sex.  My court case comes up
next Thursday.

One day I went to City Hall to get a licence for Sex.  The clerk asked
me what I wanted, I told him I wanted a licence for Sex.  He said ``I
would like to have one too!''  When I said ``But this is a dog'' he
said he didn't care what she looked like.  Then I said ``You don't
understand. I've had Sex since I was two years old.''  He replied
``You must have been a strong boy.''

When I decided to get married I told the minister that I wanted to
have Sex at the wedding.  He told me to wait until after the wedding.
I said ``But Sex has played a big part in my life and my whole
lifestyle revolves around Sex.''  He said he did not want to hear
about my personal life and would not marry us in a church.  I told him
everyone coming to the wedding would enjoy having Sex there.  The next
day we were married by the Justice of the Peace.  My family is barred
from the church.

My wife and I took the dog along with us on the honeymoom.  When I
checked into the motel I told the clerk that I wanted a room for my
wife and myself and a special room for Sex.  The clerk said that every
room in the Motel is for Sex.  Then I said ``You don't understand. Sex
keeps me awake at night''

and the clerk said ``Me too.''

One day I told my friend that I had Sex on TV.  He said ``Show off.''
I told him it was a contest and he told me I should have sold tickets.

When my wife and I separated we went to court to fight for custody of
the dog. I said ``Your Honour, I had Sex before I was married'' and
the Judge said ``Me too.''  When I told him that after I was married
Sex had left me, he said ``Me too.''

Well now I've been thrown in jail, been married, divorced and had more
trouble with that dog than I ever gambled for.  Why just the other day
when I went for my first visit with the psychiatrist and she asked me
``What seems to be the trouble'' and I replied, ``Well, Sex has died
and left my life. It's like losing a best friend and it's so lonely.''
The doctor said ``Look Mister, you and I both know that sex isn't
man's best friend. Why not get yourself a dog.''

   +-------------------------------------------------------------+
   |          Gramps.Kiersarge%Warzone@Comm-Dat.Com              |
   +-------------------------------------------------------------+
   |        Creator  of the  FidoNet "Night Shift" Echos         |
   |           alt.fan.art-bell = Night_Shift_Art-Bell           |
   |                     KEX 50000 Watt 1190                     |
   |                  -= * NIGHT SHIFT HQ. * =-                  |
   |        -= * THE WARZONE BBS * =-      1-503-788-1438        |
   |              FidoNet 1:105/64 - Portland Oregon             |
   +-------------------------------------------------------------+

--- QuickBBS 2.80 GoldBase (Zeta-1)
 * Origin: -= * NIGHT SHIFT HQ. * =-  Portland, Oregon (1:105/64)
                                                                               
          
---
 * RM 1.3 01261 *             Keystone Kops + Gestapo = BATF

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's Place In The Ghetto! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (793)
To:      Delores Rowe                            7 Aug 95 15:58:00
Subject: copyright - 2/2                        

DR>  I read a lot of books, and I have been busy checking the 
DR>  inside covers, and every book that I have that has been 
DR>  published in the last couple of years still has the 
DR>  copyright sign and the "all rights reserved".  If this new 
DR>  convention is so simple, why are they still doing that?

     Can you imagine the incredible amount of effort and cost 
they incur in including those two lines?

DR>  And obviously, if I hear a recording, I know that I can't 
DR>  use that music or the words in anything I might record, and 
DR>  I know that I can't paint over an artists signature and 
DR>  replace it with my own.

     Have you ever heard copyright announcements regarding the 
music broadcast on radio?

DR>  And I'm still somewhat confused.  Is everything that is 
DR>  printed in the daily paper copyrighted?  

     Yes, in form at least.

Would one have to 
DR>  ask for permission to reprint the box scores somewhere, or 
DR>  quote them to someone on one of the BBS's?

     To post of graphic of what is in the paper, yes; the scores 
themselves, no.

DR>  I still stand by my contention that if you write, or paint, 
DR>  or record something that you want to claim as your own, 
DR>  what was so hard about copyrighting it?

     You are a photographer.  You shoot two rolls of film.  
Copyright fee times 72 = too much.  Two contact print sheets = 
real money.  Implicit copyright?  No cost and the government 
doesn't need six new warehouses a year to store the material.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.Jefferson

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's Place In The Ghetto! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (794)
To:      All                                     7 Aug 95 18:21:00
Subject: It Could Get Worse!                    

 #############  Original From: DAVE ARONSON
 #  stolen   #             To: ALL
 #   post    #    Date/Number: 08/06/95
 #############             On: DOC'S - 0339 - Mensa
               PLEASE address responses to ALL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

This message was from Steve Clifford to all                      
and was forwarded via MR/2 to you by DAVE ARONSON
                         ---------------------
Subject: Top ten ways the internet could get worse (fwd)

Forwarded-by: whorfin@pixar.com (Rick Sayre)
Forwarded-by: Kane Hunter 
Forwarded-by: keith (Keith Aitken)

TOP TEN WAYS THE INTERNET COULD GET WORSE:
___---------------------------------------

10. Rigorous user screening process abolished by America On-Line.

 9. "MAKE MONEY FAST" posts protected by 1st amendment, declare internet
    lawyers Canter & Siegel.

 8. Home shopping "network".

 7. Netrek corporate sponsorships.  Out: Orion, Pollux, Klingus.
    In: Planet Bud, Toyota Prime, Intelworld.

 6. Sun internet servers replaced with pentiums.

 5. Dan Quayle appointed head of "bandwidth expansion tiger team".

 4. Free netcom account with purchase of big mac.

 3. Gameboy web browsers.

 2. Tipper Gore cancelbot unleashed onto the net.

AND THE NUMBER ONE WAY THE INTERNET CAN GET WORSE:

 1. Two words: "Microsoft Network".


    -=} Steve Clifford {=- * steve.clifford@transporter.com

___ InterMail 2.29
 * Origin: Transporter BBS - Centreville, VA (703)802-6885 (1:109/375)





--- Maximus/2 2.02
 * Origin: TIDMADT 703-765-0822 Wokking in my wicker underwear! (1:109/120)
                                                                       
---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Do you now or did you ever know the way to San Jose? Clinton

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's Place In The Ghetto! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (795)
To:      All                                     7 Aug 95 15:23:00
Subject: Learned from Waco Hearing              

                 Learned from the Waco Hearings
                               by
                           Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <8/8>

     There were ten days of Waco hearings.  It is now possible to
take a preliminary look at what we learned.  These are in no
particular order but then they were in no particular order in the
hearings.
     The BATF did not have the requisite form of warrant commonly
referred to as a "no knock" to justify the attempt at violent
entry and service.  In other words they were no better than
common street thugs and the Davidians were justified in defending
themselves.
     We learned Congress is not particularly upset when the terms
and conditions of a warrant are violated.  It does not at the
moment appear to matter to Congress that the BATF violated the
4th amendment.
     We learned that the BATF believed the Davidians fired first.
We noted they were not asked about their knowledge of who fired
first so we still have no idea what they know.  Nor were they
asked why they believed it nor were they asked if they were in a
position to have knowledge of who fired first.  They were
certainly not asked why they answered differently in court.
     I other words, whereas at the Davidian trial they were asked
what they knew, they were permitted to avoid perjury but saying
only what they believed.  It is not clear why they were given
this easy out rather than exposing the lack of evidence the
Davidians fired first.
     We learned that two investigations into the incident were
stopped.  The first investigation was internal to the BATF as to
the shooting and they were ordered to stop by the Justice
Department because the information could be used to by the
Davidians to prove self defense.  In other words, people in both
the Justice Department and the BATF violated their oaths of
office.  Ignoring that, the FBI did not investigate to find the
guilty.
     In other words, likely innocent people are in prison.
     The second investigation was by the Texas Rangers and Vince
Foster (by some rather obvious but unnamed authority) told them
to stop investigating.  That authority of Vince Foster to give
this order is not clear.  It is not apparent how the White House
obtained the power over a state police agency nor its basis in
law.
     It was confirmed that the BATF fired blindly into the
building without regard to having a target.  The BATF claimed to
have learned this in three days from the Army.  That Army says it
takes two months of training for the basics.  The BATF is a quick
study.
     We learned Koresh was tipped off -- nothing new -- but we
still have no idea what he was told nor what the person who
called him knew or what the TV cameraman knew.  We are left with
the impression that Koresh was given intimate details of the BATF
plans when in fact the only words that have come out are,
"something big is going down."  That is certainly a long way from
80 screaming, grenade throwing, machinegun toting men in black in
horse trailers.
     We learned either Agent Rodriguez was lying when he told his
superiors surprise had been lost or that his superiors were lying
when they said they did not know that it had been lost.  Another
way to look at this is that the BATF is managed by blithering
idiots with guns.
     We learned it was the original intention of the BATF to burn
the place down by using grenades and gunfire in the presence of a
meth lab.  It is not clear why they have declined to be up front
with this intention nor is it clear why are sticking to this
rather than admit they were lying.  After all, the penalty for
lying is only two years in prison while attempted murder in Texas
is worth five to ten years in prison on each of one hundred
separate counts. 
     We learned the arson investigator has watched Mr. Wizard and
learned that if there are no fumes methylene chloride can put out
a match.  Mr. Wizard was much more dramatic.  He did the same
trick with gasoline.
     Rather than simply deal with arson, the investigator has to
go on to use this cheap trick to cover for the FBI, ignoring that
the vapors are what are flammable and subject to ignition by
flame.  
     We learned that Attorney General Janet Reno was frightened
by Linda Thompson's call for the "unorganized militia of the
United States" to show up in Waco to try to send in diapers and
formula.
     Of course that is not what she said.  She claimed it was a
call for an armed appearance but that was her lie.  Reno also
claimed it was on the internet but rather it was a the Fido
Network.  That the entire FBI could not investigate and determine
the truth about what Linda Thompson was calling for is either
gross incompetence or another Reno lie or both.  And both are
equally likely.


                            * * * * *

        Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

     To save long distance calls.  One time permission to
reproduce this article is granted upon the following conditions.
All BBS reproduction is included and only an email notification
is requested.  If you Xpost everything, one notification will do.
     1)   You send a proof copy if printed media to the address
below.
     2)   The byline and address below is included.
     3) Your editorial effort is limited to reasonable spelling
and grammar corrections.
     4) There is no significant profit expected to be derived
directly from its reproduction, e.g. newsletters priced to
recover costs, non profit activities, the usual collection of
judgement proof people.

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



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * The perimeter can't be controlled.L. Thompson is coming.Reno

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's Place In The Ghetto! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (796)
To:      Seth Williamson                         7 Aug 95 16:18:00
Subject: Religion/Evolutn                       

SW>  No.  Christians believe that God is not identical with the 
SW>  universe, but in a fundamental sense outside of it.  You 
SW>  don't have to believe it, but don't misrepresent the 
SW>  doctrine.

     Good point but in all fairness you should also point out 
this idea is only slightly modified from the concept that said 
god is outside the universe because he lives above the firmament 
and the stars are the lights of heaven shining through holes in 
said firmament.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * 1996 -- We gave 'em hell and we can do it again.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's Place In The Ghetto! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (797)
To:      Bob Klahn                               7 Aug 95 13:20:00
Subject: RENO TAKE LT SERIOUSL                  

BK>  MG>       Rather we now have the sight of a fruitcase like Janet 
BK>  MG>  Reno taking a nutcase like Linda Thompson seriously enough 
BK>  MG>  to use her
BK>  MG> 
BK>  MG>       Never forget, someone who took Linda Thompson 
BK>  MG>  seriously was in charge of Waco.

BK>   I don't know if Linda Thompson reads the debate echo.  I 
BK>   will forward your comments to her, just to make sure she 
BK>   sees them.  If she's still out of jail, that is.

     She used to read civlib but hasn't been seen in months.  It 
seems civlib attracted a bunch of people as strange as Reno.  On 
of them is convinced LT is a threat to the country.

     LT strikes terror in the hearts of ...

     This is impossible to ridicule as it already too 
preposterous to make worse.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * To be a Founding Father, they had to write like Bill Buckley

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's Place In The Ghetto! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (798)
To:      All                                     8 Aug 95 02:06:00
Subject: Reno the Whacko                        

                   The Sorry State of Justice
                               by
                           Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <8/8>

     The problem with justice in the United States is the Justice
Department.  The Justice Department is in a sorry state because
of it head, Attorney General Janet Reno.  Janet Reno is in need
of a reality transplant because of her fear of Linda Thompson.
     You have not heard of Linda Thompson?  Let me give you a
feel for Linda Thompson as Janet Reno sees her.
     At the Waco hearings, in response to a question of
contributed to her decision to bring things to a conclusion on 19
April she referred to a message on the internet.  This message
(she said) called for an armed assembly of 3-5000 of the
"unorganized militia of the United States" at Waco.  Because of
that message she believed she could not secure the perimeter
around the compound and had to act.
     That may sound reasonable until one understands who Linda
Thompson is, or rather was, at the time.  Linda Thompson was
posting on Fidonet not internet.  She is an attorney in
Indianapolis.  She did call for such an assembly but UNarmed, as
in without arms, as in, please don't come with arms.
     This assembly was called for and occurred, as in came and
went, on the 3rd of April 1993 while the final attack poor Janet
was forced into was 16 days later.  A total of twenty people,
rather 3-5000 people did show up, none of them armed.  MS
Thompson not only identified herself but attempted to send some
boxes of assault diapers and destructive baby formula into the
Davidians.  This was of course refused.
     There you have everything that was called for and happened
related to the sworn testimony of Janet Reno.  Now lets us review
the facts here.  Because 20 unarmed people showed up with diapers
and formula 16 days earlier poor Janet felt they were a threat to
perimeter and had to use force.
     It is an even sadder statement on the FBI that with all of
its investigative powers it could only conclude the MS Thompson
was a threat to the FBI.  They were unable to discover that she
was a harmless flake on Fidonet, the Civil Liberties conference
in particular.  They could not find her.
     Not only could they not find her on Fidonet, they could not
find her well publicized BBS in Indianapolis.  They could find no
one who could give them a lead on MS Thompson.
     What is worse, they could not discover that she had been in
Waco, identified herself to the FBI, and demonstrated the danger
of her attempted assault diapers delivery.  The FBI could not
even find its own records or its own people's information.  Is
there anything more pathetic you can think of?
     But on top of all of that, and despite the obvious
incompetence of the FBI, poor Janet decided Linda Thompson was a
threat to FBI operations at Waco.  And because of that threat she
had to use force to bring it to a conclusion.
     It would have taken a stranger to Fidonet a few days of
messages to find Linda Thompson on the net, read her messages and
find out she is either harmless or foolish or both.  That no one
took her seriously then any more than anyone takes her seriously
now.  Imagine that the entire resources of the FBI were incapable
of learning this about Linda Thompson in time to avoid the final
attack on the compound.
     The mind boggles at the Keystone Kops the constitute the
FBI.  What incompetent fools they are.  And their fearless leader
is a terrible waste of a strong back.
     That mental midget quakes in terror that the entire FBI can
not withstand Linda Thompson and her assault diapers.  The
"unorganized militia of the United States" all 19 of them, has
poor Janet quivering in her combat boots.
     Only a posturing bull dyke would react like this to another
woman ... lets leave that speculation to others.
     Keeping it professional, not only is the FBI composed of
total incompetents but its Attorney General is a nerfbrain.
(Nerf, n. harmless imitation of the real thing.)  And this woman
is in charge of the FBI, an armed FBI.  Can we call in the
Bosnian Serbs to protect us from her?
     It is agreed this person is the third most qualified
Democrat woman Hilary could find for the job.  That makes her
about the 400th most qualified person on an absolute scale which
is about right.  She must do a couple of lines before her public
appearances to come across as she does ... and when paranoia
about Linda Thompson sets in, you know she is coming down from
the high.
     This woman is totally whacko, around the bend, off the wall,
lined out.  She has had too much and has to be stopped before she
hurts herself or 86 other people again.  Won't you help?

                            * * * * *

        Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

     To save long distance calls.  One time permission to
reproduce this article is granted upon the following conditions.
All BBS reproduction is included and only an email notification
is requested.  If you Xpost everything, one notification will do.
     1)   You send a proof copy if printed media to the address
below.
     2)   The byline and address below is included.
     3) Your editorial effort is limited to reasonable spelling
and grammar corrections.
     4) There is no significant profit expected to be derived
directly from its reproduction, e.g. newsletters priced to
recover costs, non profit activities, the usual collection of
judgement proof people.

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



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Give up your guns when the Secret Service gives up theirs.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's Place In The Ghetto! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (799)
To:      All                                     7 Aug 95 16:10:00
Subject: United Nations militar 01              

     A test for multiparts and in honor of the military prowess 
of the United Nations.

section 1 of uuencode 5.10 of file un1.jpg    by R.E.M.

begin 644 un1.jpg
M_]C_X``02D9)1@`!`@$`2`!(``#_[0$=061O8F5?4&AO=&]S:&]P,BXU.@!(
M````2```.$))30/M```````0`$@````!``$`2`````$``3A"24T#\P``````
M!P``````````.$))30/U``````!(`"]F9@`!`&QF9@`&`````````"]F9@`!
M`*&9F@`&`````````#(````!`%H````&`````````#4````!`"T````&````
M````.$))30/X``````!P``#_____________________________`^@`````
M_____________________________P/H`````/______________________
M______\#Z`````#_____________________________`^@``/_N``Y!9&]B
M90!D@`````'_VP"$``D&!P<'!@D)"0D."@H+#A$/#@X-$AH:%1`5&!D@(!X?
M'QXB(R@I)20E)2$G*RPL+2\T-#0S+C0T-#0T-#0T-#0!"@H*#`L,#0T-#A02
M$!(3&!H>'AH:(",E*"4C'2$J*S`P+"LE-#0T-#0T-#0T-#0T-#0T-#0T-#0T
M-#0T-#0T-/_``!$(`=0"'`,!(@`"$0$#$0'_Q`&B```!!0$!`0$!`0``````
M```#``$"!`4&!P@)"@L!``$%`0$!`0$!``````````$``@,$!08'"`D*"Q``
M`00!`P($`@4&!@@'`PUA`0`"$0,$(1(Q!4%181,B<8$R!A21H;%"(R054F(S
M-,%R@D,')9((4]'P8W,U%N&B\;*#)D235&1%PJ-T-A<8TE7B9?*SA,/3=>/S
M1B>4I(6TE<34Y/2EM<75Y?569G:&EJ:VQM;F]C='5V=WAY>GM\?7Y_HJ:JKK*VNKZ$0`"
M`@$"!`0#!`0&"`8'!F+RLX3#TW7C\T:4
MI(6TE<34Y/2EM<75Y?569G:&EJ:VQM;F]B7I[?'U^?W&"@X2%AH
M>(B8J+C(V.CX"1DI.4E9:7F)F:FYR=GI^0H:*CI*6FIZBIJJNLK:ZOK_W0`$
M`"+_V@`,`P$``A$#$0`_`/:4DDDE*22224I))))2DDDDE*22224I))))2DDD
MDE*22224I))))2DDDDE*22224I))))2DDDDE*22224I),2`TN.@')/"SLWK_
M`$3!+FY'4<>M[1):7@NCX#5`D#<@+X8LF0U"$I'L`2Z22Y'*_MC?5B@`LNMR
M)[55$$?WVU9F5_;3Z8P@48%]H[E[FL_)N41YC"-YAT,?P;XAD^7EI_45^=/H
M*2\TM_MK-(_1]*U_AVS^1JJ._MJ]1GV].QP/-SO\J8>;PC]+\"V(_P"IWXE+
M^\@>^)Q_O%^4H_QOI"2X3'_`+:/1'5S=B9-3O!@:X??(_(M7$^OGU6R=@^V
M^BY_:UCA'Q,0/O3QGQ':8^UK9/A//X[XN6R:=A?Y6],DJF'U/IN:V<7-IO`,
M'TWM.JMZCE2@@[-"4)0-2!![$4I)-*=%:I))))2DDDDE*22224I))))2DDDD
ME*22224I))))2DDDDE*22224I))))2DDDDE*22224I))))3_`/_0]I22224I
M))))2DDDDE*22224I))))2DDDDE*22224I))))2DDDDE*22224I))))2DDE0
MZOUGIG1J?4SLEM([-.KG?`K<)X
MF%3R<[".D!Q'\'I.3_U,7\0_GH^M=6_MC]!PMS,;?G6"1^C&
MUDC^$?R@%_P`7$I*E/F\L_TJ'@]+RWP#X?R
M]?JOAU"W
M:#.UYW-/R,K&21C*4=02/)BR8<68<.2$9CM(`OH72_[:6=5M;GX;+P(!?4=K
MOC&H/X+LND?7;ZN]5+6LR?L]KN*\@;3/QX/WKPM)68(>+B\U_JA])\7F>=_U.ZY/X?RW)0X<&,#N=R?,J22
M24;=4DDDDI22222E))))*4DDDDI22222E))))*4DDDDI22222E))))*=#H_6
M^I]&O%N%D.J/YS>6N^(.A7I_U9_MB]/ZCLHZB&X>08&_^Q//Q_-^?WKR!)38
ML\\6QT[%S.?^$\KSX/N0J?24=#_7]7Z6!!`+3((D1P4Z\/\`JK]=.I]`WY%Z]T+KG3NO8GKX=NZ/IL.CZSYA:N'F(9=!I+L\%\2^#\Q\
M/-R''BO28_;V=)),G4[DJ22224@IS<2ZY]5=S76,)#FSJ"$=6GP*M*$BM"O4DDDDI22222E))))*4DDDDI22222E))))*?__2]I22
M224I))))2DDDDE*22224I)8N9U!^3U:C`Q;(VNW7N;V#=8G\JVD2"*OJB[4@
MY631B4FVYX8P=REEY-.'COON=M8P:^?D/->?]6ZGD=3R"^PPP$[&=FC_`"I^
M/&9GP1*5.GUCZS7Y#G58A-5/&[\YWP\%7^KO2G]2R_5M!-%;I>3^<>8_RK)J
MK?;8VMC=SWD!H'C]+Q&X.!30`):WW$=W'E3Y",4:CN5D;D;+:22251E4D
MDH76U44OMM>VNNMI:?7/^V%]/"Z,_Q%
MF4._DS_+]WBLGZ[_`%XNZRY^%@EU6!,.=PZ_X^#?+[_!<4LWF.;NX8SIU+VW
MP?\`U/"'#GYR-RW$#L//Q\/M7]WIKV@_XQS6G[B04
MZ,)RVB3Y!KY>:Y?#_"9H0_LI`?F\XDNV9_:O^LKA)=C,\C8?YFE3_P"6L^L?
M^.Q/^''_`/-%)]WR_N%JGXQ\/'_&K']KPR2[G_EK/K'_`([$_P"''_\`-$&_
M^UE]9ZF%S1CVD?FLLU/W@(?=\O[A4/B_P\FOO6/[7C$EOY?U*^M.(T&SI=K@
M3'Z*'_[R2L;)Q,K%>67T64N;R'M((^],E"4?FB1YAN8^8PYOX/+"?]C('\D*
M222:S*22224I))))2DDDDE*5KIG4X\#XCR55)($@V-UL
MHQG$QD`8D407VSZG?73#^L#&X]\49X&K/S;8Y+?\BZKA?-==CZK&OK<6/:06
MN:8(([RO6/J)]>F]2-?3^IN#[PWQGX`<
M'%S'*@G'O*/4>(\/R\MN]23<)U>>4195%>5CV4V"6/:05YSU##MP,NRBP:M.
MA_>'8KTM9'UDZ9^T,(NK;-]6K?$CN%-AGPFCL5DXV'C.GY^3T^\6TNC]YIX<
M/`KNND]6QNIU2SV6-^E6[D?#Q"\\<"UQ!!!!@@]E*FVRBUEM;BQ[#+2.Q5C)
MB$_-9&1#ZBLSK74G]+^SV%@?2]Y;9XCP(1.C=19U+";:(%@TL;X._P!E3ZQC
M#,Z;D5;=SBPEH_A#A4P*E4AU9=QHV,>^G)I;;2\/8[@A$7GW0^K7=,R`"[]`
M]P]1I[>8\UW['ML8U[3N:X`@CN"G9,9@?!$96&2222C7*22224I))))2DDDD
ME/\`_]/VE))))2DDDDE*22224I8?UFZO]AQ_0I=&1:.1^8WQ^/@M/J.8S`PK
M%YSDWVY-[[K7;GO,DJ;#CXC9V"RAT6B1!LEY^9T53ZX9QHPV8S'0Z^=W]`?[*
M$O7D(\4CTQ>27$EM(T8R=(\?BLY)=!]6^AG+<,G):10/HM/]D/\`
MD5LF../@&+61;WU2Z2:A]MO;#G"*FGL/'_(NF3$M8T20T"`G5&+G]L7ZX'J=K^F8+_P!4K=%M@_LSAV'\$?BN#67S7,\5P@=.I[O=_`/@HPB/
M-M];,X>(]S)UL=[6#YE>
ML?5W^UYT3I.VW(;]NR!KNM'L!\F_Y977M:UC0UH#6C0`=
M_P!5,(W'E,?&?WI:#[-_R?,ND?VJ&`-?U/-+CH37CC3^^/\`D"['IGU/^KG3
M0/1Z?6YP!&^T;R9^*W4E=A@Q0VB/J\SS/Q;GN9OW,\J/2.@_!BQC*V!C&AK6
MB`&B``I))*9SE))))*4DDDDI2'?11D5FNZIEK#^:]H(^XHB2202#8-%YKJ?U
M%^K74=Q=A"AY).^@[3)\N/P7&]8_M4Y58+^F9C;@/['?[7?)PT_(O5TE!/E\
M4]X@'PT=/EOC//\`+5P9I2B.DO4/Q_8_-_5>B]4Z/;Z>;BOH/8N'M/P(T*H+
MZ;OHIR*C7=6VUCN6O`(/R*X7ZQ?VLNFYH=;TU_V*[GTSK6[^0:HQY(98B<)"43L0;"DDDD%ZDDDDE*3@D$$&".(3))*?5_[7WUV^WBOIG4
MK/UD>VFYW]E_@G^%X'O\>>_X7S4USF.#FDM<#((Y!7LG]K[ZW#K>.,++=&?2
MWD_V9H[_`!'?[UI\IS/%6.9UZ%X;X_\`!1AXN;Y:/ZL_/$=/$>'Y>6W9))N%
ME?6*_.Q,9F3BNTK=^D:1(+2M"(L@/)'1I_6?HIR@(\UQW"[
MKHWU@Q\^*[8IO\"='?!5>N_5O[38_(Q"&V.DOK/#CY>!5G',P]$]&.4;U#@_
M5_J#NG]182?T5AV6#M![_)>@_BO+;:WU/=78TL@_5WUVUY.7I6=
M15&KOCY+H^HYV-TO$]2S@0&,;R[R"H]7^L.+@[ZJOTUXT@?1:?,_S+DYS>M=
M1:USM]MA@3PT?S!.$99#Q3TBBQ'0;N]TK)R.O=6-MLLQL:'-K'&Z=)\3W74*
MAT7IS>F80ID.>3NL<.Y5]13()TV"\#37=2X'^V9]:OL-)Z5AV$9-K?T[V_V-
MA_-^)_)\5TGULZ]3]7ND693H=<[V4L/YSS_,.2O!\G(NRLBR^YYLML<7/-3\/`>2GPT>[D?%/C&'X?&CZ\I&D?XWE_JE_:UJK#,
MKK,6/Y;CCZ(U_./?X+TBJJNFMM=;`QC1`:T0`%-):^/%#$*B'SSG>?YCGI\>
M:=]AT'D%)))*1IJ22224I))))2DDDDE*22224I))))2DDDDE*22224@S)"\L^MW]K:_$#\KH\W4C5V.=7L$?FG\[\OQ7K22BRX8914A
MKW=#D/B7,\A/BQ2])WB=C_/N_,!!:2"((T(*2]M^NGU$P^NM?E8FW'SP.1HV
MW^EY^?WKQC-Q,G!RK,;)J=5=4=KV.Y!61FP2PG74="^A_#?BF#XCCO&>&8^:
M)W'\8\4*222A=-22222E(V'E9&%E59./8:KJG!S'-Y!04D@:00)`@BP11!??
M/JG]8*/K%TIN0WV7,AE]?[KO+R/9;+FM>QS'@.:1!![A>"?5/K]WU>ZO7DME
MU+O;=6#]-A_G'(7O&/?3E8]5]#Q95:T/8X?G`K9Y;/[L=?F&[YK\;^%GD,]P
M'ZG)K'P[C^?1X7ZP].'3>H17(J>-[/X/E/DKO1_K-;CAE.4#:R0/4G5H_G71
M=:Z:SJ>$:]!8WW5N/8_[*\]L8^JQS'M+7-)!![%:D#'+&I;AY^5Q-A[_`*ET
MK!ZO4VR0'D>RUGA_.L[ZN=/S>F=3OJM;-3ZY#QPZ#HL3HO6K^F/##^DQR?

)7"I&^KE?6[#^T=-]83NH.Z/$'0KA MUZ=FU>OAWU?OUN;]X7F*DY6%Y.C3&BYGZDW;XC6M["/F8_G44XCW M:Z%<#Z;=KE)<_P#5'J#LG%=C6.+GT\$_N]ON70*.43$D%<#8M2222:E22222 MG__5]I22224I))4>MYC\#IEU]<;Q`;/B3"(%D`=5;//]=SG6R2>Y@KT"R/3?/$%2Y8\/#'L%D3=GQ?- . Continued in the next message... --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: Doc's Place In The Ghetto! 813-822-4637 (1:3603/140.0) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50 SEEN-BY: 3615/51 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (800) To: Bob Klahn 7 Aug 95 13:45:00 Subject: USCONSTITUTION BK> MG> You mean we are in agreement that his knowledge of BK> MG> government is limited to the dictionary? BK> Which is that much more extensive than anyone else in the BK> debate. right --- * RM 1.3 01261 * Clinton smoked pot. Is that for or against drugs? --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: Doc's Place In The Ghetto! 813-822-4637 (1:3603/140.0) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50 SEEN-BY: 3615/51 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (801) To: Bob Klahn 7 Aug 95 16:28:00 Subject: USCONSTITUTION BK> MG> You are saying that the critical issue to your case was to BK> MG> them was a detail of less importance than what is mentioned. BK> Say what? I'm not sure of your point here. I am saying the BK> authors of the constitution didn't do a perfect job of it. BK> Pretty damn good, but not perfect. It has changed, some of BK> it is an improvement. But don't worry, it's about to get BK> worse with the three upcomming amendments. The Balanced BK> budget, school prayer, and flag burning amendments. Get a better dictionary. --- * RM 1.3 01261 * The OKC bombing would be very complex if OJ were charged. --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: Doc's Place In The Ghetto! 813-822-4637 (1:3603/140.0) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50 SEEN-BY: 3615/51 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (802) To: All 7 Aug 95 21:54:00 Subject: Waco first fire The Gehenna Plan by Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <8/8> Keeping with the biblical theme, these are the Fires of Gehenna, which some biblical scholars hold to be the end for unsaved souls. It is the biblical theme that both the Davidians and the government were acting out in the confrontation. It is worth investigating all variations upon the theme. In this regard we must consider the first planned use of destruction by fire in the confrontation between the government and the Branch Davidians. This was the BATF plan to destroy them all by fire using flashbang grenades. The BATF holds these grenades are not lethal but none have been willing to hold one while it goes off to show just how nonlethal they are. It was their plan to throw these grenades into the building as what are officially called "diversionary devices" in order to set off the methamphetamine laboratory and kill off most of the people inside by explosion and concomitant fire. From the beginning and in full belief in the laboratory and the explosively flammable chemicals it contained they planned to ignite these chemicals with these grenades. There is no other explanation for their use. It is ridiculous to believe they actually expected to have enough of them to deal with over a hundred people in a building this size. It is equally ridiculous to think they planned to use only eighty men to subdue over one hundred people with only grenades and hand weapons. It would have been almost one on one, agent to adult Davidian not to mention the control of the children. The idea of holding a mother and child at the point of a machinepistol is too ludicrous to imagine. The alternative of slamming people into walls, handcuffing them and the like is a possibility but of course, they said they were only after a few people. To threaten the lives of nearly hundred men, women and children with death if they did not comply (that is the threat guns state) with orders is also nothing rational people would want to get into the media. Imagine the evening news where a woman is herded outside in handcuffs with small children clinging to her and crying, perhaps the older children in handcuffs also. This certainly could not have been their intention. They had had enough bad press at the time, particularly regarding women and handcuffs would have been too kinky. But then if they had all died in an explosion and ensuing fire, it would have all been their fault for manufacturing drugs. There would be as many millions supporting the BATF as there are now supporting the FBI. Their deaths would play as their own fault in the media. And what better way to cause this explosion and fire than indiscriminant grenade use? It would be a minimal risk to the agents as they would be outside when they were thrown in. There was no need to go inside and "light a match" or anything else incriminating. If there were any negative press, some lower level person could take the fall for poor judgment, be fired and then rehired with back pay after a little posturing for the press. It was a perfect plan. No one would have asked after the "items and things to be seized" appendix to the warrant that listed nothing illegal. Everyone would have focussed upon the "unexpected" explosion and the "fancy that, a drug lab" would be in all the papers. Maybe people would never have looked into what they told the army about that lab in the first place. # # # # # It is surprising they have not used the cover story that they lied about the drug lab. The penalty for that is only two years in prison and a $10,000 fine for violation of the posse comitatus law. By admitting to the use of grenades around a methamphetamine laboratory they have admitted to attempted murder. In Texas that is five to twenty years for each of the over one hundred instances in the attack. Even with time off for good behavior that is a minimum of 250 years in prison, each. It is not clear why the BATF is sticking to its Fires of Gehenna story before Congress and the country. Perhaps they have a martyr complex. Perhaps they want to die for a cause. Perhaps the idea of blacks and whites living together was so repellent it overcame their reason. Whatever the case, they presumably feel satisfied with their contention and are willing to suffer the consequences of it. May the rest in peace. * * * * * Further distribution is encouraged by the author. To save long distance calls. One time permission to reproduce this article is granted upon the following conditions. All BBS reproduction is included and only an email notification is requested. If you Xpost everything, one notification will do. 1) You send a proof copy if printed media to the address below. 2) The byline and address below is included. 3) Your editorial effort is limited to reasonable spelling and grammar corrections. 4) There is no significant profit expected to be derived directly from its reproduction, e.g. newsletters priced to recover costs, non profit activities, the usual collection of judgement proof people. P.O. Box 82541, Tampa, Florida, 33682-2541, Bus. 813-969-0362 --- * RM 1.3 01261 * Dinosaurs are gone! We are doomed! --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: Doc's Place In The Ghetto! 813-822-4637 (1:3603/140.0) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50 SEEN-BY: 3615/51 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (803) To: Bob Klahn 7 Aug 95 16:22:00 Subject: WACO HEARINGS BK> SB> wanted to look into the acitivites of Koresh, why didn't BK> SB> they stop him during one of his weekly excursions into BK> SB> town? BK> Maybe because they didn't want to search him in town, but BK> to search his compound. As one of their initial disinformation press releases was that he carried an unlicensed Glock with him at all times ... but that is a lie we haven't been told lately. If they had wanted to search his compound they would have knocked and served the warrant, they would have taken him up on his offer to come out and look around. If they had wanted to attack without knocking they would have had a no-knock warrant. --- * RM 1.3 01261 * The power to regulate is not the power to prohibit. --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: Doc's Place In The Ghetto! 813-822-4637 (1:3603/140.0) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50 SEEN-BY: 3615/51 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (804) To: Lester Garrett 7 Aug 95 16:32:00 Subject: Waco Hearings & The Dems LG> hearings, its Republican members, the NRA, Koresh, the LG> Davidians, the militia, Linda Thompson and the kitchen LG> sink. Snicker was the modus operandi. Great show, guys. LG> You've done more for the fringe than they could have ever LG> hoped to accomplish for themselves. It will be interesting LG> to observe the kind of approach the Democrats will use when LG> the Ruby Ridge hearings open later this year. Republican Administration did it. --- * RM 1.3 01261 * "I'm relevant. Really I am." Bill Clinton --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: Doc's Place In The Ghetto! 813-822-4637 (1:3603/140.0) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50 SEEN-BY: 3615/51 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (805) To: Andy Downey 7 Aug 95 16:33:00 Subject: WACO THE PRICE OF FAME AD> I used to be in the habit of saving my QWK packets. Lo 'n AD> behold, I had from early 1992 thru late 94. I found the AD> `call to Waco to perform maneuvers' post, as well as all of AD> LT's accounts of their initial visit to Waco when they were AD> stopped by FBI and questioned. Mine got wiped. Please post if you have the time. --- * RM 1.3 01261 * Let God sort out the BATF. --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: Doc's Place In The Ghetto! 813-822-4637 (1:3603/140.0) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50 SEEN-BY: 3615/51 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (806) To: Bob Klahn 7 Aug 95 16:34:00 Subject: WACO-NRAGATE BK> SB> Talk about unethical behavior. The original warrant before BK> SB> the seige at Waco was for $400 for two guns SUSPECTED of BK> SB> not having had the excise tax paid on them. This justified BK> SB> attacking a PRIVATE residence with a riot squad, laying BK> SB> seige to a compound for over two months at a BK> Well, yes, it does justify searching a private residence. BK> If the residence is an armed fortress that requires a BK> large force. If the residents shoot at the agents, that BK> justifies a seige. A lot of IFs there. Too bad they were not supported by testimony at the trial or before Congress. BK> SB> cost of over a million dollars a day to taxpayers, BK> SB> IMPRISONING and TORTURING men, women, and children for over BK> SB> two months without benefit BK> You are the first person I have heard making claims of BK> torture. What do you consider driving them to irrational behavior? BK> If you have evidence make it available. But do so without BK> trying to make money off it. I have no desire to help BK> enrich conspiracy buffs. Sleep deprivation induces irrational behavior in people. They start seeing and hearing things. They get violent. There are other effects in the literature. --- * RM 1.3 01261 * EYE 4 NEWT --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: Doc's Place In The Ghetto! 813-822-4637 (1:3603/140.0) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50 SEEN-BY: 3615/51 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (807) To: All 7 Aug 95 21:09:00 Subject: Words of Waco 01 What do Waco Words Mean? by Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <8/8> Back during the trial of the Branch Davidians some covert tapes were played for the jury. They had to use headphones to keep out distracting noises and the words were so indistinct they were given a transcript to follow them. These were the tapes made by bugs the FBI had inserted in the compound. They were the words purporting to show the Davidians had started the fire. However, just last month the government released those same tapes. They were of remarkable clarity, even of studio quality one might add. Anyone who has tried to make tapes of a meeting knows how indistinct to incomprehensible such recordings are. We certainly can accept that the tapes played for the jury appear to be the kind we get when recording a meeting. But there is more. These recordings were made covertly. No one was speaking into the microphone. They were in things that were hidden from sight. Certainly that would explain why the jury needed all the help it could get in understanding the tapes. But then what were the tapes we heard on ABC Nightline and which were used at the Waco hearings? Those are indeed studio quality. The magic word "enhanced" is used to explain it. What is not explained is why they were not "enhanced" for the jury which was a trial with life in prison attached but were enhanced for the potential hand slap penalty of a hearing. The more important point to make, the prosecution at the Davidian trial said the tapes had been enhanced. So we have barely intelligible enhanced tapes at the trial and studio quality enhanced tapes for Congress. There has not been any technological breakthrough in audio enhancement techniques since the trial yet there is a great improvement in the clarity of the same words. What do we make of this? On one hand it is clear they are not the same tapes, no matter how "enhanced." On the other, why would they be different tapes? But there is more. The tapes are always introduced as proof the Davidians started the fire, then these magic, excuse me, enhanced tapes are played, and we are told we have heard the proof. I have a problem with that. My problem is that the words do not support indicate any fire is being started by the Davidians nor in fact did the government actually say that. The trial tapes have times associated with the words. Those times are between 6:15 and 7:23 am, over four and one half hours before the fires start. And they are interestingly not the same words given to the press and Congress. At 6:12 am the court has words "You got the fuel ready?" and "It's already poured." At 7:23, "So we light 'em as they come in [unintelligible] right?" is one of the lines from the court transcript. But for Congress we hear, "is it lit?" clear as a bell with no indication whatsoever what time the recording was made. Obviously the words for the court indicate a possibility of more than one fire but the words for Congress only indicate one fire neither set of words has any apparent connection with any of the fires that occurred in time. But there is more. Congress gets studio quality recordings of "Pour the fuel" and "Is it lit?" Let us for the moment accept the possibility of studio quality enhancement. How did they happen to have mikes in exactly the right places to get these recordings? If these are related to the actual fires shown on tape to Congress then the first is an order to get ready to start a fire and the second a question as to whether it had been started. Now the survivors agree as should anyone who watched the tanks demolishing the building that there was so much debris and destruction inside that it was difficult to walk any place much less to the places where the fuel was poured six hours earlier. And yet, if these words refer to the start of the fires then we are to believe that people were sent out from where the studio quality bug was hidden, go to places determined six hours earlier, fires lit and when one of them returns through a flaming building to report and he is asked if he has lit the fire. One has to admire the determination of these people not to mention their ability to predict just the right places to pour fuel that would have a path from the bugged place. You have to admire their bravery in returning through a burning building to report. But wait, there is more! One of these fire starters actually jumped up to the second floor after the stairs had been collapsed (sort of like a Hollywood stuntman) and started a fire. Why anyone would start a fire on the second story of a wood frame building is beyond the imaginative abilities of even the FBI but that is what the FBI says happened. And then we must not forget how calm these people were in facing a fiery and painful death. Someone has the presence of mind to suggest that some fuel be saved for later, perhaps to soak himself if the burning building doesn't get him. I could go on with this a while longer but what is the use? The only saving grace of this FBI scenario is that it must be the truth because fiction has to make sense and this scenario certainly does not make a bit of sense. And to top it all off, someone shot Koresh, the mastermind behind it all, in the head to prevent him from escaping the fire. Lets all hear it for magic enhanced tapes. Lets hear a cheer for hearing what you want to hear. Lets all take a leaf from the Red Queen and practice believing seven impossible FBI scenarios every morning before breakfast. How else could these fires have started? Accident of course, as the Davidians who survived said. The tanks knocked over lanterns that started the fire. Would you rather believe Murphy's Law or the FBI's concoction? Rather, there is no reason to believe either story. We may never know how the fires started any more than we will know who started the shooting (at people, the BATF testified they started shooting the dogs first) the day of the first raid. But the FBI has a desperate need to be considered the good guys in all of this. After all, it was they who provoked whatever happened. They look less guilty if it was deliberate suicide rather than an irrational act by sleep deprived people or caused by their shaking the house or because they did not follow the plan or because they said it was not an attack and immediately started shooting grenades into the building. I have to end this now. I need to read some Stephen King to ease back into reality after this excursion. * * * * * Further distribution is encouraged by the author. To save long distance calls. One time permission to reproduce this article is granted upon the following conditions. All BBS reproduction is included and only an email notification is requested. If you Xpost everything, one notification will do. 1) You send a proof copy if printed media to the address below. 2) The byline and address below is included. 3) Your editorial effort is limited to reasonable spelling and grammar corrections. 4) There is no significant profit expected to be derived directly from its reproduction, e.g. newsletters priced to . Continued in the next message... --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: Doc's Place In The Ghetto! 813-822-4637 (1:3603/140.0) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50 SEEN-BY: 3615/51 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (808) To: All 7 Aug 95 22:33:00 Subject: Wrong Kind of Warrant Wrong Kind of Warrant by Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <8/8> One of the questions has always been, what justified the stormtrooper attack upon the Branch Davidians' home? And as a result of the hearings we have the answer, nothing legal. Prudence may have suggested to people like the BATF with such warped imaginations that violent entry was needed, but they failed to get that kind of warrant. While the hearings wasted much time upon who had the warrant it finally came out that they had the wrong kind of warrant. They had the type that is governed by the "knock and serve" provisions of the law. They did not have a no-knock warrant which would have permitted the kind of attack they attempted. And we further find out that regardless of any justification, they never planned any constitutional form of warrant service. It happens that our Federal and the Texas State Constitutions both require all warrants to be issued by an impartial reviewing authority (we use judges) and only after someone swears to its need under oath and then the correct type of warrant must be issued. It turns out the BATF did not ask for nor were they granted as no-knock warrant. Because of that they had no power to attack the Davidians' home. Some may see this as a minor technicality; most see it as the Constitution. No power means exactly that, no power. It does not mean they had a little bit of power, or power in these circumstances. It means no power whatsoever. And that is the crucial distinction. Having the wrong kind of warrant is exactly the same as having no warrant at all. Without a warrant, without the right kind of warrant, they have no power at all. With all the identification, announcement, whatever, they were in no way different from street thugs and the same as targets. That is the reason we have a Constitution; to prevent the government from doing exactly what it did in Waco. If that is not its purpose then we might as well not have a Constitution. It it only applies when the government feels it necessary then it is not a restraint upon government at all. If people are not held blameless for defending their rights when the government not only violates those rights but violates a specific prohibition against such violation then the constitution is dead and worthless. After Waco many would say that it is; that it is a technicality honored only in the breech when it suits the purposes of the government. Rather the constitution was created by the people for the purposes of the people. As in court it is in the land, it is better that the guilty go free than the innocent be harmed. It is better that judgment err upon the side of the citizen than upon the side of the government. It is better to err on the side of the rights of man than on the powers of the government. In the case of the Davidians versus the government, the government was clearly acting outside the bounds the people put upon it. And the error is in favor of the Davidians for defending themselves against a blatantly and openly an attack in violation of the 4th amendment to the US Constitution. If the Constitution is not to protect people from the excesses of government, then what is it for? It is hard to conceive that the Constitution is for the purpose of simply providing "guidelines" for the government and then holding that government safe from harm when it admits to violating its own implementation of those guidelines. But in this case was have clear law following from our Constitution which makes the government's action in Waco in clear violation of our Constitution. And yet, when the Davidians acted toward the government in a manner consistent with our Constitution, they were charged and found guilty. Guilty of what? Of not treating the government as though it had the power to do anything it desires with impunity? That is a dictatorship. Our government exists with certain very specific an limited powers and none other. It is required to live within the laws. It has no powers outside of the powers granted and the laws as they exist. The government had no power to act without a proper warrant. Without acting within its limits acted as a tyranny. And death is always the due of tyrants be they grunt minions or the leaders. The Wafen SS had families too. * * * * * Further distribution is encouraged by the author. To save long distance calls. One time permission to reproduce this article is granted upon the following conditions. All BBS reproduction is included and only an email notification is requested. If you Xpost everything, one notification will do. 1) You send a proof copy if printed media to the address below. 2) The byline and address below is included. 3) Your editorial effort is limited to reasonable spelling and grammar corrections. 4) There is no significant profit expected to be derived directly from its reproduction, e.g. newsletters priced to recover costs, non profit activities, the usual collection of judgement proof people. P.O. Box 82541, Tampa, Florida, 33682-2541, Bus. 813-969-0362 --- * RM 1.3 01261 * Dinosaurs are gone! We are doomed! --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: Doc's Place In The Ghetto! 813-822-4637 (1:3603/140.0) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50 SEEN-BY: 3615/51 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» +++■■■■■ r_950811 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* --- From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (886) To: All 4 Aug 95 05:25:00 Subject: Militia Conference 4 all Origin: DOC'S - 0730 - Rights_Rongs From: BILL BAUER Public To: MATT GIWER Date: 07/30/95 at 05:13 Re: new MILITIA conferen ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------- > NEC is Wayne Fusco, 1:3603/20050. > If you are interested please request your SYSOP to request > this conference be backboned. > Rules? I am working on them. Nothing seriously > restrictive, simply stick to the subject and "put up or shut up." > IOW, don't say citizen militias are illegal without citing the > law making them illegal. Without a law, nothing is illegal. Way to go, Matt! Let me try to give you some insight into getting this thing on the bone. First thing is to be sure it is listed as an echo on the local bone where 1:3603 resides. Once it is on the local echo, you need to work to get as many out of area BBS systems to take it by polling for it from 1:3603/20050. I will do that immediately via netmail. Then you also need to inform your NEC that you wish to work towards getting the echo on the national backbone. Since the militia issue is so controversial and many people have their own personal thoughts on such subjects as militias, smoking and other issues your agenda may run into some conflicts. You need to watch out for problems from that angle just in case they raise their ugly little heads. You need to get other sysops from other areas asking for your echo to be placed on the backbone too. There are quite a few more little tricks you need to be aware of and I will point them out to you in a short time. But let's work towards getting these steps done first. Keep me informed as to your progress on the above steps on a continual basis so I can know where you are at and can give you the next steps to take. We should be able to get this thing on the national backbone within a couple of months if we are lucky. Bill Bauer --- DB 1.58/004358 * Origin: -=[MAGNA CARTA NEWS SERVICE]=- (1:147/113) <*> --- * RM 1.3 01261 * Give up your guns when the Secret Service gives up theirs. --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637 (1:3603/140.0) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50 SEEN-BY: 3615/51 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (887) To: All 6 Aug 95 01:37:00 Subject: Thompson Responsible Waco DA> Now we find out that the Militias and their leaders with DA> their threats of interference in an already difficult and DA> deadly law enforcement crisis share culpability in the DA> deaths of the innocents at Waco for whom they have been DA> crying justice for. If Linda Thompson had kept her nose DA> out of Waco and not engaged in her delusions of fantasy DA> about being the leader of a Militia maybe, just maybe, the DA> children wouldn't have died at Waco. Do you think that now DA> that she knows she was as responsible as ANY government DA> entity for what happened at Waco that we will see any DA> contrition or the survivors share in the proceeds of the DA> blood money she earned off the videos of lies about their DA> deaths? I wouldn't hold my breath. And if this was truly a contribution then Janet and Linda should have adjoining rooms with matched padding in a place where all their needs can be cared for. Imagine, a delusional paranoid as Attorney General. --- * RM 1.3 01261 * Bill Clinton, Hatemongering McCartyite. --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637 (1:3603/140.0) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50 SEEN-BY: 3615/51 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (888) To: All 6 Aug 95 03:52:00 Subject: Waco hearings, the tipoff A Hearing Result We learned Koresh was tipped off -- nothing new -- but we still have no idea what he was told nor what the person who called him knew or what the TV cameraman knew. We are left with the impression that Koresh was given intimate details of the BATF plans when in fact the only words that have come out are, "something big is going down." That is certainly a long way from 80 screaming, grenade throwing, machinegun toting men in black in horse trailers. So what is the connection necessary connection between being tipped off and events? We still do not have the necessary details to connect the two events. --- * RM 1.3 01261 * The values of rhe Framers are beside the point - J. Nagarya --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637 (1:3603/140.0) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50 SEEN-BY: 3615/51 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (893) To: All 6 Aug 95 20:45:00 Subject: Bible Evolution Evidence Biblical Evidence for Evolution Creationists are fundamentally unaware of the Biblical evidence for evolution. Leviticus is generally dated between 1600 and 1400 BCE. The following passages provide the evidence for evolution LEV 11:13 " `These are the birds you are to detest and not eat because they are detestable: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, [14] the red kite, any kind of black kite, [15] any kind of raven, [16] the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, [17] the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, [18] the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, [19] the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.n ^^^ Leviticus 11:21-23 lists things with four legs. Among the list are locust, beetle (cricket in some translations), and grasshopper. There are reliable descriptions of bats, locusts, beetles and grasshoppers from about 200 BCE. Thus in a period of approximately 1500 years, give or take a centuries, bats have changed from being indistinguishable from birds to their present form. In that same time certain insects have gained a third pair of legs for a total of six legs. As we have Egyptian glyphs of birds going back before the Noatic flood we know that birds indeed looked like present day birds. Thus it was bats that in this amazingly short period of time evolved fur in place of feathers, teeth in place of beaks and a host of other mammalian features completely independent of mammalian ancestry. --- * RM 1.3 01261 * Want my gun? Make my day. --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: Doc's Place In The Ghetto! 813-822-4637 (1:3603/140.0) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50 SEEN-BY: 3615/51 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (894) To: Lester Garrett 6 Aug 95 14:47:00 Subject: Mikey-whining On 08/02/95 LEE WOOFENDEN to MATT GIWER on Mikey-whining in Fido-Holysmoke LW> LW> Nope. Occam's razor states that it is unnecessary to make LW> LW> any such assumptions in order to proceed with whatever LW> LW> manipulation of "matter" we wish to make. Your idea that LW> LW> matter really exists out there and is not a construct of LW> LW> consciousness is just a quasi-religious belief. It is a LW> LW> non-demonstrable assumption. It is unnecessary and LW> LW> irrelevant. LW> MG> It is simplest (most Occam-like) to hold either that matter LW> MG> is outside the mind as all people agree with the evidence LW> MG> of its existence LW> An Argumentum ad Populum... or perhaps an Argumentum ad Numeram... I was commenting upon your usage of the razor. If you are interested in evidence Socratic argumentation is not appropriate to existential matters. Rather, it matters not whether the club really exists when one is on the receiving end of it. More to this case, the existence of this message is the same. It matters not that it really exists as those reading it respond to it as though it does. LW> MG> or that everything is inside the mind including the people. If LW> MG> the latter, all this god stuff is in the mind also. LW> Exactly. You've hit the nail on the head. So God would have LW> the same reality as matter. The same LACK of reality with this line of speculation. LW> Can you in any way demonstrate that the latter option you LW> have spelled out is incorrect, and that the former is LW> correct? I see no reason to differentiate between the consequential results of a mutually agreed reality and the lack of consequence of an imagined reality. In the former case, the club hurts, in the latter case, you are doing it to yourself. Conclusion, it will feel good when you stop. --- * RM 1.3 01261 * It's not the end of the world,it is just an intermission. --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: Doc's Place In The Ghetto! 813-822-4637 (1:3603/140.0) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50 SEEN-BY: 3615/51 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (895) To: All 6 Aug 95 17:33:00 Subject: WOW: Clinton Kills a Prog ############# Original From: ED FISCHANG # stolen # To: ALL # post # Date/Number: 08/05/95 ############# On: DOC'S - 0383 - Night_Shift_ PLEASE address responses to ALL ----------------------------------------------------------------------- * Forwarded from area "LIBERTY" (LIBERTY) * Originally from: Libernet (Ian Goddard) (1:204/9) * to: All * date: 27 Jul 95 18:33:59 From: ian@intr.net (Ian Goddard) To: LIBERNET@Dartmouth.EDU Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 16:19:38 -0400 (EDT) Cc: alt-activism@cs.utexas.com, lindat@iquest.net On Jul 27, 1995 The Washington Times (A1) wrote: U.S. PROGRAM KILLED FOR DOUBTING YELTSIN The Clinton administration secretly terminated an Energy Department intelligence program because the program asserted that Russia no longer had firm control over its enormous arsenal of nuclear weapons, according to departmental sources and internal documents obtained by The Washington Times. Two years ago the program concluded that Russian President Boris Yeltsin had lost the technical ability to prevent an unauthorized launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile. Documents obtained by The Times reveal that Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary ordered that department's "Russian Fission" monitoring program halted in 1993 because its views did not conform to the administration's conciliatory policies toward Moscow. [snip]... The Washington Times (A1) -- Ian Goddard --- * RM 1.3 01261 * Critics of The Bell Curve cheated on the test. --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: Doc's Place In The Ghetto! 813-822-4637 (1:3603/140.0) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50 SEEN-BY: 3615/51 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (898) To: All 9 Aug 95 05:09:00 Subject: 1st "lady" ain't shit The First Lady by Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <3/31> The First Lady is no more than an honorary title. Treating as more than a honorary is a falsehood. It is a point of respect and courtesy that men give to a lady. We have seen the first deliberate attempt to abuse that courtesy and respect in Mrs. William Clinton. Regardless of what you might think of me, you most likely know something about me from what I write. So at some time in my life and her life I happen to meet a woman interested in politics. She becomes President of the United States. I get to remake the entire health care system of the country. I think that is as absurd as you do. But then you know more about me than you knew about Mrs. Clinton before she was given the job. In a much less serious case Bill Gate marries. Mrs. Gates is put in charge of developing Windows 4.0 which will be completely incompatible with all previous versions. The stockholders vote Gates out of his job. The president of General Motors puts his wife in charge of engine design. He is voted out. Alan Greenspan puts his wife in charge of determining the inflation rate be an entirely new method. The mayor puts her husband in charge of reorganizing the city pension system. Your boss gives his wife the job of redefining your job. Mrs. Gingrich is put in charges of redefining the procedural rules of the House. And do not forget in these examples, no knowledge is required as no knowledge of health care was required of Mrs. Clinton. But Democrats will insist she was qualified in an area much more responsible than the above examples based only upon a $10 dollar fee paid to the State of Arkansas to record the marriage. The last egregious abuse of this was when Congress created the National Endowment for the Arts as a favor to Jackie Kennedy but only the the widow Kennedy. I am sorry but the Constitution does not sanction little courtesies. The constitution does not hold that a couple is elected. I can not say that I would have objected if the Clintons had stood by her original statement that they came as a pair, electing him meant the country would get both of them but that was quashed, falsely, as soon as it was said. And their she was, when awarded the political payback smiling to the crowd clearly basking in the "I deserve this because I gave him sex" response. She as with most women have not gotten past confusing their desirability because of their sex and looks and the gifts they get because of those. She does appear to truly believe that she should be given things simply for existing. And she makes the worse error in assuming that because those gifts include being catered to and never being held to be wrong that it must continue no matter what they do. It is the failing of women who have never really had to live in the world of men and the claim of NOW is that women should be given power. Given? Since when is anything in the world such as wealth or power given to anyone but women? And since when is it given save in return for sex and children? Since when is anything given solely because the recipient is a woman? This abuse of the the First Lady courtesy may never be surpassed by anyone after Mrs. Clinton. Times are changing too quickly and there are enough women governors and enough nations that have had women leaders for the US not to be far behind. But in the mean time there will be no more Mrs. Clintons. * * * * * Further distribution is encouraged by the author. P.O. Box 82541, Tampa, Florida, 33682-2541, Bus. 813-969-0362 --- * RM 1.3 01261 * hypocricy, guns against arabs, tear gas against jews --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: Doc's Place In The Ghetto! 813-822-4637 (1:3603/140.0) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50 SEEN-BY: 3615/51 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (899) To: All 9 Aug 95 05:25:00 Subject: Burn The Flag Burn the Flag by Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <7/9> There is currently a Constitutional Amendment in consideration in Congress to permit federal and state governments to create laws against burning the flag. This is perhaps the greatest waste of the limited time available for political change. And further, there are much more urgent amendments to be considered debated rather than to waste time on this no-brainer. The first that should be considered is to strengthen the 4th amendment against warrantless search and seizure. For thirty years it has been a hobby of law enforcement agencies find ways to avoid the protections of the 4th and to actively ignore it. These efforts have been supported by the Supreme Court. It is clearly time to withdraw from our government the power to issue search warrants. This means simply that there will not longer be any hair splitting over what is and is not a search. No form of search without consent is permitted, ever. All questions of discovery in due course will be moot as there will be no expressed or implied power to search given to the government. In light of the pending bill to make the 1st amendment inapplicable to any computer network it is time to add this amendment to the constitution. "When it say Congress shall make no law, it means MAKE NO LAW you illiterate fool." That might not be strong enough for the present day breed of Congressrats but stronger language, such as making passage of such a law a shoot on sight offense might get their attention but likely not. It is about time Congress and the states learn what "shall make not law" means. It means no law. If it permits shouting fire in a crowded theater, so be it. The pending violation of speech, total censorship of cyberspace, is sufficient to warrant a few such fire shouts. While everyone would agree that using a child in pornography should be a crime, morphing Barbara Bush into a young teenager should be regarded as an artistic accomplishment, a miracle even, rather than kiddie porn. And it makes no difference if an 18 year old loses a few years. How can the law tell? No one ever said either that law enforcement was easy or that rights have to be given up to make it easy. In light of the myriad of "interstate commerce" and import regulations clauses it is about time we amended the Constitution to state, "The power to regulate shall never be construed to be the power to prohibit nor shall excessive taxation, tariffs, duties or imposts ever be used as a means prohibition. In no case shall criminal penalties be applied to violations of revenue raising statutes." This will mean that all taxes on commerce shall only attempt to optimize revenue, as excessive taxation is prohibition can not raise revenue and as such it is not a revenue raising provision, but that if you fail to pay a $200 tax for owning a machinegun you can not be thrown in jail for ten years. The worst penalty would be a "usual" fine of ten times the unpaid tax. To this change I would add one sub-amendment, "all taxpayers shall be considered equal and no qualifications to pay taxes shall be imposed." This means the to own a machinegun, one can not be required to pass a background check to qualify to pay a tax. But it goes further. It is possible to place a one dollar federal tax on all sea going boat purchases and require a background check (buyer paid for) to assure one is not likely to become a drug smuggler under the same trivial tax on machineguns. And to the big one, "No clause of this constitution shall ever be construed as a means of the avoidance of the provision of any other clause of this constitution." This will mean the government can not restrict weapons possession by invoking another clause such as interstate commerce of federal licensing or import clauses any more than it would be considered reasonable to restrict the ownership of foreign cars by invoking the power to regulate foreign trade. And in light of all of these necessary and needful amendments we are talking about permitting a new restriction, that against burning the flag? That might be a good idea. I think it sucks but I will leave that to the debate that will require 38 states to ratify it. But in the mean time when we permit a no-knock warrant because the alleged violator might flush a ton of cocaine or a machinegun down a toilet this is terrible waste of time. When there is a possibility of making the use of the f-word on the world wide internet a criminal matter we have better things to spend time on. When there are so many unplugged loopholes in the Constitutional protections of our rights that pre-existed the Constitution we do have better things to spend our time discussing. Rather this Congress is truly no different from the previous save in some necessary fiscal matters. Rather than addressing the real issues, it will reverse prior trends without renouncing and prohibiting forever the basis for those trends. The flag is but a symbol of our liberties. It is not proper to prohibit burning the symbol while burning the liberties. * * * * * Further distribution is encouraged by the author. To save long distance calls. One time permission to reproduce this article is granted upon the following conditions. All BBS reproduction is included and only an email notification is requested. If you Xpost everything, one notification will do. 1) You send a proof copy if printed media to the address below. 2) The byline and address below is included. 3) Your editorial effort is limited to reasonable spelling and grammar corrections. 4) There is no significant profit expected to be derived directly from its reproduction, e.g. newsletters priced to recover costs, non profit activities, the usual collection of judgement proof people. P.O. Box 82541, Tampa, Florida, 33682-2541, Bus. 813-969-0362 --- * RM 1.3 01261 * A Bill Clinton speech, the true cause of bulemia. --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: Doc's Place In The Ghetto! 813-822-4637 (1:3603/140.0) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50 SEEN-BY: 3615/51 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (900) To: All 9 Aug 95 06:02:00 Subject: censorship 01 Censorship by Matt Giwer (c) 1992 [With many thanks to Dr. John Norman Lange of Queens College for some ideas I have liberally stolen.] There is a hard to define region between things such as advocating the sexual (ab)use of children and shouting fire in a crowded theater. This is not to suggest that in 1992, in the popular culture of the larger part of the United States, that we do not possess the final truths of the moral and social universe. Every other people and time has had the ultimate truths. Why should we be different? However, as with pornography which we can not define but know it when we see it, we similarly know censorship when we see it. The question of course is whether or not a particular person or group sees censorship as desirable or undesirable. For example, it is generally accepted that only Blacks (or hyphenated African-Americans) can refer to themselves as niggers and that no one else can. As a group any other use of the word nigger is unacceptable, perhaps even here as an example. Such is the risk one takes in writing on this subject. There are three general justifications of censorship 1) Preservation of the truth 2) Protection from harm 3) The betterment of culture The "Preservation of truth" is only a function of time and society as to when it is used. In the Western European Middle Ages it was used to suppress the heliocentric theory of the universe, discussions of means other than creation for the origin of life, the age of the world. These in addition to multitudinous heresies that were in need of being stopped else the divine truth would be lost. Of course, this all presumed that some person or some group has the corner upon the truth and is completely competant to interpretate it. Unfortunately despite any pomp and circumstance who or whatever this person or group is, it turns out they are strangely human just like the rest of us and have no greater pipeline to ultimate truth than you or I. This reason certainly did not die with the Middle Ages or any time later as Marxism in all of its mutually self contradictory variations continue to preserve the ultimate truth that they and only they have. The "Protection from harm" was for years the justification for the pornography laws and about the time they were struck down in general all over the country, the camel got its nose back in the tent with the child pornography laws. It appears now society is searching for a more politically acceptable basis for pornography laws. Already there have been lawsuits claiming that all pornography is exploitation and excites violence against women. So far these cases have not prevailed. Decades ago essentially the same group of people that celebrated the end of the pornography laws but now are supporting exactly the same censorship upon different grounds. It is noteworthy that these grounds are given respect and a hearing by groups that would not give the time of day to a TV minister promoting exactly the same thing for different reasons. It appears there are not only politically acceptable positions but also politically acceptable reasons for holding those positions. "The Betterment of culture" is the third reason in that certain ideas will not be permitted to be discussed as to do so would threaten the determined direction which will lead to improvement. The idea that demonstrates this best is perhaps the idea of equality of all people. We started with equality of treatment, proceeded to equality of results and in the process banned all discussion of inequality. And discussion of any reason for inequality has been socially banned. This proceeds from the eggregious example of comparisons of IQ scores across races to determination of causes for unequal results across racial, ethic, and social classes. NONE may be discussed. Why not? It would thwart the popularly perceived thrust of the progress of our culture. As always it devolves to the absolutely perfect perception of moral truths by some very human individuals who, like you and me, have no channel to absolute truth we ourselves do not have. The presumption that any group agreement is any greater is not different than that any Middle Ages religion had a better channel to ultimate truth. Note what is happening here. The contradiction between equality and liberty is being emphasized as the two are mutually exculsive when carried to extremes. Liberty emphasizes differences between people. Equality emphasizes their sameness and ultimately enforces that sameness. Which of course leads to the enforcer and once there is an enforcing class there is no longer liberty. This is nothing new as liberty in the Middle Ages with its own presumption of having the ultimate truth did not permit freedom of religion. Today in the few non-dissillusioned Marxist countries and five years ago in all of them, the ultimate truth did not permit liberty. But is this harmful? As Norman has pointed out, even saints have supported censorship. As the discussion of the failure of Marxism was prohibited so to is the search for the reason that there are racial, sexual, social, ethnic and cultural differences and thus also prohibited is the search for the cures and corrections. The reason for holding with the free marketplace of ideas is the belief that, unlike money, good ideas drive out bad. Given the observed results anyone who truly wishes the betterment of society promotes freedom of speech even when the speech, the ideas, the concepts hold one's own ideas to be wrong. There is no greater striving toward principle than to permit one's own ideas to be scrutinized and be discarded for the betterment of the world. The issue is not that the free exchange of ideas is infallable but rather that it is the best method the human race has discovered to promote progress. Had free speech been stifled on the slavery issue in the 1800s, had Martin Luther King been stifled in the 1950s and '60s, had Woman's Sufferage been stifled ... the political list alone can be extended from the obvious to the forgotten but not so trivial as in the end of debtor's . Continued in the next message... --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: Doc's Place In The Ghetto! 813-822-4637 (1:3603/140.0) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50 SEEN-BY: 3615/51 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (901) To: Michael Pilon 8 Aug 95 20:14:00 Subject: EXECUTIVE ORDERS MP> Ro> The Congress is conspiring to end Democracy, and make MP> Ro> Clinton a Dictator: it is Congress that makes the laws. MP> Is a Dictator a penis shaped potato ? I have a feeling you MP> might know ! Don't you know your board is down? Knock off the posting. --- * RM 1.3 01261 * If superman flew in a closed room people could see the wires --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: Doc's Place In The Ghetto! 813-822-4637 (1:3603/140.0) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50 SEEN-BY: 3615/51 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (902) To: All 9 Aug 95 05:32:00 Subject: IR opinion from Jan 84 01 Infrared, The Now Told Story by Matt Giwer (c) 1994 "Waco: The Untold Story" was shown on Prime Time Live shown on Thursday, 13 January 1994. During that program there were three photos quickly flashed on the screen. They were described as infrared photos taken by the government of three separated hot spots thus proving the Branch Davidians started the fires. There are problems with this. The pictures were not on screen long enough for viewers to verify there were even hotspots. The pictures did not appear to have a date/time group on them and as such would certainly not be admissible as evidence in court. One has to ask upon what grounds we are to accept these pictures. The announcement that the fire was started by the people inside was made from Washington while the fire was still burning; about one half hour into the fire. This was reported on CNN overlaying the live shots of the fire. How did Washington know of the results and analysis of these pictures and prepare a press release within 30 minutes? We are also asked to believe there was a plane directly overhead and taking pictures exactly at the time the unexpected fire started. Excuse me. The three pictures showing we know not what were from the same perspective, so it must have been a helicopter. The perspective was also from overhead rather from a slant angle so it was not a circling plane. It would have been a stroke of blind luck to have that plane exactly overhead at exactly the right time doing exactly the right thing. Let us look at a few alternatives. It really was a helicopter rather than a plane as we were told on Nightline. We can forgive a TV production crew that gaff. We are still left with three still photos at exactly the right moment. Perhaps they are out takes from a film. That we can not forgive in a TV production crew, showing stills instead of a film clip. We note further we have films from every network showing the first starting in exactly one place with the only question being how it spread so quickly. The government now purports to tell us it started in three places at once. It is noted the government has still to show us one thing inconsistent with a the Branch Davidian statement that the tanks knocked over kerosene lamps. We know they were using bales of hay to block the windows to block out the light and noise at night. We know in that dry part of the country that any wooden structure goes up like tinder even without dry hay to help spread the fire. Now we bring up the second ABC interview with the arson investigator where he affirmed his first interview of one fire starting point and added there were at least three, "in fact so many" before he refused further comment. There is no scenario putting these facts together save the story of the fire starting was prepared before the fire started. The pictures if they show anything are not inconsistent with the tanks knocking over kerosene lanterns. We have a more serious problem explaining why pictures would happen to show three hot spots in the first place. Infrared is merely heat, the same heat you feel in front of a high wattage lamp. The only way to get an infrared image would be for the fires to have been started on the top floors, either second or third depending upon the part of the structure. This coincides with the films we have seen of the first smoke and fire coming from a second story window. I am hard pressed to understand why people intending to burn themselves alive would start fires on the second floor. However to show spots rather than a fire they would have had to burn through the ceiling of that second floor and started heating the roof itself. Perhaps only the first and largest was on the second floor. Perhaps but then those on the first floor would not show up on infrared as spots. The fire would have to burn through the ceiling of the first floor, through the ceiling of the second floor, perhaps the ceiling of the third floor to directly heat the roof for there to be a hot spot there. Before that would happen and under the conditions of weather and construction there would have been fire from at least three windows not just one. The timing of these fires is extraordinary. Infrared is not X-rays. The only way to show three hot spots is to have the undersides of the roofs at those points heating evenly at the same time. Were there a burn through there would be a bloom on the picture no one could miss and processing would be required to show the rest. It is the difference between a few hundred and a few thousand degrees; a flashlight and a searchlight. It boggles the mind to believe three widely separated people could possibly have coordinated their fires such that they would NOT burn through but equally heat the roof at three distinct places. There is no evidence of three starting points for the fire that could possibly corroborate infrared photos of three hot spots unless ... and that unless is that the fires were all started in rooms on the highest floor of the building. Again, this does not sound like people trying to burn themselves alive. Even in the most trivial scenario of self immolation it would be expected a fire would be started in front of every first floor door at least and every window if possible. On top of this we have a common agreement by the government and the Branch Davidians that the stairwells had been collapsed by the tanks, the only difference of opinion is whether deliberately or incidentally. Now we have to imagine people without the help of stairs getting to the highest floors to start these fires and then staying there or coming back down to await the fire reaching them. To my way of thinking, even the most insane people who might start such a fire would have second thoughts when the heat starts building up as the actual fire proceeds. We have films of only one person leaving from a second floor window but that person appears to be in no hurry about leaving as he jumps down and slowly walks away. We have a different problem with those who decided to wait until the fire burned down to them. The story goes that they all, including Koresh himself, shot each other in order to prevent each other from escaping. Here we have at least three people starting three fires out of maybe 40 armed adults and then enough more disciplined people to kill the others and then themselves. Schwarzeneggar may be able to do such things but in reality we are talking no small group capable of pulling off such a thing. We have to be thinking of at least ten people to kill the other thirty armed adults to have a chance of one of the ten . Continued in the next message... --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: Doc's Place In The Ghetto! 813-822-4637 (1:3603/140.0) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50 SEEN-BY: 3615/51 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (903) To: All 8 Aug 95 22:13:00 Subject: OKC, 1 bomb or 2? 01 That this two bomb stuff continues is getting to me. If anyone is still taking it seriously would they read this and get back to me? One or Two Bombs in Oklahoma City by Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <8/9> There is a running "theory" that there were two bombs in the Oklahoma City bombing. The official story is that there was one bomb. Lets look at the evidence. The idea of two bombs comes from the bomb(s) having been large enough to have registered on two seismographs in the area, one at the university and the other at a sort of science museum. Both show two distinct waves a little under ten seconds (9.6) apart. Further, in the confusion just after the event there were reports of two bombs and in an early tape, apparently two plumes of smoke. Based upon this the rumor mill started about two bombs and a very experienced retired officer lent his name to a two bomb theory. The first point to be made is that nothing regarding one or two explosions indicates any significant variation from the story so far as it has been revealed. The indictments will apparently allege conspiracy so if there were more conspirators with more bombs involved the conspiracy aspect will not change nor will different people be indicted. The idea of two bombs was a scare early after the blast and turned out to be groundless. It was certainly not ten seconds after the blast, more like two hours. There may have been two bombs, it has nothing to do with what was on videotape of the two bomb scare. Then the two plumes of smoke. I have not seen this tape. I have only heard about it but they are described plumes of black smoke. Black smoke is a fire and not the aftermath of this kind of bomb. Two plumes of black smoke indicates two fires, not two bombs. Look for white smoke as in electing a pope for this kind of bomb and then expect it to be mainly dust. To some people the shape of the collapsed part of the building from an aerial view indicates that there were two explosion loci. (For those of you even not in Rio Linda, the locus, plural loci, would be the exact location of the bomb with respect to the building.) It is not quite the exact semicircular cut one would expect from a single blast. This is where the type of construction comes in. Much has been made of the reinforced concrete construction. If you are not familiar with it in buildings you may have seen it in highway overpasses. It is those bars of steel you may have seen sticking out above poured concrete forms. A similar method is used in this form of building construction, the steel reinforced concrete pillars start from well below the lower garage level and go to the top of the building. Each floor of the building is a horizontal extension of this form, with flat extensions of the same steel reinforced concrete, the pillar and platform type of construction. Not all of them go all the way to the top as the load on the top floors is only those floors and not all of the upper floors. As the garage levels not only have all the weight of the building plus the cars parked there, they are the most numerous and thickest. Additionally there are a fixed number on the outside walls to anchor the poured concrete facade or other window mounting structures. The point of this digression is that the columns vary not only horizontally and vertically but also with height. That means that one bomb could not be expected to have a perfectly semicircular damage area to the building. Rather what we do see from the aerial shots is something like the letter B taken out of the building. If each scallop were the arc of an explosion circle then the center of each circle is the locus of the explosion. If that was from two bombs then they were precisely place to produce the symmetric scallops of the B. That is possible but a level of sophistication that was completely unnecessary. In fact, if this were a professional job (with two bombs, one bomb professional job is not excluded) such precision is a dead giveaway. The next consideration is that if each scallop were from a separate bomb then we have to ask how the bomb that caused of the second of them could have survived the blast of the first bomb. It had to be about as close to the first bomb as they both were to the building. It is not clear how it could have survived with its detonating mechanism completely functional. However, lets us assume it did. The next thing we have to explain is how two equally distant, equally sized bombs managed to do identical damage. I know they were effectively equally distant and sized by the diameter of the scallops being the same. It is not obvious how this could be accomplished without the telltale signs of a professional job when professionals would not have needed two bombs. The first bomb does its damage to an undamaged building. Ten seconds later the second shock wave hits a severely damaged building and does exactly equal damage? Consider simply that the first exposed the rear wall on one half the building and that the second bomb does not damage it. By any reasonable estimate, the side with the first bomb should have much greater damage as it was hit twice but the damage is identical. Now lets take one more leap of faith and say that experts could have sized and placed two bombs such that they would appear to be one bomb. Rather than ask why they would expend the effort, let us jump ahead to the demolition of the building. When the building came down exactly the same double waveform with the same delay was recorded on the same seismographs and a few others brought in for the event. In other words, the second wave is a natural phenomenon as originally believed. To understand where it comes from we need to understand a little bit about the earth itself. The crust of the earth, that is the part we live on, the dry land, consists of accumulations of material that is lighter than the next layer down. We float above this layer very much like a cork floats on water. In a more technical way of saying it, we live on less dense material that float on more dense material. We all know sound produces echos but it is not simply that it bounces off of something solid. Rather at every change in density some sound reflects (the echo) and some passes through into the denser material. This is why eyeglasses both reflect and pass light, the change in density from air to glass as it is a similar phenomenon. . Continued in the next message... --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: Doc's Place In The Ghetto! 813-822-4637 (1:3603/140.0) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50 SEEN-BY: 3615/51 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (904) To: All 8 Aug 95 15:16:00 Subject: Sweet Home Alabama... ############# Original From: ANNA DOBBYN # stolen # To: MATT GIWER # post # Date/Number: 08/07/95 ############# On: DOC'S - 0308 - Law_Disorder PLEASE address responses to ALL ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Good morning, Matt... Just these few words--a few by my standards, anyway--to ask if you'd heard about the almost-another-Waco which took place in Attolla, Alabama last week. (My guess is that you probably have, but just in case you haven't, I will give you a quick thumbnail view of it.) The Tri-States militia and several other militia units throughout the country were on alert last week when the Department of (in)Justice sought to strong-arm Jeff Randall of Attolla, Alabama (in Etowah County, near Gadsden) into handing over the original video tape of the "good ol' boys round-up" (the BATF picnic). The BATF wanted the *original* because on it, the insider who tipped off the militia concerning the racist tones of the event, was identified. Mr. Randall wanted to protect the source, so he refused to turn over the original, but offered the agents a *copy*. They didn't want the copy, so they began gathering their forces, in preparation for what many believe would have been another incident similar to the one in Waco (on April 19, 1993--as if any of us will ever forget). It's apparent to everyone that it was the DOJ's objective to "plug the leak". (And, taken in this context, it might be assumed that the word "plug" could be taken ambiguously, if you know what I mean--and I'm sure you do...) Jeff Randall, the tri-states militia was told, was resisting service of a subpoena calling him to appear before a judge and divulge his source or sources at the BATF. The video, you may recall, was released to the national media, and was subsequently broadcast by it, which I'm sure was a grave embarrassment to the "good old boys" involved... If it wasn't an embarrassment, it damned well ought to have been, IMHO... Anyway, Jeff certainly saw what was coming, because he is reported to have said to another militia member in that area: "See ya on the other side." All the major television networks and other media was on hand there, waiting for bloodshed they could report, no doubt. I don't personally believe they acted respon- sibly in failing to report on the matter, just because there wasn't a drop of blood spilled, because that it even began at all, should have been broadcast far and wide. I think, personally, that all of America should be aware that the BATF went after that tape, so they could identify the person who tipped off the militia to the racism that seasoned the picnic, because it attests to the nature of that beast. And we all have a right to know! (But never fear, I'm here, getting the word around as best I possibly can...and I'm sure others somewhere must be making similar efforts...) What finally defused the situation on the morning of Thursday, August 3, 1995, was the intervention of Senator Orin Hatch. The Feds, according to news sent to Electronic Free Press from the local Committee of Safety, accepted the copy previously offered and stood down. Also, there is an ongoing monitoring of Jeff Randall's house and area in case federal agents return. Senator Hatch is to be commended for his effort, and for working in such as way, as this is the appropriate manner in which people interact with their representatives, constitutionally. If you wish, you may call Senator Hatch's office in Washington, DC, to thank him for his efforts (and maybe also mention that you appreciate his recogni- tion of the appropriate interaction between repre- sentative and the represented...) and his fulfill- ment of his oath to uphold and defend the Constitu- tion against all enemies both foreign and domestic. If only there were more like him in Congress! For now, Jeff Randall is safe. But, given the nature of the beast, who can say what might transpire? If anything does, though, you can be sure that another Waco isn't going to be tolerated by the Tri-States Militia. Enough is enough... I think the militias throughout the country might well share those same feelings about this abuse of authority. Also, I'm sending you one more message today, this one to advise you concerning a Civilian Mutual Defense Compact. It will be posted in this same area. Later... Anna Dobbyn, SysOp, ELECTRONIC FREE PRESS (210)923-6225 San Antonio, Texas --- * RM 1.3 01261 * Linda Thompson strikes fear in the heart of liberals. --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: Doc's Place In The Ghetto! 813-822-4637 (1:3603/140.0) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50 SEEN-BY: 3615/51 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» +++■■■■■ r_950812 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* --- From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (831) To: Bob Klahn 9 Aug 95 17:48:00 Subject: NRA VS TRUTH BK> BK>> authorities. And I suspect they would be required to BK> BK>> co-operate with other agencies when their activities BK> BK>> overlap. Such as a firearms investigation of a suspected BK> BK>> child abuser. BK> MG> And then one must consider they had no new BK> MG> information. Everything they had was not only stale but BK> MG> already investigated and dismissed. BK> Now, however, it turns out the charges were valid. BK> Dismissed or not, stale or not, they seem to have been BK> true. What were you watching? I saw no new information supporting any allegation. All I heard was repetition of old information. BK> BTW, I heard one social worker from the area speak, she BK> said the charges were not dismissed, but the conditions BK> were difficult to investigate. That is meaningless. There were no child abuse charges, there were allegations to be investigated. Therefore nothing could be dismissed. A case could be left open for some period of time or closed or whatever the policy is in Texas. BK> In any case, the firearms charges were the real case. Again nothing new was added and the same old refusal to let anyone but the FBI examine the weapons. The BK> child abuse was discovered in the course of time. Rather BK> the evidence was discovered. It was simply alleged again. If you think children don't lie about it, log on to VFALSAC and ask about it. --- * RM 1.3 01261 * Janet Reno takes Linda Thompson seriously! --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: Doc's Place In The Ghetto! 813-822-4637 (1:3603/140.0) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50 SEEN-BY: 3615/51 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (832) To: All 10 Aug 95 04:39:00 Subject: RICO Laws for Waco RICO in Waco by Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <8/9> In one regard the Waco hearings confirmed one fact. No one in the government did anything specific. Waco just sort of happened. No one gave any specific orders or made any particular decisions. Government folks just sort of got together and a course of action emerged that everyone sort of agreed with. Everything that happened "just grew up on spectators." A few years ago there was a similar problem. Organized crime was able to accomplish the most illegal actions and only those who actually committed the crimes could be found guilty. The reason was the higher ups in the organization did not give specific orders, rather things just sort of happened. To deal with this the RICO statutes were enacted. These laws were to deal with corrupt practices that in themselves were legal or only marginally illegal but when taken as a whole resulted in a pattern of criminal activity. We need something like that to deal with the BATF and the FBI. It was Kafka-esque to listen to the Waco hearings and discover that no one on the government side really did anything, that everything everyone in the government did was compelled by circumstances beyond their control. Of course that did not apply to Koresh who did everything from child molestation to mass murder with diversions into everything short of nuclear weapons manufacture. Of course Janet Reno took responsibility for everything that happened but damned if she could think of anything she or anyone really did that Koresh did not force them to do. It wasn't really the their fault. They were caught up in circumstances that were beyond their control. Certainly everyone involved shares the responsibility but there just doesn't appear that anyone initiated anything. They were forced to do what they did by something else. If I may be so bold, they used every excuse except "the dog ate it." This pattern of behavior is exactly why the RICO statutes were enacted. No one person did anything seriously wrong but as a result of a series of minor things, people died. We need similar laws and regulations to deal with these run amok federal agencies. The law needs read that when the combined actions of many individuals results in unacceptable results that all of the individuals are equally responsible for the results. That means neither that some low or high ranking goober takes the fall and the rest are forgotten. That means everyone involved receives the same punishment. In other words not only should Reno be fired but also the entire Hostage Rescue Team and about 100 BATF agents should be given the opportunity to apply their skills in the fast food industry. Did the combined actions of everyone involved lead to the deaths of innocent people? Fine. They all stand trial for murder and for the sake of efficiency, they are tried as a group, not individually. That is the same thing that would be done to organized crime should RICO ever be applied as it was intended. There is no reason to assume the employees of the federal government are less clever than members of organized crime. They have used exactly the same technique that RICO was intended to address. They were clever enough to individually avoid any seriously improper or illegal action. We have a real problem here which we need to address. In the same manner that organized crime can not be permitted to achieve its ends without legal culpability neither can we permit the federal government to do the same thing. The laws in this country make no exception for a person being on the government payroll when it comes to the law. It is not a question of where the buck stops. It is a challenge to find the buck. It has to be there somewhere but no one appears to have found it. There were no decisions made. They got together and in some manner consensus developed as to what to do. There were no orders given. After the consensus developed everyone just assumed what their part of it was and did it. It all just sort of happened while they were on duty. They were all innocent bystanders to events that happened around them. These kind of answers might appeal to bureaucrats who might find their backsides in a crack some day. To the rest of us, our children have come up with better excuses. * * * * * Further distribution is encouraged by the author. To save long distance calls. One time permission to reproduce this article is granted upon the following conditions. All BBS reproduction is included and only an email notification is requested. If you Xpost everything, one notification will do. 1) You send a proof copy if printed media to the address below. 2) The byline and address below is included. 3) Your editorial effort is limited to reasonable spelling and grammar corrections. 4) There is no significant profit expected to be derived directly from its reproduction, e.g. newsletters priced to recover costs, non profit activities, the usual collection of judgement proof people. P.O. Box 82541, Tampa, Florida, 33682-2541, Bus. 813-969-0362 --- * RM 1.3 01261 * "The government should fear the people." Thomas Jefferson --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: Doc's Place In The Ghetto! 813-822-4637 (1:3603/140.0) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50 SEEN-BY: 3615/51 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (833) To: All 10 Aug 95 04:42:00 Subject: robbing and killing EG> In tonight's NBC news, they did a story on welfare reform. EG> They interviewed a young black woman, who when told that EG> the new reforms would cut off funding after 5 years of EG> welfare, requiring them to work, replied: EG> EG> "There will be a lot of robbing and killing if they do EG> that." EG> EG> So there you have it, at least one person would rather rob EG> and kill then work for a living. EG> EG> Way to go lady. This is what has been said what would happen for decades, in fact since the Great Society was started. One does not give political power to a class whose sole interest in society is to loot the treasury. On the other hand, the pols with an active fantasy life have considered these people a threat to society by the violence they pretend to represent. These folks who are disarmed by the Saturday Night Special laws are not a threat of interest. Yet they attempt to attack and ridicule people with real guns and serious intentions who will act with deliberation and serious intent if harmed. It is an amusing situation we are in at the moment. The harmless get press attention as a threat. The armed and dangerous are provoked. --- * RM 1.3 01261 * Clinton now has a shot at the Chancelorship. --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: Doc's Place In The Ghetto! 813-822-4637 (1:3603/140.0) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50 SEEN-BY: 3615/51 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (834) To: Bob Klahn 9 Aug 95 21:11:00 Subject: TRYING TO STIR THINGS BK> BK>> biblical references to creation," The real purpose of the BK> BK>> bible is to tell us how life is to be lived, not how it BK> BK>> came to be." BK> MG> It is a clumsy hodgepodge of primitive life at best. BK> It was written in primitive times. So of you ever take up goatherding for a living you have a manual of behavior. --- * RM 1.3 01261 * The People are the Militia. --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: Doc's Place In The Ghetto! 813-822-4637 (1:3603/140.0) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50 SEEN-BY: 3615/51 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (835) To: Bob Klahn 9 Aug 95 21:12:00 Subject: WACO 01 BK> BK>> Nope, they already have the information I have on this. BK> BK>> And the evidence is that they did it themselves. Unless BK> BK>> you have information to the contrary, that is. BK> MG> Expecting proof of a negative is dumb. BK> Nothing in the real world is ever absolutely proven. It BK> is, however, possible to prove many things to the point of BK> convincing a reasonable person. And negatives are rarely proven even in math and then always suspect. BK> I wonder who it was that came up with the silly idea that BK> it is impossible to prove a negative. Sometimes it isn't BK> possible, often it is. The reason appears you be you don't have a firm grasp upon what a negative is as below. BK> You tell the judge the reason you were doing 125 on the BK> interstate was that you looked out the back window and BK> recognized your girlfriends ex-husbands car following you. BK> The prosecution proves his car could not have been BK> following you. He only owns one car, it's an underpowered BK> Ford escort that couldn't do over a hundred if it was BK> pushed by a rocket. It was a dark night, yet you reported BK> to the officer on the scene he had his headlights on. You BK> can't identify a car looking into his headlights on a dark BK> night. And her ex's car was half way across the country, BK> where his brother drove it on a trip, and he was getting a BK> parking ticket at the exact time you claim he was chasing BK> you. BK> The negative, that your girlfriends ex's car was not BK> following you down the expressway at 125mph has been BK> proven. This is a positive assertion that is being disproved. Inversion of a positive assertion into a negative statement is not the same thing. Now prove I don't have an invisible, magic Abyssinian vole. BK> MG> It is no different from requiring you to prove you were not BK> MG> kidnapped as a child and replaced with an exact copy. BK> Easy, modern DNA testing will prove that, unless the copy BK> was my identical twin, which I don't have, and, in which BK> case I wouldn't have been replaced, just one of us BK> kidnapped. Prove you don't have an identical twin. Also, the hospital where I was born took BK> footprints, which could be compared. They can be faked, records can be changed, certainly they can be mixed up. If you have missed the court cases on accidental and deliberate mix ups in the hospitals in the last few years? Any copy that exact BK> would be me, so there would be no difference. A difference BK> that makes no difference is no difference. George Carlin says otherwise. BK> BK>> Should you be able to show the guilt of the federal BK> BK>> agents, I will turn my wrath against them. BK> MG> Then you have no information to support your BK> MG> statement. Are BK> All the evidence presented in the media, and all the BK> evidence presented before a republican dominated and BK> republican run hearing. If you want to claim the BK> republicans are covering up for the democrats I'd like to BK> know why. If you are claiming the republicans are BK> incompetent fools I will concede the point. I have said no such thing. I have pointed out it was Democrats in the congress who scheduled these hearings. I have also pointed out that as very little new came out that there has been no change save that some people have now testified under oath for the first time. I have also pointed out some of the differences between what was said under oath at the trial and before Congress. However, if wish to continue this partisan nonsense, then were I to accept your concession, you would be expected to claim this was a coverup. BK> MG> you so poorly able to reason that you do not realize it? BK> If I was really nasty I'd point out that you must be BK> poorly able to reason to try this personal attack BK> strategy. Fortunately, I'm not that nasty. Observation is not personal attack. BK> BK>> He gave the orders, directed the work, etc. To that BK> BK>> extent I say Koresh did it. He may not have touched the BK> BK>> gas cans himself, but he ran the show. BK> MG> Get to the committee and tell them your evidence in BK> MG> support of this claim. And while you are at it, you should BK> MG> also tell BK> They have the evidence. What they don't have they didn't BK> want to get. What do you expect of a bunch of BK> republicans? There was not one statement from anyone knowing what orders were given or by who. There were some new, studio quality tapes played but as I have noted in another article they are inconsistent with starting the fire. I will point out to you, if you missed it, that the speakers were not identified. BK> MG> them who Koresh ordered to kill him as he did not appear to BK> MG> have committed suicide. BK> Never claimed to have specific names. Nor do you have evidence connecting Koresh with it unless you have something more than was presented to Congress. BK> MG> You truly need to improve your reasoning skills. You BK> MG> have NO evidence. YOU are speculating. BK> You have no evidence. You are stooping to personal attacks. As I have just pointed out, you have lept to a conclusion unsupported by the evidence that was presented and you are writing as those that conclusion was supported by the evidence . Continued in the next message... --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: Doc's Place In The Ghetto! 813-822-4637 (1:3603/140.0) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50 SEEN-BY: 3615/51 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» +++■■■■■ r_950813 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* --- From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (815) To: Lester Garrett 10 Aug 95 15:21:00 Subject: The MILITIA Conference LG> MG> For the conference to discuss the militia, ask your SYSOP LG> MG> to request it on the backbone. In September there are LG> MG> going to be Congressional hearings. Get in on line for the LG> MG> latest information and more. LG> MG> Originating from Doc's Place. LG> FYI, once you're on the Backbone remember to send in an LG> announcemnt to FidoNews. (If you don't know how, ask your LG> SysOp. He should be able to do it for you.) In fact you LG> might want to put an announcement in the News before you're LG> on the Backbone suggesting those interested ask their RECs LG> to request it. If this keeps up I might learn enough to do this right the first time. Thanks again. --- * RM 1.3 01261 * Tinkerbelle roasting on an open fire, Peter nipping at her t --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: Doc's Place In The Ghetto! 813-822-4637 (1:3603/140.0) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50 SEEN-BY: 3615/51 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (819) To: Lester Garrett 10 Aug 95 15:19:00 Subject: Keri Jewel..witness? LG> MG> Now if it were on the internet ... LG> It appears to be. Try http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ (on the LG> Web). Unfortunately, Delphi does not yet have forms access LG> for this one. I'm going to try and find out if there's a LG> Telnet site. I tried telegraph.co.uk It dialed up but LG> did not connect. If I remember I'll try it again later. It came up on AOL. However it does not appear to want to eat my registration form. email query sent. will advise. --- * RM 1.3 01261 * Joseph Nagarya, pet rock of the Law echo. --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: Doc's Place In The Ghetto! 813-822-4637 (1:3603/140.0) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50 SEEN-BY: 3615/51 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (820) To: Grant Karpik 10 Aug 95 15:23:00 Subject: Keri Jewel..witness? GK> As an aside, does it make much sense that she would lie in open GK> hearings before congress on something that could be so easily GK> checked? Reno did about Linda Thompson. The point is the press won't check. And as evidence if you will, I can't be the only person who contacted newspapers about the Reno/Thompson lie, I got to six newspapers and two news services (FAX not letter or voice.) It has been over a week. And I know there are Thompson stories in their morgues. Have you noticed the deafening silence? --- * RM 1.3 01261 * "The government should fear the people." Thomas Jefferson --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: Doc's Place In The Ghetto! 813-822-4637 (1:3603/140.0) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50 SEEN-BY: 3615/51 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (821) To: Chris Burruss 10 Aug 95 21:39:00 Subject: Kids and Guns Alert       CB> I do not doubt CS *CAN* kill in a high enough CB> concentration. However, my comment was merely pointing out CB> that CS is not classified as a poisonous gas. As even the folks at the hearing pointed out, it is a product of concentration and time. On the other hand, the carrier, methylene chloride is classified as poisonous. --- * RM 1.3 01261 * One BATF, one militia. --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: Doc's Place In The Ghetto! 813-822-4637 (1:3603/140.0) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50 SEEN-BY: 3615/51 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (822) To: All 11 Aug 95 04:14:00 Subject: Matt Loses On 08/09/95 from PAT PARRINELLO to PATRICK E. SNYDER on Matt Loses in Fido-Night_Shift_ PP> > You folks are going to keep on this long enough and I am PP> > going to drop a quarter on the Arkansas Bar Association and PP> > ask directly. I am rather surprised no one else has done PP> > so since they are so convinced it has to be a false story. PP> > But then if I do, will anyone believe me? PP> On wasting my own dollars, I called the Arkansas Supreme PP> Court at 501-682-6849 and ascertained that Hillary Roddam, PP> hostage occupant of the Clinton compound, is a member in PP> good standing with the Arkansas Bar Association and is duly PP> licensed to practice law in Arkansas at her discretion. PP> PP> Sorry `bout that, Matt. Not a problem in the least save that it will take the fun out of it by cutting it short. Three or four appeared to have some crush on the broad and were out to defend her (for some otherwise unknown reason) while not challenging so many other things without substantiation that were much worse. I was getting interested in seeing how far they would go or at least where they were headed. DA appeared to be investing more time in me (I mean as in every conference, admitting I did not check the small farm animals conference) than he was in his NS_CP effort. At some point I have to judge my effectiveness by those who are out to get me. This one was getting absurd. The near screaming to what end? That I had a bad reference? That the source was wrong? That I misremembered? You know the boards as well as I do. A rumor can be across it in a couple days. What were they expecting at the grand denouemon? I made a mistake? You tell me what it was all about. I haven't figured it out yet. cc: ALL in 0004 on DOC'S --- * RM 1.3 01261 * Clinton smoked pot. Is that for or against drugs? --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: Doc's Place In The Ghetto! 813-822-4637 (1:3603/140.0) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50 SEEN-BY: 3615/51 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (823) To: All 10 Aug 95 16:41:00 Subject: new Mexico travesty! 01 ############# Original From: TRAVIS BEARD # stolen # To: ALL # post # Date/Number: 08/07/95 ############# On: DOC'S - 0131 - Civlib PLEASE address responses to ALL ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: this is a crosspost! Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 05:22:02 UTC Newsgroups: alt.law-enforcement Subject: New Mexico Police Crucify US Constitution After giving this matter some thought, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that I must speak out about a very disturbing issue which should be of considerable importance to all law- abiding Americans, and yet I have decided to do this as anonymously as I can because I am convinced there will be a very negative backlash from members of the law enforcement community. Why should I be concerned about the police I pay to protect me and my family? Read on and judge for yourselves whether there is some cause for concern. Nothing has been done to me personally. I am not in trouble with the police, nor have done anything which should bring about an investigation. However, in the August 6, 1995 edition of Albuquerque's Sunday Journal, there is a very disturbing story which undoubtedly leaves out some facts but nonetheless portrays not only the local law enforcement community but the local justice system in a very poor light, and I feel the story is well-written, very even- handed in its attempt to cover the situation. I am referring to the article starting on the bottom of the front page with the headline "Las Cruces Raid Spurs Legal Skirmishes: DA, Courts Wrangle Over Indicting Armed Occupant". Very briefly, the article describes how (on Jan. 5, 1994) seven ski-masked sheriff's deputies with a legally obtained search warrant broke into a house after announcing themselves and hearing no reply. They tossed in a concussion grenade which exploded near enough to a young girl to cause, according to the article, apparently permanent hearing damage, tinitus-like ringing in her ears, and headaches. The girl is an aspiring cellist. Her then 20-year-old brother, apparently watching television in his bedroom and unaware of the deputies' knocks on the door and calls for opening it, reacted to the explosion in his family's living room by retrieving an assault weapon from his closet and charging out to confront whoever was invading his home. The young man and at least one ski-masked deputy exchanged fire, and the young man is now partially paralyzed and wears a permanent brace. Why did the deputies go to serve the warrant on that house? Because they were looking for a cache of weapons as part of an investigation of a still-open murder case. No weapons were found, no charges relating to the still open murder case have been filed against any of the occupants of the home. Why was the SWAT team used? Because the step-father had been charged, tried, and acquitted some eleven years earlier with a different murder. He was acquitted. He was not convicted of any crime, he was released back into society to live freely alongside all the rest of us, and (according to the U.S. constitution) he was considered innocent of any crime. Nonetheless, the deputies decided that prior *CHARGE* was sufficient cause to assume the man and/or other occupants of the house would resist violently any attempt to search the home. The story does not end there, however. The district attorney, G. Greg Valdez, decided that no charges should be filed against the young man with the assault weapon on the grounds that he was unaware he was confronting police officers and he was protecting his home against invasion. The district attorney also decided that the deputy who wounded the young man was acting to defend his fellow officers in a legally arranged and executed raid, and that therefore no charges should be filed against him. Personally, having no other information by which to judge the situation, I agree with the district attorney. However, District Judge James T. Martin, according to the newspaper, was "prodded by the sheriffs office and fellow District Judge Thomas G. Cornish" to intervene and appoint a special prosecutor to bring charges against the young man who is now partially paralyzed and who in the eyes of an experienced district attorney was only acting to defend his home. What justification was offered for this action? According to the newspaper, "Former Sheriff Ray Storment, who was in charge at the time of the raid, says that if shooting victim...hadn't been charged, 'then we couldn't justify the shooting.'" After the district attorney involved in the case refused in November to answer the request of a grand jury to "present information that might lead to an indictment", a captain in the Dona Ana County Sheriffs office wrote a letter to District Judge Cornish "asking him to get the case before a grand jury." In an interview, the captain is quoted as saying: "Officers in general were not happy. They were concerned that (the refusal to prosecute) was a message that it was OK to point a weapon at an officer." And there is the crux of the issue. The sheriffs department is bound and determined to strip citizen's of their constitutional rights to defend their homes against UNKNOWN INVADERS, to make an example of an innocent victim of misunderstanding to instill fear in the general population. No one should willingly, knowingly point a weapon at a police officer. But the police do not run the country and they should be held accountable for their actions. The citizens of Dona Ana county should demand the resignation of this captain who wants to ignore the law and place officers above all other citizens. Police make mistakes. Sometimes people get hurt because of those mistakes. But a law enforcement officer in putting on a badge and accepting the authority that goes with that badge accepts a sacred trust from the rest of us to abide by the law in spirit and deed, and to protect us from those who would hold themselves above the law. In this case, the sheriffs department refuses to acknowledge that they made two mistakes: first, they judged a man for a crime of which he was found innocent; second, they are persecuting another man for a non-crime merely to make an example of him, so that they can walk down the street knowing that normal, law- abiding citizens will fear them. . Continued in the next message... --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: Doc's Place In The Ghetto! 813-822-4637 (1:3603/140.0) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50 SEEN-BY: 3615/51 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (824) To: All 10 Aug 95 21:30:00 Subject: NEW MILITIA CONFERENCE The MILITIA conference is being carried by 1:3603/140. It is for the purpose of discussing issues of the citizen militias and the citizen militias themselves that exist around the country. You need not be a member to participate in this conference. NEC is Wayne Fusco, 1:3603/20050. If you are interested please request your SYSOP to request this conference be backboned. --- * RM 1.3 01261 * Janet Reno takes Linda Thompson seriously! --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: Doc's Place In The Ghetto! 813-822-4637 (1:3603/140.0) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50 SEEN-BY: 3615/51 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (825) To: All 10 Aug 95 16:50:00 Subject: Reno the Whacko ############# Original From: MATT GIWER # stolen # To: DON ALLEN # post # Date/Number: 08/10/95 ############# On: DOC'S - 0437 - Politics PLEASE address responses to ALL ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DA> > The Sorry State of Justice DA> > by DA> > Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <8/8> DA> > The problem with justice in the United States is the DA> > Justice Department. The Justice Department is in a sorry DA> > state because of it head, Attorney General Janet Reno. DA> > Janet Reno is in DA> Wunnerful...another Matty egotorial. If you ever have a coherent thought going over 100 words you might try it. DA> Are you EVER going to confront my question to you, which DA> you have dodged for six weeks now? I will re-state it for DA> you: DA> DA> WHAT EVIDENCE HAVE YOU GOT THAT SUPPORTS YOUR ASSERTION DA> THAT HILLARY CLINTON'S LICENSE TO PRACTICE LAW HAS BEEN DA> SUSPENDED? DA> DA> SOURCES AND REFERENCES, PLEASE. How many times do I have to post The London Telegraph reference before you are willing to admit I have done so? Anyone who is interested in your silly crusade has certainly read my posting the reference more than once by now. If they have not been interested enough to read my message on the source what makes you think they are interested enough to read your Crusader Rabbit posts? Try http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ --- * RM 1.3 01261 * Can't secure the perimeter.L.Thompson is attacking -- Reno --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: Doc's Place In The Ghetto! 813-822-4637 (1:3603/140.0) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50 SEEN-BY: 3615/51 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (827) To: Bob Klahn 10 Aug 95 21:06:00 Subject: WACO-NRAGATE BK> JB> Sure about that? I've heard many serious suggestions that BK> JB> it would only have taken a couple of local cops to do a BK> JB> search warrant there. Unless you've established (which you BK> JB> haven't!) that there HAD to be a gunfight, your conclusion BK> JB> is wrong. BK> There *DID NOT* have to be a gunfight. If the Davidians BK> didn't shoot first and ask questions later there wouldn't BK> have been a gunfight. There is yet to be any evidence of who shot first. There was none at either the trial or the hearing. Why continue this line of speculation? BK> JB> Only if they shot the agents without justification. As it BK> JB> is, I think they had adequate justification. BK> The only justification is if the agents are attacking you BK> and you didn't attack first. As at the trial, the BATF acknowledged they killed the dogs and threw grenades before there was any exchange of fire. Anything short of that is BK> grounds for a seige. Even that is grounds for a seige, as BK> the Davidians had plenty of opportunity to surrender. Quite false. In the case the BATF was required to have the proper kind of warrant, they did not, and the people inside have to know of its existence. Having a badge is no different from a street gang without those two conditions being met. Why can't you deal with that? --- * RM 1.3 01261 * Liberals don't want to be caught in the crossfire. --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: Doc's Place In The Ghetto! 813-822-4637 (1:3603/140.0) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50 SEEN-BY: 3615/51 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» +++■■■■■ r_950816 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* --- From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (694) To: Lester Garrett 11 Aug 95 15:00:00 Subject: Do _NOT_ Send Encoded Msg LG> Please do **_NOT_** post any encrypted _OR_ encoded LG> (uuencoded) messages to the DEBATE Echo. Policy4 restricts LG> the used of encryption. And while it is unclear whether LG> uuencoded files fall under this category, it _IS_ clear LG> that the FidoNet Backbone disapproves of their use. If UUENCODE is encryption, so is ASCII. Transmitting color by use of escape sequences is even worse. And .ZIP can not be tolerated. --- * RM 1.3 01261 * If superman flew in a closed room people could see the wires --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: Doc's Place In The Ghetto! 813-822-4637 (1:3603/140.0) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 743 834 270/101 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (695) To: All 11 Aug 95 18:21:00 Subject: Waco or Masada Anyone still making an issue of a Davidian suicide, please tell me the difference between this presumed suicide in Waco and the known suicide at Masada some 1900 years ago. Consider the nutcases at Masada were following a clearly stated Messiah and were in open revolt against the government. Does anyone see a difference? cc: ALL in 0004 on DOC'S --- * RM 1.3 01261 * Deny guns and deny the right to self defense. --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: Doc's Place In The Ghetto! 813-822-4637 (1:3603/140.0) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 743 834 270/101 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (696) To: All 11 Aug 95 22:28:00 Subject: Ruby Ridge, double effort Fri 08-11-1995 The Justice Department announces the suspension of four people including Larry Potts, one time (and short time) second in command at the FBI. Of course the announcement includes that they are a long way from criminal charges against them even though the penalties range from five to fifteen years. In government parlance "a long way" is more than 60 days. The House hearing on Ruby Ridge will be over in 60 days. As Justice now has its ass covered regardless of the outcome of the hearing, it can appear to be clean during the hearing. A decent interval after the hearing it can "discover no wrong-doing" and reinstate them with back pay. Is this too negative? Then just where has Justice been these last three and a half years? Investigating the matter to the point of suspension? At this rate of progress some time around the turn of the century some significant development might occur. Rather more clearly, what has happened is the hearing on Ruby Ridge being scheduled combined with the experience of the Waco hearing. This is not the result of any effort desired by either the FBI or Justice but rather one being forced upon them by public and congressional attention. As it is a result of outside pressure it can and will disappear the moment that pressure is relieved. For us these means it is time to redouble our efforts to keep Ruby Ridge center stage. If we had done nothing matters would never have gotten this far. The only new discovered by the FBI is the destruction of documents. EVERYTHING else about Ruby Ridge has been common knowledge to us for three years -- yet Justice was not able to uncover that common knowledge for three and a half years. The Justice Department had no interest in justice until they were forced to. We need to continue the pressure if we are to have justice in this matter. ===== Note that the Waco hearing is over. Don't slow down, run with the testimony. Nothing was materially changed save the presentation. cc: ALL in 0004 on DOC'S --- * RM 1.3 01261 * Linda Thompson, Janet Reno's worse nightmare. --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: Doc's Place In The Ghetto! 813-822-4637 (1:3603/140.0) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 743 834 270/101 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (697) To: All 12 Aug 95 04:27:00 Subject: Executive Order on Tobacc Executive Tobacco by Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <8/12> I was asleep at the switch at some time in the last few decades. Here I see cigar smoking, never inhaling Bill Clinton signing an executive order putting tobacco under the control of the Food and Drug Administration. On what grounds is this being done? I do not remember any law giving generic authority over any particular substance or any generic type of substance to the FDA. The last I heard the FDA only has authority over legally defined drugs without regard to the cause for their being legally defined. This is nothing new. Marijuana is legally defined as an addictive substance but it is not. Coffee is not defined as an addictive substance but it may or may not be, the same as tobacco. Psychoactive substances, per se, are not subject to regulation as coffee definitely is psychoactive as is tobacco. Alcohol is both psychoactive and in some cases addictive and the FDA has no authority over it. This is not to debate any of the above issues but rather from whence comes the authority granted by Congress (the only place from which it can come) upon which the President can sign an executive order to regulate tobacco? The only apparent basis from the recent rediscovery of what everyone has known for the forty years I can remember, that is it addictive. Ring one up for the yuppie generation. They rediscovered common knowledge, finally. The pretension they are going to be the first to do something about common knowledge is hardly impressive. So the good president discovers that "coffin nails" kill people. I think it was 1952 I first learned that, the same year Bill Clinton abandoned Hope, Arkansas that is. Clearly the power does not exist in present law as every regulated substance (not illegal like prohibition, but regulated like prohibition) is defined in law by name not by characteristics. It is much like the "assault weapons" ban that does not ban one assault weapon. Rather it defines "for purposes of law" what is an assault weapon without regard to what assault weapons are. With a tip of the hat to Mr. Bumble, yes, the law is an ass. I must digress at this point to clarify something that may be confusing because of common usage. Despite the fact that everyone from the Government on down refers to illegal drugs, there are no illegal drugs in this country. There are only drugs whose possession, manufacture or use is prohibited to some people. Thus there are only regulated drugs. The penalties are all for violating the regulations regarding those drugs, not that the drug is per se illegal. This is not a trivial matter. The prohibition of a drug would require a constitutional amendment as did alcohol. But, through the great loophole of the "good cause" (in the case of tobacco, children are the good cause) regulations that are stronger worse that prohibition can be imposed by Congress, civil servants, and now it appears by the president. What is not clear is the basis the President is invoking other than "for the children." Given the lack of any generic power over types of drugs save for "designer" analogs and an "emergency power" provision there is no generic power over "drugs." In fact, there is no generic definition of "drug" as opposed to "non-drug." But for those interested in Washington turf battles in which liberties are the prize, you ain't seen nothin' yet. For twenty years the EPA and the FDA have been battling over the power to regulate tobacco. The Labor Department has even come in for a piece of the regulatory action. EPA is trying to regulate smoking every place but in small closets with recirculating air. Labor is trying to ban it from the workplace. Now the FDA has a foothold into anything that might get the attention of anyone under the age of 18. (Seventeen year olds are such children you know.) This is only the beginning. Three agencies in a battle for the limited funds with a growing empire for the winner. Beltway insiders consider Labor a dark horse in that it is a late comer to the game. The odds are even as to whether EPA or FDA will have the next win in the "it ain't prohibition, it's only regulation" game. Other players are expected to attempt to get into the running. The Customs Department is expected to recommend a ban on the importation of tobacco as a substance dangerous to children and an executive order will follow. Then there will be gambits by the FDA to regulate the amount of nicotine in tobacco products and an executive order prohibiting the modification of nicotine content in products in interstate commerce. As always, interstate commerce will be considered anything it is possible a tornado may pick up in one state and put down in another. It is a new round in the pretension of new discoveries of ancient knowledge. This administration believes it was born yesterday. May it die in '96 and all like it in that same year. * * * * * Further distribution is encouraged by the author. To save long distance calls. One time permission to reproduce this article is granted upon the following conditions. All BBS reproduction is included and only an email notification is requested. If you Xpost everything, one notification will do. 1) You send a proof copy if printed media to the address below. 2) The byline and address below is included. 3) Your editorial effort is limited to reasonable spelling and grammar corrections. 4) There is no significant profit expected to be derived directly from its reproduction, e.g. newsletters priced to recover costs, non profit activities, the usual collection of judgement proof people. P.O. Box 82541, Tampa, Florida, 33682-2541, 813-969-0362 cc: ALL in 0004 on DOC'S --- * RM 1.3 01261 * Ever notice that movie monsters walk slower than the pope? --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: Doc's Place In The Ghetto! 813-822-4637 (1:3603/140.0) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 743 834 270/101 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (698) To: All 12 Aug 95 04:56:00 Subject: upgrading computers Latest word from the tech announcements is that the magnetic hard disk folks have got the next generation technology almost working at the production level. It sort of picks up an atom from one place and puts it another place. In any event, the target price is $10 (ten) per gigabyte of storage. Introduction date is summer of 96. I remember the ad from 1982 for a hard drive at only $1000 (thousand) per megabyte, 5Meg full height only, you interface it. In another ten years, they will not be competing on price or size but rather on the best indexing system for the sum of all human knowledge which every manufacturer will pre-load in a separate partition. I am serious in this last one. That is a factor of 100,000 performance improvement in about 15 years. 15 more years is 100 terabytes for $10 or if you want to drop $1000 ... And then there is always optical waiting in the wings and hoping for the best. Of course, if Microsoft is still in business, Windows 2010 will consume 20 terabytes in the beta version and every phonebook application will need half a terabyte but at least it will appear to be progress. --- * RM 1.3 01261 * The power to tax is the power to destroy but regulation's OK --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: Doc's Place In The Ghetto! 813-822-4637 (1:3603/140.0) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 743 834 270/101 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (844) To: Katherine Argent 12 Aug 95 21:53:00 Subject: Your name KA> Actually, yes, I did know both meanings of my last name. KA> In fact, my whole name Katherine Tess Argent roughly KA> translates to "Pure precious money." KA> KA> Let's hope it's a good omen. ;'> It means your parents were hoping but the market dried up. --- * RM 1.3 01261 * Income tax illegal?Trying to overthrow the government I see. --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: Doc's Place In The Ghetto! 813-822-4637 (1:3603/140.0) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 743 834 270/101 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (845) To: All 13 Aug 95 02:23:00 Subject: Cyberspace Victorious 01 Cyberspace Victorious by Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <8/13> From the aftermath of Ruby Ridge, Waco, the Waco hearing and the soon to come Ruby Ridge hearing, it appears cyberspace is about to make its first serious impact on the United States government, to bring down the BATF and the FBI as a minimum. Certainly all the devil's along the way get their due, some very few in the media willing to raise the issue when it is not in news. ABC as the least biased of the TV networks. But it was cyberspace and the FAX networks, all the variations of electronic data transfer that have changed the country since Ruby Ridge. It was not the mainstream media that kept the issues before the public. It was not the commercial media that told people about militias. It was the truly free medium of exchange, cyberspace. It was not the commercial media encouraging people to write their congressrats it was cyberspace. It was not congressrats sitting in a vacuum who decided to call hearings on Waco. It was people like you and me annoying them until they did. And our record is that the recent Waco hearing was scheduled barely 15 months after the ashes were cool; it just took another year to get the act together. And it was a stunning victory by its own measure; the first time a major issue was forced in Congress without the commercial media being involved. It certainly did not go far enough but it established every major point against the two agencies and recorded dozens of unindicted felonies. The effort was so successful that the FBI is doing some pre-damage control by discovering after three years that there were a few improper occurrences at Ruby Ridge. It took over three years for the Justice Department to at least pretend to live up to its name and act upon what all of knew at the time it occurred. But these are only suspensions in prospect of hearings; we will not let them forget after those hearings. Cyberspace is the driving force behind these hearings. Cyberspace is the reason we are having hearings on these murderous agencies. Cyberspace is the reason they are going to come down with a very hard fall. We are not just sharing newspaper stories. We are sharing the bullshit the government gives us in response. We are pointing out where it is bullshit. We are ahead of all the journalism majors that blight the commercial media. The real fallout of cyberspace that we have an alternate source of information than journalism majors who have no concept of anything other than journalism. We use them only for notice as to what happened today, not for any understanding of what happened today. If the question is about the use of infrared are you going to turn to some talking head in TV make up or a physicist in cyberspace? On the subject of chemistry, Barbara Walters or an on-line chemist? On the effects of CS, Ted Koppel or an Army instructor in CS gas? We are over the top. Both the Waco and Ruby Ridge hearings are our doing. The pre-emptive suspensions after over three years of FBI higher ups including the recently promoted Larry Potts are our doing. We have the momentum. We are not going to stop. The naysayers among us are the useful foils for perfecting arguments against these agencies and what they have done and what they are doing. They earn their keep. This is not the evening news, with a pretentious opening screen, dramatic music, and perfectly groomed people in business suits. This is a From:, To:, Subj: and twit filtered environment. You don't meet image-maker tailored icons here. You meet folks really might be picking their nose on the other side of that screen. We are all human beings with faults rather than a New York image with a midwest non-accent. And if you missed it, one of the things that died as a result of the Waco hearing was HR 666. The power of the people on cyberspace has been established. It is an every-edged sword. We have the power to get to Congress and to make things happen. It is not Rush Limbaugh but he helps and he is part of cyberspace. It is not Gingrich but he helps. Only cyberspace makes it all happen. Only here can we get the news without journalism majors reporting what they can understand. Only here can we get professional opinion that is more than a journalism major can comprehend. And we are not limited to the half hour format of what is hottest, such as the Bobbit or OJ trials, nor are we limited to newspaper advertising sales to cover the amount of news that can be printed. Our tendency is to beat a horse to death but, in my never humble opinion, that is better than passing up a good news story on Friday because there has to be a Person of the Week segment. (What if there were no person this week?) And as a minimum we are going to bring about the complete reorganization of the FBI and the BATF. Already we have the number two many at the FBI under suspension and three of his henchmen. As ABC declines to cover the threats of wrongdoing by Justice in the Good Old Boys party, it is all over the networks. There is no place for these people to hide any longer. We just keep doing as we have been doing and we have the government under control. It may have taken time. It will take less time next time. The government still does not understand what is going on. We will continue to show them. * * * * * Further distribution is encouraged by the author. To save long distance calls. One time permission to reproduce this article is granted upon the following conditions. All BBS reproduction is included and only an email notification is requested. If you Xpost everything, one notification will do. 1) You send a proof copy if printed media to the address below. 2) The byline and address below is included. 3) Your editorial effort is limited to reasonable spelling and grammar corrections. 4) There is no significant profit expected to be derived directly from its reproduction, e.g. newsletters priced to recover costs, non profit activities, the usual collection of judgement proof people. . Continued in the next message... --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: Doc's Place In The Ghetto! 813-822-4637 (1:3603/140.0) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 743 834 270/101 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (846) To: All 13 Aug 95 02:38:00 Subject: Paralegals      On 08/11/95 from DON ALLEN to ALL on Paralegals in Fido-Night_Shift_ DA> * Forwarded from "LAW" DA> * Originally by Don Allen DA> * Originally to All DA> * Originally dated 11 Aug 1995, 11:29 DA> > DA> > It appears you are not capable of finding any of the DA> > DA> > times I have provided the sources. DA> > DA> It appears you are dodging and giving excuses in a futile DA> > DA> attempt to cover the fact that you can't provide data to DA> > DA> substantiate your assertions. Noted. DA> > --------------------------- DA> > ---------------------------------------------------- DA> > THIS IS A FLAME DA> > --------------------------- DA> > ---------------------------------------------------- DA> Outside of the antics of Internet litterbugs, Dean Adams DA> and Sheppard Gordon, this is the lamest thing I've seen yet DA> in 13 years of telecom. Matt continues to dodge answering a DA> _SIMPLE_ question. The obvious reason must be clear to DA> anyone: He fabricated the assertion about Hillary Clinton DA> losing her license to practice law in the state of DA> Arkansas. He has refused to substantiate this assertion DA> with factual, verifiable data. He has now proven that he DA> will do _ANYTHING_ to avoid answering direct questions as DA> to why he continues to dodge. DA> DA> It is now a proven fact that Matt Giwer is a liar. DA> Documented and noted. If he lies about Hillary Clinton, DA> what does that say about the rest of his "egotorials" ? Not DA> very much. Cross posting your own bullshit I notice. Good sir, when you are capable of creating anything original on your own, and that time appears far distant, you will comprehend the risks of taking a personal position are far greater than simply duping the works of others. In the fullness of time that may come to you. In the mean time, I freely advise you, you are making an ass of yourself. cc: ALL in 0004 on DOC'S --- * RM 1.3 01261 * Linda Thompson strikes fear in the heart of liberals. --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: Doc's Place In The Ghetto! 813-822-4637 (1:3603/140.0) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 743 834 270/101 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (847) To: All 13 Aug 95 03:51:00 Subject: Damage Control perjury Conspiracy to lie to Congress by Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <8/13> Anyone who has collected the available tapes on Waco has seen a clip of a certain man. He is first seen on the roof a second floor roof of the burning building. The then rolls off it, lands on the ground and slowly walks off into the sunset or wherever unexplained persons go. At the Waco hearing, the FBI was kind enough to explain this person to us. This person was a Davidian, so they said. I hope everyone has this straight, that person was a Davidian who was on the roof, then rolled off and then slowly walked away. I hope everyone understands how the FBI treated the Davidians who were escaping the fire, they were permitted to simply walk away from the compound never to be heard from again. Are there any other bells going off? I have no problem with that explanation. Obviously that person is alive. What is his name? Let us go ask him if that is what he did. Strangely the FBI did not give us his name. He was simply one of those unnamed Davidians who walked away and was never heard from again. If you have seen this tape, he does not deviate from his path to avoid any razor wire which is interesting in itself. And yes, despite the very poor quality of the tape, it appears he is carrying something very long and thin but let us not suggest there is any evidence this is a rifle. If that were true there is an armed Davidian loose in the world ready to wreck havoc wherever he goes. Of course every surviving Davidian who has had a chance to go on record has reported very rough treatment by the FBI, immediately being handcuffed and questioned even being given the Dirty Harry treatment until being reminded the tapes (which have never surfaced) were running. The FBI folks testified to making every effort to find the children and that certainly does not equate with letting one of the Davidians walk off into the sunset even if it was just passed noon. Here we have the lie incarnate, what is his name? And since that question is clearly not answerable, who conspired to lie by creating this story? Who specifically conspired to create the story about the person Linda Thompson put on tape and distributed that claims it is a Davidian? Who is going to believe that this Davidian was permitted to walk away while there were dozens of FBI folks on the ground arresting everyone who came out? Who is going to believe this person was permitted to both watched waiting on the roof and then to walk away with no ground troops being vectored to him? Of course there are dozens of dupes who are ready to believe it. They are legion. But what rational person is going to believe this person was in fact a Davidian, let walk away and can not be identified? If anyone is believing that person was a Davidian, send me netmail @DUMBYOU.com. For the rest of us, there is no reason to believe this person was a Davidian. Given that, we have sworn testimony under oath that this person was while it is obvious he was not. OK. How many people and what are their names who conspired to make up this story? Lying to Congress is one thing, perjury before Congress is something else. Conspiracy to commit perjury is a third thing. We have the third thing. We have another clear example of perjury and conspiracy to commit it here. This is nothing new in the line of BATF and FBI statements we have had for years. Sorry, they lied to Congress. Am I typing too fast for anyone? * * * * * Further distribution is encouraged by the author. To save long distance calls. One time permission to reproduce this article is granted upon the following conditions. All BBS reproduction is included and only an email notification is requested. If you Xpost everything, one notification will do. 1) You send a proof copy if printed media to the address below. 2) The byline and address below is included. 3) Your editorial effort is limited to reasonable spelling and grammar corrections. 4) There is no significant profit expected to be derived directly from its reproduction, e.g. newsletters priced to recover costs, non profit activities, the usual collection of judgement proof people. P.O. Box 82541, Tampa, Florida, 33682-2541, Bus. 813-969-0362 cc: ALL in 0004 on DOC'S --- * RM 1.3 01261 * Repeal the 2nd and stop protecting the right to guns. --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: Doc's Place In The Ghetto! 813-822-4637 (1:3603/140.0) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 743 834 270/101 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» +++■■■■■ r_950822 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* --- From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (863) To: All 17 Aug 95 02:37:00 Subject: Shaazam! Tobacco is bad Shaazam! by Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <8/17> My apologies to Gomer Pyle. My apologies to the creator of Billy Batson. I just had to use it because, "Surprise! Surprise!" tobacco is addictive. The heart quakes at this discovery. The profundity that is passing through the regulatory universe. The entire world is incredulous. Tobacco is addictive. Who would have thought it? On the heels of this great discovery comes the government to regulate this "drug" of choice. I don't know how the country could have missed this critical discovery. And Lo! the tobacco companies were hiding this dark secret. They knew it was addictive and were not telling their customers it was addictives. And for nearly 100 years, the customers did not know they were addicted. What a conspiracy! What a secret! What bullshit. And this starling discovery is now the current debate on tobacco. Billie Jeff, the world's foremost president didn't know it. None of the talking heads knew it before this revelation. And it took the theft of research results from tobacco companies before they knew tobacco was addictive. What planet did these folks come from? It was certainly one without tobacco. This is perhaps the best evidence yet that the earth is ruled by space aliens. They know nothing about tobacco. I could prove the case on this alone. So instead we are subject to the pandering nonsense of fools claiming that common knowledge since I was a kid in the 1950s justifies a change in policy. I doubt it was unknown before I was a child. The earliest epithet for them I remember was "coffin nails." Excuse me, but when something is called coffin nails I sort of get the impression they kill. Maybe the difference was that the people using that term had been in WW II and were not as afraid of death as people pretend to be today. Maybe some people are so unaculturated that they really did not know tobacco is addictive and kills. I am willing to admit that there are such people. That they hold positions of responsibility is what amazes me. This is absurd enough for me and I presume it is absurd enough for you. These folks are playing coy, like naive little children. They knew everything they are claiming to discover and be shocked by since they were small children just as all of us did. Are we going to reward acting ability? To hell with getting credit, who is going to be taken seriously for "Surprise! Surprise!" about tobacco? Knowing tobacco causes disease and is addictive is like knowing about Babe Ruth and being able to sing the Star Spangled Banner. But times have changed, it is not like knowing how to drive a stick shift car but it is close. What in the hell is this all about? We have these posturing fools pretending there is something new to all of this and because it has just been discovered, in their naive universe, action has to be taken. Again, this is clear evidence they are not of this planet. The law clearly defines what it is talking about when it comes to drugs as the law will not permit itself to be swayed by mere scientific fact. Every drug regulated is by name or by analog to that drug. There is no law permitting regulation by scientific properties, addiction and disease causing included. And it is clear why this is so. Were it based upon fact rather than law, any case could become a battle of science rather than something judges and lawyers can understand. There is no regulatory power given because something is addictive despite pretensions to that politicians. Marijuana is not regulated because of its effects. It is regulated because it is named in law. Tobacco is not named in law. Yet, SHAAZAM!, it is addictive and gee, no politician is willing to deal with the truth in the law as they might seem soft on drugs so this bit of nonsense gets common acceptance. This is a very stupid system of regulation we live with. It is not really acceptable in any sense. It is about time someone besides me speaks out about crap like this. But it will not be a politician. They are not bright enough. * * * * * Further distribution is encouraged by the author. To save long distance calls. One time permission to reproduce this article is granted upon the following conditions. All BBS reproduction is included and only an email notification is requested. If you Xpost everything, one notification will do. 1) You send a proof copy if printed media to the address below. 2) The byline and address below is included. 3) Your editorial effort is limited to reasonable spelling and grammar corrections. 4) There is no significant profit expected to be derived directly from its reproduction, e.g. newsletters priced to recover costs, non profit activities, the usual collection of judgement proof people. P.O. Box 82541, Tampa, Florida, 33682-2541, Bus. 813-969-0362 --- * RM 1.3 01261 * Tinkerbelle roasting on an open fire, Peter nipping at her t --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: Doc's Place In The Ghetto! 813-822-4637 (1:3603/140.0) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 743 834 270/101 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (864) To: All 17 Aug 95 04:27:00 Subject: What Grampa would say What my Grampa would have done by Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <8/17> I do not like to speak for the gentleman nor to I really pretend to do so. This is a standard ploy related to "what would the founding fathers think if they were alive today?" You want a standard lead? Here it is. First off, I will have to say he died when I was seven so I never knew him as more than a child. I do remember a few things the family remembered about him as wisdom. For example, the Klan, people who need to hide their faces should hide their faces. Little things like that. No, I am not going to pretend he invented anything he said. Nor am I going to make him into the font of folk wisdom. I am going to tell you he was, so far as I can tell, an average working class grunt. For those who have missed it, I am fifty, born in 1945 and the replacement for WW II. My grandfather did a horrible thing in his childhood. He married a woman only 14 years old. It took Elvis to repeat this horrible deed in public. But then he was only 17 so there must have been equally good rules in those days. This is of course a question of outlook and action and by implication voting or taking action. In practice, my grandfather would have done nothing overt. He would not have taken up arms and he did not. But what he did do was as important as his comment on the Klan. He told his children, my mother included, what he thought of things. And in turn they said what they thought of things. For example my mother was always complaining about taxes and continued to say at every tax increase that they would tax drinking water if they could in a very perjorative sense. Little did she understand there was a sewer tax in her future. They won't tax what you drink but if you flush it, you pay for it. Another of her statements right from her father as best I can remember is that they will tax the air if they can. These days, they don't tax it, they charge for it. You have a $1000 package in your car in addition to a twenty cents a gallon more expensive gasoline that taxes the air we breath. Breathing itself is not taxed but it might as well be. Of course I have taken these to heart and have told these things to my son. This is not a matter of swallowing nonsense as I see it as I have rejected major parts of family traditions, starting with religion. I certainly agree with the judgement on the Klan. But in telling these traditions to my son I am transferring ideas that have been refined over the generations. Nothing in the years of the life of my grandfather, nor of my parents, nor of me have found fault with certain fundamental principles of public life. Those I have passed on to my son and those are, regardless of appearing to be an old fart, are what I use in my posts. I expect my son to refine these matters further over his lifetime. And the point of all of this? Americans will change religions easier than they will change political parties. And they will give it equal thought. I am an early baby boomer, slightly earlier than the official beginning of the baby boom generation. I do not care about any particular experience including my own. The point I am making is that the shift of young people to the Republican from the Democratic party is generational not annual. I have no idea why my grandfather was a registered Democrat. I do know it happened in the day of Woodrow Wilson who is best defined today as a Libertarian. The Libertarian trend is certainly a majority given the moves of American politics. Certainly there are party loyalists from the word go who will never change. In fact the difference between parties and the avocation of parties is what the current trends are indicating. Today our/my children are voting back toward where we came from two generations back. The aberration of the Depression era is averaging out to jack in the political conscience. People do not change, strange circumstances cause temporary changes in people. The country is going back to what is always was, a group of people who chose to come here for the sole reason that is was a concept of liberty. Here we are again with the Great Depression losing everything it had to justify all the additional nonsense it collected. This is the brave, new world. My grandfather is alive again. * * * * * Further distribution is encouraged by the author. To save long distance calls. One time permission to reproduce this article is granted upon the following conditions. All BBS reproduction is included and only an email notification is requested. If you Xpost everything, one notification will do. 1) You send a proof copy if printed media to the address below. 2) The byline and address below is included. 3) Your editorial effort is limited to reasonable spelling and grammar corrections. 4) There is no significant profit expected to be derived directly from its reproduction, e.g. newsletters priced to r

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.