The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/g/giwer.matt/1995/giwer_debate_9509


««■■ R_9509 ■■»»
+++■■■■■ r_950902 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1077)
To:      Tim Boothby                            28 Aug 95 16:22:10
Subject: FAULKNER WIMPS OUT                     

TB>  > BK>    From what I have seen of the Citadel in this case I would 
TB>  > BK>    say no graduate of that school would be likely to be fit 
TB>  > BK>    to serve as an officer in the armed forces of the United 
TB>  > BK>    States.

TB>  >      That explains it.  You are ignorant of the military.  I
TB>  > should have known.

TB>  Matt, I wouldn't go throwing stones, 

     You are wise not to do so.

as far as knowledge of 
TB>  the military is concerned you appear to be standing in the 
TB>  middle of a glass house.

     Let he who without knowledge cast the first stone.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Have you seen any armed militiamen today?
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1078)
To:      Turiyan Gold                           28 Aug 95 16:13:10
Subject: Do _NOT_ Send Encoded Msg              

TG> ->  I don't intend to but they show up so regularly on other 
TG> ->  conferences without comment that it appears you are the 
TG> ->  only one enforcing this rule.

TG>  Unfortunately, PGP says that a message signed with a key is 
TG>  a PGP message.  It is really only the fingerprint of the 
TG>  persons pgp key.  A lot of moderators get into a fit if 
TG>  pepole sign their message.  They get the impression that 
TG>  the key contains secret messages.  Some echos allow signed 
TG>  messages.  But, most dont.

     The subject here is UUENCODEd posts.  Encoded versus 
encrypted is a second part of the issue.  As for signed, even the 
keydrop conference advised not to bother unless it had a purpose.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * "I take full responsibility" means "Don't blame me." J. Reno
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1079)
To:      Bob Klahn                              29 Aug 95 16:23:10
Subject: FAULKNER WIMPS OUT                     

BK>  TB>  2.  Shannon should have been denied access due to the fact 
BK>  TB>     that she never met the physical requirements for 
BK>  TB>     admission to the cidatel or the military.  Which branch 
BK>  TB>     of the Armed Forces or their Academy will accept an 
BK>  TB>     individual that is 20 pounds (by their own admission) 
BK>  TB>     overweight (for the cidatel or the Army).

BK>   I don't know what the standards are now.  When I went in 
BK>   there were people in basic training with me who were more 
BK>   overweight than that.

     When there are more volunteers than are needed, they can 
afford to be selective.

BK>    You are correct on the first sentence, *IF* the Citadel 
BK>   had any crediblitly.  OTOH, had they any real intention of 
BK>   considering her on the basis of her qualifications they 
BK>   would have processed her in the first place and told her 
BK>   what she had to do to be accepted.  As it is they had no 
BK>   intention of accepting her.

     They knew she could not pass their standards simply because 
she was a woman.  She knew she could not pass their standards 
because she was a woman.  That is why she petitioned the courts 
to have the standards lowered for her.

     What is there about that you don't understand?

BK>   You picked a poor example.  Patton might have been a great 
BK>   strategist or tactician, but I don't think much of him as 
BK>   a leader.

     Rommel did.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * The truth being extreme does not make it untrue.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1080)
To:      Tim Boothby                            29 Aug 95 00:31:10
Subject: FAULKNER WIMPS OUT                     

TB>  >  The commandant at West Point once said something like, they 
TB>  >  teach honor there.  That is the only thing that really 
TB>  >  matters.  On that basis no graduate of the Citadel could be 
TB>  >  considered fit to be an officer in the armed forces of the 
TB>  >  United States.

TB> Just a few observations here...

TB>  1.  I personally find the entire situation silly, the 
TB>     Cidatel has never adaquately described the reasons for 
TB>     their male only stance.

     Their objective is to train soldiers.  That would appear 
sufficient grounds for male only.

TB>  2.  Shannon should have been denied access due to the fact 
TB>     that she never met the physical requirements for 
TB>     admission to the cidatel or the military.  Which branch 
TB>     of the Armed Forces or their Academy will accept an 
TB>     individual that is 20 pounds (by their own admission) 
TB>     overweight (for the cidatel or the Army).

     If you believe only 20 pounds then you don't believe your 
eyes.  When they make the docudrama of it, Roseanne can play her 
part.

TB>  3.  I have served with officers that graduated the cidatel, 
TB>     and then either the Air Force Academy or a civilian 
TB>     college.  You will find no better officers anywhere.

TB>  4.  Some of the best officers that this nation has ever been 
TB>     produced have attended the Cidatel and then West Point.  
TB>     George Patton is the most readilly recognizeable.
TB> 
TB>  5.  When trying to change tradition that is backwords and 
TB>     inbred, you will have to deal with people and 
TB>     institutions that are equally backwords and inbred.

     What is backwards about physical standards?  The only reason 
she was allowed even the three hours she got was because there 
was a court order requiring her to be let in regardless of 
physical standards including weight.  

     The fact remains there is no evidence in any form that she 
at any time wanted to be in The Citadel.  All of the evidence 
points to her wanting the notoriety of the court case.  


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Hookers on phonics, for those who don't want to spell.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1081)
To:      Michael Pilon                          29 Aug 95 00:39:10
Subject: FAULKNER WIMPS OUT                     

     On 08/24/95 
   from MICHAEL PILON 
     to BOB KLAHN 
     on FAULKNER WIMPS OUT 
in Fido-Debate

MP>  -=> Quoting Bob Klahn to Matt Giwer <=-

MP>  MG>       And the poor girl was worn down by all the legal 
MP>  MG>  matters.  Anyone ready to believe this bull?

MP>  No the macho Military types at this so called Academy 
MP>  rallied around her to offer support to a fellow officer as 
MP>  anyone would expect.  I for one will not hear of such talk 
MP>  from Matt ;0

     Who are you talking about?  She was a knob, the scum of the 
earth, not a fellow officer.

MP>  BK>  Yes, that and the fact that she had to face 4 years alone.  
MP>  BK>  Read your history of early black cadets at West Point.  They 
MP>  BK>  faced the same thing.

MP>  Hmmm, something about the Officer's ethos comes to mind .  
MP>  Shurely service of country and not self serving ;0

     I have no idea of the traditions of military academies in 
Canada.  Down this way, they do not become officers until 
graduation.  They don't become better than the scum of the earth 
until their second year.

MP>  MG>      Yes, you do believe her story?  Then she was incapable of
MP>  MG> dealing with being a cadet.

MP> But the overwhelming support she received may have helped ;0

     She got all the support every knob gets at The Citadel.  
Making it is up to the knob.  It is the job of the student body 
to weed out those who can't take it.  

MP>  BK>  From what I have seen of the Citadel in this case I would 
MP>  BK>  say no graduate of that school would be likely to be fit to 
MP>  BK>  serve as an officer in the armed forces of the United 
MP>  BK>  States.

MP>  As a former Army officer , albeit of a froeign country I 
MP>  agree.  They have made the name of their school an 
MP>  international laughing stock.  Pure scum.

     On what grounds?  That a blimp who went to court to both get 
in and then to be excused from the standards should be considered 
a desirable classmate?  What is it you think she wanted other 
than the notoriety of the court case?

     Of course an officer in the medical corp would have 
different standards.  What about if women were in the corp 
because a judge ordered they could not be required to be on duty 
more than 40% of the time men were on duty and otherwise would 
not be officers?  


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Koresh, the Pope, what is the difference?
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1082)
To:      All                                    29 Aug 95 21:01:10
Subject: Double standards                       

 *************  Original From: SETH WILLIAMSON
 *  stolen   *             To: MATTHEW RUSSOTTO
 *   post    *    Date/Number: 08/27/95
 *************             On: GIFFER - 0302 - Politics
               PLEASE address responses to ALL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

          Matthew Russotto wrote 

SH> Shannon Faulkner has shown that she is incapable of enduring "Hell
SH>*Week" [...]

SW> "Fat" doesn't quite convey the reality.  I met the cow when I
SW> interviewed her nearly two years ago.  Biggest impression of mine a
SW> the time was, "How can this bitch possibly believe she can hack hel
SW> week with this lard ass of hers?"  Supposedly now she is only 20
SW> pounds overweight, but when I saw her she was EASILY 50 pounds over
SW> I mean, she is a BIG mama.  And not exactly cover material for Cosm
SW> either.

MR>*More to the point, not cover material for _Shape_.

Indeed.

Did you realize that the upperclassmen were forbidden to talk to her in
the way they addressed the other first-year cadets?  They were expressly
forbidden to tell her they didn't believe she could accomplish certain
tasks, or to question her ability in any way.

Can you believe this?  I was a cadet at Texas A&M, and the first thing
you learn is that the serge-butts and the leather-legs are screaming
into your face that you're scum, you're shit, you're the sorriest excuse
of a human being they've ever seen, not only are you not material for
the corps, you don't even deserve to live, etc. etc.  There was one
particular serge-butt at A&M who was continually screaming in my face
that he was PERSONALLY going to see to it that I never made it through
my fish year because he could not tolerate the thought of slime like me
in the uniform of an A&M cadet.

This is all part of the military experience.  But not only was Shannon
getting a double standard on the physical requirements, her tender ego
required that the upperclassmen not subject her to the same shit
everybody else has to undergo.

The military, feminist-style.

****[Internet: sethwill@vt.edu]
---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Bill Clinton, The Man From Hot Springs.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1083)
To:      Linda Moore                            29 Aug 95 01:00:10
Subject: FAULKNER WIMPS OUT                     

LM>  BK>  I do believe the facilities were:
LM>  BK> 
LM>  BK>  A) because she was female and sleeping with the men would 
LM>  BK>  be unacceptable to the school as well as to her.
LM>  BK> 
LM>  BK>  B) for her protection.  Not many of the male candidates 
LM>  BK>  could expect to be assualted during the night.

LM>  There was an alarm system in her room as well, that would 
LM>  sound off if the door were forced.  There had been threats, 
LM>  even though the school denied it, which isn't surprising 
LM>  with the number of rapes on college campuses that are 
LM>  ignored by the administration.

     You mean she couldn't kick a rapist's ass?  If not, case 
closed.

LM>  BK>  Real equality means women have the same right to fail that 
LM>  BK>  men do.

LM>  Yes, and though I don't read much about them in the 
LM>  messages attacking the woman, there WERE maleS who didn't 
LM>  cut that mustard, either, and I doubt they had the same 
LM>  bigoted mind-set working against THEM as she had.

     4 men the first week and 2 the second were washed out.  The 
blimp quit after three hours.

LM>  BK>  Look at the way she was treated.  It was exactly like black 
LM>  BK>  cadets at the Military academies were when the first ones 
LM>  BK>  were admitted.

LM>  Yep.  Who the "Minority" is depends on where you are at a 
LM>  given moment in time, and who the "Majority" is in that 
LM>  same place and time.  Very good point, Bob.

     As I remember the story, those blacks didn't quit after 
three hours and did not demand or expect special protection.

LM>  BK>  The commandant at West Point once said something like, they 
LM>  BK>  teach honor there.  That is the only thing that really 
LM>  BK>  matters.  On that basis no graduate of the Citadel could be 
LM>  BK>  considered fit to be an officer in the armed forces of the 
LM>  BK>  United States.

LM>   Not after the way they openly reveled in her leaving 
LM>  (caught on camera), smiled in her face with reassurances 
LM>  when she went to the infirmary, then showed themselves as 
LM>  the lying hypocrites they really are.  

     You were able to recognize the faces to determine they were 
the same people?  You have a real sharp eye.  

The commandant was 
LM>  just as bad.  She never had a chance with those people.     

     It is the job of the commandant to set standards and the job 
of the cadets to live up to them.  She had several court orders 
exempting her from those standards and lots of special treatment 
just because she was a poor, fragile woman.  

     You appear to be under some impression that a knob is 
supposed to retain personal dignity.  It is the job of a knob to 
realize he or she is so low he or she has to look up to see the 
scum of the earth.

     Said knob is required to survive hell week without quitting.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * The perimeter can't be controlled.L. Thompson is coming.Reno
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1084)
To:      Linda Moore                            29 Aug 95 01:09:10
Subject: Faulkner wimps out                     

LM>  KA>  And in doing so, she reinforced that very premise which she 
LM>  KA>  set out to destroy: that "girls" just can't tough it out, 
LM>  KA>  that they can't take the strain, and that when the job gets 
LM>  KA>  nasty it's better for them to go play teacher or mommy or 
LM>  KA>  some other traditional "girl role," just like Faulkner's 
LM>  KA>  doing.

LM>   For anyone who finds it easy to believe the premises you 
LM>  list above, they'd have to dismiss the many military 
LM>  veterans who happen to be women, myself among them.  Let's 
LM>  not make 1 "failure" a legacy, ok?

     Are you saying you were one of those who met all the same 
minimum requirements as men?  Or did you exceed those?  Did you 
qualify as a ranger?

     


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * At Salem, people confessed to being witches, proving ...?
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1085)
To:      All                                    29 Aug 95 15:37:10
Subject: imporant message                       

          >>> This message requires Microsoft Windows to read.



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Put taggants in bullshit now.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1086)
To:      All                                    28 Aug 95 20:34:10
Subject: Wages of sin                           

     What does learning from one's mistakes mean?

     What does a teenager learn from getting pregnant and having 
an illegitimate child?

     How to survive on the welfare system.

     Is that a penalty or a reward?


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * If Reno were a real general, she would get a section eight.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1087)
To:      Linda Terrell                          29 Aug 95 00:56:10
Subject: Faulkner wimps out                     

LT> KA>  My guess: she expected to be exempted from *this* 
LT> KA>  requirement, too.  After all, she'd had a pretty good 
LT> KA>  pattern of exemptions set up, and why shouldn't she think 
LT> KA>  maybe they'd cut her some slack on this one as well?

LT>    YOur *guess*  Can you prove that *she* stayed in the 
LT>  infirmary of her own volition or because she was *ordered* 
LT>  to stay there?

     If she was ordered to stay then there is no question that it 
took her 4 days and 21 hours to recover from 3 hours of physical 
activity.  Of course, she claims to have prepared in an air 
conditioned gym some where.  If you believe that you haven't seen 
her.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * The Constitution is not a technicality.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

+++■■■■■ r_950905 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (984)
To:      Bob Klahn                              31 Aug 95 17:02:10
Subject: IRRELEVANT AND IMMATE                  

BK> BK>>    You forget, like anyone accused of a crime, they would 
BK> BK>>    not have to prove their innocence, the prosecutor would 
BK> BK>>    have to prove guilt.

BK>  MG>       When is the trial scheduled?  No trial?  Too bad the 
BK>  MG>  prosecution will not get an opportunity to introduce their 
BK>  MG>  testimony from the Davidian trial against them.

BK>   And if they are found not guilty, who do they sue for what 
BK>   they're put through?

     When you testify on company time the employer does the 
compensation.  It is called a paycheck.  If they don't like the 
job they can find another.  It comes with the territory.  

     `If they want to try to make a case for malicious 
prosecution, they have a well known venue.  The Davidians and 
Weaver have it available to them also.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * The truth being extreme does not make it untrue.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (985)
To:      Lester Garrett                         31 Aug 95 07:52:10
Subject: REVELATION                             

LG>      MR> At the end of the 1000 years, Satan (the UN) will
LG>      MR> seduce the nations of the world, prior to Armageddon --
LG>      MR> rv.20:7-15.

LG>  BK> Have you been listening to Jimmy Swaggart?

LG>  BK> BTW, I'm going to do a "search" of my online Bible
LG>  BK> resource. If I don't find the UN mentioned in the Bible I'm
LG>  BK> going to be very disappointed in you.
LG>      _
LG>     ( |
LG>   ___\ \
LG>  (__()  `-|
LG>  (___()   |
LG>  (__()    |
LG>  (_()__.--|

     Ethnic cleansing = UNclean.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Bill Clinton, The Man From Hot Springs.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (986)
To:      Bob Klahn                              31 Aug 95 17:10:10
Subject: WACO HEARINGS          01              

BK> BK>>   If he had not shot and killed 5 agents,

BK>  MG>       Perhaps you would be the first to tell us of evidence 
BK>  MG>  that Koresh shot anyone?  None of the nine conflicting 
BK>  MG>  stories told under oath by the BATF at the trial claimed he 
BK>  MG>  shot anyone.

BK>  He's responsible for what is done by people serving him.

     Two attorneys observed and sworn to evidence that six of the 
nine conflicting stories told in court were false in addition to 
the court testimony showing at least one sworn statement was a 
lie.

     The 911 tapes clearly indicate they did not initiate the 
shooting.

     Koresh told the FBI that the BATF tape would show who shot 
first but unbeknownst to him, it was "blank." 

     Not one of the survivors accused of shooting was found 
guilty of shooting.  

     The prosecution star witness testified there was no 
conspiracy.

     You are making it up as you go along.

BK> BK>>  if he had not been given an opportunity to surrender,

BK>  MG>       Surrender to people who had, so far as he could 
BK>  MG>  determine, killed six people without provocation?  You are 
BK>  MG>  aware the prosecution could not establish who shot first 
BK>  MG>  are you not?  Or do you know something the prosecution does 
BK>  MG>  not know?

BK>   I tried watching a rebroadcast of some of the Waco 
BK>   hearings, but couldn't bear to sit through the speeches.  I 
BK>   did, however, manage to last long enough to hear a part of 
BK>   it.  The part of the summary that said three reporters on 
BK>   the scene said the Davidians fired first.  

     I wonder where these witnesses were at the court trial and 
why the jury did not believe them.  Can you deal with that?  

Also, one of the 
BK>   Davidians testified at the trial that they laid an ambush 
BK>   for the agents.

     This is what we call pathetic.  There was only one Davidian 
who testified and she testified there was no conspiracy 
whatsoever.  The foreman of the jury said afterward that it was 
her testimony that demolished the prosecution claim of a plan to 
kill anyone.  

     A single order would have constituted a conspiracy.  The 
prosecution testimony was that there was none.

BK> BK>>  had he tried to surrender and had his surrender refused, 
BK> BK>>    then his civil rights would have been violated.

BK>  MG>       Had there been the proper warrant and proper service 
BK>  MG>  then the rights of nearly 100 people would not have been 
BK>  MG>  violated.  But you know that.

BK>   Any warrant served by police officers who aren't being 
BK>   shot at would have done.  The question of whether it was 
BK>   proper could have been argued in court.  If they did not 
BK>   accept service of the warrant they have no claim on the 
BK>   grounds the warrant was improper.

     As we know from testimony, they did not announce possession 
of a warrant at any time nor was there ever any intention to do 
so.  Yet the announcement of the warrant is required by federal 
law.  If you violate the law and die, complain to your boss.

BK> BK>>  As none of these things are true, his civil rights weren't 
BK> BK>>    violated.  At least, not by the things you cited.

BK>  MG>       Gee they could have just knocked on the door instead 
BK>  MG>  of coming in shooting and throwing grenades as is a matter 
BK>  MG>  of sworn BATF testimony at the trial.  But you know that.

BK>   I do not know that.  Please cite your source for that info.  

     The SWORN as in UNDER OATH as in PENALTY OF PERJURY 
testimony at the trial of the surviving Davidian hostages.  It 
comes from the San Antonio and Austin papers.  Did you miss them 
when they were posted here?  Want to read them again?

BK>   If there was any evidence of the ATF launching an assualt 
BK>   with grenades and gunfire instead of properly serving the 
BK>   warrant there would be no problem with the hearings at 
BK>   all.  

     They swore they did, in court, as in, so help me god.

If there is such evidence please present it, 
BK>   otherwise it would seem you are smearing honourable police 
BK>   officers who died in the line of duty.

     Rather they defended the tactics as necessary.  Maybe the 
folks who posted the newspaper articles here lied.  If that 
happened then I have been deceived.  But there was this 
recounting of some testimony claiming that grenades were really 
"diversionary devices."  I am certain that blowing your hand off 
would divert even you.

BK> BK>>   Their civil rights were trampled on by the Branch
BK> BK>>   Davidians.  Even if the govt bungled it, the violations
BK> BK>>   were committed by the Davidians.

BK>  MG>       Your statement is contrary to the evidence at the 
BK>  MG>  trial and the findings of the jury.

**
Continued in the next message...
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (987)
To:      Bob Klahn                              31 Aug 95 17:44:10
Subject: WACO HEARINGS                          

or not 
BK>   proven guilty? One indicts the government, the other leave 
BK>   the Davidians suspect.

     There is nothing other than, "not proven guilty."  That is 
the way our legal system works.  There is no finding of innocent 
as innocence does not have to be proven or even suggested.  The 
burden of proof is on the prosecution and failing that, not 
guilty.

BK> BK>>  SD>   its ugly head.  Remember how Branch Davidians were the 
BK> BK>>  SD>   "Whackos in Waco?"  They were religious nuts -- a cult.  
BK> BK>>  SD>   Notice how they were

BK> BK>>  All that appears to be true.

BK>  MG>       Only if you hold religious belief to be a insane.  I 
BK>  MG>  do hold all religious belief to be insane.  How about you?

BK>   Nope, but I hold the Davidians to be whackos.  Insane is a 
BK>   legal term, not a medical one.  (Whacko isn't a medical 
BK>   term either, but conveys my meaning clearly.)

     I do not find "whacko" in the DSM.   What does it mean to 
you really?  Believing the Pope speaks for a dead Jew?  That 
Joseph Smith had magic glasses?  That Mohamet wrote what an angel 
wrote?  That Jews were ever in Egypt?  Get your whackos straight 
before you make accusations.

BK> BK>>    Neither would be a drug dealer just passing through, a 
BK> BK>>    car thief going south with his stolen vehical, a murderer 
BK> BK>>    or thief or other criminal on his way to a vacation.  You 
BK> BK>>    catch the criminals where you find them.

BK>  MG>       There is no evidence of any criminal activity nor is 
BK>  MG>  any alleged in the warrant.  You are bullshitting.

BK>   No criminal activity alleged in the warrant? 
     
     That is correct.

Do they now 
BK>   issue warrants "to search property specified to determine 
BK>   what lawful activities are going on at said property"? No 
BK>   evidence of criminal activity? Quite a bit of testimony to 
BK>   the contrary on that.  The local sheriff is the original 
BK>   source of that information, as I have seen reported.  
BK>   Seems the bovine excrement is on your end this time.

     There is not a bit of what you claim in the warrant.  Why 
are you saying otherwise?  Do you need a fresh copy of it?  I 
will repost it if you will quote the criminal allegations.  Are 
you willing?

BK> BK>>    No, nobody got what they deserved.  Koresh got much less 
BK> BK>>    than he deserved.  He should have survived to face 
BK> BK>>    execution.  That way he could have all that time to look 
BK> BK>>    forward to it.

BK>  MG>       As with all the people accused of murder and 
BK>  MG>  conspiracy to murder, and he would have been one of them, 
BK>  MG>  Koresh would have been acquitted of the charges.  You have 
BK>  MG>  to keep in mind they

BK>   If he had survived he might have faced trial for all his 
BK>   followers who died.

     As he was murdered survival would mean that he survived the 
attempt to murder him.  It is difficult to put such a person on 
trial.  How would you do it?

BK>  MG> were all found innocent of murder and since the primary charge

BK>  Not guilty. Not really the same thing.

     It is in the US legal system.  What country are you calling 
from?

BK>  MG>  was conspiracy AND the government's star witness testified 
BK>  MG>  there was no conspiracy, the case fell apart.
BK>  MG> 
BK>  MG>       In other words, you are making claims the government 
BK>  MG>  failed to prove in court.  You are not going to be 
BK>  MG>  considered unless you present better evidence than the 
BK>  MG>  government presented.

BK>   You are making claims with no evidence to back them up.  
BK>   Unless you have better evidence you are not going to be 
BK>   considered.

     I am stating there was not sufficient evidence to convince a 
jury.  If you reject the jury system, no one is innocent.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * "I take full responsibility" means "Don't blame me." J. Reno
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1002)
To:      Bob Klahn                              31 Aug 95 17:06:10
Subject: NONINDIGENOUS TERRAN                   

BK> BK>>  MG>        Don't knock it.  You may have discovered where Reno 
BK> BK>>  MG>   gets her ideas.

BK> BK>>  Whereas we know for a fact Reagan did.

BK>  MG>      What does Reagan have to do with this?

BK>   I notice you cut out the portion of this msg that makes 
BK>   clear what it means.  Put it back in and it will explain 
BK>   what Reagan has to do with this.

     There was nothing deleted between the lines quoted.  Perhaps 
you would like to re-enter them?  Reagan tried to disband the 
BATF according to the 1980 recommendation of Congress but I still 
do not see what he has to do with the delusional psychotic AG.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Koresh, the Pope, what is the difference?
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1102)
To:      Alvin Sylvain                           1 Sep 95 08:59:10
Subject: "Prostitution compared to              

AS>  I think it's an interesting angle to try to get 
AS>  prostitution legalized based on the same privacy rights as 
AS>  abortion.

     If general privacy is the issue rather than the Roe v Wade 
doctor / patient privacy then all drugs should certainly be 
legal.  Certainly if one is old enough to make a decision about 
their body they are old enough to decide to smoke tobacco and 
crack.

     However, as I understand it, the decision was based solely 
upon the professional relationship.  That was the reason the Bush 
Administration was able to get away with requiring a doctor to do 
the counseling instead of the usual 20 hours (or whatever) of 
training abortion counselor.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * If Reno were a real general, she would get a section eight.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1103)
To:      Alvin Sylvain                           1 Sep 95 09:04:10
Subject: Bible Evolution Evid                   

AS> -> AS>  I'm being nice because I know your heart's in the right
AS> -> AS>  place.  (In your chest, slightly left of center)
AS> ->
AS> ->      You should not take things so seriously.

AS> After a crack like "in your chest", you think I'm serious?

     You did say to the left of center.  You don't know me very 
well.

AS>  Anyhow, I wasn't aware you were doing a "take-off" on True 
AS>  Believers.  Be careful, tho ...  I'm willing to bet that 
AS>  somewhere out there, a True Believer will pick up your 
AS>  article and cross-post it as a serious work !!

     The Red Queen did just that last week.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * If Reno were a real general, she would get a section eight.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1104)
To:      Bob Klahn                               1 Sep 95 09:06:10
Subject: CHOICE EQUALS CHOICE                   

BK> BK>>    It is an even greater sin to manipulate the economy to 
BK> BK>>    reduce a portion of the population to the point where 
BK> BK>>    they can not support their children.

BK>  MG>      Evidence of manipulation?

BK>   How about Alan Greenspan's confession? He stated that the 
BK>   Fed was raising interest rates because the unemployment 
BK>   rate might fall too low.  If too many people found jobs 
BK>   that would cause wages to rise, and inflation might grow.  
BK>   So, the Fed raised interest rates to keep people 
BK>   unemployed.

     Which has what to do with manipulating people?  Although I 
do no concur in any manipulation of the economy (and agreeing 
they rarely seek my concurrence before doing so) manipulating the 
economy as a whole is not manipulating any individual(s) within 
it.  

     There is nothing directed towards those with children which 
is the clear inference of your statement.  That people with no 
job skills at all have children is the issue to be addressed.  It 
is not clear people can not support themselves even on minimum 
wage.  I have seen it done many times.

BK> BK>>  ...  Birth rates for unmarried women,1970-90.  Black:down
BK> BK>>  1.6% White:up 128%.

BK>  MG>      Is there some hidden relevance to this?

BK>   Shouldn't be hidden.  It's a simple fact.  Contrary to what 
BK>   many people believe, the birth rate for unmarried black 
BK>   women did not go up over the 20 years from 1970- 1990, 
BK>   rather it went down.  The rate for white women did go up, 
BK>   however, by more than double.

     From 20 to 50 is more than double also.  Absolute numbers 
and fraction of the population would be more relevant items to 
provide.  As we are into the financial side of this discussion, 
the fraction on welfare also matters.  

     For example, for three years I lived with one of those 
whites who helped cause the increase in that time frame.  (I was 
not the father.)  She did not do it until she was 30 with a 
stable career that was in demand and so far as I am aware was 
never unemployed a day in her life, certainly not after the child 
was born.

     So as a minimum, the age of becoming a mother would also be 
a factor of interest.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * A Bill Clinton speech, the true cause of bulemia.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1105)
To:      Lester Garrett                          1 Sep 95 09:17:10
Subject: Do _NOT_ Send Encoded Msg              

LG>      LG> Please do **_NOT_** post any encrypted _OR_ encoded
LG>      LG> (uuencoded) messages to the DEBATE Echo.  Policy4
LG>      LG> restricts  the used of encryption.  And while it is
LG>      LG> unclear whether uuencoded files fall under this
LG>      LG> category. . .

LG>  MG> I will clarify that for you, encoding and encryption are
LG>  MG> not the same thing.

LG>  ???  You appear to have misinterpreted my statement.  I did 
LG>  _not_ say or suggest that they are the same thing.  I said 
LG>  it was unclear whether Policy4 treated them in the same 
LG>  fashion -- i.e.  proscribed both.

     And to clarify again, if both words are used, both words are 
meant.  If only one word is used, that is the word that is meant.  

     If only encryption is restricted, encoding is not addressed.  
That is called proper usage of english.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 *                 Welcome to Chiba City
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1106)
To:      Bob Klahn                               1 Sep 95 09:25:10
Subject: FAULKNER WIMPS OUT     01              

BK> BK>>  I do believe the facilities were:

BK> BK>>    A) because she was female and sleeping with the men would 
BK> BK>>    be unacceptable to the school as well as to her.

BK>  MG>       Because SHE demanded it, period.  (Her attorneys are 
BK>  MG>  her for purposes of law.)

BK>   Do you mean you think she should have been bunking with 
BK>   the men?

     That would depend upon the regulations that would govern all 
cadets.

BK>   BTW, I'll keep your comment that her attorneys are her in 
BK>   mind for future reference.

     Keep and use it again exactly as I used it.  That means for 
purposes of law the attorneys are the same as her.  For purposes 
of effort, they did the work, not her.

BK> BK>>    B) for her protection.  Not many of the male candidates 
BK> BK>>    could expect to be assualted during the night.

BK>  MG>       Because she could not deal with it, being both a blimp 
BK>  MG>  and a woman.

BK>   Do you mean thin women can deal with being raped, or that 
BK>   men deal better with being raped? 

     I mean that assault is assault on anyone.  There are 
certainly rules against coming even close to such things in 
addition to the law.  In other words, there should be no 
different treatment because of the risk.  Most diseases and 
pregnancy are all curable.

Or do you just mean 
BK>   beating her up would be ok because she's a woman, but 
BK>   wouldn't be ok if she was thin?

     I mean that her inability to wipe up the floor with a would 
be rapist is of interest.  At least standing her ground and 
making the penalty for the attempt long and painful.  But that is 
the point, she can not meet the physical standards of the 
institution.

BK> BK>>   The relevant question is, did she meet the standards for
BK> BK>>   the military?

BK>  MG>      The relevant answer is, No.

BK>   In which case they should have just processed her in the 
BK>   first place and rejected her on that grounds.  Instead they 
BK>   tried to resist the whole idea of admitting a woman.  The 
BK>   next time they may get stuck with a woman who will make 
BK>   it.

     To correct your error, The Citadel is not the military and 
is not bound by their standards.  The relevant answer is she did 
not meet the standards of where she wanted to go.

BK> BK>> Training military officers is the function
BK> BK>>   of the Citadel.

BK>  MG>       And under the terms and conditions of the Citadel and 
BK>  MG>  none other save for the courts these days which know better 
BK>  MG>  than those who have succeeded at it for over 150 years.

BK>   Sorry, the Citadel does not get to set the standards for 
BK>   military officers, not even female military officers.  

     Which is the point.  They set standards for their students 
save for court interference in same.

If 
BK>   the US Military Academies can train women, so can the 
BK>   Citadel.  It is not a private school.  

     It is a private school.  Taking public funds does not make 
it a public school.

As to their 
BK>   succeeding at it for over 150 years, 

     Correct that, 180+.

the military did not 
BK>   accept women for that long, the military was segregated 
BK>   from about the Civil War until Harry Truman ordered it 
BK>   integrated.  Success at a limited goal does not justify 
BK>   avoiding the more inclusive goal when the situation 
BK>   changes.

     I am unaware of what there is about war that has changed.  
It is difficult to imagine a use for military academies if their 
graduates are labeled non-combat only.  It is further difficult 
to see in what manner physical requirements have been lessened 
for those engaged in ground combat.

     But you see it.  Tell me what has changed about ground 
combat.  I am interested in how it came within the scope of 
women.

BK>  MG>       I continue to be amazed to see how many enlisted know 
BK>  MG>  more than every officer everywhere and at every time.  Why 
BK>  MG>  my sergeant

BK>   Not every officer.  Some officers served as enlisted men 
BK>   before commisioning.  Any officer who has not served very 
BK>   long is not likely to know as much as a good non-com who 
BK>   has been in a couple years.

     I was referring to enlisted folks like you.

BK>   While not every enlisted man knows more than every officer 
**
Continued in the next message...
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1107)
To:      Bob Klahn                               1 Sep 95 10:14:10
Subject: FAULKNER WIMPS OUT     01              

BK>   There are a few rules from the business world that apply 
BK>   to the military as well.
BK> 
BK>   You can fool the people you work for, you can fool the 
BK>   people you work with, but you can't fool the people who 
BK>   work for you.
BK> 
BK>   Every decision should be made at the lowest possible 
BK>   level, no one knows a job better than the person who is 
BK>   doing it.
BK> 
BK>   If officers would learn a few of these rules they would be 
BK>   a lot better officers.

     I have also found it amusing when the folks at the working 
level just can't understand why the budget matters.     

BK>  MG>  uncle knew exactly how D-Day could have been done right.  I 
BK>  MG>  am certain you have similar knowledge.

BK>   I wasn't around during WW2.  If you had ever listened to an 
BK>   officer, who had been in command of a maintenance unit a 
BK>   few months, trying to tell a master sergeant, who had been 
BK>   running that unit for years, how to do a job you would 
BK>   realize how foolish many officers can be.

     Junior officers have to learn.  What you miss is that he has 
been ordered to tell him and "I have been ordered" is never to be 
said.  And what you also missed is the Chief being told over a 
cold one that he was ordered.  The Chief is permitted to blame it 
on the young officer.  It is part of the ritual that makes him 
the good guy to the crew.

     It is nothing new.  I am certain Cicero knew the routine.

BK> BK>>    She did beat the overwhelming odds.  She got in, that was 
BK> BK>>    a triumph.  Real equality means women have the same right 
BK> BK>>    to fail that men do.

BK>  MG>       She beat zero related odds.  She got in by court 
BK>  MG>       order.  And

BK>   If the administration had been operating within the law a 
BK>   court order would not have been necessary.

     The applicability of law to such a case has to be determined 
by the court.  There were Citadel attorneys making the case the 
law did not apply.  Had they been in clear violation of a law, it 
would have been either criminal or an administrative law matter 
which it was not.

BK>  MG>  she did not accept the same rights as men.  IF she had 
BK>  MG>  accepted equal physical requirements in all aspects, maybe.  
BK>  MG>  But she REFUSED to comply with them.  But you know that.

BK>   And you know women in the *MILITARY* are not held to the 
BK>   same requirements men are.  When the Citadel starts 
BK>   training officers for the unorganized militia their 
BK>   requirements may well become relevant.

     Which is not relevant to what she applied for and wanted.  

     Try it this way.  No rational person who wants to be trained 
for a career that must include a combat command to get more than 
20 and out would want anything less.  It would be her ass on the 
battlefield and her life and the lives of others hanging on her 
ability to do what is required.

     There is a very good reason the US military academies label 
their women graduates "noncombat" only.  It is likely to get them 
killed.

BK> BK>>    Which they say until they really need women, then they 
BK> BK>>    let them in no matter what.

BK>  Non - sequitor deleted.

     You do not appear to understand what follows.  What follows 
the academy in the ideal of the academy is a combat command in 
time of war.  That is what they claim they produce.  Nothing less 
should be acceptable.

BK>  MG>       If she is willing to have her head shaved and meet the 
BK>  MG>  same physical requirements as men then maybe.  Until that 
BK>  MG>  happens, the US has not graduated one woman from any of its 
BK>  MG>  academies equal to any man.

BK>   If you are trying to say the best woman officer was not 
BK>   equal to the worst male officer I'll say you don't know 
BK>   what you are talking about.

     I am saying she was not willing to meet the minimum 
requirements for a member of the cadet corp.

BK>   When those things become relevant to real world military 
BK>   conditions let us know.

     Please explain how they are not relevant so we will both 
know.

BK>  MG>       A knob is a knob, regard

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.