In this article, Matt Giwer explains why he has posted so much material that is devoid on content (consisting only of cut'n'paste copies of previous postings). His reasoning is that, since Daniel Keren (firstname.lastname@example.org) has a four-line sig that mentions him, he is entitled to respond with _nothing_ except quoted material and a large, unrelated cut'n'paste job. Over the last four days or so, I've collected over 150K of examples where Giwer has done exactly this, archived at: http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/g/giwer.matt/net-abuse/followups-one-liner http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/g/giwer.matt/net-abuse/followups-empty - Jamie McCarthy (email@example.com), June 21st, 1996 Path: news.voyager.net!aanews.merit.net!news.gmi.edu!news.sojourn.com!news.eecs.umich.edu!newshub.tc.umn.edu!fu-berlin.de!nntp.coast.net!netnews.worldnet.att.net!ix.netcom.com!news From: firstname.lastname@example.org Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: MATT GIWER REPORT for Jun 10-13: 21.1% / 26.1% Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 00:53:40 GMT Organization: images incarnate Lines: 75 Message-ID: <email@example.com> References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl7-04.ix.netcom.com X-NETCOM-Date: Thu Jun 20 7:55:34 PM CDT 1996 X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82 firstname.lastname@example.org (Daniel Keren) wrote: >email@example.com (DvdThomas) writes: ># Ah, statistics! ># ># It might also be interesting to see an analysis of the number ># of incidents of Ken McVay and Dan Keren repeatedly posting the same ># archival quotes, and how many of these produced no thread, not even ># one response. >I never posted dozens of copies of the same article in the same day, >as Giwer did and continues to do. I never replied to numerous >articles on the same day, simply by quoting them and appending >the same article over and over again, dozens of times. I use the articles as sigs. Is that a crime now? Note that most of them are shorter than the mantra you folks delight in using. I further note that messages whose sole content is an attack on me will be responded to with attacks upon the credibilitity of your holocaust. The manner in which I choose to attack is by appending the stories I am using as sigs. Now where were you when the mantra was being repeated a hundred times a day? Where are you now when there are dozens of threads that consist of nothing but attacks upon me? And just what is it that you are objecting to really? Don't tell me. I know. I do not believe as you do. ># Propagandizing of a base sort is done by repeating the same ># material over, and over, and over, and over, until it burns into ># consciousness by default. (Graber made me do it!!) >It is typical of "revisionists" to confuse third-rate "cynicism" >for intelligence. You're no exception. BTW, it's Grabner, not Graber, >which may prove that for small minds all the repetition in the >world is not enough. Someone must be making you do it. To do so on your own would mean you have to believe it is contributing something to the discussion. >-Danny Keren. Now you see, here is an example of an attack. >-- >In Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Matt Giwer >suggested that documents about a "gas chamber" and "gassing cellar" >in the Birkenau crematoriums didn't count, as they were really due >to "a morbid sense of humor" of the SS men who authored the documents. And my response is ======== Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Ooooo, those nasty SS From: email@example.com (Matt Giwer) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 21:53:37 GMT " The SS forced [women] to wash the stairs leading from the seven entrances to the four-story house, with their tongues and lips. After those stairways were wased, the same people were forced to collect garbage in the courtyard with their lips. All garbage had to be transferred to one place in the courtyard. " IMT VII - p.491. See how it goes?
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor