Path: news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail From: email@example.com (Michael P. Stein) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.censorship,alt.usenet.kooks Subject: Re: Giwer trolls about Nizkor, for the last time Date: 7 Jul 1996 03:12:56 -0400 Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA Lines: 126 Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net Xref: news2.digex.net alt.revisionism:97138 alt.censorship:125712 alt.usenet.kooks:42399 In article <email@example.com>, Matt Giwer
wrote: >firstname.lastname@example.org (Michael P. Stein) wrote: > > >> Oh, hell with it, let's end the game. > >>In article <email@example.com>, >> wrote: >>>firstname.lastname@example.org (Michael P. Stein) wrote: >>> >>>>In article <email@example.com>, >>>> wrote: >>>>> There are at least a dozen people who know exactly where to find the two >>>>>mentions of the two trials of Hoess if they were not censored from >>>>>Nizkor. Stein has said he has done a content based search of the site >>>>>and says he found no such mention. Therefore the material is censored. > >> Now I will point out the fact that Matt lied here. > >> I never said that I found no _mention_. My precise words (and my >>words are almost always _precise_) were: > > >>Date: 1996/06/12 > >> Not even Altavista can find what does not exist. But you know that. >>I searched for all files mentioning "Rudenko" to look for verification of >>the story that Rudenko lost the first case against Hoess, which you said >>you found on Nizkor. No such file. > > >>Date: 1996/06/20 > >> However, I have an account on Nizkor, and I _can_ search the files by >>content. When Giwer claimed that there was a file on Nizkor saying that >>Rudenko lost one case against Hoess for lack of evidence, I did a >>case-insensitive search on "Ruden" and "enko" (to catch any line breaks in >>the middle of the word). No file which turned up in that search matched >>Giwer's description of what he had read. > >> Please keep the precise words I used in mind. They are important, >>because (as Mr. Giwer has told us) words have meanings. > > There are several regular participants here who know exactly where those >reports have to be on Nizkor if Nizkor is not censored. There are >irregular participants here who know the exact same thing. > > How many more riddles do you folks need? > > How about this one. > > When I first posted on the claim, I said it was there once. The second >time I posted the claim, I said it was there twice. How do I know? > > Think about it. > >>> That is your assumption. >>> >>> The following is a riddle. >>> >>> I did not originally read it there but I know it is there. How do I >>>know? > >> Because it is in your own reposts of Al Gentile's articles, of course, >>and it was archived. I knew that before I wrote my previous article. >>But I know something else you don't know. > > But it was not found there in a content based search--as you said. So >where is it really? I will type this very slowly as obviously our poor Mr. Giwer is a functional illiterate who did not understand a single word of my previous post, where I carefully explained how I _never_ said that. I _never_ said Gentile's words were not found, Matt. I just got done explaining that you stupidly misread every word I previously wrote. I always found every _word_ where you thought it should be. First time, every time. Maybe I'd better repeat that. I found every _word_, and I _never_ said differently. I quoted my previous statements to show you exactly what I said. But you didn't pay attention. I _always_ found Gentile's words; they were never censored. But. You did not understand the words. Not Gentile's, not mine. You said the words were "eyewitness testimony." The words are not eyewitness testimony. I found no _eyewitness testimony_ in the words. You said the words were "evidence." The words are not evidence. I found no _evidence_ in the words. I said I looked for "verification." The words have no verification. I found no _verification_ for the words. I found only assertion. Only words. Worthless words. Now do you think you can summon up your alleged 163 IQ points and understand the words I have written this time? It is no wonder poor Mr. Giwer does not understand the evidence about the holocaust. He could not even understand what I wrote in the previous post. And what he does understand he forgets in a few days. He often cannot even remember what he himself wrote a week earlier. You would think someone with a 163 IQ would not have these problems. I can certainly understand how, given the clear evidence posted in this newsgroup of Mr. Giwer's illiteracy and memory loss at age 51, people might develop suspicions about Mr. Giwer's truthfulness, mental health, or possible substance abuse. But maybe poor Mr. Giwer just suffers from dyslexia, attention deficit disorder, or something a simple trip to the optometrist might cure. I do hope he seeks the help he needs. But until then, obviously discussing the Holocaust with him is a lost cause. It is too complicated for someone of his clearly limited abilities to understand. -- Mike Stein The above represents the Absolute Truth. POB 10420 Therefore it cannot possibly be the official Arlington, VA 22210 position of my employer.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor