From mstein@access5.digex.net Sat Jun  1 08:25:50 PDT 1996
Article: 74126 of talk.politics.mideast
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.israel,soc.culture.jewish,talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Peres on the Goyim
Date: 30 May 1996 17:28:10 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <4ol3ta$337@access5.digex.net>
References: <31923590.4941081@news.cybercom.net> <319fa8bf.176318946@news.cybercom.net> <31A27926.359A@netvision.net.il> <31a26cc3.1543993@news.cybercom.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.israel:35437 soc.culture.jewish:54432 talk.politics.mideast:74126

In article <31a26cc3.1543993@news.cybercom.net>,
Wayne McGuire  wrote:
>Avi Jacobson  wrote:
>>Well, there is "shelo asani goy" ("Blessed art Thou O Lord our God King 
>>of the Universe, that Thou didst not make me a gentile"), but before you 
>>have a field day with that one, think about "Thank God I'm an American". 
>> Is there a difference?
>
>Avi,
>
>Could you please quote the entire prayer verbatim? I can't locate it. I vaguely
>remember that it used the imagery of light and darkness to describe the
>relationship between Israel and "the nations."
>
>Regarding, "Is there a difference?" There is an immense difference. America is
>not an ethnic group, but a collection of the world's ethnic groups. Americas do
>not have a word to describe "non-Americans,"

    Um, ever hear the word "foreigner?"  (Esp. when pronounced
"furriner.") 


>and they almost never refer to all
>non-Americans in a derogatory fashion as an indiscriminate mass.  Nor
>have Americans constructed a detailed messianic religion based on
>discriminating between "America" and "the non-Americans."

    Well, neither did the Nazis, but they did look down on non-Aryans from
a framework which was not religious though it might arguably be called
messianic.  I think the issue of whether religion is involved is a red
herring. 

    Speaking of which, did you ever get a chance to talk to Arno Mayer?


>It is one thing to think one is a citizen of a wonderful nation. It is another
>thing to berate everyone who is not a member of one's ethnic group. The
>difference is immense. Berating everyone who is not a member of one's ethnic
>group is crude racism, pure and simple.

    So is berating everyone who is a member of a specific ethnic group,
Jose (to steal a line from Pat Buchanan).  And the unfortunate fact is
that if one declares America to be the most wonderful nation on earth,
there is an inescapable logical corollary that all other nations are less
wonderful.  Now, I leave it to you to decide whether there is a difference
between calling someone not as good as you and berating them.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Sat Jun  1 08:43:30 PDT 1996
Article: 40462 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Alternate Introductory Systems
Date: 31 May 1996 15:51:50 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <4onikm$711@access5.digex.net>
References: <317b9ec0.6352405@news.pacificnet.net> <4noih4$8vs@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <4ntdnh$bk <4ntunp$9mt@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4ntunp$9mt@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>100644.317@compuserve.com (Miloslav Bilik) wrote:
>>Whatever everybody could post, you seem a little thick. There is no
>>real discussion.
>
>	When it is testimony rather than evidence and the testimony
>disagrees with other testimony and physical law, it is those who
>think I am thick that have the problem.

    When it is your miserable reading comprehension and reasoning skills
which cause you to hallucinate that there is a disagreement between
testimony and physical law where none in fact exists, it is you that have
the problem with being thick.

    Tell us again how "after a few minutes the screaming stopped" can be
interpreted to mean that the screaming went on for "tens of minutes."

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Sat Jun  1 09:57:21 PDT 1996
Article: 40478 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!bofh.dot!en.com!in-news.erinet.com!newsfeeder.sdsu.edu!chi-news.cic.net!news.cais.net!bofh.dot!world1.bawave.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Another psychic prediction
Date: 31 May 1996 16:12:19 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <4onjr3$7ri@access5.digex.net>
References: <319A6526.7575@rio.com> <4o8mi1$hj6@cnn.cc.biu.ac.il> <4o8t4n$k80@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> <4oe1af$nl0@cnn.cc.biu.ac.il>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4oe1af$nl0@cnn.cc.biu.ac.il>,
Richard Schultz  wrote:
>Prince Myshkin (mgiwer@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: >And when do you plan to post your translation of that Hitler quote?
>
>: 	Which quote are you talking about?
>
>The following quote, which I have posted at least three times, and which 
>is taken from a speech Hitler gave on 15 March 1942.  The passage is
>reprinted on page 80 of _Der Fuehrer Ueber die Juden_, ed. Gerhard
>Brendel (Muenchen:  Zentralverlag der NSDAP, 1943):
>
>	Denn es ist unertraeglich, dass das Leben von Hunderten, [...]

>I await your explanation of the above quotation.

    Although superscientist Giwer may scoff at claims of the paranormal, I
have been struck by another psychic revelation.

    I predict you will be waiting a very, very, very, very, very long
time.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Sun Jun  2 10:20:10 PDT 1996
Article: 40616 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!overload.lbl.gov!marlin.ucsf.edu!news.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!bofh.dot!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: alt.revisionism
Date: 31 May 1996 00:48:38 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <4oltn6$rv5@access1.digex.net>
References: <4o66b7$c7i@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> <4o6fn7$2tk@atlas.uniserve.com> <4o7vig$4il@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article <4o7vig$4il@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>hostrov@uniserve.com (Hilary Ostrov) wrote:
>
>	BTW:  You really should get around to learning a bit more HTML.

    Rather than wasting your time lecturing others on HTML why do you not
learn a bit more English?  Then you would know how to find "scantling" and
"muffle" in a dictionary and would not commit so many tortable paupacies
in your own posts.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Sun Jun  2 10:20:11 PDT 1996
Article: 40637 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!bofh.dot!fury.berkshire.net!news.albany.net!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Who stole Giwer's brain?
Date: 31 May 1996 19:38:41 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <4onvu1$au1@access1.digex.net>
References: <319b2bec.819096@news.pacificnet.net>  <4nqhq7$jrq@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article ,
Mark Van Alstine  wrote:
>Giwer, as can be seen by his purile behavior, tries to extricate himself
>from his lies by accusing others of such deeds! The plain fact is that
>Giwer claimed that the Zyklon production facilities were _destroyed_, yet
>five tons of Zyklon were ordered and delivered- implying that some funny
>business was afoot. Just as plain is that Giwer was patently wrong in
>making such a claim based on what _I_ origionally posted. What I wrote was
>that the Dessau Zyklon plant was bombed and heavily _damaged_ and NOT
>destroyed. Furthermore, I also subsequently posted that the Dessau plant
>was but one of _two_ Zyklon production plants. The other was in Kolin and
>to my knowledge untouched and in full operation.
>
>Given all of this, and Giwer's childish behavior concerning it, it seems
>quite reasonable that Giwer intentionally lied- and continued to lie
>-until cornered. Now that he is cornered he whines: "Can I not simply be
>mistaken?"

    It really doesn't matter.  Even if you allow that he made a mistake,
he drew a completely invalid and unwarranted conclusion from your words -
there is no reason to assume that Dessau was the only Zyklon plant in
existence.  And he has done this sort of thing frequently.  Either he is a
baldfaced liar, or he is a delusional and illiterate idiot who cannot read
and understand what is written, and lacks the critical thinking skills he
claims to possess.  In either case he has no useful contribution to make
to any discussion.

    Posted/emailed.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Sun Jun  2 19:34:31 PDT 1996
Article: 40712 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Giwer caught lying again
Date: 2 Jun 1996 03:05:16 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 131
Message-ID: <4orefc$qak@access1.digex.net>
References: <4o66b7$c7i@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> <4oge40$n3h@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com> <4olua5$sfl@access1.digex.net> <4oni75$1u4@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article <4oni75$1u4@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>
>>In article <4oge40$n3h@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>,
>>Matt Giwer  wrote:
>>>mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>>>>    I posted a factual discussion of the issues in misc.taxes some time
>>>>ago, with a note posted here that I had done so.  The fact that you did
>>>>not choose to read and discuss that issue in the appropriate newsgroup
>>>>shows that you are just a troll who is not interested in facts, only in
>>>>causing arguments.
>>>
>>>	Right.  You could post it there, in a conference my provider
>>>might not even carry, but you were unable to post it here.  
>
>>    Excuse me, good sir, but we both know quite well that Netcom is one of
>>the largest ISPs in the country and carries a full newsfeed.  
>
>	That claim is no place on its website.  Where did you read it?  

    Telnet to netcom.com, login as guest with no password, read the
section on newsfeeds.

    Of course, it doesn't take a 163 IQ to realize that Mr. Giwer could
simply have tried to look at the group himself through his own newsreader.
Instead he desperately tries to deceive people into thinking I _might_ be
wrong and he _might_ not have access to the group.  Of course, he cannot
come out and say so directly, because there are too many other Netcom
subscribers who will know he is a liar if he does.



>Furthermore
>>if there is any real question of "might not carry," misc.taxes is far
>>likelier to be carried even by a small provider than anything in the alt
>>hierarchy.  So this "might not carry" nonsense is nothing but more
>>juvenile game playing by a dishonest troll with no real interest in facts,
>>only in argument.
>
>	So without knowledge of it being carried.

    Anyone can log in to Netcom as user 'guest' and see what I saw.  If
Netcom is lying that is not my fault.

    But I know they are not lying about misc.taxes.  Because anyone can
also scan DejaNews and see misc.taxes articles posted _from_ Netcom, as I
saw when I posted the article in that newsgroup.  That is another reason I
could know that Netcom carries the group, and how even a non-Netcom
subscriber can know that Mr. Giwer is being a deliberately deceitful
troll.  Too bad a mere 163 IQ type was not able to figure this out.

    But then, I must observe once again that Mr. Giwer has not tried to
come out and claim outright that misc.taxes is _not_ carried on his ISP.

    This is actually very good.  I am actually pleased to see there are
some lies Mr. Giwer is not willing to tell.  He is, however, dishonest
enough to try to deceive people as long as he can have "plausible
deniability."  Unfortunately he tripped up below:


>You posted it in that
>conference without notification of posting it in that conference

    This, after I wrote the text above:

>>>>    I posted a factual discussion of the issues in misc.taxes some time
>>>>ago, with a note posted here that I had done so.


    For confirmation that I am telling the truth about posting a pointer
to the other article, see DejaNews URL

http://xp4.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?recnum=4297570&server=dnserver.dbapr
          
The URL of the misc.taxes article itself is

http://xp4.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?recnum=4295424&server=dnserver.dbapr


>and then make reference to it long after the fact when it would
>have scrolled off anyway.  

    How many lies will the Giwer-troll try to tell in one post?

    See the posts pointed to by the two URLs were made the same day.  See
that the Giwer-troll is a baldfaced liar.


>	But rather than indulge in this diversion, why not post it here?
>Or is Nizkor off topic?

    It is the Giwer-troll who is engaging in diversion and deception.

    It was posted.  It can be found on DejaNews as proved by the URL I
gave.  A notification that it was posted in misc.taxes was posted to this
group on the same day, again proved by the other URL I gave.  The dates
can be compared, and anyone can see that the Giwer-troll is simply lying
through his teeth when he says that I did not provide notification until
after it would have scrolled off.


    I am invoking the Giwer Rule.  The Giwer rule is that when asked for a
repost the proper response is:

    "Read everything which is posted.  If you are having trouble with your
newsfeed, get a new provider." 

    After all, the Giwer-troll has said that he does not follow rules
which apply to only one person.  And I would not want to make a liar out
of him.  Besides, he is doing such a good job of that himself.

    (Actually, if I were following the Giwer Rule to the letter, I would
not provide the DejaNews URLs I have given above.  The Giwer-troll never
does.)

    I observe that Gordon McFee, the person accused by Inspector Gadget as
being both Marduk the article forger and the nose-honking criminal
telephone harrasser, remains at large over a month since the Giwer-troll
publicly named him.  The Giwer-troll was lying about that too.

    I also observe that the Giwer-troll still has not accepted my wager
that I could prove his Israeli mailbombing could have been done without
password cracking by anyone with full Internet access.  This is despite
the fact that he said he was confident in his conclusion that I was making
it up.  Looks like Giwer was the one making things up about his
confidence in his own words.  Another lie, in other words.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Mon Jun  3 08:18:16 PDT 1996
Article: 40757 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The shy, retiring Giwer-troll
Date: 2 Jun 1996 00:53:26 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <4or6o6$nov@access1.digex.net>
References: <4nj9gr$bm6@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com> <24MAY199600265929@cmi.arizona.edu> <4o8jvp$2frq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4o8v5e$i7d@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article <4o8v5e$i7d@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>gmcfee@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:
>>If Mr. Giwer-troll is so insulted, perhaps he would like to sue Mr. Mazal?
>
>	Hey, McFly, is anyone in there?  I am waiting for the service of
>your lawsuit.

    Hey, Keystone Cop, is anyone in there?  I am waiting for Mr. McFee to
be arrested for your telephone harrassment.  You did use the words
"criminal conspiracy" in connection with Mr. McFee and idirect.com.  You
claimed you had information from Mr. McGregor.

    You wouldn't have been _lying_, would you?
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Mon Jun  3 08:18:17 PDT 1996
Article: 40800 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!bofh.dot!en.com!in-news.erinet.com!bug.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!hustle.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!samba.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!olivea!hookup!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!bofh.dot!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.revisionism,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: 960523:The basic principle [of Holocaust denial] is, you don't have to prove anything.
Date: 3 Jun 1996 04:23:05 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 520
Message-ID: <4ou7d9$gje@access1.digex.net>
References: <199605039728.ABC87127@infinity.c2.org>  <4mgedg$6vk@d31rz0.Stanford.EDU> <19960523921.AAB79102@infinity.c2.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:1319 alt.revisionism:40800 sci.skeptic:129292

In article <19960523921.AAB79102@infinity.c2.org>,
E. Zundel Repost  wrote:
>The Zundelgrams are posted to alt.fan.ernst-zundel and alt.revisionism
>daily, unedited. The opinions expressed do not necessarily represent the
>views of the poster, who is not the author. Please follow up with your
>opinions. Ingrid makes reference to the thread "960502: It is amazing that
>the world has not yet been informed of this," which began with her article
><199605039728.ABC87127@infinity.c2.org>. Jamie's response is article
>, saved at
>http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/r/rimland.ingrid/science.01
>Rich Green, a PhD candidate in Chemistry at Stanford University, has a
>number of scientific articles on this subject saved at
>http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/g/green.richard.j
>See X-Headers for other relevant URLs. 
>
>May 23, 1996
>
>Good Morning from the Zundelsite:
>
>I haven't been as diligent in doing the Nizkor Rebuttal items as I had
>hoped to be-the problem being that I don't have a library at my command to
>pull the necessary documents, and Ernst is so involved with "Zundelgate" I
>brace myself each time I try to nail him down and ask him to fax me some
>stuff.
>
>I have only finished 8 out of 66 Question & Answers, and I am sure the
>Nizkor people are "maxing" their hay out of that.  (I wouldn't know;  we
>are no longer speaking;  each party is proceeding independently. . . )

    Ms. Rimland, the Nizkor website is open for your inspection even if you 
are not in communication with Mr. McCarthy.  Why not look at it to check 
your facts and see if there is anything you would call "making hay" before 
you make unfounded speculations and accusations?  There certainly has been 
no loud crowing in alt.revisionism.


>But readers write to me and give me helpful tips on what is happening so
>far in Nizkor's favorite forum - the news groups such as alt.revisionism
>where you can go to wallow in the mud.
>
>The one that caused the greatest mirth is Jamie McCarthy's theory of
>self-combustion once bodies have been set on fire  Wrote one, an
>engineering student:  "Maybe he has now solved the world's energy crisis. .

    Ms. Rimland, paper self-combusts once it is ignited.  All this means
is that it requires an initial application of energy to bring the object
to ignition temperature, but once ignited, it produces enough energy to
sustain the reaction.  Perhaps a better term would be "self-sustaining
burn."  You cannot simply laugh this off.  Since it works for paper, you
actually have to prove or disprove this for a body.  Unless your
engineering student thinks that paper will solve the world's energy
crisis.... 


>Another wrote, in reference to the same reply:
>
>"The reply to Nizkor's breathless and hysterical blurb is tedious but
>fairly straightforward. The "science" part is relatively easy. It's really
>the "style" part that counts.
>
>McCarthy seems to have a platoon of jokers on hand 

    I thought you didn't go in for name-calling, Ms. Rimland.


>with oodles of time to
>throw thousands of balls up into the air at you, and then wants you to go
>pick them all up and throw them back at him.  Such unproductive travail has
>to be avoided. Inasmuch as possible, avoid his agenda and provide a
>"global" response.

    In other words, don't address the scientific arguments?  Laugh and
handwave?  Odd, that's what we "exterminationists" have been accused of
doing.


>I offer the following suggested approach.
>
>First of all, the basic principle is, you don't have to prove anything.

    Not true.  Whoever makes a claim bears the burden of proof. 


>It's McCarthy that has back up his assertions and theories, not you.

    That is quite wrong and quite intellectually dishonest.  _All_ 
assertions and theories must be backed up by facts and logic, no matter 
where they come from.


>And as usual, Nizkor is strong in heat department, but provides very little
>light.

    Well, let's see if I can't shed a little light on the subject of
cremation.


>For instance, he attacks the assertion by the young engineering graduate
>that it takes 300 kg to cremate a corpse.

    Well, where does that young engineering graduate get his data from? 
Has he cremated a corpse?  If he has no acceptable source of data, his
assertion is worthless and mentioning that he is an engineering graduate
is a fallacious appeal to authority.  He is not exempt from providing a 
checkable source for his assertion unless he claims he has performed the 
experiment personally.


>Wrong, says McCarthy, once a fire is started, a corpse self-combusts.
>
>What does that mean? That zero fuel is required to cremate further corpses?
>That only 300 kg of coal was required to cremate 6 million, or whatever
>the number? Spontaneous combustion?  If cadavers burst into fire on their
>own, why do commercial crematories waste time and money doing cremations
>differently?

    Ms. Rimland, either you do not understand the issues, or you are being
disingenuous.  The same is true of your anonymous young engineering
graduate.  Paper does not burst into flame on its own, but it burns
without further heating once it is ignited.  That is all that Jamie is
claiming for corpses.  Note that you (correctly) have Jamie saying "once
the fire is started" - which ought to tell any intelligent and literate
speaker of English that the crack about cadavers bursting into flame on
their own is at best the work of an illiterate and at worst the work of
someone deliberately trying to mislead people.

    There is a difference between the first corpse and the next corpse.
It is not only the body which must be heated; the oven itself must be 
brought up to operating temperature - it has mass and the laws of 
thermodynamics say that it too will draw off some of the heat energy rather 
than permitting it all to be directed into the body.  While 300kg of coke 
may be required to heat a cold crematory oven to the ignition temperature of 
a body, the oven is designed to retain heat and so it does not require an 
additional 300kg to burn the next body if the oven is not cooled down 
between cremations.  Additional fuel is required only to make up for heat 
loss.  So it will take far less than 300kg to burn the second body if the 
oven is not cooled down.

    I know, Lagace says that the ovens must be cooled down.  But he is not a 
designer of ovens, only a user.  As will be shown below, there is now
expert evidence on the table challenging Lagace's assertion.  And the 
experts had no idea they were supporting any Holocaust "religion" when they 
gave their accounts - they were just talking to a newspaper reporter about 
cremation in general.


>By McCarthy's own assertion, he and his people at Nizkor "have no
>credibility to lose". They have no expertise in anything.

    Neither do you.  And there are some people who have contributed 
information who _do_ have some credentials.  E.g., Richard Green in 
chemistry (a doctoral student), and Scott Mullins in engineering. 


>Well, it shows.
>
>A thousand ignorances assembled together do not make for one knowledge.  We
>see nothing to be gained from unknowledgeable people chewing the cud, for
>months on end, over a topic on which they know little or nothing - in this
>case, the technology of the cremation of human remains - when such
>knowledge is readily available from experts.
>
>(Here I would refer to the testimony of Ivan Lagace on 5 and 6 April 1988
>at the Zundel trial. This testimony can be picked up at the Zundelsite -
>see Barbara Kulaszka's book.  I would summarize the salient points from
>Lagace's testimony, in "bullet" form, and invite people to pick up the
>document for themselves for the detail).
>
>If Nizkor doesn't like Zuendel's expert, then let them get their own. But
>then they can't, can they, because if they did, they couldn't boast that
>they're beating the pants off Zundel-even though "they have no expertise"?

    An interesting double-bind.  But the point was never to boast.  That is 
an empty personal slur, not an argument.


>Besides, would any expert consent to give contradictory evidence, if he had
>any concern or pride as to his future standing as an expert in his field?
>The crematory oven has to be cooled off after each cremation. What else is
>there to say? No fuel - no cooling off period in between jobs - no
>cremation.

    Sorry, but there is much more to say.  Since you cannot be bothered to 
wallow in the mud (as you put it), you never saw the following article I 
posted.  It was taken from something which appeared in my local free weekly 
paper.  It was about cremation, not the Holocaust, and the experts in it 
were not (as far as they knew) engaged in defending any Holocaust "myths."  
Yet they do indeed contradict all of your alleged experts.  I have made some 
enhancements in the footnotes (which are all mine) since I first posted the 
excerpts.




     Richard Rapp stands alongside a waist-high gurney and examines its 
cargo: a human body zipped snugly into a white plastic bag and lying on a 
thin slab of plywood.  The gurney stands next to a 3-foot-square stainless 
steel door.  The door is set in the wall of an otherwise empty classroom-
size room.  The room is painted yellow and bathed in fluorescent light.

     Rapp unzips the bag several inches an looks at the body.  It is a 
wizened, old white man.  Rapp rezips the bag.  Then he turns to his nephew, 
Robert Rapp, who wears a white lab coat and heavy-duty suede gloves that 
come halfway up his forearms.

     "Is the paperwork done?" Rapp asks.

     "Yeah," Robert responds.

     "OK, then."

     Rapp steps around the gurney and punches a button on the control panel 
by the door.  The steel hatch rises at the head of the gurney.  There is a 
quiet roar, and a wave of heat washes over the Rapps and their charge.  The 
open door reveals a deep, narrow hearth that glows bright orange through the 
heat-smeared air.

     "Ready?" Rapp asks his nephew.

     Robert nods, places his hand on the edge of the plywood at the foot of 
the body, and shoves.  The sheet of wood carries its load off the gurney and 
into the chamber.  Rapp shuts the door with another punch of a button.  He 
glances at the gauges beside the door and walks away.  Robert wheels the 
gurney toward a door leading to the back room, where yet another corpse 
awaits its final disposition.

     So begins another burn-to-urn cycle in the sacred commerce conducted by 
Chesapeake Crematory Inc. (CCI) of Beltsville, one of the Washington area's 
largest cremation facilities.  Here, in a dreary landscape of warehouses and 
distributorships, Rapp and his nephew performed some 900 cremations in 1995.  
This year they will do even more.  On this bright, bitter-cold February day 
alone, CCI incinerated five bodies.[1]

[...]

     The centerpiece of any crematory is, of course, the cremation oven, or 
"retort."  CCI's retort is a Phoenix II, the 17-ton state-of-the-art product 
>from  B&L Cremation Systems Inc. of Clearwater, Fla., one of a half-dozen 
U.S. crematory oven manufacturers.  The Phoenix II runs about $85,000.

     The retort's primary chamber, currently occupied by Mr. James' body, is 
96 inches long, 38 inches wide, and 29 inches high.  That is more than ample 
to accommodate a very large person and casket.  The chamber's walls and 
ceiling are lined with heat-reflecting ceramic tiles.  The floor, or hearth, 
is constructed from alumina silica that can withstand temperatures up to 
3,500 degrees Fahrenheit.  Embedded in the ceiling, right above where the 
average corpse's chest comes to rest, is a giant blowtorch nozzle.  It is 
known in the trade as the "flame port."

     As he once again checks the gauges on the retort, Rapp observes that
this third cremation of the day is far different from the first.  Human
flesh requires extended exposure to 1,400 degrees Fahrenheit in order to
ignite.[2]  For the first cremation of the day, when the retort is just
warming up, Rapp needs to use the flame port.  It blasts the body with a
2,800 -degree gush of fire. 

     But by the time Mr. James' body enters the retort, the air in the 
primary chamber is roiling well above 1,400 degrees.  Shortly after the door 
comes down, his body is aflame.[3]

     Here is how it happens: The human body, which is 85 percent water, 
burns outside to inside in a rapid cycle of layer-by-layer dehydration and 
ignition.  The heat dries out the skin; the dry skin ignites.  That fire 
dries out the next layer of muscle and fat, which then ignites.  And so on, 
until the internal organs are consumed.

     According to B&L President Steve Looker, who designed the Phoenix II,
the average body gives off a modest 1,000 Btu per pound of meat (burning
wood, by comparison, gives off 6,000 Btu).[4] But an extremely obese
corpse - like the one Rapp recently had to burn in its casket because it
was wedged in so tightly - can run to 17,000 Btu.  "That's like burning
kerosene,"  says Looker.  The Phoenix II takes these differences into
account and carefully regulates the amount of oxygen entering the retort
to ensure a controlled, efficient burn.

[...]

     The Romans also practiced cremation.  But as with the Greeks, only 
members of the wealthier classes could afford a private cremation.  Indeed, 
calling a fellow Roman's ancestors "half-burned" was a grievous insult that 
implied that those forebears had been cremated on one of the public mass 
pyres used to dispose of the poor.[5]

[...]

     Ninety minutes into the burn cycle, Rapp checks on the corpse's 
progress.  He raises the retort's door about 10 inches and peers into the 
hearth.  It looks like a giant fireplace at the end of a cozy night.  There 
are no flames, but the chamber bed glows orange.  Small chunks of whitish-
gray debris lie in the oven.  A particularly large clump sits about halfway 
back, just about where the hip was.  Rapp closes the door and heads into the 
storeroom to take care of a couple of things while the retort finishes the 
job.  (According to Looker, much of the burn time is devoted to breaking 
down and whitening the bones, because "people expect nice white 
remains.")[6] 

[...]

     In 1983, Rapp hung out his shingle at 18th and T Streets NW.  Five
years later, he moved the operation to Silver Spring as he could operate
his own crematory.  But shortly after he opened the new location, a
neighbor began an aggressive campaign to shut him down.  In his drumbeat
of complaints to Montgomery County officials, the man claimed that Rapp's
oven was emitting nauseating smells and billows of black smoke.  County
inspectors found no evidence to support these allegations.[7] In fact, the
crematory was never cited for any sort of operating violation. 
Nevertheless, after spending $100,000 on legal fees without resolving the
feud, Rapp agreed in 1994 to relocate the crematory.

     The bitterness still lingers in Rapp.  Despite his personal feelings 
about the importance of openness, he says he understands why many 
crematories prefer a low profile.  And when the topic of complaints about 
"the smell" come up, an uncharacteristic harshness creeps into his voice.  
Such smells, he says, are in people's minds, not in their noses.  "This is 
1996, not the turn of the century," he says, almost sneeringly.  "With 
today's technology, there really isn't much odor."[8] [...]

     When the burn cycle is complete, Rapp switches off the retort, walks 
through the storeroom, and turns into the area that houses the back end of 
the retort.  His nephew stands ready with a long-handled tool that looks 
like a metal squeegee.  At Rapp's signal, Robert opens the back door of the 
retort and vigorously rakes the silvery debris into a chute that leads down 
to a stainless steel bin.  The material makes a chinking sound as it moves - 
like embers being stirred in a fireplace.  After two hours, this is what 
is left of a human body: five to seven pounds of remains, depending on bone 
structure. 

[...]

     Rapp points out several clearly identifiable bones among the cooling 
chips and chunks.  A piece of hip.  An 8-inch strip - probably a radius or 
ulna.  A ball that once fit a hip or shoulder.  In fact, the entire skeleton 
is there.  Bones are largely calcium, which burns only after lengthy 
exposure to temperatures much higher than those in the Phoenix II.[9]

[...]

     You can't give mourners bone fragments, so Robert hoists the bin and 
gently pours its contents into the pulverizer.  The pulverizer resembles a 
small, battered lift-top freezer.  A metal-screen drum slightly larger than 
a paint can sits inside.  Robert lowers the lid and hits a switch.  The 
pulverizer will reduce the chunky remains into a pile of matter with the 
look and consistency of ground oyster shells.

     "We've got another [pulverizer] that will take the [remains] down to 
something with the texture of sand, if that's what people want," says Rapp.

     It is a remarkably efficient system: a 200-pound body reduced to an 
easily handled heap of base elements in just over two hours.[10] [...]



     Source: "Keeper of the Flame," _Washington City Paper_, Vol. 16 No. 11, 
March 15-21 1996, pp. 20-24.

Notes:

[1]Obviously they never heard that they could only do three or four or else 
they'd damage their oven.  After all, Lagace _is_ an expert.

[2]The article does not specify the scale; since it is for an American 
audience I presume the 1,400 degrees refers to Fahrenheit.  Mattogno claims 
that older ovens worked at only 800 degrees C, yet they seemed to do the 
job - but then, that would translate to about 1,400 Fahrenheit.

[3]Note that the writer actually contradicts himself here - in the paragraph 
before, he said that "extended exposure" was required.  Yet in the very next 
paragraph, he says that the body is aflame shortly after the door comes 
down.  But the more important point is that the article firmly establishes 
that the first cremation is different - that the flame port is used for the 
first one, but it does not have to be used for the third one because the 
oven is up to temperature.  For those who missed it, this means that the 
oven was NOT cooled down (contradicting Lagace).

[4]1,000 BTU per pound is modest, and I know that a newspaper article is 
not a technical journal, but I read this as saying that the burn _is_ self-
sustaining provided that the body is kept in an insulated environment.  Once 
the burn is activated, there is a net energy gain from each pound of flesh, 
even lean flesh.  Please ask your engineering student to stop laughing and 
start providing some rebuttal data. 

[5]Contradicting the revisionist assertion that bodies could not have been 
burned on mass pyres at Birkenau because such things could not have had 
enough oxygen.

[6]I contacted Mr. Looker by phone.  I asked him what the maximum
throughput would be if the only concern were burning as fast as possible -
say, in case of plague.  He said one average adult body per hour.  The
rating is really in terms of mass - he said ovens vary from about 100 to
200 lbs per hour.  (His model is top-of-the-line, but of course you'd
expect him to say that.) He agreed it would be quite possible to burn two
undersized and emaciated women or 3-4 small children in the same period of
time.  Without any prompting from me, he mentioned in passing that older
crematoria were quite capable of shooting out flames if overloaded, a
phenomenon he called a "candle."  True, he did not say thirty feet; his
figure was "only" eight to ten feet.  His own product is designed to avoid
this.  Even so, he allowed that if he actively tried for it, there is a
decent chance he could produce the effect as well.  This contradicts the 
revisionist "expert" claim that flames cannot shoot out of crematorium 
chimneys.

[7]Were I a "scholar" in the mold of Mark Weber or Greg Raven, I would of 
course silently snip out this sentence.

[8]In this statement I see an implication that earlier technology might 
indeed give off smoke and odor.

[9]This was news to Matt Giwer.

[10]But see note [6] above.




>As to alleged "internal contradictions".
>
>Revisionists do not claim to speak with one voice and never have.  That's
>why the CODOH website exists: to encourage open debate on the holocaust.
>Each Revisionist speaks for himself, in his own quest for historical truth.
>
>Revisionists may, therefore, freely express conflicting opinions and many
>do so: without dissent and debate, there is obviously no issue.
>
>But contrary to where Nizkor comes from, there is no pain associated with
>Revisionist debate: Revisionism has no central authority, no "Politburo" to
>decree what is undeniable truth and what is heinous "denial", and to hurl
>thunderbolts from on high at the offending party.

    Please identify this "Politburo," Ms. Rimland.  Name names.  I have not 
encountered it.  I have a fairly simple definition of heinous denial which 
clearly establishes the difference between it and legitimate revisionism.  
It is simply this: denial uses selective reading of evidence, rejects all 
inconvenient eyewitness testimony and documents as being lies and forgeries 
while embracing any convenient testimony (does Ernst still sell the 
Lachout Document video?), and uses selective quotation and distortion of 
evidence in its arguments.  Legitimate revisionism follows intellectually 
honest methods of inquiry. 


>As in so many other fields of human endeavor, historical truth is really
>arrived at through debate over opposing views by knowledgeable individuals,
>periodic revision of the historical record, and new discoveries.  In
>attempting to follow such a process, Revisionism has seen no evidence that
>would lead it to revise its main conclusions respecting the official thesis
>of Exterminationism.

    What is missing from this description is that the debate must be 
conducted using consistent and intellectually honest rules of evidence and 
standards of proof.  In my experience that has been missing from what you 
call "Revisionism."  Greg Raven has evaded all attempts to pin him down on 
standard of proof.  Raven and Mark Weber have made arguments based on 
deceptive quotes out of context.  So has Friedrich Berg - he ignored some 
very inconvenient sections of the same technical papers he used as his 
sources.  Robert Faurisson gave a very dishonest picture of the nature of 
the ballpoint pen markings in the diary of Anne Frank.  Fred Leuchter out-
and-out lied about his qualifications, and made up ludicrous and fanciful 
explanations of documents such as the nature of the gas testers.  
(Apparently he did not see the letter on Topf stationery, with signatures 
and enough stamps to send an elephant by airmail, which expressly mentioned 
_cyanide_ detectors for the Kremas, where Leuchter declared cyanide was too 
dangerous to use due to the risk of explosion.)  The Lachout Document was 
offered as evidence without being subjected to the same standard of 
scrutiny and forensic testing demanded by "revisionists" for any document 
supporting the orthodox history of the Holocaust.  And so on. 

    Inconvenient documents are simply read out of the record with a naked 
assertion of "Soviet forgery!"  No forensic testing is offered, even for 
documents which bear signatures (such as the letter from Bischoff to 
Kammler, file copy signed by Pollock, mentioning a "Vergasungskeller.").


>Revisionism's conclusions are: (a) that gassings in specifically designed,
>homicidal mass gassing chambers didn't happen - the "gas ovens" are a
>propaganda tool;  (b) that there never was a Hitler order that called for a
>genocide of the Jews, and (c) that the numbers of Jewish victims are
>irresponsibly inflated to boost the reparations claims and to gain moral
>and political advantage globally. (This is from one of EZ's letters to
>McCarthy).

    However, it seems to come from a selective reading of the evidence.


>(By contrast) the Pope of the holocaust dogma, Raul Hilberg, ran away to
>revise his book, rather than to come forth and bear witness to his
>assertions at the 1988 Z|ndel trial. This does not augur well for the
>extermination cult. Anyone who reads the record of that trial will
>understand why.
>
>The revisionist position is not carved in stone as religious dogma,
>contrary to that of the exterminationists.  Revisionists have always been
>open to credible proofs in support of other scenarios.

    This I dispute, at least with respect to specific individuals I have 
encountered.  When cogent rebuttal arguments and evidence have been offered, 
they did not respond, yet later repeated the same challenged arguments 
without offering any counter-rebuttal.  This is not intellectually honest, 
and it also does not seem consistent with the assertion made above.


>Fifty years after the alleged event, we are still awaiting such proofs. . ."

    One thing I have often encountered in "Revisionist" argumentation is 
that it applies the standards of a courtroom to the Holocaust, and argues 
like a defense lawyer, not a historian.  My response is this: what standard 
of proof is required, and do you require that same standard for other 
historical events, such as Stalin's crimes? 


>I couldn't have said it better myself!

    I would be most interested in your answer to the previous question,
Ms.  Rimland, especially considering your recent Zundelgram about Russian
atrocities against Germans. 

    Posted/emailed.

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Mon Jun  3 08:18:19 PDT 1996
Article: 40810 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!news.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Giwer: Proof is for everyone else
Date: 2 Jun 1996 01:34:03 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 71
Message-ID: <4or94b$oks@access1.digex.net>
References:  <4ntm4i$b9m@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <4o2662$oh4@access5.digex.net> <4o301c$pfl@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article <4o301c$pfl@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>>    No, the Gentile Rule is only invoked when reasonable attempts to
>>verify a claim fail.  Matt Giwer said that Al Gentile was a Righteous
>>Gentile.  
>
>	The Gentile Rule was originally invoked with a demand for
>evidence that he 1) existed, 2) did what he said and then only
>later for 3) that he was NAMED a righteous gentile.  3) only came
>after I repeated what was related to me by Alec Grynspan who has
>confirmed that is what HE TOLD ME.

    But you did not verify it.  You simply repeated the claim of someone
else.

    I guess you too are a holohugger.


>Attempts were made to verify that claim by checking sources
>>which, if the claim were true, should have been able to confirm it.  The
>>attempts to verify failed.  Thus the whole claim becomes suspect.  At that
>>point is is perfectly reasonable to go back to the original claimant (Matt
>>Giwer) and request more information.
>
>	Lets me see if I have the rules straight here.  If one part of
>what I say fails to be verified then the entire claim becomes
>suspect.  But if an eyewitness to the holocaust recites something
>that is not physically possible then his entire story remains
>true and the laws of nature are bent to accomodate his speaking
>the truth.

    That has always been your fantasy.  And of course your reading
comprehension has often failed you into claiming that something was said
which is not physically possible, when in fact no such thing had been
said.  And of course your knowledge has also failed you frequently.



>	Do I have it correct? or would you like to modify it in some
>manner?  Or do such rules only apply to me?
>
>>    Also, since Matt Giwer is a known liar, his unverified statements are
>>treated with more skepticism. 
>
>	Now that most, but not all, have stopped invoking the Gentile
>Rule for the above three items, it would appear your claim of my
>lying is becoming weaker every moment.

    Nice try at trying to get people to misread my statement.  You lied
about the history of the United Nations discussion.  You lied about the
history of the "bones burn" discussion.  You lied about having information
>from  Colin McGregor that Gordon McFee was Marduk.  You lied about Gordon
McFee being the one who made crank phone calls to you.  You lied about
Gordon McFee responding "Internet Direct" in a post where you wrote
"Internet Indirect" - he always used the same name you did.  You lied
about someone changing the post - DejaNews has the exchange archived.  You
lied about being confident that I was making up my explanation about your
mailbombing - or are you going to accept my wager, gutless wonder?  You
lied about not following rules that apply only to you - as you well know,
you insist that everyone else should repost things that you missed, but
you have a special rule for yourself and yourself alone that you have no
obligation to provide proof of your own claims. 

    The evidence that you are a liar grows stronger with every word you
write.

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Mon Jun  3 08:18:20 PDT 1996
Article: 40820 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!bofh.dot!en.com!in-news.erinet.com!newsfeeder.sdsu.edu!news.iag.net!news.math.psu.edu!chi-news.cic.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The shy, retiring Giwer-troll
Date: 2 Jun 1996 01:10:08 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <4or7ng$o8m@access1.digex.net>
References: <4nj9gr$bm6@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com> <4nqvfq$1k3@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> <4o05ao$mc9@access5.digex.net> <4o0fb5$llf@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article <4o0fb5$llf@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>>    I am quite curious to know why one must be Jewish to recognize that
>>there are many possible reasons for early retirement which reflect no
>>credit upon the retiree (such as the example I gave).  For this reason I
>>find the simple fact of early retirement not particularly noteworthy. 
>>Your mileage may vary, of course.
>
>	You suggested a particularly defamatory reason.  You really must
>be very Jewish to do such a thing.

    To use a very common literary device of using an especially striking
example?  You must be very poorly-read to think that only Jews do that.

    Do you really feel that someone who was lucky enough to have an
inheritance from a rich uncle deserves any special admiration for being
able to retire early?  How about someone who collected a life insurance
benefit on a family member?  If not, then you must agree that you have not
given sufficient information to enable anyone to know if they should
really be impressed by your claim of early retirement.

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Mon Jun  3 08:18:21 PDT 1996
Article: 40823 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!bofh.dot!en.com!in-news.erinet.com!newsfeeder.sdsu.edu!news.iag.net!news.math.psu.edu!chi-news.cic.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Giwer:  Proof is for everyone else
Date: 2 Jun 1996 01:43:51 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <4or9mn$orh@access1.digex.net>
References:  <4ntm4i$b9m@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <24MAY199606372220@cmi.arizona.edu> <4o51j5$7kb@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article <4o51j5$7kb@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>dmittleman@cmi.arizona.edu (Danny) wrote:
>
>>In article <4ntm4i$b9m@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, 
>>mgiwer@ix.netcom.com (Matt Giwer) writes...
>>> 
>>>	Prove there was any work done in the first place.  This is the
>>>Gentile Rule in action.
>
>>    I am certain you insisted just last week that you scientists knew it
>>    was impossible to prove anything.  And that asking for proof was one
>>    way you detected who knew science from who didn't, you alter kocker.
>
>	When you folks knock off the one sided application of the Gentile
>Rule you will have achieved a level of intellectual honesty you
>should have started with.

    When you knock off the one-sided application of the Giwer rule, then
you will have the right to talk about intellectual honesty.  (The Giwer
rule is this: anything Matt Giwer claims not to have seen must be reposted
or the person mentioning it is called a liar.  But anything anyone else
claims not to have seen, even if it cannot be found on DejaNews, elicits
the response to read everything that is posted and change providers if
there is a newsfeed problem.  Anything Matt Giwer wants proof of must be
supported except that books are rejected as appeals to authority. 
Anything Matt Giwer wants to claim need not be supported by anything
except Matt Giwer's big mouth and BS in physics, which magically becomes
not an appeal to authority.)

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Mon Jun  3 14:54:07 PDT 1996
Article: 40894 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!bofh.dot!en.com!in-news.erinet.com!bug.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!genmagic!sgigate.sgi.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: 960530: Revisionism, measles, and expirements
Date: 3 Jun 1996 03:49:04 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <4ou5dg$eqo@access1.digex.net>
References: <199605309218.AAA9823@infinity.c2.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:1324 alt.revisionism:40894

In article <199605309218.AAA9823@infinity.c2.org>,
E. Zundel Repost  wrote:
>The Zundelgrams are posted to alt.fan.ernst-zundel and alt.revisionism
>daily, unedited. The opinions expressed do not necessarily represent the
>views of the poster, who is not the author.
>
>May 30, 1996
>
>Good Morning from the Zundelsite:
>
>Here is another sensational development.  Revisionism continues to catch
>people as though it were an outbreak of the measles - the latest being some
>truly high caliber people in England.
>
>Imagine this headline, written by Bernard Josephs, {Jewish} followed by
>excerpted text quoting Sir Leon Brittan {Jewish} and Michael Howard
>{Jewish}  in the Jewish Chronicle, May 10, page 9:
>
>"Brittan opposes Euro-law against Holocaust denial.
>
>European commissioner Sir Leon Brittan has lined up with the British
>government in opposing moves to make Holocaust denial a criminal offense
>throughout Europe.
>
>Addressing an audience of Jewish communal leaders, european diplomats and
>MPs in London last week, Mr. Brittan warned that such legislation would
>endanger freedom of expression.
>
>"If we have a law to stop people saying things, even though they are
>palpably untrue, then God help us," he said. . .
>
>"It is one thing to incite hatred and another to express views, however
>disagreeable, on historical events."

    I fail to see how this can be characterized as revisionism catching
people like measles....

[snip]


>Pick 100 of the brightest, most articulate people from all nationalities,
>their only criteria being that they have a public record of respect for
>science and reason, put them in a glass bubble for two weeks, and give them
>our finest writings with all access possible to double-check the facts-and
>let them do nothing but read.
>
>And then take a poll and see how many of them would come out as
>Revisionists.  I'd take my chance.  Would you?

     In a heartbeat.  What would you consider your finest writings?

     Posted/emailed.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Mon Jun  3 14:54:10 PDT 1996
Article: 40898 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!bofh.dot!en.com!in-news.erinet.com!izzy.net!aanews.merit.net!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.usenet.kooks,alt.bonehead.matt-giwer
Subject: Re: My Complaint About Matt Giwer
Date: 3 Jun 1996 04:18:16 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <4ou748$fhs@access1.digex.net>
References: <4om9fu$a8e@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com> <4on3tu$6g7@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4oni72$1u4@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:40898 alt.usenet.kooks:24649 alt.bonehead.matt-giwer:20

In article <4oni72$1u4@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606) wrote:
>
>>In article <4om9fu$a8e@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>, mgiwer@ix.netcom.com (Matt
>>Giwer) writes:
>
>>>	If you want more on semantics itself, look for the works of S.I.
>>>Hiyakawa, perhaps the best introductory works around.  Later you
>>>can try Science and Sanity by Alfred Korzybski if you are up to
>>>it.  
>
>>These are excellent books.
>
>	I don't think these people would know what to do with them.  They
>do not appear to realize that words mean things.  

    And just think, this comment comes from the man who claimed that a 
testimony that said, "after a few minutes there was silence" really meant
that the screaming went on for "tens of minutes."

    I think Mr. Giwer does know that words mean things; he just has some
very strange ideas about what the words _do_ mean.  When they are words at
all, of course - not even my Oxford English Dictionary contains the word
"paupacy." 

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Mon Jun  3 19:04:07 PDT 1996
Article: 40900 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.wildstar.net!news.sdsmt.edu!nntp.uac.net!cancer.vividnet.com!hunter.premier.net!bofh.dot!news.uoregon.edu!news-feed.iguide.com!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: What is trolling?
Date: 2 Jun 1996 16:16:11 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <4ossqb$ldi@access1.digex.net>
References: <31ada2d8.842604@news.pacificnet.net> <4omf59$53p@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <1JUN199615011447@cmi.arizona.edu> <4orclp$jsf@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article <4orclp$jsf@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>	If you do not mind my pointing it out ...
>
>	There can be no trolling if there are not brainless fish.
>
>	If I am a troller then holohuggers are fish.  
>
>	You can not have one without the other.

    It is truly amazing how much concentrated error can reside in one
person.  A brainless troller can drop his line in a bathtub.  Smart fish
can say, "Look!  Some dumb troller is dropping an obvious piece of bait
here!" 

    Let's see if the Giwer-troll is as stupid a troller as I think he is. 

    
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Mon Jun  3 19:04:08 PDT 1996
Article: 40901 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.wildstar.net!news.sdsmt.edu!nntp.uac.net!cancer.vividnet.com!hunter.premier.net!bofh.dot!news.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The shy, retiring Giwer-troll
Date: 2 Jun 1996 16:23:11 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 10
Message-ID: <4ost7f$lls@access1.digex.net>
References: <4nj9gr$bm6@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com> <4o504u$5cl@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com> <4o8jvd$3j3g@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4o8usu$i7d@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article <4o8usu$i7d@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>	BTW:  I am still await the warrant service from your lawsuit.

    And I still await the arrest of the person you swore was Marduk and
the maker of illegal harrassing telephone calls.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Mon Jun  3 19:04:08 PDT 1996
Article: 40903 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.wildstar.net!news.sdsmt.edu!nntp.uac.net!cancer.vividnet.com!hunter.premier.net!bofh.dot!news.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!bofh.dot!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Ultimate Extermination System
Date: 2 Jun 1996 16:08:31 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <4ossbv$l56@access1.digex.net>
References: <317e33e1.333120@news.pacificnet.net> <4oni78$1u4@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <4ora6n$ndk@cnn.cc.biu.ac.il> <4ornnb$pgj@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article <4ornnb$pgj@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>schultr@ashur.cc.biu.ac.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
>>Every time I think "he can't possibly produce something that will better
>>prove his complete stupidity," I am proven wrong.  Asking "what is the
>>pH of CO2" makes about as much sense as asking "how do you construct
>>a four-sided triangle?"  If what he meant is "what is the pKa of CO2,"
>>the answer is "it depends," but in water, it is 4.3 x 10(-7).  Which
>>doesn't alter the fact that even gaseous CO2 is an acid, as in the
>>example I already gave, CaO + CO2.
>
>	Precisely the point as you folks are pretending CO2 is an acid
>DESPITE the retraction of the person who originally posted the
>claim.


    That was Dr. Bilik.  The only post I saw from him on the subject did
not retract the claim, it _reaffirmed_ it.  Either quote the words that
you claim are a retraction, and give the article ID and date (or DejaNews
URL), or admit that you are an illiterate or a liar.

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Mon Jun  3 19:04:09 PDT 1996
Article: 40910 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.wildstar.net!imci5!pull-feed.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Ultimate Extermination System
Date: 2 Jun 1996 15:52:06 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <4osrd6$kmn@access1.digex.net>
References: <317e33e1.333120@news.pacificnet.net> <4oq8pv$1ba@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com> <4oqia8$nb1@d31rz0.Stanford.EDU> <4orms5$ndh@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article <4orms5$ndh@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>	There was never any question that you are unethical, unprincipled
>and a deceitful person.  
>
>	You are convicted by your own words.

    Nice mantra.  When you can present evidence from the DejaNews archives
coupled with a logical argument which does not lie about the meaning of
the words used, do please be sure to get back to me.

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Mon Jun  3 19:04:10 PDT 1996
Article: 40918 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Keeping files on Jews
Date: 3 Jun 1996 11:49:35 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <4ov1if$28e@access5.digex.net>
References: <4nlbi9$q3t@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com> <4nttk9$5kp@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> <4o57nn$64b@shiva.usa.net> <4o5ki0$dgo@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4o5ki0$dgo@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>	My preoccupation?  When it is included with every recitation of
>the mantra it would appear others are in fact obsessed with them.
>I merely mention it as nazi-like on occasion.  But then perhaps I
>can start a site that keeps track of Jews just to test what it
>will be called.

    I already know of a computerized data repository keeping track of
Jews.  I call it a synagogue office.

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Mon Jun  3 19:04:10 PDT 1996
Article: 40921 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: What is trolling?
Date: 3 Jun 1996 12:13:25 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 48
Message-ID: <4ov2v5$3cb@access5.digex.net>
References: <31ada2d8.842604@news.pacificnet.net> <31aeecf5.303900@news.pacificnet.net> <1JUN199621354657@cmi.arizona.edu> <31b197ba.1254102@news.pacificnet.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <31b197ba.1254102@news.pacificnet.net>,
tom moran  wrote:
>dmittleman@cmi.arizona.edu (Danny) wrote:
>
>>In article <31aeecf5.303900@news.pacificnet.net>, 
>>tm@pacificnet.net (tom moran) writes...
>>>kmcvay@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Ken McVay OBC) wrote:
>>> 
>>>>In article <31ada2d8.842604@news.pacificnet.net>, tm@pacificnet.net (tom moran) wrote:
>>>>>				
>>>>>	I see a lot of dubbing of "troller" or "trolling" out here. What
>>>>>does that mean? 
>>>>>	Hold it! Don't just post something and say 'Heres an example'.
>>>>>You have to post the example and then show that it is trolling.
>>> 
>>>	Okay, heres McVay's answer to the question; What is trolling?	
>>> 
>>>>I am not surprised that you do not understand, given your
>>>>inability to use the English language properly, brush your
>>>>teeth, enjoy normal sex, or understand something if you _do_
>>>>manage to read it. You are simply too stupid to deal with it.
>>>>
>>>>There. See if you have brains enough to figure it out, Morin.
>>>>(Somehow, I doubt it.)
>>> 
>>>	Moran wonders if McVay stamped his foot down when typing the
>>>sentence, "There."
>>>	He doubts if Moran can figure out his response. He's got that
>>>right.
>>>	He says Moran can't brush his teeth or have "normal" sex. Now how
>>>would he know? He probably figured it out the same way he figures out
>>>anything else, by what he wants to believe.  
>>
>>    No.  McVay was just trolling.  Caught a big one too!
>
>	You have any further details to support your incredibly ignorant
>statement?
>	Here we have McVay making things up about someone's personal life
>and you endorse him. This is a school yard tactic. Evidentally you
>can't control yourselves. 
>	Now maybe you can support McVay's little remark. Moran ask McVay,
>"Now how would he know?". Now, how would Mittleman know? Go for it. 

    Yup, caught a REALLY big one!
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Tue Jun  4 20:25:21 PDT 1996
Article: 40979 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: thank you, Alec
Date: 4 Jun 1996 19:01:26 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <4p2f86$dfq@access5.digex.net>
References: <31B3318F.1E4A@niven.imsweb.net> <31B34DCC.317@gryn.org> <31B4E17F.592A@niven.imsweb.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <31B4E17F.592A@niven.imsweb.net>,
Bud   wrote:
>Alec Grynspan wrote:
>> 
>> Bud wrote:
>> >
>> > Moran is winning.
>> 
>> More of the same silliness.
>> 
>> You are as honest as he is - zero always equals zero.
>> 
>> By the way - it's spelled whining.
>
>Thank you, Alec.  You just proved my point...

    Well, let's revisit some history.

    There was Tom Moran's claim that the Jews had got a court to declare
the menorah a secular symbol.  After telling us to look in the Los Angeles
Times index for proof, someone finally discovered a court case, Capitol
Square v. Pinnette, which sort of resembled the case if you ignore the
fact that:

	- The court REJECTED the argument that the menorah was a
	  secular symbol, and
	- The group whose actions started the legal ball rolling
	  was the KKK.

    There was Tom Moran's claim that Schindler's List flopped.  No matter
what sort of evidence anyone put forth, Tom Moran would say, "Schindler's
List was a flop.  Splat."

    There was the time Tom Moran challenged Yale Edeiken to prove that Tom
Moran was an anti-semite.  When Yale seriously proposed to do just that,
before a member of the American Arbitration Association, if Tom would
agree that the loser paid all costs, Tom Moran ran away.

    There is, of course, more.

    If you call that winning, I for one don't call the prize worthwhile.

    Posted/emailed.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Wed Jun  5 01:18:39 PDT 1996
Article: 41005 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!en.com!in-news.erinet.com!izzy.net!aanews.merit.net!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: CHARGES
Date: 4 Jun 1996 17:55:54 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <4p2bda$a8r@access5.digex.net>
References: <31a5047f.9562387@news.pacificnet.net> <25MAY199607161144@cmi.arizona.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <31a5047f.9562387@news.pacificnet.net>,
tm@pacificnet.net (tom moran) writes...
>	
>	What should one make of it if someone makes charges of
>anti-Semitism, neo-Nazism and/or racism and can't or refuses to follow
>up with an argument for proof?
> 
>	What would that make the charger?

    I don't know, Tommy.  But here's a question for you.

    What should one make of it if someone makes charges of anti-Semitism,
neo-Nazism and/or racism, and the person charged calls for an argument for
proof according to courtroom standards, and the charger replies, "Sure!  I
will do so in front of the American Arbitration Association if you agree
to pay all costs if I win the case - I will pay all costs if I lose," and
the person calling for proof does not accept the challenge?

    What would that make the person who asked for proof, Tommy? 

    Do you remember the name of the person who demanded proof to courtroom
standards but then ran away when Yale Edeiken offered to do just that?
Who was that, Tommy?  Do you need some help?
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Wed Jun  5 01:18:40 PDT 1996
Article: 41014 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.revisionism,can.politics
Subject: Re: 960604: Mind Abuse
Followup-To: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.revisionism
Date: 4 Jun 1996 19:35:06 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 130
Message-ID: <4p2h7a$ej9@access5.digex.net>
References: <1996006049026.AAA0271@infinity.c2.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:1327 alt.revisionism:41014 can.politics:49370

    can.politics trimmed from followups.

In article <1996006049026.AAA0271@infinity.c2.org>,
E. Zundel Repost  wrote:
>The Zundelgrams are posted to alt.fan.ernst-zundel and alt.revisionism
>daily, unedited. The opinions expressed do not necessarily represent the
>views of the poster, who is not the author.

[snip]

>*       Part of my "war of words" is that there are some people with the
>gift of gab who keep uttering words that ought not to be lost.  Doug
>Collins, a crusty columnist in British Columbia, Canada, is surely one of
>them.
>
>He has delighted me before.  Here, once again, he comments on a cancelled
>conference of the Canadian Association of Free Expression.
>
>Writes Collins:
>

[snip again]

>*       And speaking of words - and images - I want you to remember and
>repeat:  Fred Leuchter, the once-upon-a-time America's #1  specialist in
>execution equipment, widely respected and consulted  until the Holocaust
>Hucksters demolished him and ruined his reputation and livelihood, had this
>to say:
>
>". . . All things considered, killing six million persons by means of
>gassing would have taken 68 years. . . "

    This is a wonderful example of a content-free statement based on false
assumptions, unstated assumptions, and handwaving.  First false assumption
is that all six million Jews were killed by gassing.  No historian has
ever asserted that - e.g., about a million were accounted for by shooting
in the Einsatzgruppen reports, and many more were done for by disease. 
Unstated assumption #1 is the number of gas chambers to be used in this
gassing.  I am willing to bet he is making the false assumption that all
gassing would be in the Birkenau gas chambers - ignoring the gassing vans
and the three Reinhard camps.  Another unstated assumption is how long a
single gassing would take.  I seem to recall that Leuchter ignored the
ventilation system and declared that it would take a week to exhaust the
underground gas chambers.


>*       The "lampshades" and "soap" confabulations have now been put to
>rest forever

    Repeating this over and over again doesn't make it so.

    Commercial production of soap I agree, though there is the question of
whether anyone ever tried it on an experimental basis (perhaps even
prompted by the rumors, at a time when Germany was feeling the raw
materials pinch).  In fact, I have pointed out that the story of the
experiment, which is the only one from people who claim to be firsthand
participants, directly refutes the rumors of commercial mass production.
(Why do experiments when you already know how to do it commercially?)

    As for lampshades, however, not so.  Despite revisionist claims that
they were goatskin, that was based on a recollection by Clay long after
the fact.  There is a U. S. army pathology report on samples of tanned
skin from Buchenwald which concludes that they were made from human skin. 
I would say that a pathologist's report at the time trumps an aged
general's recollection two decades later.  Interesting too that
revisionists suddenly decide that contrary to everything they had said
about gas chambers, for lampshades they present a non-expert
after-the-fact witness as superior to a contemporary report by a technical
expert.  Hypocrisy?  You decide.

    That being said, I have also pointed out that lampshades were not Nazi
policy, but the activity at one camp by a commandant so corrupt and brutal
that he was executed by the SS itself.


>except by certain puerile faculties that need a little bit
>more time,

    I thought Ms. Rimland didn't like name-calling.  Is it puerile to
accept a U.  S. Army pathology report over the word of a layman twenty
years after the fact? 


>but in the Greenwood Cemetery in Atlanta, USA, there we still
>find a Holocaust memorial which contains the following inscription:
>
>"Here rest four bars of soap, the last earthly remains of Jewish victims of
>the Nazi Holocaust" ?  (Historische Tatsachen, No. 66, p.23, PO Box 1643,
>D-32590, Vlotho, Germany)
>
>*       From the Adelaide Institute in Australia we get the following:
>
>". . . We are worried about the fact that to date it has been impossible to
>reconstruct a homicidal gas chamber. Even the Holocaust Museum in
>Washington informed us that it could not bring one across from Europe
>because there are none available.
>
>This is like a space museum without a rocket or the Vatican without a
>Crucifix . . . "

    In consumer protection laws this is called bait-and-switch.  It is not
impossible to produce a replica of a homicidal gas chamber - though the
cost would be prohibitive for the Auschwitz models.  However, "bringing
one across" implies getting an _authentic_ one.  Does the Adelaide
Institute seriously propose that the USHMM dig up Leichenkeller I of Krema
II (as if the Auschwitz Museum would allow it) and ship it across the sea?

    I note that even David Cole has accepted that there was an authentic
homicidal gas chamber (albeit not for extermination purposes) at
Natzweiler.  But that too is not available for shipment to the US.  If a
foreign museum wanted an authentic Mount Rushmore visage, they would
similarly find them all unavailable.  Playing off the example above, it is
like a Vatican without the True Cross.

    What's that?  You say the Vatican doesn't have the True Cross?

    Does that make Jesus a hoax, Ms. Rimland?


>I think that Holocaust teaching is not just child abuse.  It is adult
>abuse.  It is ethnic abuse.  It is mind abuse.  I want to go on record
>saying that is soul abuse.

    A few of the things quoted here are intellectual honesty abuse.

    Posted/emailed.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Wed Jun  5 02:25:41 PDT 1996
Article: 41015 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Keeping files on Jews
Date: 4 Jun 1996 19:44:42 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <4p2hpa$eue@access5.digex.net>
References: <4nlbi9$q3t@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com> <4o5ki0$dgo@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> <4ov1if$28e@access5.digex.net> <4p24gh$oin@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4p24gh$oin@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>
>>In article <4o5ki0$dgo@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
>>Matt Giwer  wrote:
>>>	My preoccupation?  When it is included with every recitation of
>>>the mantra it would appear others are in fact obsessed with them.
>>>I merely mention it as nazi-like on occasion.  But then perhaps I
>>>can start a site that keeps track of Jews just to test what it
>>>will be called.
>
>>    I already know of a computerized data repository keeping track of
>>Jews.  I call it a synagogue office.
>
>	You mean they make a permanent record of everything they say for
>public consumption?

    Yes.  We call that the minutes of the board and executive committee
meetings and the minutes of the semiannual general membership meeting.  In
theory they are available to the membership for inspection, though I have
yet to see anyone make such a request other than an officer or board
member trying to remember just what was decided on a particular issue. 
Also the Rabbi's column and the President's Message in the newsletter.  It
is all on disk.  Very Nazi-like of us, I'm sure you'll agree.

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Wed Jun  5 02:25:42 PDT 1996
Article: 41028 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!fury.berkshire.net!news.albany.net!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: - Zyklon B packing label (0/1) Re: Who Stole the Records?
Date: 3 Jun 1996 16:47:03 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 123
Message-ID: <4ovj07$i60@access5.digex.net>
References: <319b2bec.819096@news.pacificnet.net> <4ome7d$4su@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>  <4orl22$p20@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4orl22$p20@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>mvanalst@rbi.com (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:
>
>>In article <4ome7d$4su@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>, mgiwer@ix.netcom.com
>>(Matt Giwer) wrote:
>
>>> mvanalst@rbi.com (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:
>>> 
>
>>[snip]
>
>>> >But that really isn't what is at issue here. What IS at issue is your
>>> >blatant and purposefull misreprsentation that the Dessau plant was
>>> >DESTROYED and that that by implication that it would not have been
>>> >possible to ship five tons of Zyklon B to Auschwitz when, in fact, it was
>>> >not destroyed and that the five tons of Zyklon B was shipped to Auschwitz.
>>> 
>>> >And also, of course, that when called to account on this you tried to
>>> >weasel out by saying that I wrote that the planrt was destroyed, which I
>>> >most certainly did not. Even then you could not get your excuses straight,
>>> >as you also included my origional statement that "the Dessau Zyklon plant
>>> >was bombed and heavily damaged."               
>>> > 
>>> >Note the heavily DAMAGED, which clearly contradicted your claim that the
>>> >plant was DESTROYED. 
>>> 
>>>         I claim only that if there was no impact upon the Zyklon-B
>>> production that there was no point in mentioning the damage as it
>>> was an irrelevant point.

    Since Matt Giwer brings up irrelevant points all the time, his point
about irrelevant points seems to be an irrelevant point. 



>>Bullshit. You lied, plain and simple. Now you again lie and squirm to try
>>and talk your way out of the untenable position you put yourself into. 
>
>	You are very strange on this subject.  It was posted here.  You
>did not read it.  You could at least claim you had a newsfeed
>problem.  Most interestingly is that none of your fellow
>holohuggers will correct you.  But that is expected.

    It is good to see Mr. Giwer agrees that your his that the plant was
destroyed was posted here.  And he is correct that it is only to be
expected that nobody will correct Mr. Van Alstine on a claim which even
Mr. Giwer agrees is correct.  But I fail to see how Mr. Giwer claims that
Mr. Van Alstine did not read Mr. Giwer's lie.


>>> >> As you know it was stated that what killed insects lasted for six
>>> >> months but what killed people only lasted for six weeks.
>>> 
>>> >I know nothing of the sort! It has been clerly stated by others, as well
>>> >as by myself in citing Hillberg, that the shelf life of Zyklon B was three
>>> >months. I would suggest you re-post the article, verbatim, where you
>>> >alledge it was calimed otherwise or retract you assertion. 
>>> 
>>> Excuse me, but citing Hilberg has nothing to do with physical
>>> reality.  He has no credentials to evaluate technical claims.
>
>>More bullshit. You were asked to repost the article, verbatim, to support
>>your assertion that the shelf life of Zyklon B was claimed to be six
>>months. You have failed to do so, which just proves that you lied and were
>>simply spouting bullshit to start an argument. You're pathetic. 
>
>	It only means
>
>	1)	you to not read everything
>
>	2)	you have a faulty newsfeed
>
>	3)	your fellow holohuggers will not tell you that is what was
>posted

    It means more than that.  It means that Matt Giwer is a hypocritical
troll who will yell that the person making the claim bears the burden of
proof except when it is Matt Giwer making the claim.  Then suddenly the
burden of proof shifts.  And of course Mr. Giwer is not hesitant to
suggest that the failure to produce an article he missed is cause to
suspect lying.



>>Furthermore, you have no qualifications whatsoever, not to mention your
>>complete ignorance of Hilberg's work, to even begin to make such comments.
>>If you had bothered to check my origional cite to Hillberg mentioning the
>>3 month limit, you would have seen that he wrote "The Zyklon had only one
>>drawback: within three months it deteriorated in the container and thus
>>could not be stockpiled" (_Destruction_, p.567) and referenced it with
>>footnote 55 which said:
>
>>"55.  Characteristics of Zyklon described in the undated report by Health 
>>Institute of Protektorat: 'Directive for Utilization of Zyklon for
>>Extermination of Vermin' (Ungeziefervertilgung), NI-9912." (Ibid.) 
>
>>Obviously, you haven't the integrity (or intelligence) to check what
>>people actually write before you maliciously slander them and their work
>>simply to puff up your sick ego in your attacks on the Holocaust.
>
>>But if  you think Hilberg and NI-9912 are incorrect, then I would point
>>out that the label on a packing case of Zyklon B sent to Auschwitz on
>>April 24th, 1944, stated a guaranteed shelf life of three months from date
>>of dispatch. (_Technique_, p.18.). The image file of the packing label is
>>attached.
>
>>Do you also claim that not only Hillberg and NI-9912 are wrong, but that
>>DEGESCH, the manufacturer of Zyklon B was wrong as well? Your evidence for
>>this is? Oh, right. You don't have any evidence. You just blow shit out
>>your lips and expect people to believe you. Uh huh. Why don't you grab a
>>copy of one of Baron's "manuscripts" and wipe your chin. You're
>>disgusting.
>
>	Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about to be quoting
>unqualified sources.  

    If the manufacturer of the product is not a qualified source, I would
like to know who is.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Wed Jun  5 12:22:29 PDT 1996
Article: 41141 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Anatomy of a Troll
Date: 5 Jun 1996 13:35:24 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 86
Message-ID: <4p4ggs$k3s@access5.digex.net>
References: <319b2bec.819096@news.pacificnet.net>  <4ome7d$4su@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article ,
Mark Van Alstine  wrote:
>In article <4ome7d$4su@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>, mgiwer@ix.netcom.com
>(Matt Giwer) wrote:
>
>> mvanalst@rbi.com (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:
>>>Matt Giwer wrote:
>> >> As you know it was stated that what killed insects lasted for six
>> >> months but what killed people only lasted for six weeks.
>> 
>> >I know nothing of the sort! It has been clerly stated by others, as well
>> >as by myself in citing Hillberg, that the shelf life of Zyklon B was three
>> >months. I would suggest you re-post the article, verbatim, where you
>> >alledge it was calimed otherwise or retract you assertion. 
>> 
>> Excuse me, but citing Hilberg has nothing to do with physical
>> reality.  He has no credentials to evaluate technical claims.
>
>More bullshit. You were asked to repost the article, verbatim, to support
>your assertion that the shelf life of Zyklon B was claimed to be six
>months. You have failed to do so, which just proves that you lied and were
>simply spouting bullshit to start an argument. You're pathetic. 

    Here is a deconstruction of a classic troll. 

    Mark Van Alstine quoted a passage from Hilberg which said that an 
ordinary SS installation received Zyklon once every six months, but due 
to its short shelf life, Auschwitz got it every six weeks.

    Giwer then said that delousing Zyklon lasts six months but homicidal 
Zyklon lasts six weeks.

    What Giwer picked up on was that Hilberg made a logical error.  It is
true that Zyklon has a short shelf life - three months.  It is true that
Auschwitz received it every six weeks.  Hilberg came up with a post-hoc
relationship between the two facts.  While the conclusion _may_
accidentally be true, it is not true of necessity.  There is a concept
known as economic order quantity, a mathematical formula which factors in
price, the overhead involved in an order, usage rate, storage costs, and
interest rates to arrive at the order quantity which gives the lowest
per-unit cost taking into account such things as the tradeoff between the
extra warehousing costs and lost interest on money tied up in inventory
involved in one large order versus the extra shipping costs and (perhaps)
smaller discounts involved in two smaller orders.

    In other words, it might have been the case that Auschwitz would have
received Zyklon every six weeks even if Zyklon lasted forever.  Hilberg's
error was not technical, but economic. 

    "So," says Giwer, "if Hilberg is dumb enough to think that shipping
frequency bears a necessary relationship to shelf life, he must believe
that the delousing Zyklon lasts six months."  But he doesn't phrase it
that way.  Instead, he phrases it in a way which can mislead people into
thinking there was actually a contradictory claim made by Hilberg, even
though there was not.  The contradiction comes from the reductio ad
absurdum, which Giwer does not phrase in the normal way above.

    Hilberg of course made no direct claim about a relationship between
shelf life and the six month interval.  And I am sure he would be able to
figure out that it merely means that a normal SS installation only needed
to do a delousing about every six months or three at the most unless they
knew that the label was worst-case (as it usually is) and continued to use
it past the manufacturer's recommended date (as people often do).  I buy
eggs about every six months, not because they last that long (I often end
up throwing most of the carton away) but simply because that's how seldom
I make a dish that calls for eggs.

    But this way Giwer gets to jerk people around while still (in his own
mind) being able to tell the truth in claiming, when cornered, "I never
said Hilberg said that."  Sort of I-had-my-fingers-crossed-when-I-said-it. 

    Not that this makes the game any less dishonest and juvenile, but I
thought people might like an explanation of just _how_ Giwer is being
deceptive here. 


>Giwer is, as far as I can determine, a troller whose only interest is in
>causing fights. [...]

    Well, no, he may also be feeding his ego by proving to himself how
superior he is to all the "holohuggers" who cannot see through his game.

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Wed Jun  5 15:47:46 PDT 1996
Article: 41191 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Keeping files on Jews
Date: 5 Jun 1996 09:33:58 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <4p42c6$965@access5.digex.net>
References: <4nlbi9$q3t@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com> <4p24gh$oin@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> <4p2hpa$eue@access5.digex.net> <4p32m7$dhq@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4p32m7$dhq@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>>    Yes.  We call that the minutes of the board and executive committee
>>meetings and the minutes of the semiannual general membership meeting.  In
>>theory they are available to the membership for inspection, though I have
>>yet to see anyone make such a request other than an officer or board
>>member trying to remember just what was decided on a particular issue. 
>>Also the Rabbi's column and the President's Message in the newsletter.  It
>>is all on disk.  Very Nazi-like of us, I'm sure you'll agree.
>
>	Bullshit.

    I am forced to admit that Sturgeon's Law applies to what goes on at
those meetings.

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Wed Jun  5 15:47:47 PDT 1996
Article: 41199 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Giwer Goofs Again
Date: 5 Jun 1996 10:10:52 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <4p44hc$agr@access5.digex.net>
References: <4p22h8$ce2@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <4p2k48$bv5@news.enter.net> <4p32j2$dhq@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4p32j2$dhq@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>yawen@enter.net (Yale F. Edeiken) wrote:
>>	Nobody is "suggesting" anything.  We are informing you that the 
>>Wannsee Minutes included *all* the Jews in the Soviet Union which includes 
>>areas that were never controlled by the nazis.  You will note that in the 
>>figures you post there is a significant difference in the number of
>>Jews listed for the Soviet Union:
>
>>>  Simon Wiesenthal Center
>>>       Soviet Union 1,100,000 -- 36.4%			1,100,000
>>36.40%
>>>  3,021,978
>
>
>>>  Wannsee Protocol
>>>  USSR                                  5,000,000		5,000,000
>>>    Ukraine            		   2,994,684
>>>    White Russia
>>>    excluding Bialystok                   446,484			0
>>>  
>>>  
>>>                      Total    over    11,000,000			
>>11,291,300
>>>
>
>
>>This difference clearly explains your "discrepancy" (not to mention the 
>>700,000 Jew listed in "unoccupied France."  Thank you for posting the 
>>evidence that, once more, you were incorrect.
>
>	Sorry, but the SWC does NOT say "occupied Russia" so it is not
>clear what point you think you are making

    Sorry, but the Wannsee Protocol does NOT say "occupied USSR" so it is
not clear what point you think you are making.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Wed Jun  5 20:36:46 PDT 1996
Article: 41240 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Let's misrepresent to make a story
Date: 5 Jun 1996 17:46:36 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 141
Message-ID: <4p4v7s$21k@access5.digex.net>
References: <4p2aov$lu@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4p2aov$lu@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>	Two questions from the Wisenthal Center's 36 questions about the
>Holocaust.
>
>7. What does the term "Final Solution" mean and what is its
>origin? 
>
>     Answer: The term "Final Solution" (Endl"sung) refers to Germany's
>plan to murder all the Jews of Europe. The term was used at the Wannsee
>Conference (Berlin; January 20,1942) where German officials discussed its
>implementation. 
>
>===
>
>	Here we have an implication about the Wannsee Conference that is
>in support of previous "answers" of mass gassings.  But we all
>know that mass gassings are not discussed in the Wannsee
>Protocol.

    And we all know that mass _gassing_ is not mentioned in the Wiesenthal
Center text above, either.  So it is not clear what point you are trying
to make here.



>===
>
>10. How did the Germans treat those who had some Jewish blood but
>were not classified as Jews? 
>
>     Answer: Those who were not classified as Jews but who had
>some Jewish blood were categorized as Mischlinge (hybrids)and were
>divided into two groups: 
>

[snip]

>Nazi officials considered plans to
>sterilize Mischlinge, but this was
>     never done. During World War II, first-degree Mischlinge,
>incarcerated in concentration
>     camps, were deported to death camps. 
>
>===
>
>	Here we have a claim that a sterilization plan was "considered"
>when we know it was part of the Wannsee Protocol without
>distinction between it and work camps as part of the plan.


    Please note that the discussion of sterilization starts with the
following text:

   In the course of the final solution plans, the Nuremberg Laws should
                                                                 ^^^^^^
   provide a certain foundation, in which a prerequisite for the absolute
   ^^^^^^^
   solution of the problem is also the solution to the problem of mixed
   marriages and persons of mixed blood.

   The Chief of the Security Police and the SD discusses the following
                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   points, at first theoretically, in regard to a letter from the chief
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   of the Reich chancellery:


    Note that it says the Nuremberg Laws SHOULD provide, not WILL provide. 
Note that the long discussion following is apparently either the opinion
of the Chief of the Security Police or the description by that person of
something he received from the chief of the Reich chancellery (the wording
"in regard to" is somewhat vague; absent any more definite information I
prefer the latter interpretation).  Note that he "discusses" (not
announces or establishes) "at first theoretically," (as opposed to
definitely).  This long discussion is followed by: 

   SS-Gruppenf|hrer Hofmann advocates the opinion that sterilization will
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   have to be widely used, since the person of mixed blood who is given
   the choice whether he will be evacuated or sterilized would rather
   undergo sterilization.

   State Secretary Dr. Stuckart maintains that carrying out in practice
   of the just mentioned possibilities for solving the problem of mixed
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   marriages and persons of mixed blood will create endless
   administrative work.  In the second place, as the biological facts
   cannot be disregarded in any case, State Secretary Dr. Stuckart
   proposed proceeding to forced sterilization.
   ^^^^^^^^

So it is clear that the sterilization was not yet a done deal, as Stuckart
_proposed_ it.  And at the end: 

   In conclusion the different types of possible solutions were
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   discussed, during which discussion both Gauleiter Dr. Meyer and State
   ^^^^^^^^^
   Secretary Dr. B|hler took the position that certain preparatory
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   activities for the final solution should be carried out immediately in
                                     ^^^^^^^^^
   the territories in question, in which process alarming the populace
   must be avoided.

   The meeting was closed with the request of the Chief of the Security
   Police and the SD to the participants that they afford him appropriate
   support during the carrying out of the tasks involved in the solution.


    So please show us where in the Wannsee Protocol a final resolution of
the differing opinions was reached.  I can find no mention in the document
as to whether the sterilization that Stuckart PROPOSED was actually
ADOPTED or not.  With tentative language like "proposed," "possible
solutions," "should be," "possibilities," "advocates the opinion," all
they seem to be doing is CONSIDERING it, just as the Wiesenthal Center
said.  Please show us where the sterilization plan was formally adopted
and implemented.  Quote the words, whether from the Wannsee Protocol or
any other source you can find, that show a clear adoption of a
sterilization plan even vaguely resembling what is discussed in the
Wannsee Protocol, let alone an implementation of it.  I would be most
interested to see it.


>	It is unclear why there would be such clear misrepresentation
>unless there is a need for it.

    So we should conclude you need to misrepresent what the Wiesenthal
Center wrote and what is in the Wannsee Protocol?

    But another possibility is that you just do not have very good reading
comprehension.

    I have _proposed_ two two answers to the question of why you
misrepresented the text.  When I come to a _definite decision_ I will be
sure to let you know.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access4.digex.net Wed Jun  5 22:18:52 PDT 1996
Article: 41268 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!fury.berkshire.net!news.albany.net!news.sover.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Beneficiaries of 'Assertive Action'?
Date: 3 Jun 1996 20:37:07 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <4p00fj$d8d@access4.digex.net>
References: <31a46ef8.3655368@news.pacificnet.net> <31a70753.453845@news.pacificnet.net> <25MAY199609105191@cmi.arizona.edu> <31a86600.393153@news.pacificnet.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net

In article <31a86600.393153@news.pacificnet.net>,
tom moran  wrote:
>	My heroes are more like Plato, Socrates, Abraham Lincoln, Emmauel
>Kant, Newton, George Orwell - well you get the picture, don't you? You
>know, an ideal with a bit more substance than three blind mice
>obsessed with Jewish things.

    Then why are you so obsessed with Jewish things?  You keep posting
about the Jews doing this and the Jews doing that (even when it turns out
to be the KKK doing it instead).  Face it, Tommy. You are more obsessed
with Jewish things than I am. 

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Thu Jun  6 06:55:27 PDT 1996
Article: 41329 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!en.com!in-news.erinet.com!bug.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!samba.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!hustle.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!news.clark.net!world1.bawave.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Dr. Klein Testifies About Auschwitz
Date: 4 Jun 1996 18:41:23 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 64
Message-ID: <4p2e2j$con@access5.digex.net>
References:  <4o8itu$jjj@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4o8itu$jjj@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>dkeren@world.std.com (Daniel Keren) wrote:
>
>>Testimony of SS-Obersturmfuehrer Dr. Fritz Klein 
>>[Quoted in "The Belsen Trial" - Edited by R. Phillips, William Hodge and
>>Company, 1949.p. 717]
>>----------------------------------------------------------------
>>When transports arrived at Auschwitz it was the doctor's job to pick
>>out those who were unfit or unable to work. These included children, 
>>old people and the sick. I have seen the gas chambers and crematoria 
>>at Auschwitz, and I knew that those I selected were to go to the gas
>>chamber. But I only acted on orders given to me by Dr. Wirtz.
>
>	This is an old one.  He should have seen them at Birkenau where
>the gas chambers migrated to a few years ago.

    The Giwer-troll does not know, or pretends not to know, that Birkenau
was a subcamp (albeit a very large one) of the Auschwitz complex and is
sometimes referred to as Auschwitz II.  The two camps together are often
called Auschwitz-Birkenau, but in colloquial discussion are simply both
referred to as Auschwitz.  Dishonest trolls who are more interested in
playing childish word games by seizing on any point of ambiguity and
pretending there is not another legitimate way to read the text can, of
course, have a field day with this one.  Wait until he hears about
Monowitz, sometimes also called Auschwitz III.

    Or wait until he hears about the stories as to where my grandfather
come from.  Some people say he came from Lemberg, while others insist that
the city he came from is Lvov.  I wonder if the 163 IQ type can tell me
how to resolve these conflicting true truths.


>>I never protested against people being sent to the gas chambers, 
>>although I never agreed. One cannot protest when in the army.
>
>	And another bird colonel who is completely ineffectual

    You may have noticed he was a medical doctor, and doctors get officer
rank.  What you did not notice was that Klein was an Obersturmfuhrer,
while Eichmann was an ObersturmBANNfuhrer.  I would have expected someone
who can authoritatively criticize my translation of "Gaswagen" to know the
difference.  Please make up your mind which of these conflicting true
truths is true: that Obersturmbannfuhrer was the equivalent of bird
colonel, or Obersturmfuhrer was the equivalent rank.

    You probably would have demoted a wimp like Klein to a mere
Gruppenfuhrer.  Maybe all the way down to Reichsfuhrer SS.  Almost nothing
lower than that, right?

    By the way, who _was_ the head of the Gestapo?


>	BTW:  Don't stop.  Your mindless postings of orthodoxy are a gold
>mine of information.  I am thinking of creating side by side
>presentations of the conflicting nonsense parts.

    If my aim were to discredit any and all challenges to Holocaust dogma,
I would also tell you not to stop.  Your displays of illiteracy and
ignorance are astounding.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Thu Jun  6 06:55:28 PDT 1996
Article: 41330 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Dees loses this battle
Date: 3 Jun 1996 03:35:17 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 54
Message-ID: <4ou4jl$ebi@access1.digex.net>
References: <4od1ao$1n9o@useneta1.news.prodigy.com> <4omcv8$3km@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>  <4oni7b$1u4@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article <4oni7b$1u4@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>t08o@unb.ca (MORRISON  KEITH MURRAY) wrote:
>
>>In article <4omcv8$3km@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com> mgiwer@ix.netcom.com (Matt Giwer) writes:
>
>>>># What I find interesting is that I do take a watch at most of the
>>>># PBS and other holocaust documentaries.  I can not remember ever
>>>># seeing anyone on camera, even from old filmclips, talking about
>>>># actually seeing people being gassed.  
>
>>>>Try the BBC's "World At War" and "Shoa".
>
>>>        BBC?  From the country that gave us the Zimmerman note?  Britain
>>>was the country that chose to start war with Germany by invoking
>>>a treaty with Poland and then selectively declaring war on
>>>Germany but not Russia which also invaded Poland.  
>
>>GIWER EVASION TECHNIQUE #5: When someone proves you wrong, attempt to 
>>impunge the country said proof orignates from, preferably mentioning 
>>something that has absolutely nothing to do with anything that was actually 
>>being talked about.
>
>>  Example: "The US clearly faked the moon landings."
>>           "Why?"
>>           "Because US troops massacred civilians at My Lai."
>>           "Huh?"
>>           "How can you trust a country like that?"
>
>	The reference is specifically to the BBC's World at War.  In what
>manner is it a diversion to point out what Britain did to start
>that war?

    It is irrelevant to the validity of the testimony of the witnesses.

  
>	Do you have an explanationn for England not declaring war on
>Russia also if the concern was over Poland?
>
>>>        Shoa I missed.  Stetl, I did not.  A hatchet job on Poles.
>
>>GIWER EVASION TECHNIQUE #4: When someone proves you wrong, drag in something 
>>else that the poster did not mention and then talk about it like they did.
>
>	Excuse me.  Reference to TV shows is now proof?  

    When the issue is whether or not there have been people on camera
talking about seeing people actually gassed, then TV shows showing such
people are indeed proof that there is film of people talking about seeing
people actually gassed.  Wouldn't you say?
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access4.digex.net Thu Jun  6 06:55:29 PDT 1996
Article: 41339 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!zombie.ncsc.mil!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Seeking the first time
Date: 6 Jun 1996 01:46:17 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 54
Message-ID: <4p5rb9$cva@access4.digex.net>
References: <31a461b3.259026@news.pacificnet.net> <4ojfd7$1mc@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com> <4ok50h$92k@hackberry.zilker.net> <4om45h$5us@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net

In article <4om45h$5us@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>mike@aimetering.com (Mike Curtis) wrote:
>
>>mgiwer@ix.netcom.com (Matt Giwer) wrote:
>
>>>mvanalst@rbi.com (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:
>
>
>>>>From the _Enclyclopedia of the Holocaust_ vol 1, pp.534-535:
>
>>>>FUNK, WALTHER (1890-1960), Nazi economist and politician. Funk was born in
>>>>East Prussia and studied law and economics at the Universities of Berlin
>>>>and Leipzig. From 1922 to 1930 he was editor in chief of the _Berliner
>>>>Bo"rsenzeitung (Berlin Stock Exchange Journal). An early member of the
>>>>Nazi Party, he joined in 1924 and became one of its leading figures. In
>>>>1931 Adolf HITLER appointed Funk to be his personal adviser on economic
>>>>affairs. Funk was the party's liaison with top figures in German industry,
>>>>among them Emil Kirdorf, Fritz Thyssen, Albert Voegler, and Friedrich
>>>>Flick.
>
>>>>Owing to Funk's initiative and influence, leading companies in the Reich,
>>>>such as the chemical conglomerate I.G. FARBEN, made large contributions to
>>>>the Nazi party treasury. It was also Funk who impressed upon Hitler the
>>>>importance for the Nazi cause of German heavy industry and private
>>>>enterprise.
>
>>>	Your source fails to give the Nuremberg references, without whidh
>>>there is no source material.
>
>>Now Nuremburg is the only valid source for you? Who died and appointed
>>you God?
>
>	Who else claims to have interviewed Walther Funk and received the
>truth from him?  Who claims to have independently gone over the
>archived captured documents and arrived at an independent
>conclusion?  Or are you suggesting that someone at Farben said,
>"it was all the war criminals fault" and it was accepted without
>verification?  

    Speaking of independent verification, are you claiming that you
personally read the entire Nuremberg document set and culled those
references?

    Or did you simply pull the text you cited from some website like Greg
Raven's or Bradley Smith's?

    If the latter, did you personally verify those NMT references?

    An answer to these questions is eagerly awaited.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access4.digex.net Thu Jun  6 06:55:29 PDT 1996
Article: 41343 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!zombie.ncsc.mil!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Seeking the first time
Date: 6 Jun 1996 01:19:15 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <4p5poj$cf0@access4.digex.net>
References: <31a461b3.259026@news.pacificnet.net> <4o6rdc$fv0@Vir.com> <31A8AFFB.202@rio.com> <31ab0945.594618@news.pacificnet.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net

In article <31ab0945.594618@news.pacificnet.net>,
tom moran  wrote:
>Chuck Ferree  wrote:
>
>>Chuck Ferree writes:
>>Won't somebody please hit Moran over the head with at least a frying 
>>pan? This no brainer, haunts the internet for anything which will help 
>>him look good. And what does he come up with? This French guy, who 
>>asks really dumb questions. 

[snip]


>	Mr.Chuck, what does Mr.Beaulieu's being a "French guy" have to do
>with anything? 

    I'd have to agree.  And I don't find Mr. Beaulieu dumb.

	
>	I would say if a number of examples of Mr. Beaulieu's posts were
>presented to a class of fourth graders, along side of an equal number
>of your posts, the kids would be able to recognize the superiority of
>the one as opposed to the inferiority of the other.

    I cannot honestly argue with this, either.  Although I think the
fourth graders would also recognize the superiority of Mr. Beaulieu's
posts over Mr. Moran's.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access4.digex.net Thu Jun  6 06:55:30 PDT 1996
Article: 41349 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!news.cc.swarthmore.edu!news.cse.psu.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken.llnl.gov!enews.sgi.com!sgigate.sgi.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Giwer Goofs Again
Date: 6 Jun 1996 00:48:44 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 110
Message-ID: <4p5nvc$bsq@access4.digex.net>
References: <4ot8sk$3i@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com> <4oudd2$d1u@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> <3JUN199618354273@cmi.arizona.edu> <4p22h8$ce2@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net

In article <4p22h8$ce2@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>dmittleman@cmi.arizona.edu (Danny) wrote:
>
>>In article <4oudd2$d1u@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, 
>>mgiwer@ix.netcom.com (Matt Giwer) writes...
>>>yawen@enter.net (Yale F. Edeiken) wrote:
>>> 
>>>>>   mgiwer@ix.netcom.com (Matt Giwer) writes:
>>>>>  	Accoring to the answer to question 5 on the holocaust from the
>>>>>  Simon Wiesenthal Center and crediting the encyclopedia of the
>>>>>  holocaust, it gives the number of Jews that died in the private
>>>>>  holocaust by country and by percentage in that country.  This of
>>>>>  course permits us to calculate the total number of in those
>>>>>  countries, presumably at the end of the war.  That gives us 9.6
>>>>>  million.
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    Oh, gee, I missed this one before.  No wonder I couldn't figure out
for the life of me what Giwer was going on about.  The SWC percentages
were of _prewar_ population, not _end of the war_ population.  There is no
"presumably" about it.  The SWC question quite clearly and explicitly
reads

>5. How many Jews were murdered in each country and what
>percentage of the pre-war Jewish population did they constitute?
                   ^^^^^^^

    It would be so nice if Matt Giwer would learn to read, really it
would.



>>>>>  	We can also look at the numbers in the Wannsee Protocol and find
>>>>>  in January 1942, excluding Britain and Ireland from the total,
>>>>>  11M Jews in these same countries.  
>>>>>  
>>>>>  	Thus we have about 1.4 million unaccounted for.  
>>> 
>>>>	One of the basic skills of anyone claiming analytical skills is some 
>>>>degree of reading comprehension.

    It is now quite clear Giwer possesses none.


>>>>In listing the the number of Jews inthe Wannsee 
>>>>Minutes, Giwer claims that by excluding Britian and Ireland the Wannsee 
>>>>Minutes list the Jews in the same "countries" as covered by the SWC 
>>>>reports.  Giwer is wrong (is anyone surprised?).  The Wannsee Minutes 
>>>>clearly lists Jewish population figures for several areas -- including the 
>>>>interior of the Soviet Union -- which were not controlled by his nazi 
>>>>pals and to which the Holocaust did not reach.
>>> 
>>>>	Now Giwer will respond with his usual insults, lies, and anti-Semitic 
>>>>gibberish.
>
>>    I suggested four or five possible hypotheses, but it looks like I
>>    missed this very basic one: apples and oranges.
>
>>>	If you ever master basic math skills you too may be able to
>>>compare the numbers some day.  
>>> 
>>>	However that is unlikely.
>
>>    Um, Matt.  This is rather transparent of you.  Yale produces a clearly
>>    logical argument to show your whole thesis was flawed.  The two "adult"
>>    repsonses to this are [1] admit you were mistaken, or [2] provide some
>>    documentation to back up your point of view.  I see, however, you chose
>>    the "juvenile" response of simply insulting him for no constructive
>>    reason.
>
>>    Pretty pitiful.
>
>	Save you are loathe to review anything a fellow holohugger says
>and will never criticize them.  
>
>	Though the names are different it is only in the grouping.

    Wrong.  There is a time frame difference as well.  Note that contrary
to the Giwer-troll's throwaway line that the SWC percentages allowed one
to compute the "presumably" post-war populations, the SWC percentages are
based on _prewar_ populations, for which (unfortunately) they do not give
the year they were using as a baseline.  For Germany and Austria in
particular this is critical, as there was some "voluntary"  emigration
before the war.  The Wannsee figures were developed _during_ the war.  The
discrepancy between the Wannsee figures and the SWC prewar figures would
include any leakage to areas not covered by the Wannsee document - e.g.,
the US or North Africa.  But without looking at migration figures from the
prewar period I would agree that this is very unlikely to be as much as
1.4 million.

    The biggest discrepancy I see is for the Soviet Union.  Due to the
closed nature of the Soviet regime, its official atheist stance, and the
soft squishy roundness of that 5,000,000 figure, I would imagine that
population statistics are softest for that country and a good part of the
1.4 million difference (and perhaps nearly all) is that the Nazis and the
SWC simply had different population sources which did not agree.

    So we compare the numbers.  Whee.  So there is a disagreement, by ca. 
1.4 million, as to how many Jews were in Europe "prewar" (whatever year it
is that the SWC is figuring from) and what the Nazis thought were in
Europe in whatever also-unstated baseline year they were figuring from in
areas where they had not already made their own accounts and population
"adjustments."  (Note that Estonia is listed as free of Jews in the
Wannsee document.)  Very good. Now, what is this supposed to prove except
that the population figures were estimates, something I already knew? 
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access4.digex.net Thu Jun  6 06:55:31 PDT 1996
Article: 41350 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!news.cc.swarthmore.edu!news.cse.psu.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken.llnl.gov!enews.sgi.com!sgigate.sgi.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: unethical liars for the Talmud
Date: 6 Jun 1996 00:53:50 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <4p5o8u$bv7@access4.digex.net>
References: <4oj8nj$frs@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com> <4p1359$aof@surz03fi.HRZ.Uni-Marburg.DE> <4p4tfh$aq@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net

In article <4p4tfh$aq@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>abels@stud-mailer.uni-marburg.de (Nele Abels) wrote:
>>Who again said, he was no anti-semite?
>
>	Who was it who first said I was an why?

    Who?  I don't know.  Why?  Well, maybe they were applying Giwer Rule
2b (Israeli Constitution corollary).  If it walks like a duck, and quacks
like a duck....
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access4.digex.net Thu Jun  6 06:55:31 PDT 1996
Article: 41351 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!zombie.ncsc.mil!nntp.coast.net!swidir.switch.ch!swsbe6.switch.ch!surfnet.nl!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Seeking the first time
Date: 6 Jun 1996 01:09:18 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <4p5p5u$c8u@access4.digex.net>
References: <31a461b3.259026@news.pacificnet.net> <4oac62$ic3@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> <26MAY199614183941@cmi.arizona.edu> <31ac4eea.187349@news.pacificnet.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net

In article <31ac4eea.187349@news.pacificnet.net>,
tom moran  wrote:
>dmittleman@cmi.arizona.edu (Danny) wrote:
>
>>In article <4oac62$ic3@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>, mgiwer@ix.netcom.com (Matt Giwer) writes...
>>>tm@pacificnet.net (tom moran) wrote:
>>> 
>>>>mgiwer@ix.netcom.com (Matt Giwer) wrote:
>>> 
>>>>>          _The American Hebrew_, October 31, 1919, page 582:
>>>>>
>>>>>                    THE CRUCIFIXION OF JEWS MUST STOP!
>>>>>                           By MARTIN H. GLYNN
>>>>>                  (Former Governor of the State of N.Y.)
>>> 
>>>>	Giwer, whats the story with the date, "1919"?
>>> 
>>>	What story?  That is the publication date.  This has been around
>>>for quite some time.  No one has claimed it is a forgery or
>>>anything like that.  
>>> 
>>>	The worst claim about it has been that it is out of context.
>>
>>    It is not a forgery.  If one uses it to claim that Glynn was charges
>>    there were six million Jews killed in Europe just prior to 1919, then
>>    it is out of context.
>
>	Okay, it's not a forgery. Giwer says no, Mittleman says no.
>
>	In that case we can point out that if the Jewish population of
>Europe is said to have been 6,900,000 in 1919, then it increased by an
>incredible rate that ended up at 11,000,000 by 1939, just twenty years
>later.

    We can also point out that 11,000,000 was the figure for every single
Jew in Europe, including England, while 6,900,000 was the number
threatened by starvation in Europe, which doesn't necessarily mean every
single Jew in Europe.

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access4.digex.net Thu Jun  6 07:58:59 PDT 1996
Article: 21676 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!overload.lbl.gov!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.california,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.oj-simpson,alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,soc.culture.african.american,alt.usenet.kooks,alt.bonehead.matt-giwer
Subject: Re: How to Spot a aryan
Followup-To: alt.revisionism,alt.usenet.kooks,alt.bonehead.matt-giwer
Date: 6 Jun 1996 02:31:59 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <4p5u0v$di0@access4.digex.net>
References: <31B3860B.59F7@worldnet.att.net> <4p2ra1$6se@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4p4f19$kg5@motss.newpaltz.edu> <4p4o2i$geo@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.california:25747 alt.politics.nationalism.white:21676 alt.politics.white-power:31168 alt.rush-limbaugh:103481 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:316476 alt.fan.oj-simpson:49323 alt.revisionism:41370 alt.skinheads:26690 soc.culture.african.american:118978 alt.usenet.kooks:24746 alt.bonehead.matt-giwer:23

In article <4p4o2i$geo@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>,
Ken McVay OBC  wrote:
>In article <4p4f19$kg5@motss.newpaltz.edu>, 
>carrol52@matrix.newpaltz.edu (kevin s. carroll) wrote:
>
>>	If you consider yourself Aryan, then please speak for yourself.  If
>>you are describing what you think Aryans are, then stop showing your
>>ignorance. 
>
>Quoth the Giwer:
>
>      "Are you saying that I should have insulting the Jewish 
>      reputation for integrity by saying only Jew and thus 
>      implying that we is observant?"
>
>I rest my case.

    One could never mistake Matt Giwer for someone who is very observant.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access4.digex.net Thu Jun  6 08:14:00 PDT 1996
Article: 31168 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!overload.lbl.gov!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.california,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.oj-simpson,alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,soc.culture.african.american,alt.usenet.kooks,alt.bonehead.matt-giwer
Subject: Re: How to Spot a aryan
Followup-To: alt.revisionism,alt.usenet.kooks,alt.bonehead.matt-giwer
Date: 6 Jun 1996 02:31:59 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <4p5u0v$di0@access4.digex.net>
References: <31B3860B.59F7@worldnet.att.net> <4p2ra1$6se@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4p4f19$kg5@motss.newpaltz.edu> <4p4o2i$geo@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.california:25747 alt.politics.nationalism.white:21676 alt.politics.white-power:31168 alt.rush-limbaugh:103481 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:316476 alt.fan.oj-simpson:49323 alt.revisionism:41370 alt.skinheads:26690 soc.culture.african.american:118978 alt.usenet.kooks:24746 alt.bonehead.matt-giwer:23

In article <4p4o2i$geo@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>,
Ken McVay OBC  wrote:
>In article <4p4f19$kg5@motss.newpaltz.edu>, 
>carrol52@matrix.newpaltz.edu (kevin s. carroll) wrote:
>
>>	If you consider yourself Aryan, then please speak for yourself.  If
>>you are describing what you think Aryans are, then stop showing your
>>ignorance. 
>
>Quoth the Giwer:
>
>      "Are you saying that I should have insulting the Jewish 
>      reputation for integrity by saying only Jew and thus 
>      implying that we is observant?"
>
>I rest my case.

    One could never mistake Matt Giwer for someone who is very observant.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access4.digex.net Thu Jun  6 19:02:58 PDT 1996
Article: 41490 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!en.com!in-news.erinet.com!bug.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!genmagic!sgigate.sgi.com!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.usenet.kooks,alt.bonehead.matt-giwer
Subject: Re: 'I was afraid of Bothmann'
Date: 6 Jun 1996 03:43:59 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <4p627v$egq@access4.digex.net>
References:  <4orht7$39v@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com> <4p0jab$opp@shiva.usa.net> <4p0u1v$94c@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:41490 alt.usenet.kooks:24768 alt.bonehead.matt-giwer:25

In article <4p0u1v$94c@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>hkatz@earth.usa.net (Harry Katz) wrote:
>
>>In article <4orht7$39v@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
>>Matt Giwer (mgiwer@ix.netcom.com) whines:
>
>>	Have you ever noticed that is it always screams and groans from
>>	a painless gassing?
>
>>I have noticed that it is always some petty quibbling from Mr. Giwer,
>>who now decides to lecture victims on the proper way to die!
>
>>When the victims realized that they were being gassed to death they
>>screamed in terror, not in pain, and they groaned from the sudden
>>realization that death was at hand, not from pain.  But Mr. Giwer seems
>>to think they ought to have just relaxed and enjoyed their cruel
>>deaths because, after all, it was painless!
>
>	A scream does always introduce a dramatic interlude to a work of
>fiction.

    Mr. Giwer must scream in the middle of each post he writes, then.


>Are you really saying that YOU would in fact SCREAM IN
>TERROR of death?

    Are you really saying that no person on the planet, not even a child,
would scream in terror?


>That you would GROAN when your nervous system was paralysized?  

    Our superscientist now claims that engine exhaust paralyzes the
nervous system instantly.  It is a wonder he does not collapse when
crossing the street near cars.


>	You are a very strange person.  

    Just keep repeating that over and over.  If you can repeat it a
trillion times it will become true.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Fri Jun  7 07:11:14 PDT 1996
Article: 41542 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!lamarck.sura.net!ra.nrl.navy.mil!news.math.psu.edu!news.cse.psu.edu!uwm.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The shy, lying Giwer-troll
Date: 4 Jun 1996 18:46:41 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <4p2ech$cuk@access5.digex.net>
References: <4nj9gr$bm6@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com> <4or6o6$nov@access1.digex.net> <4ov1os$f5r@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4p24ol$oin@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4p24ol$oin@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>kmcvay@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Ken McVay OBC) wrote:
>
>[email from Colin McGregor, administrator of idirect.com, deleted]
>
>	But you have to remember that 87 of those messages were those he
>requested to receive from me which constituted a mail bomb from
>Marduk of Internet Direct which is within the "acceptable use
>policy" of his organization.  

    I will remember that.  I will also remember the fact that you do not
deny lying about having information from Mr. McGregor identifying Gordon
McFee as Marduk.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Fri Jun  7 07:11:15 PDT 1996
Article: 41548 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.bonehead.matt-giwer
Subject: Giwer dishonestly deletes text from response
Date: 6 Jun 1996 11:56:51 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 86
Message-ID: <4p6v43$7vn@access5.digex.net>
References: <4ot8sk$3i@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com> <4p22h8$ce2@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <4p5nvc$bsq@access4.digex.net> <4p606m$b38@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:41548 alt.bonehead.matt-giwer:29

In article <4p606m$b38@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>
>>In article <4p22h8$ce2@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
>>Matt Giwer  wrote:
>>>dmittleman@cmi.arizona.edu (Danny) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <4oudd2$d1u@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, 
>>>>mgiwer@ix.netcom.com (Matt Giwer) writes...
>>>>>yawen@enter.net (Yale F. Edeiken) wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>>   mgiwer@ix.netcom.com (Matt Giwer) writes:
>>>>>>>  	Accoring to the answer to question 5 on the holocaust from the
>>>>>>>  Simon Wiesenthal Center and crediting the encyclopedia of the
>>>>>>>  holocaust, it gives the number of Jews that died in the private
>>>>>>>  holocaust by country and by percentage in that country.  This of
>>>>>>>  course permits us to calculate the total number of in those
>>>>>>>  countries, presumably at the end of the war.  That gives us 9.6
>>>>>>>  million.
>>                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>>    Oh, gee, I missed this one before.  No wonder I couldn't figure out
>>for the life of me what Giwer was going on about.  The SWC percentages
>>were of _prewar_ population, not _end of the war_ population.  There is no
>>"presumably" about it.  The SWC question quite clearly and explicitly
>>reads
>
>>>5. How many Jews were murdered in each country and what
>>>percentage of the pre-war Jewish population did they constitute?
>>                   ^^^^^^^
>
>>    It would be so nice if Matt Giwer would learn to read, really it
>>would.
>
>	Gee you are correct.  They did have enough births to increase
>their population by 14% in only four years.  At that rate the
>Jewish population doubled ever seven years.

    You dishonestly deleted the text where I mentioned that some
(admittedly small) part of the discrepancy may be due to emigration
outside Europe between the unstated year the SWC is using as a baseline
and the unstated year the Wannsee document used as a baseline.  Much more
dishonest is deleting the text where I said that the Wannsee document used
a 5,000,000 figure which was so round and squishy that it was an obvious
estimate.  The SWC figure for the Soviet Union was somewhere in the 3
millions. 

    As I indicated and as you dishonestly deleted from my post, the most
honest and simple explanation is that they were working from different
population estimates, not that there was a population increase.

    You know that.  You just lied about it.


>
>	Are you really sure you want to stick with this position in
>defending the SWC nonsense?  Or would you like to fall back to
>claiming like McVay that it was some unstated difference between
>occupied and unoccupied?  
>
>	Anything else you would like to make up? 

    Any more lies you would like to tell?  I'm sure the lurkers must be
very impressed by the way you fight for the truth by lying through your
teeth.  Please, impress them some more.  You are making Tom Moran look
good, and I would not have thought that possible.


    It is amazing that Giwer cannot be a little more subtle in his
dishonesty.  He did not even wait until my article would have expired from
most servers.  Anyone can go back and see what Giwer had to delete from my
text in order to make his dishonest response. 

    One would expect a 163 IQ type to be smart enough to have started some
tedious argument about how estimates CANNOT POSSIBLY vary by that much
(Because!  I!  Say!  So!).  At least that lie would not have been so
trivial to expose.

    I did not realize that when Giwer claimed critical thinking skills he
meant his brain had suffered a nuclear meltdown.  It is not surprising
that he claims to be retired at age 51.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Fri Jun  7 07:11:16 PDT 1996
Article: 41553 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.ac.net!news.cais.net!nntp.primenet.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Moran's dreams vanish
Date: 6 Jun 1996 12:28:07 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <4p70un$9jc@access5.digex.net>
References: <31b6d9e3.1490994@news.pacificnet.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <31b6d9e3.1490994@news.pacificnet.net>,
tom moran  wrote:
>
>	The subject of Moran's dossier in Nizkor ftp files came up
>recently so Moran figured he better check it out. Moran had brought it
>up a couple of times in the past and noticed they weren't carrying the
>full compliment of his posts and felt inclined to post "What Nizkor
>Omits From Moran's Dossier" listing 30 or 40 posts that Nizkor dared
>not include in it's files.
>	Recently someone informed Moran that Nizkor carried all his
>stuff, and Moran got around to checking it out. But not before having
>a cascade of super dreams and plans. Moran started to consider how he
>could use Nizkor for his own little web page.  [Story of Tommy's
disappointment snipped.]

    Sorry it didn't work out for you, Tommy.  I understand Matt Giwer
sells his services as a Web site designer.  I think the two of you working
together could make a really interesting Web site.  Why not give him a
call and go for it?

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Fri Jun  7 07:11:16 PDT 1996
Article: 41556 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!news.uoregon.edu!news.sol.net!newspump.sol.net!news.inc.net!imci5!pull-feed.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Functionalism vs. Intentionalism
Date: 6 Jun 1996 17:17:41 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <4p7htl$m9v@access5.digex.net>
References: <28MAY199623135169@cmi.arizona.edu> <4oj2oc$jp@news.enter.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4oj2oc$jp@news.enter.net>, 
Yale F. Edeiken  wrote:
>	The problem is the point from which the functionalists start.  That 
>is, they do not deal with Hitler himself.  When that is the starting point 
>he does come across as a rather dispicable creature who governed his 
>country quite poorly (try Keegan's "The Mask of Command" for a good 
>analysis of how he mismanaged the war).  I believe that a lot of 
>functionalists are trying to state that because the Holocaust just grew 
>like Topsy, he was not at the center of the ideology.

    I think that's a false issue.  Although we like to think of Hitler as
an absolute dictator, we see that his power was circumscribed by political
reality.  Start with the euthanasia program - there was enough popular
resistance that the Nazis were forced to curtail it despite the existence
of a signed Hitler order.  Even Hitler had to bow to some political
realities.

    The discussions in the Wannsee minutes about "interventions" shows
that there was a tension between the ideal (get rid of all the Jews, no
exception) and what was perceived as achievable.  So they decided the
easier path was to give special preference to German Jewish old people,
spouses of racial Germans, and WWI veterans - there might be too many
Germans intervening on behalf of what Himmler would have called their one
"Prima Jude" and they did not want to deal with the heat. 

    The question of what Hitler personally wanted in 1933 is of course
interesting.  But even if the answer is "He really, truly wanted to kill
every Jew in the entire world," it is still not only possible but probable
that a) such an action was not politically achievable - there would have
been too much political resistance even from other members of the NS
regime who would have recoiled from such a radical step, at least that
early in the game, and b) Hitler himself would have realized this. 

    Since the Nazi regime was not a hive mind, from a functionalist point
of view, it makes sense to distinguish between what Hitler (and other key
players) _wanted_ and what the Nazi regime was actually _trying_ to do at
a particular point in time.  The Madagascar plan might indeed have been a
sincere effort at one time, even if we accept the premise that if in 1933,
given a magic red button labeled "Kill every Jew in the world instantly," 
Hitler would have pushed it without a second thought.  He did not have
that button, and mass expulsion might well have been what was considered
the best thing that could actually be achieved at that time.

    It is still, I believe, an essentially "functionalist" point of view
to say that the part of the equation most changed by the war was not the
desire, radicalized by the war, but rather the practical possibilities it
opened up.  (I seem to recall that this phrasing - "practical
possibilities" - actually appeared in a Nazi writing.)  There are some
hints of this in language - from one of the diaries, I believe, though
right now I can't recall if it's Hans Frank or Goebbels - about the war
creating an environment that would let them get away with things without
too much outside attention. 

    Posted/emailed.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Fri Jun  7 07:11:17 PDT 1996
Article: 41560 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Forging headers
Date: 6 Jun 1996 17:52:03 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <4p7ju3$nt9@access5.digex.net>
References: <25MAY199615301685@cmi.arizona.edu> <4oji1i$34m@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>  <4om9mo$a8e@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4om9mo$a8e@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>t08o@unb.ca (MORRISON  KEITH MURRAY) wrote:
>>Ah, but is Mr Giwer not the one who claimed he could perfectly forge a 
>>header so that no one would know that the message was faked?
>
>>Hypocrisy at work?  With Giwer, that goes without saying.
>
>	Never claimed I could forge a header in my life.  What are you
>talking about?

   My recollection is that you are right and he is wrong - what you said
was that it was easy to forge a header.  I challenged you to prove it by
sending me an undetectable forgery, but you never took me up.  But yes, I
do not recall you saying that _you_ knew how to do it.  (I think the topic
was whether posts and emails could be used as evidence in libel cases;
your position then seemed to be that the possibility of forgery made
_both_ of them unusable.) 

    But as I said in another post, had I absolute knowledge of one point
of Netcom policy, I would claim 100% certainty instead of 99% that
forgeries of articles from you can be done with _perfect_ headers.

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Fri Jun  7 07:11:18 PDT 1996
Article: 41561 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Another conflicting true truth
Date: 6 Jun 1996 17:44:10 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <4p7jfa$njr@access5.digex.net>
References: <25MAY199615301685@cmi.arizona.edu> <4ob16s$tpb@Vir.com> <4oj4mm$26b8@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4oji1i$34m@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4oji1i$34m@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>gmcfee@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:
>>Since your post is a typed, unsigned document, it must also be forged,
>>according to your logic.
>
>>--
>>Gord McFee
>
>
>	Only for dumbshits who can not read headers and think no one else
>can.

    Excuse me good sir, but as you know, you were telling me earlier how
easy it was to forge email.  So not too long ago you too must have been
one of those dumbshits who could not read headers and thought no one else
could.  I challenged you to send me some forged email which I could not
detect; you never took me up on it.  Of course, I _do_ know how to read
headers - you will note that I have always been able to spot the forgeries
of your articles, even the ones from Netcom which fooled a lot of other
people.  (Rich Graves also spots them.)  If you have learned more about
headers since then, good for you. 

    Unfortunately, as for posts, I am 99.9% certain Marduk now does have
the ability to do a forgery of a Giwer post (or any other Netcruiser user)
which can in no way be detected merely by examination of the headers. 
Fortunately he has not yet figured out what he has to do to achieve this.
But unless Netcom has a key feature set up differently for Netcruiser than
for their shell accounts (and I would be amazed if they did), I do know
the steps Marduk would have to take to do perfect forgeries.  If you would
like me to tell him how to do it, so that this can be demonstrated, just
say the word.

    While this would almost certainly result in a flood of posts making
you look even more stupid than you do now, look at the bright side.  It
would give you some plausibility when you lie (as you so often do) about
not having written something.

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Fri Jun  7 07:11:20 PDT 1996
Article: 41595 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!en.com!in-news.erinet.com!izzy.net!aanews.merit.net!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Holocaust without Gas Chambers
Date: 6 Jun 1996 17:27:16 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <4p7ifk$mvu@access5.digex.net>
References: <4ohro5$se6@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4oiuu7$jp@news.enter.net> <4ol4ku$s9l@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4ol4ku$s9l@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>,
Ken McVay OBC  wrote:
>In article <4oiuu7$jp@news.enter.net>, 
>yawen@enter.net (Yale F. Edeiken) wrote:
>
>> I know of no evidence that there were deportations to Riga 
>> from outside of the Baltic area (there were Estonian and 
>> Latvian Jews confined in the Riga ghetto).  
>
>German Jews were deported to Riga between Nov. 15, 1941 and
>Dec. 14, 1942, according to Gerald Fleming (Hitler and the
>Final Solution, p.67):
>
>"...28,564 German Jews arrived in Kovno and Riga. Of these,
>less than 800 survived the war.Into Terror (New York, 1979), 155-75. Cf. "g. Rs,
>Gesamtaustelung der im Bereich des EK3 der EGA bis zum 1.
>December 1941 durchgefuehrten Exekutionen," 3253/63 Fb76(a),
>Institut fuer Zeitgeschichte>"

    This is probably a post Giwer won't see.  Remember, he says
Holohuggers never correct other Holohuggers, so his magic newsfilter will
not let this post pass.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Sat Jun  8 12:41:14 PDT 1996
Article: 41866 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.wildstar.net!news.sdsmt.edu!nntp.uac.net!cancer.vividnet.com!hunter.premier.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.bonehead.matt-giwer
Subject: Re: 'I was afraid of Bothmann'
Followup-To: alt.revisionism,alt.usenet.kooks,alt.bonehead.matt-giwer
Date: 7 Jun 1996 18:28:22 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <4paae6$r2g@access5.digex.net>
References:  <4p0u1v$94c@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com> <4p627v$egq@access4.digex.net> <4p7em6$ie3@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:41866 alt.bonehead.matt-giwer:36

In article <4p7em6$ie3@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>>    Are you really saying that no person on the planet, not even a child,
>>would scream in terror?
>
>	You mean you would scream in terror.  In case you have never
>noticed it, the scream reaction is a female trait.  Where have
>you been all your life?  

    If you don't know that male children also scream, perhaps you are
the one who needs to answer that question.  But now you admit that some
people, at least, scream.  Very good, we are making progress.

    Now please produce the testimony which explicitly identified screams
as coming from adult male victims.  I don't recall any which identified
the gender, but I do not claim to have read them all.


>>>That you would GROAN when your nervous system was paralysized?  
>
>>    Our superscientist now claims that engine exhaust paralyzes the
>>nervous system instantly.  It is a wonder he does not collapse when
>>crossing the street near cars.
>
>	It is reported in cyanide also.  

    Excuse me, Mr. Superscientist, sir, but did you not tell us recently
that cyanide is one product of incomplete combustion?  And, as you know,
combustion is not perfect even in a well-tuned car.  Therefore by your own
word there should be cyanide in engine exhaust.  Therefore people should
be paralyzed right and left on the street if what you said is true.  Do
you claim that this is the case?

    It would seem that you too are using your knowledge of science to
deceive, in other words.  Of course, perhaps the problem is just that you
were lying about having any.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Sat Jun  8 12:41:15 PDT 1996
Article: 41890 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.wildstar.net!news.sdsmt.edu!nntp.uac.net!cancer.vividnet.com!hunter.premier.net!insync!news.io.com!news2.cais.net!news.cais.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Let's misrepresent to make a story
Date: 7 Jun 1996 18:44:23 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 73
Message-ID: <4pabc7$rkq@access5.digex.net>
References: <4p2aov$lu@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com> <4p4v7s$21k@access5.digex.net> <4p56qg$88a@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4p56qg$88a@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>
>>In article <4p2aov$lu@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
>>Matt Giwer  wrote:
>>>	Here we have an implication about the Wannsee Conference that is
>>>in support of previous "answers" of mass gassings.  But we all
>>>know that mass gassings are not discussed in the Wannsee
>>>Protocol.
>
>>    And we all know that mass _gassing_ is not mentioned in the Wiesenthal
>>Center text above, either.  So it is not clear what point you are trying
>>to make here.
>
>	I originally simply made the point that there were about 1.5
>million unaccounted for people.  I was simply pointing out how
>many others have apparently vanished without a trace.  

    This in no way addresses your claim that the SWC implied the Wannsee
minutes supported mass _gassing_.  Please explain, using commonly accepted
meanings of English words, how the SWC's words imply that mass gassings
are discussed in the Wannsee Protocol.

    Your attempt to pretend you were saying something other than what you
were clearly saying is rather pathetic.



>>    So please show us where in the Wannsee Protocol a final resolution of
>>the differing opinions was reached.  I can find no mention in the document
>>as to whether the sterilization that Stuckart PROPOSED was actually
>>ADOPTED or not.  With tentative language like "proposed," "possible
>>solutions," "should be," "possibilities," "advocates the opinion," all
>>they seem to be doing is CONSIDERING it, just as the Wiesenthal Center
>>said.  Please show us where the sterilization plan was formally adopted
>>and implemented.  Quote the words, whether from the Wannsee Protocol or
>>any other source you can find, that show a clear adoption of a
>>sterilization plan even vaguely resembling what is discussed in the
>>Wannsee Protocol, let alone an implementation of it.  I would be most
>>interested to see it.
>
>     "Persons of mixed blood of the first degree who are exempted
>
>from evacuation ^b will be^b sterilized in order to prevent any 
>offspring and to eliminate the problem of persons of mixed blood 
>once and for all.  Such sterilization will be voluntary.  But it 
>is required to remain in the Reich.  The sterilized "person of 
>mixed blood" is thereafter free of all restrictions to which he 
>was previously subjected."
>
>	What does WILL BE mean in holospeak?

    It means just what you think it means.  However, in my text which you
dishonestly cut out, I pointed out the reasons why I conclude that the
only honest interpretation is that the "will be" was a proposal only, not
an announcement of settled policy.  The "will be" text was immediately
preceded with a tentative-sounding "theoretically," and followed by people
talking as if the issue was still open for discussion.  Why should someone
_propose_ implementing a policy which has already been _definitely_
adopted for implementation?

    Now, do you suppose you can deal with my arguments rather than
dishonestly cutting them out and only looking at one line in the text?  AS
YOU KNOW, you took the words "will be" out of context, carefully ignoring
all the "proposed" and "possibilities" around it.

    And according to Matt Giwer, only a lying holohugger would do
something like that. 
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Sat Jun  8 20:31:46 PDT 1996
Article: 41963 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!kryten.awinc.com!laslo.netnet.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-9.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-2.sprintlink.net!news.nevada.edu!news.tamu.edu!news.bihs.net!news.biddeford.com!news.stylus.net!hunter.premier.net!cancer.vividnet.com!nntp.uac.net!news6.digex.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The shy, lying Giwer-troll
Date: 5 Jun 1996 09:53:56 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <4p43hk$9so@access5.digex.net>
References: <4nj9gr$bm6@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com> <4p24ol$oin@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> <4p2ech$cuk@access5.digex.net> <4p2rb5$t68@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4p2rb5$t68@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>
>>In article <4p24ol$oin@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
>>Matt Giwer  wrote:
>>>kmcvay@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Ken McVay OBC) wrote:
>>>
>>>[email from Colin McGregor, administrator of idirect.com, deleted]
>>>
>>>	But you have to remember that 87 of those messages were those he
>>>requested to receive from me which constituted a mail bomb from
>>>Marduk of Internet Direct which is within the "acceptable use
>>>policy" of his organization.  
>
>>    I will remember that.  I will also remember the fact that you do not
>>deny lying about having information from Mr. McGregor identifying Gordon
>>McFee as Marduk.
>
>	I have not claimed that.  Why do you say I did?  

        "Were it not for MacGregor admitting you are Marduk there might
have been a problem with identifying you."

Matt Giwer, "Re: Giwer-troll is not droll", 26th April 1996,
article ID <4lq1hv$4k4@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>.  See

    http://xp1.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?recnum=1309722&server=dnserver.dbapr


    Oh.  You're right.  You said it was MacGregor, not McGregor.  Sorry
for correcting your spelling error. 

    Any more lies you want to tell while DejaNews is online?
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Sun Jun  9 10:22:38 PDT 1996
Article: 42012 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!scramble.lm.com!news.math.psu.edu!chi-news.cic.net!uwm.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!news.msfc.nasa.gov!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: 'I was afraid of Bothmann'
Date: 8 Jun 1996 23:09:03 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <4pdf8f$4st@access1.digex.net>
References:  <4p7em6$ie3@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com> <4p9tpq$9be@arl-news-svc-3.compuserve.com> <4pad10$4cu@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article <4pad10$4cu@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>100644.317@compuserve.com (Miloslav Bilik) wrote:
>>I was once in a situation where I thought I will inevitably die. I
>>firmly thought that nobody can hear or even help me (I was locked in a
>>crashed burning car), but I screamed for help. Is it so strange, of a
>>female trait ? In fact, could you explain what is a female trait ? Did
>>you ever see some human beeing dying ?
>
>	I am certain that if the storyteller had wanted to say "screamed
>for help" they were perfectly capable of saying exactly that.  If
>they had wanted to say "screaming for help" they were also
>capable of that.
>
>	But you can read.  The "for help" is not added.  It reads simply
>"screaming."  I would have thought it clear to you or anyone how
>to read that.  

    Once again, Mr. Giwer pretends that if something is not stated, it is
equivalent to an explicit statement that it did not happen.  By his logic,
since he has never told us that he uses the toilet, he does not.

    One might think that it would occur to a self-proclaimed critical
thinker with an alleged 163 IQ that not only were the screamers either
inside a truck with the motor running or behind a gas-tight door, but that
in large part the screamers would have been Polish and Hungarian Jews
while the listeners were Germans.

    I wonder if Mr. Giwer can figure out what that might mean?
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Sun Jun  9 10:22:39 PDT 1996
Article: 42017 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!scramble.lm.com!news.math.psu.edu!chi-news.cic.net!news.cais.net!nntp.primenet.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.bonehead.matt-giwer
Subject: Re: 'I was afraid of Bothmann'
Date: 8 Jun 1996 23:21:19 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 105
Message-ID: <4pdfvf$6o9@access1.digex.net>
References:  <4p7em6$ie3@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com> <4paae6$r2g@access5.digex.net> <4pave7$79g@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:42017 alt.bonehead.matt-giwer:39

In article <4pave7$79g@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>
>>In article <4p7em6$ie3@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>,
>>Matt Giwer  wrote:
>>>mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>>>>    Are you really saying that no person on the planet, not even a child,
>>>>would scream in terror?
>>>
>>>	You mean you would scream in terror.  In case you have never
>>>noticed it, the scream reaction is a female trait.  Where have
>>>you been all your life?  

    I should note that you did not answer the question.  I did not say
anything about what I would or would not do.  I asked a question.  You
evaded it with an insult.


>>    If you don't know that male children also scream, 
>
>	That may be your experience as you were raised with a non-human
>species.

    What a mature, adult, factual response.



>perhaps you are
>>the one who needs to answer that question.  But now you admit that some
>>people, at least, scream.  Very good, we are making progress.
> 
>	If you are really going to claim you do not remember little
>(human) girls practicing screaming, you lead a very sheltered
>childhood.

     I do not claim such a thing.  Nothing in my text can honestly be
interpreted in such a way.  But of course you cannot deal with my
argument, so you must beat up on a strawman.


>>    Now please produce the testimony which explicitly identified screams
>>as coming from adult male victims.  I don't recall any which identified
>>the gender, but I do not claim to have read them all.
>
>	You should as it is reported of adult males.  You don't even read
>the damned NG and yet you appeal to your ignorance as evidence.  

    On the contrary, it is you who has done so.  You claimed never to have
read testimonies of threats and attempts to escape, and offered that as
evidence.

    I have merely asked you to back up a claim.  As usual, you cannot do
so.


>>>>>That you would GROAN when your nervous system was paralysized?  
>>>
>>>>    Our superscientist now claims that engine exhaust paralyzes the
>>>>nervous system instantly.  It is a wonder he does not collapse when
>>>>crossing the street near cars.
>>>
>>>	It is reported in cyanide also.  
>
>>    Excuse me, Mr. Superscientist, sir, but did you not tell us recently
>>that cyanide is one product of incomplete combustion?  And, as you know,
>>combustion is not perfect even in a well-tuned car.  Therefore by your own
>>word there should be cyanide in engine exhaust.  Therefore people should
>>be paralyzed right and left on the street if what you said is true.  Do
>>you claim that this is the case?
>
>	Concentration of course as any vaguely scientifically literate
>person would not have to be told.  

    Of course you would not admit this until I pointed out the
ridiculousness of your position.

    You now admit that people exposed to cyanide _can_ scream until the
concentration reaches the required level.  Therefore as I said below, you
tried to deceive people with your remarks about paralyzed nervous systems.
You really are quite easy to catch in your lies.  I would expect better of
a 163 IQ type.


>>    It would seem that you too are using your knowledge of science to
>>deceive, in other words.  Of course, perhaps the problem is just that you
>>were lying about having any.
>
>	Doesn't work, scientific illiterate.

    Nice attempt to blame me for your own dishonesty, but it doesn't work.

    In any event, since the testimony which started this thread did not
refer to Auschwitz but to the gassing vans, your reference to cyanide was
one more attempt to deceive.  Either that, or you do not have sufficient
powers of concentration to follow a discussion.  Sorry to keep pointing
out your lies and bonehead mistakes.  Has it occurred to you that if you
would only tell the truth and stop trying to pretend knowledge you don't
have, I would not be able to do so?


-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Sun Jun  9 10:22:39 PDT 1996
Article: 42019 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!scramble.lm.com!news.math.psu.edu!chi-news.cic.net!news.cais.net!nntp.primenet.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Moran is winning
Date: 8 Jun 1996 23:41:38 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <4pdh5i$78f@access1.digex.net>
References: <31B3318F.1E4A@niven.imsweb.net> <4p7k0n$95a@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <7JUN199605265573@cmi.arizona.edu> <4pabis$4ee@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article <4pabis$4ee@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>	Not at all.  Anything found to be incomplete as he stated they
>were is a lack of both honesty and integrity.  Simply failing to
>post the entire thread to which a message is a part is taking a
>post out of context and also indicates a lack of honesty and
>integrity.  

    If Tom Moran quotes all text to which he is responding (as he usually
does, in fact), then the thread is available as quoted text in his posts. 
If he does not quote all the text, then by your own admission he is taking
text out of context and he is the one who lacks honesty and integrity.
Either way, you lose.

    Of course I should not be so rude as to point out that you do not
really believe your nonsense about needing every word of context.  For you
have also carped at people for excessive quoting.  Or do you admit that
you were advising people to be dishonest in their responses?

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Sun Jun  9 10:22:40 PDT 1996
Article: 42023 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!scramble.lm.com!news.math.psu.edu!chi-news.cic.net!news.cais.net!nntp.primenet.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Moran is winning
Date: 8 Jun 1996 23:32:57 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <4pdgl9$72n@access1.digex.net>
References: <31B3318F.1E4A@niven.imsweb.net> <4p4pa2$34e@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> <6JUN199611105022@cmi.arizona.edu> <4p7k0n$95a@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article <4p7k0n$95a@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>dmittleman@cmi.arizona.edu (Danny) wrote:
>>    Please provide an explicit example (and URL) from Nizkor demonstrating
>>    lack of honesty or integrity.  I am confident that you are full of hot
>>    air and are unable to do so.
>
>	Moran did it in noting that what was on file about him did not
>provide a complete record and thus not an accurate picture.  But
>you read that.  It isn't in the message any longer because you
>read the explicite example.  BTW, that demonstrates a lack of
>both honesty and integrity.  

    Excuse me, good sir, but how do you know that Moran is telling the
truth?

    You cannot know this, of course.  Therefore you have, once again,
failed to support your claim.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Sun Jun  9 10:22:41 PDT 1996
Article: 42053 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.texas.net!nntp.primenet.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.censorship
Subject: Nose-honker still at large
Date: 8 Jun 1996 22:08:36 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <4pdbn4$7q7@access1.digex.net>
References: <4ovu98$pb2@Vir.com>  <4pae9b$rqc@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:42053 alt.censorship:84397

In article <4pae9b$rqc@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>	And there is still a holohugger who calls me a couple times a
>week to do his pig imitation.  That is the level of holohuggers.

    Excuse me good sir, but if you are still getting telephone harassment
it is entirely your fault.  As you know it is a criminal offense, and you
have publicly named the person doing it.  Anytime you want it to stop all
you need do is call the police with your evidence and they will take it
>from  there.

    Um ... you _do_ have evidence, right?  I mean, a 163 IQ type would not
be so stupid as do make a public statement which could be actionable as
libel without having ironclad evidence, right?

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Sun Jun  9 10:22:42 PDT 1996
Article: 42062 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!imci3!imci4!imci5!pull-feed.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!chi-news.cic.net!news.cais.net!nntp.primenet.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: unethical liars for the Talmud
Supersedes: <4pdigd$822@access1.digex.net>
Date: 9 Jun 1996 00:07:29 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <4pdim1$85k@access1.digex.net>
References: <4oj8nj$frs@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com> <4ol045$agn@d31rz0.Stanford.EDU> <4p3vmj$kge@cnn.cc.biu.ac.il> <4p4to4$aq@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article <4p4to4$aq@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer , greatest net.scientist since Ludwig
Plutonium, wrote:
>schultr@ashur.cc.biu.ac.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
>
>>Richard J. Green (rjg@d31rz0.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
>
>>: Richard Schultz did indeed refer to CO2 as an acid, and he is not wrong,
>>: but I suspect he is being a bit to subtle for Mr. Giwer.  
>
>>Well, since I got the example of CO2 gas as an acid from a freshman
>>chemistry textbook (_Chemical Principles, 4th ed._, by Dickerson, Gray,
>>Darensbourg, and Darensbourg), you are undoubtedly right in your suspicion
>>that I was being too subtle for Prince Myshkin (the guy who tried to
>>"prove" that CO2 wasn't an acid by asking for its pH).  On the other hand,
>>we could be *really* subtle and point out that the answer to the question
>>"Is Z an acid?" is "It depends," no matter what Z is.
>
>	Even our California chemist has agreed it is not an acid.  Now
>you come back and claim it is an acid.  One of you two is unaware
>that carbon dioxide and carbonic acid are different molecules.  
>
>	Again it appears something encourages a certain unidentifiable
>group of people to lie to goyim.  

    I fail to see how Dickerson, Gray, Darensbourg, and Darensbourg can be
called "unidentifiable."  And I would also like to know how they can lie
to goyim but not to the Jewish students using their textbook.

    Of great interest too is the fact that this book is apparently in use,
despite this apparent glaring error.  I wonder why nobody caught it before
Mr. Giwer?
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Sun Jun  9 10:22:42 PDT 1996
Article: 42072 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!imci2!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!chi-news.cic.net!news.cais.net!nntp.primenet.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.censorship,alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: Mr. Giwer's provider
Date: 8 Jun 1996 22:26:11 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <4pdco3$8kq@access1.digex.net>
References: <4ovu98$pb2@Vir.com>  <4pae9b$rqc@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> <8JUN199607221081@cmi.arizona.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:42072 alt.censorship:84410 alt.usenet.kooks:24890

In article <8JUN199607221081@cmi.arizona.edu>,
Danny  wrote:
>In article <4pae9b$rqc@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>, 
>mgiwer@ix.netcom.com (Matt Giwer) writes...
>
>>	I choose a provider too large to be harrassed.  
>
>    And a week or two ago when Mike Stien called them large, you postured
>    that you had no idea whether or not they were a large provider - even
>    though that was the reason you now say you chose them in the first
>    place.  Remarkable piece of of prevarification.  And this
>    acknowledgement is one more datum that your IQ was mis-measured.

    That's not quite the way it happened.  Mr. Giwer tried to insinuate
that I moved an inappropriate discussion to a newsgroup I didn't know if
Netcom carried.

    I replied that Netcom carried a full feed.  Rather than checking for
himself to see if the group was there - as he should have done if he were
interested in carrying on the discussion on the topic - he challenged my
claim.  (This makes perfect sense if his purpose was to pick fights and
try to discredit me.)

    Giwer, of course, never made a claim about the status of the newsgroup
- because Netcom _does_ carry misc.taxes.  I can see posts from Netcom
when reading the group, which is how I can know that Netcom does carry it.

    And Mr. Giwer seems to have dropped the issue.  Sure looks like he was
more interested in picking a fight and trying to deceive people into
thinking I didn't know what I was talking about than he was in any factual
discussion, doesn't it?

    Posted/emailed.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Sun Jun  9 10:22:43 PDT 1996
Article: 42090 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!chi-news.cic.net!news.cais.net!nntp.primenet.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Giwer goofs again
Date: 8 Jun 1996 22:44:25 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <4pddq9$iol@access1.digex.net>
References: <7JUN199611280821@cmi.arizona.edu> <4pam6h$5af@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com> <8JUN199610381488@cmi.arizona.edu> <4pcjtr$9j1@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article <4pcjtr$9j1@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>dmittleman@cmi.arizona.edu (Danny) wrote:

[snip]

>>>>    3. What methods were used for these censuses?  I am unfamiliar with who
>>>>    took each census and what methods were used.  If they used very
>>>>    different methods (say one used tax rolls but the other used a head
>>>>    count) then this may account for differences.
>>> 
>>>	Golly gee whiz.  Did you ask these same questions when the US
>>>pouplation was announced?  Or do you suppose that all countries
>>>conduct censuses in a manner to give a fales number?  
>
>>    This is a strawman; US census methods are not under discussion here.
>
>	Nor are census figures under discussion here.  If you are not
>willing to accept the prima facia validity of BOTH the SWC and
>the Wannsee number then we have nothing to discuss. 

    I just think it's worth remembering that Mr. Giwer originally misread
the SWC text, which explicitly said that its percentage of Jews killed
were based on _prewar_ numbers.  He thought that he was computing
_postwar_ populations.  It's quite clear to me that he thought he was
proving, by comparing the Wannsee numbers to the SWC numbers, that only
1.4 million Jews died. 

    Of course he will say he was trying to do no such thing.  And if you
believe that, I have some swampland in Florida to sell you.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Sun Jun  9 10:22:44 PDT 1996
Article: 42117 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.wildstar.net!news.sdsmt.edu!nntp.uac.net!cancer.vividnet.com!hunter.premier.net!news.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Let's misrepresent to make a story
Date: 8 Jun 1996 22:51:20 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 119
Message-ID: <4pde78$nbg@access1.digex.net>
References: <4p2aov$lu@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com> <4p56qg$88a@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> <4pabc7$rkq@access5.digex.net> <4pb15u$d64@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article <4pb15u$d64@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>
>>In article <4p56qg$88a@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
>>Matt Giwer  wrote:
>>>mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <4p2aov$lu@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
>>>>Matt Giwer  wrote:
>>>>>	Here we have an implication about the Wannsee Conference that is
>>>>>in support of previous "answers" of mass gassings.  But we all
>>>>>know that mass gassings are not discussed in the Wannsee
>>>>>Protocol.
>>>
>>>>    And we all know that mass _gassing_ is not mentioned in the Wiesenthal
>>>>Center text above, either.  So it is not clear what point you are trying
>>>>to make here.
>>>
>>>	I originally simply made the point that there were about 1.5
>>>million unaccounted for people.  I was simply pointing out how
>>>many others have apparently vanished without a trace.  
>
>>    This in no way addresses your claim that the SWC implied the Wannsee
>>minutes supported mass _gassing_.  Please explain, using commonly accepted
>>meanings of English words, how the SWC's words imply that mass gassings
>>are discussed in the Wannsee Protocol.
>
>>    Your attempt to pretend you were saying something other than what you
>>were clearly saying is rather pathetic.
>
>	If you had ever bothered to read the previous answers you would
>know what I am talking about.  I will be happy to post all 36 of
>them to you if you can not look at them on your own.  


    So proximity of text always implies that a logical connection is being
asserted?  That is today's true truth about how to interpret text?  Of
cousre you seem to get upset when people apply it to your text.  Just
another one of your contradictory true truths, I guess.



>>>	What does WILL BE mean in holospeak?
>
>>    It means just what you think it means.  However, in my text which you
>>dishonestly cut out, I pointed out the reasons why I conclude that the
>>only honest interpretation is that the "will be" was a proposal only, not
>>an announcement of settled policy.  The "will be" text was immediately
>>preceded with a tentative-sounding "theoretically," and followed by people
>>talking as if the issue was still open for discussion.  Why should someone
>>_propose_ implementing a policy which has already been _definitely_
>>adopted for implementation?
>
>>    Now, do you suppose you can deal with my arguments rather than
>>dishonestly cutting them out and only looking at one line in the text?  AS
>>YOU KNOW, you took the words "will be" out of context, carefully ignoring
>>all the "proposed" and "possibilities" around it.
>
>>    And according to Matt Giwer, only a lying holohugger would do
>>something like that. 
>
>	Right on there.  You "will be" assassinated is merely a proposal
>and of no legal consequence.

    Indeed, it can be, in the right context.  As I said, you took the text
in the Wannsee Protocol out of context.  Thank you for proving my point
for me.


>Japanese-Americans will be interred is merely a proposal.

    Indeed, it can be, in the right context.  As I said, you took the text
in the Wannsee Protocol out of context.  Thank you for proving my point
for me.


>Those who break the law will be prosecuted is merely a proposal.

    I apologize to the folks at home, but this time I just can't resist
the urge. 

    BWAHAHAHAHA!  Better get some medical treatment for the huge bullet
hole you just put in your foot, Mr. Giwer.

    Thank you.  Your last example proves my point.  When a bill is first
introduced that is exactly the case.  Unless of course you would like to
continue this charade and try to convince people that it starts out
worded, "It should be unlawful" and "violators ought to be punished by" 
until it is passed and accepted by the President/governor (or a veto
overridden), at which point they go back and change all the "shoulds" and
"oughts" to "will" and "shall."  Or perhaps you think it is law the minute
it is introduced?

    Or perhaps you are merely engaged in a desperate attempt to salvage
your original piece of dishonesty.  I would think even a mere 163 IQ type
would realize how hopeless your position is right now, yet you keep on
digging yourself in deeper.  I would not have believed it possible had I
not seen it with my own eyes. 



>	It is no longer a surprise to me the lengths to which the
>holohuggers will go to preserve their religious beliefs.

    It is no longer a surprise to me the length to which Matt Giwer will
go to try to defend his lies.  I really am long past the point of thinking
anyone needs me to point out that he is a baldfaced liar; I have simply
been trying for some time to see if there are limits to his ability to
delude himself into thinking he is fooling anyone (even if it's only
himself).  Few if any, it would seem - except for staking money on his
position in front of a neutral arbitrator.  He's declined two wagers I
have offered. Of course, this proves he knows that what he said is false,
and that he is a wilful liar. 

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Sun Jun  9 10:22:45 PDT 1996
Article: 42126 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.wildstar.net!news.sdsmt.edu!nntp.uac.net!cancer.vividnet.com!hunter.premier.net!news.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Giwer is not only a censor but a hypocritical one
Date: 8 Jun 1996 22:02:30 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 126
Message-ID: <4pdbbm$7ne@access1.digex.net>
References: <4ovu98$pb2@Vir.com> <4padof$l66@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>  <4pcll8$5te@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article <4pcll8$5te@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>mvanalst@rbi.com (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:
>
>>In article <4padof$l66@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>, mgiwer@ix.netcom.com (Matt
>>Giwer) wrote:
>
>>> Jean-Francois Beaulieu  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> But isn't the Nizkor leaders
>>> >  like McCarthy and Morris who had succed (very shortly and temporary) to
>>> >  shut up some of the guys they don't like (Giwer among other) with
>>> >  pressures? 
>>> 
>>>         Certainly.  There was systematic voice and email harrassment of
>>> Combase until I was dropped.  They even posted a bit on it here.
>>> That is called censorship the last time I heard.  It is also
>>> called a conspiracy.
>
>>Oh, my. Giwer is whining again. Tsk tsk. [queue itty-bitty violins.] Take
>>it to alt.whine.whine.whine, Giwer. 
>  
>	Statement of fact, little one.  There was in fact harrassment of
>a service provider by the holohuggers.

    One could also make a case that there was harrassment of two service
providers by the Giwer: Internet Direct and Volant Turnpike.  Giwer had
Rack Jite's web pages censored _before_ he was bounced from Combase.  Just
thought I'd point that out. 


>It is good to see that
>you do not deny it.  It is another example of the lack of
>integrity of holohuggers.  They are quite dispicable, you
>realize.  

    And what shall we say of Matt Giwer's censorship efforts?


>>Giwer, I think if he wishes to be taken as somrthing else besides the
>>whiney asshole he is, needs to _prove_ there was "harrassment" intended to
>>get Combase to drop him. Giwer can't because there wasn't. 
>
>	Prove intentions?  What a strange person you are.  You
>holohuggers did it and you know what you did.  
>
>In fact, as I
>>understand it, Combase had ALREADY decided to give Giwer the boot BEFORE
>>people here started complaining about his spamming a.r. with the Wannsee
>>protocol. 
>
>	Your understanding is completely false.  Who would have lied to
>you like that?  Or is this your own personally created lie?

    This should be easy to settle.  Please provide the article or email
you have with the earliest date complaining about your spamming a.r.  We
can then compare it with the date on the email indicating that you would
soon be an ex-user of Combase.

    Why did Combase give Mr. Giwer the boot, I wonder?  Did it have
anything to do with a mailbombing of users at Internet Direct?



>>That's not called censorship, it called Combase exercising it rights to
>>get rid of an asshole who is detrimental to their business goals. Neither
>>was complaining to Combase about Giwer being an asshole a conspiracy. It
>>was merely people exercising _their_ rights in expressing their
>>dissatisfaction with Combase in allowing an asshole like Giwer to abuse
>>the Internet. 
>
>	That is what is called harrassment.  As you folks were making up
>the complaint just like Chuckles Feree.

    What were you doing with Volant Turnpike, Mr. Giwer?



>	So tell me, just how many holohuggers were involved in this
>harrassment campaign?

    You tell me.  You are the one painting with a very broad brush. 



>>But of course Giwer, being a misanthropic asshole, would probably not
>>understand such a normal perspective on netiquette. 
>
>	Save of course that holohuggers still do harrass anyone related
>to people they do not want to hear from.  In this case that
>includes service providers and family.

    But let us not forget that Rack Jite was the first person here
censored.  And it was Matt Giwer who conducted the harrassment campaign
against Volant Turnpike to kill his web pages.



>	Holohuggers are truly dispicable people.  
>
>>>         Who else would do it be a holohugger?

    Matt Giwer.  Ask Rack Jite and Volant Turnpike.  Or retrieve Giwer's
own posts from DejaNews where he even boasted of his successful
censorship.  It seems once more Mr. Giwer, contrary to his claim, plays a
game that applies to only one person.


    By the way, I've had a very tempting offer from Marduk, who would love
to know how to do perfect forgeries of Matt Giwer's posts.  You will note
that so far there appear to have been none.  Though a couple of apparently
genuine Giwer posts made me wonder for a while if Marduk figured it out on
his own.

    I also note that Mr. Giwer, who has publicly claimed that I don't know
what I'm talking about when it comes to the net, has not only failed to
take my wager that I could back up my claim about his Israeli mailbombing,
but has not said one word asking me to back up my claim about the
possibility of perfect forgeries. 

    I guess that 163 IQ must be good for something after all.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Sun Jun  9 10:22:45 PDT 1996
Article: 42158 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!world1.bawave.com!news2.cais.net!news.cais.net!van-bc!van.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!uunet!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Do you trust your memory?
Date: 8 Jun 1996 23:49:58 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <4pdhl6$7i2@access1.digex.net>
References: <4pdbcg$hej@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article <4pdbcg$hej@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>	For those who believe implicitely in the testimony of witnesses
>consider this comparison of testimony to tapes of what the
>testimony was regarding.  
>
>	It only leaves the most diehard true believer defending holocaust
>"eyewitness" testimony even if there is evidence they were in
>fact eyewitnesses.  
>
>

>
>      Something has recently been 
>brought to my attention.  The book Remembering and 
>Forgetting; inquiries into the nature of memory by Edmund Blair 
>Bolles, 1988, Walker Publishing Company.  In particular 
>Chapter 17, The Emotional Memory of John Dean.  (For those who
>want to claim this is politics, this book is apolitical and this 
>is simply an interesting test case.)
>
>

>
>      For those who do not remember, 
>John Dean was the most believed and most quoted witness at the 
>Watergate hearings.  Most of the impressions people have today of
>
>Watergate come from his testimony.  It was clear, direct and 
>compelling.
>
>

>
>      Years later when transcripts of 
>the Nixon tapes were made public it was taken as an opportunity 
>to compare Dean's memories (which were down to which conversation
>
>on what day along with nearly verbatim recounting of the 
>discussions) with the transcripts.
>
>

>
>      The interesting thing is that not 
>only was his testimony clear, direct and compelling, it was 
>nearly 90% wrong.

    In other words, ten times as accurate as Matt Giwer's memory even when
Mr. Giwer is _not_ lying through his teeth.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access4.digex.net Sun Jun  9 10:22:46 PDT 1996
Article: 42194 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!uunet!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Giwer & gibberish
Date: 9 Jun 1996 09:45:12 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <4pekh8$c7g@access4.digex.net>
References: <4om9fu$a8e@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com> <4p0n95$opp@shiva.usa.net> <4p5c0l$kc7@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4p5rv0$8ia@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net

In article <4p5rv0$8ia@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>kmcvay@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Ken McVay OBC) wrote:
>
>>In article <4om9fu$a8e@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>,
>>mgiwer@ix.netcom.com (Matt Giwer) wrote:
>
>>>	If you want more on semantics itself, look for the works of S.I.
>>>	Hiyakawa, perhaps the best introductory works around.  Later you
>>>	can try Science and Sanity by Alfred Korzybski if you are up to
>>>	it.  
>
>
>>      "Are you saying that I should have insulting the Jewish 
>>      reputation for integrity by saying only Jew and thus 
>>      implying that we is observant?"
>
>	Are you saying there is no Jewish reputation for integrity?  

    I would say that Matt Giwer has neither a reputation for integrity nor
a reputation for being observant.

    I do not see how anyone who thinks "After a few minutes there was
silence ... after some time, perhaps fifteen minutes, the gas chamber was
opened" means that screaming went on for "tens of minutes" is in any way
qualified to tackle Korzybski.  Neither science nor sanity seem to be
subjects about which Mr. Giwer is qualified to deliver opinions.

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access4.digex.net Sun Jun  9 10:22:47 PDT 1996
Article: 42201 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Nose-honker still at large
Date: 9 Jun 1996 09:58:14 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <4pel9m$cd7@access4.digex.net>
References: <4ovu98$pb2@Vir.com> <4pae9b$rqc@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> <4pdbn4$7q7@access1.digex.net> <4pdf4j$p66@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:42201 alt.censorship:84444

In article <4pdf4j$p66@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>
>>In article <4pae9b$rqc@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
>>Matt Giwer  wrote:
>>>	And there is still a holohugger who calls me a couple times a
>>>week to do his pig imitation.  That is the level of holohuggers.
>
>>    Excuse me good sir, but if you are still getting telephone harassment
>>it is entirely your fault.  As you know it is a criminal offense, and you
>>have publicly named the person doing it.  Anytime you want it to stop all
>>you need do is call the police with your evidence and they will take it
>>from there.
>
>>    Um ... you _do_ have evidence, right?  I mean, a 163 IQ type would not
>>be so stupid as do make a public statement which could be actionable as
>>libel without having ironclad evidence, right?
>
>	It is not an international crime and they are originating in
>Canada from a person with root access to idirect which also hosts
>(and rips off by their prices) almanac ne Nizkor.  
>
>	But you know that.  

    I don't, actually.  Did you actually get this answer from the police
and/or phone company, that nothing can be done about phone harrassment
>from  Canada, or are you just making it up as you go (as usual)? 

    No answer to the question about evidence, I see.

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Sun Jun  9 10:22:48 PDT 1996
Article: 42220 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.ac.net!news.cais.net!nntp.primenet.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The shy, lying Giwer-troll
Date: 9 Jun 1996 12:09:41 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <4pet05$n46@access1.digex.net>
References: <4nj9gr$bm6@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com> <4p2rb5$t68@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> <4p43hk$9so@access5.digex.net> <4p4oos$ouk@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article <4p4oos$ouk@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>
>>In article <4p2rb5$t68@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>,
>>Matt Giwer  wrote:
>>>mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>>>
>>>>[...] I will also remember the fact that you do not
>>>>deny lying about having information from Mr. McGregor identifying Gordon
>>>>McFee as Marduk.
>>>
>>>	I have not claimed that.  Why do you say I did?  
>
>>        "Were it not for MacGregor admitting you are Marduk there might
>>have been a problem with identifying you."
>
>>Matt Giwer, "Re: Giwer-troll is not droll", 26th April 1996,
>>article ID <4lq1hv$4k4@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>.  See
>
>>    http://xp1.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?recnum=1309722&server=dnserver.dbapr
>
>
>>    Oh.  You're right.  You said it was MacGregor, not McGregor.  Sorry
>>for correcting your spelling error. 
>
>>    Any more lies you want to tell while DejaNews is online?
>
>	Now where does it say I had information?  

    You wish to claim an admission does not convey information?

    Actually, I think I know what silly word game Giwer is playing here.
But if he wishes to admit he lied about McGregor _admitting_ that Gordon
McFee is Marduk, rather than McGregor providing _information_, that's fine
with me.


>	Of course, almanac being hosted on idirect does increase the
>connection more than a little.  

    Now, do you have physical evidence, documentary evidence, information,
or an admission for this claim?  Or is it just worthless eyewitness
testimony?  Inquiring minds want to know. 

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Sun Jun  9 14:57:18 PDT 1996
Article: 42247 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Giwer Goofs Again
Date: 9 Jun 1996 14:02:34 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 96
Message-ID: <4pf3jq$k99@access1.digex.net>
References: <4ot8sk$3i@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com> <4p22h8$ce2@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <4p5nvc$bsq@access4.digex.net> <4p61qi$s63@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article <4p61qi$s63@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>	You really should contact the SWC and get an answer before you
>continue.  

    Did you contact them before you claimed that they were trying to say
the Wannsee Document was evidence for _gassing_?  Did you contact them and
ask if they were using the same sources as the Wannsee Protocol?  Of
course not. You pretend that nobody but you is allowed to interpret the
words of others, and that anyone who offers an interpretation different
>from  yours is lying or ignorant.

    Sorry, you are being dishonest.


>>    The biggest discrepancy I see is for the Soviet Union.  Due to the
>>closed nature of the Soviet regime, its official atheist stance, and the
>>soft squishy roundness of that 5,000,000 figure, I would imagine that
>>population statistics are softest for that country and a good part of the
>>1.4 million difference (and perhaps nearly all) is that the Nazis and the
>>SWC simply had different population sources which did not agree.
>
>	But as you know EITHER religion or birth counts for Jews so
>atheist is meaningless.  

    Although it is true that the Nazi definition of Jewish was slightly
broader than normal, I do not think that this explains all or even most of
the 1.4 million.  (By the way, it really should be 1.3 million.  The SWC
does not cover Turkey, and you apparently are so innumerate that you think
that you can divide by zero.  Look at Bulgaria again.) 

    Not every country keeps statistics on religion.  Therefore it is
necessary to estimate.  When there are marches in DC, the Park Police and
the DC police sometimes come up with different estimates.

    When you become intelligent and honest enough to be capable of dealing
with the idea that many of the figures were estimates, and that different
people can produce different estimates, let me know.  Until then, stop
trying to misrepresent my argument.  It is dishonest.


>	And as you have read the "true" SWC number for the SU is LOWER
>than the Wannsee number.  So we are still presented with the same
>problem.  You would have the SU number higher because of atheism
>while SWC puts them much lower.

    I did not offer that as the explanation.  Is your problem illiteracy
or dishonesty?  Inquiring minds want to know. 

    However, even if I were offering such an explanation, you have it
backwards.  The Nazis would have counted more people as Jews due to their
racial definition which is not shared by any Jews except the Reform
movement.  Therefore the SWC number _would_ be lower than the Wannsee
number if the definition of "Jew" were a reason for the discrepancy.

    Maybe I had better type this very slowly.  The Nazis defined Jews by
race.  If the SWC defined them by religion, that would indeed be a lower
number.  If you do not understand that, you are not qualified to deliver
any comments about critical thinking or statistical analysis. 


>>    So we compare the numbers.  Whee.  So there is a disagreement, by ca. 
>>1.4 million, as to how many Jews were in Europe "prewar" (whatever year it
>>is that the SWC is figuring from) and what the Nazis thought were in
>>Europe in whatever also-unstated baseline year they were figuring from in
>>areas where they had not already made their own accounts and population
>>"adjustments."  (Note that Estonia is listed as free of Jews in the
>>Wannsee document.)  Very good. Now, what is this supposed to prove except
>>that the population figures were estimates, something I already knew? 
>
>	The only problem is that your argument is completely revisionist
>in that you are making corrections in the wrong direction.  

    Please answer the question.  What is this supposed to prove except
that the population figures were estimates, something I already knew?
Nothing, of course.


    There is no problem with my argument.  I was merely pointing out the
problem with your argument.  Remember, you originally said the SWC figures
were "presumably" after the war.  This proves you are an illiterate,
because the SWC explicitly said "prewar."  There was no need to presume
anything.

    But clearly due to your illiterate misreading, you were offering the
SWC 9.6 million figure as a _postwar_ figure.  Thus you clearly believed
that the difference between the 11 million Wannsee figure and the
(supposedly) postwar SWC figure was evidence that only 1.4 million Jews
were killed.

    No doubt you will lie some more and deny this.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Sun Jun  9 21:21:26 PDT 1996
Article: 42341 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.wildstar.net!news.sdsmt.edu!nntp.uac.net!news.tufts.edu!blanket.mitre.org!bone.think.com!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: Giwer: a real troll
Date: 9 Jun 1996 12:31:01 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <4peu85$nrr@access1.digex.net>
References: <4ovu98$pb2@Vir.com>  <4pae9b$rqc@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:42341 alt.usenet.kooks:24917

In article <4pae9b$rqc@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>	Almanac is hosted on idirect is it not?  

    Now, what gave Mr. Giwer that terminally stupid idea? 

    Why, EVERYONE knows it's the other way around.

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Mon Jun 10 06:26:52 PDT 1996
Article: 42383 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.wildstar.net!news.sdsmt.edu!nntp.uac.net!cancer.vividnet.com!hunter.premier.net!news.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!usenet2.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!EU.net!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!nntp.coast.net!chi-news.cic.net!news.cais.net!nntp.primenet.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Ghettos?
Date: 9 Jun 1996 23:39:53 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <4pg5e9$pdu@access1.digex.net>
References: <4p2d9f$1o8@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net


In article <4p2d9f$1o8@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:

[snip of irrelevant portion of SWC answer #33 plus Giwer's introduction]

>   well. In the summer and
fall of 1941, refugees in Japan were
>transferred to Shanghai but no
>     measures were taken against them until early 1943, when they
>were forced to move into the
>     Hongkew Ghetto. While conditions were hardly satisfactory,
>they were far superior to those
>     in the ghettos under German control. 
>
>=====
>
>	Now here was have a policy of mass extermination on one hand and
>the economic burden of maintaining these ghettos on the other.

    In the ghettos in occupied Russia, at least, the ghettos contained
laborers.  In fact, one document mentions how they could not afford to
remove all the Jews from some areas because they made up such a large
proportion of the skilled craftsmen.  If they needed the labor from the
ghettos it would not have been an economic burden.

  
>	Does anyone else get the feeling there is something inconsistent
>about this?

    Yes, I do.  But then, I also get a feeling of inconsistency when I
hear that they give medical care to people on death row in this country.

    Say, do you suppose that California gas chamber is also a hoax? 

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Tue Jun 11 15:10:41 PDT 1996
Article: 42590 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!scramble.lm.com!news.math.psu.edu!news.cse.psu.edu!uwm.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Ghettos?
Date: 11 Jun 1996 11:51:23 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <4pk4lr$qq@access5.digex.net>
References: <4p2d9f$1o8@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> <4pg5e9$pdu@access1.digex.net> <4pgff1$7r1@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4pgff1$7r1@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>>>	Now here was have a policy of mass extermination on one hand and
>>>the economic burden of maintaining these ghettos on the other.
>
>>    In the ghettos in occupied Russia, at least, the ghettos contained
>>laborers.  In fact, one document mentions how they could not afford to
>>remove all the Jews from some areas because they made up such a large
>>proportion of the skilled craftsmen.  If they needed the labor from the
>>ghettos it would not have been an economic burden.
>
>	Strangely Nizkor carries an unassailbly true file claiming
>exactly the opposite, that they were all killed, the Wehrmacht
>would import more and they would be killed again.

    Why do you never post URLs?  Afraid someone might catch you in a
misreading like the "after a few minutes there was silence" = "the
screaming went on for tens of minutes?"


>	But there are so many true truths here it is difficult to keep
>them straight.  
>  
>>>	Does anyone else get the feeling there is something inconsistent
>>>about this?
>
>>    Yes, I do.  But then, I also get a feeling of inconsistency when I
>>hear that they give medical care to people on death row in this country.
>
>	Nazi doctors who could perform the miracle of infecting people
>with cancer would do that?  

    I don't know.  If and when I find a Nazi doctor working in a prison
_in this country_ which has a death row, even one who cannot perform that
miracle, I will ask that question and get back to you with the answer.

    And we have not even considered the obvious fantasy of a last meal
request.  As you know, food is for the purpose of sustaining life
functions.  Feeding a condemned person before execution serves absolutely
no real purpose.  But even if we assume that some feeding is required to
avoid the "cruel and unusual" clause, only a holohugger would believe in
the ridiculous idea that a prison spend any effort to ask for a last meal
preference, or money to provide steak and other goodies to someone who is
to die for the torture, rape, and murder of a little girl.  It is clearly
inconsistent.

    The California gas chamber myth will fall.  It is only a matter of
time.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Tue Jun 11 20:19:54 PDT 1996
Article: 42660 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Let's misrepresent to make a story
Date: 11 Jun 1996 12:00:17 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <4pk56h$132@access5.digex.net>
References: <4p2aov$lu@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com> <4pb15u$d64@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com> <4pde78$nbg@access1.digex.net> <4pdfj7$p28@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4pdfj7$p28@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>
>>In article <4pb15u$d64@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>,
>>Matt Giwer  wrote:
>>>mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:

[Big snip]

>>>>    Now, do you suppose you can deal with my arguments rather than
>>>>dishonestly cutting them out and only looking at one line in the text?  
>>>>AS YOU KNOW, you took the words "will be" out of context, carefully
>>>>ignoring all the "proposed" and "possibilities" around it.
>>>
>>>>    And according to Matt Giwer, only a lying holohugger would do
>>>>something like that. 
>>>
>>>	Right on there.  You "will be" assassinated is merely a proposal
>>>and of no legal consequence.
>
>>    Indeed, it can be, in the right context.  As I said, you took the text
>>in the Wannsee Protocol out of context.  Thank you for proving my point
>>for me.

[Note: the remainder of my post was deleted by Mr. Giwer_without_ any
indication that he had edited out the substantive part of my argument.]

>
>	Yes, you are very foolish.  

    Why should anyone be impressed by name-calling in your post which, by
your own standards, lacks honesty and integrity? 

    Of course I expected nothing better.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Wed Jun 12 10:36:18 PDT 1996
Article: 42816 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!hunter.premier.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Ghettos?
Date: 12 Jun 1996 01:28:44 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <4plkic$r0l@access1.digex.net>
References: <4p2d9f$1o8@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> <4pgff1$7r1@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com> <4pk4lr$qq@access5.digex.net> <4pkfhk$f3v@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article <4pkfhk$f3v@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>>    Why do you never post URLs?  Afraid someone might catch you in a
>>misreading like the "after a few minutes there was silence" = "the
>>screaming went on for tens of minutes?"
>
>	Why would I need to do that?  The endearing MS Ostrov has assured this
>entire newsgroup that Nizkor has an excellent search engine.

    She has done no such thing.  But you know that.


>You should
>have no problem at all using it and finding the exact reference in
>seconds.  

    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.


[snip]


>	And of course we know there was NO fabricated evidence used by the IMT.
>So it must be possible for Nazi doctors only to infect people with
>cancer.  

    We know there were no typographical or translation errors in the IMT
either.  Therefore it would have been impossible for Nazi doctors to
inject people with cancer cells. 


>	The gullibility of you folks is truly amazing.  

    Now, who has started believing you?
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Wed Jun 12 10:36:19 PDT 1996
Article: 42823 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Strange things on IX
Date: 12 Jun 1996 03:15:25 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <4plqqd$t3f@access1.digex.net>
References: <4paqqm$fsg@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>  <4pl9rg$sao@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article <4pl9rg$sao@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>dkeren@world.std.com (Daniel Keren) wrote:
>
>>mgiwer@ix.netcom.com (Matt Giwer) writes:
>
>>[About gas chambers]
>
>># After the war they were only found in territories controlled by
>># the Russians.
>
>>Liar.
>
>># And only the Russians found gas chambers.
>
>>Liar.
>
>>Why do you lie so much? Is it some kind of a disease?
>
>	Are you still into your Dachau delousing chamber fantasy?  That is the
>only one you folks have left and it is agreed it was a delousing chamber
>these days.  You cling to "it was some other building" but there never
>appears to be any evidence of it.  All there is going for it is the
>fierce assertions of the holohuggers.

     Obviously you are not up on current events.  David Cole is a
revisionist, but even he now accepts that there was a homicidal gas
chamber at Natzweiler.  For his efforts, Faurisson excommunicated him. 
You know how it is with religious fanatics. 

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Wed Jun 12 10:36:20 PDT 1996
Article: 42829 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!pull-feed.internetmci.com!imci5!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Holocaust Almanac: Sobibor: the Summer of '42
Date: 12 Jun 1996 03:32:00 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <4plrpg$7f@access1.digex.net>
References: <4ors7n$1ih@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4oua7m$c4c@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article <4oua7m$c4c@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>kmcvay@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Ken McVay OBC) wrote:
>
>>Archive/File: holocaust/poland/reinhard/sobibor sobibor.07
>>Last-modified: 1993/03/24           
>
>>During the summer of 1942 "...trains hauled prefab houses and barracks and
>>building materials to Sobibor, and the Nazis expanded the camp into a little
>>city with four boroughs.
>
>	Lets see, Wannsee Protocol, January, 1942.  Summer in June 1942.
>Six months after "exterimination is code worded into the solution
>they exand the living facilities.  
>
>>In the Officers' Compound next to the main gate and parallel to the
>>railroad, the Germans threw up living quarters for thirty-five SS men and
>>barracks for two hundred guards,

    They expand the living facilities for the SS men and guards which the
Wannsee Protocol has code worded to exterminate.  Very good.


>>a laundry and barbershop, kitchen, bakery,
>>canteen, garage and armory, and a jail for Ukrainians.
>
>>On the south side of Sobibor, far from the main gate, the Nazis built Camp
>>I, where all the Jews slept and some worked. 
>
>	And some did not work without being "exterminated."  Truly
>amazing.

    I do not work where I sleep either.  I did not realize this put me in
danger of being exterminated.  Perhaps I should make arrangements to
telecommute so that I can work where I sleep.

    Mr. Giwer claims to have worked at NAVSEA.  Since he was not
exterminated presumably he must have slept there. 

    You know, I can believe that.

[remainder deleted]
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Thu Jun 13 06:28:30 PDT 1996
Article: 42893 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!ott.istar!istar.net!winternet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news1.best.com!news.texas.net!news-in.tiac.net!imci5!pull-feed.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Nizkor, Home of Superheroes
Date: 12 Jun 1996 18:20:53 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <4pnfs5$hef@access5.digex.net>
References: <31BC16A1.1310@sm.luth.se> <4pihep$gqp@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> <31BD3334.510D@sm.luth.se> <4pkvki$eof@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4pkvki$eof@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>Johan Carlson  wrote:
>
>>With your so called proof you could probably prove that 'operation desert 
>>storm' was just a media trick. 
>
>	As I have noted, I have attempted to prove nothing about the holocaust.
>You can repeat it for years and that will not make it true.  Or do you
>understand what proof is?  

    Matt probably does not notice the man is posting from Sweden.  Fooling
a non-native speaker really should not earn any points at all.

    Mr. Giwer is playing more trollish word games.  He is telling the
truth.  To start with, in order to attempt to prove something about the
Holocaust, he would have to offer evidence.  People have been asking for
him to provide it for many of his assertions and have gone away
empty-handed. 

    Whether he is trying to _convince_ people to _believe_ something about
the Holocaust is another matter.

    Posted/emailed to Mr. Carlson.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Thu Jun 13 06:28:31 PDT 1996
Article: 42904 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!ott.istar!istar.net!winternet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.texas.net!news-in.tiac.net!imci5!pull-feed.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Sorry, no proof that Alec is lying
Date: 12 Jun 1996 18:03:56 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 72
Message-ID: <4pnesc$gtd@access5.digex.net>
References: <4n7sfr$rsg@web.nmti.com> <31a7a0e6.29555735@nntp.best.ix.netcom.com> <31A9BD3F.D18@gryn.org> <31bd7211.65545750@nntp.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <31bd7211.65545750@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
!Rack Jite  wrote:
>On Mon, 27 May 1996 10:33:35 -0400, Alec Grynspan  wrote
>and is answered by the CONSERVATIVELY INCORRECT, Rack Jite:
>
>!>2)Matt Giwers & Alec Grynspans *mutual friend* also maintains that
>!>ISP.
>

[Alec wrote to Jite:]
>!Your paranoia is showing.

    But his lack of reading comprehension isn't helping the situation. 



>!1. Matt Giwer was addressing your message when he mentioned "mutual
>!friend", not me.

    No, he was in fact following to Alec's message.  But (see below) the
text is completely ambiguous as to which people know the "mutual friend."


>!2. I know no one in Combase.
>!3. You can't even tell reality from BS any more.
>
>You are so full of shit you float pal...
>
>>In article <4nj369$8q1@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>,
>>Matt Giwer  wrote:
>
>>>alec@gryn.org (Alec Grynspan) wrote:
>
>>>You're assuming that Matt actually understands the net. From the
>>>headers, it looks like the mail was coming from a gopher'bot, not a
>>>web page at all!
>
>>Yes, Alec, I do understand it.  And my son maintains an ISP and a
>>mutual friend of ours is the other person maintaining that ISP.
>
>So how you going to deny this. Bad staff? Bad employees? Bad software?
>Not enough header? Its a forgery? But however you worm around it, it
>will be some unethical, dishonest sleazy crap which is your shit nature.


    Um, no.  Matt's text is ambiguous, and this time I cannot even find
any compelling reason to believe it was deliberate.  In addition to the
unnamed "mutual friend," there are three people referred to in the
paragraph: Alec, Matt, and Matt's son. According to the standard rules of
English, "our" could properly refer to any combination of two or more
people in that list, including Matt and Matt's son (but excluding Alec). 
I remember Matt dropping a major clue brick on your head about this as
well.  It seems to have bounced. 

    Your first reading _was_ reasonable - in fact, that is how I
understood the paragraph myself - but it is not the only legitimate
interpretation of the text.  Matt and Alec _can_ both be telling the
truth, at least about the "mutual friend" issue. 

    But Matt most definitely does not understand what happened with the
Israeli gopher site, unless of course he is being dishonest in making his
accusation that it requires root access.  It did not.  (I note that Matt
never accepted my wager that I could prove this, despite his supposedly
confident conclusion that I was making it up.) 

    We now return you to our regularly scheduled flamefest.

    Posted/emailed.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Thu Jun 13 23:24:06 PDT 1996
Article: 42960 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: 'I was afraid of Bothmann'
Date: 13 Jun 1996 12:17:59 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <4ppevn$qaq@access5.digex.net>
References: <4pdbun$9pi@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <4pkg5i$s8e@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>  <4pn6eg$i2c@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4pn6eg$i2c@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>mvanalst@rbi.com (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:

[much snipped]

>>> You are the one who believes Nazi doctors could infect people with
>>> cancer as the reputation of Nizkor supports.  
>
>>Giwer, unable to defend his Nazi apologia as it was cut to ribbons, now
>>grasps at straws by maliciously putting forward the unquestionable lie
>>that _I_ believe "Nazi doctors could infect people with cancer." 
>
>	It is directly from a file on Nizkor.  If you have a problem with it,
>take it up with Nizkor.  
>
>>I suggest Giwer provide the article where I allegedly said such a thing.
>>Of course Giwer will not because he cannot! 
>
>	I have already posted it but since you have a very poor newsfeed ...

[Repost snipped]


>Now that it has been posted a second time, you can deny you have read it
>twice.  You were able to find the cancer reference, were you not?

    I looked three times and while I could find the cancer reference, I
could not find Mark Van Alstine saying he _believed_ people could be
infected with cancer.  You wrote he _believes_ it.  You were asked to
support _that_ claim.  You can repost it ten times and the article still
will not contain Mark Van Alstine saying he believes that people can be
infected with cancer.  Sorry about that.

    However, I certainly believe that Nazi doctors can inject people with
cancer cells to see if they _could_ become infected with cancer.  Not
quite what the witness said, of course, but within the boundaries of
normal interpretational drift.  You see, I am a silly person who thinks
one should read what a witness says with the purpose of trying to find the
most plausible understanding of what really happened, not trying to find
ways to troll. 

[Remainder snipped]
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Fri Jun 14 07:15:47 PDT 1996
Article: 43054 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!en.com!news.his.com!news.frontiernet.net!news.texas.net!nntp.primenet.com!news.cais.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: missing files
Supersedes: <4pmsc8$46k@access5.digex.net>
Date: 12 Jun 1996 12:50:02 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 179
Message-ID: <4pmsfq$490@access5.digex.net>
References: <4pc0ch$5gc@Vir.com> <4pj52c$294@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> <4ploap$s7m@access1.digex.net> <4plqes$h0k@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4plqes$h0k@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>
>>>	Their site does not work for shit.
>
>>    Mr. Giwer does not work for shit either.  By his own words he is
>>retired at age 51.  Of course one could also call him unemployed. 
>
>	Retired at 46, presently 50.  Please keep your facts straight.

    Sorry I misjudged the almost in 51.  Of course you cannot keep
straight who said what, so please take your own advice.



>>>	Remember the claim that regex was a search engine to understand
>>>the technical ignorance of the people running the site.  
>
>>    Why should I remember the claim?  I have no desire to develop false
>>memory syndrome. 
>
>	You continue to defend the incompetent fool.  She has shown no signs of
>knowing what she is talking about.  My best guess is that the title is
>part of the payment for sleeping with one of the Gang of Six.

    Since you show no signs of knowing what you are talking about, why
should anyone take your guesses seriously?  Still no response to my wager
that I can prove my claim about the Israeli gopher site, I see.  What
happened to that confident conclusion?



>>>	Anyone knowing what they are doing would have written an indexing
>>>program long ago.
>
>>    Being retired, or unemployed, as the case may be, with copious amounts
>>of free time on his hands, perhaps Mr. Giwer would have done so. 
>
>	They have not asked me for my price.  What do you think they would 
>offer in return?  As I have pointed out, I do not contribute to society,
>I charge.

    Is it just me, or does this appear to be an admission that Mr. Giwer's
posts are worthless?  I certainly cannot see who pays Mr. Giwer to write
them.


>>>	What we have at Nizkor is a bunch of unqualified amateurs
>>>pretending to what they are not at the most basic level, that is,
>>>being able to maintain a website.
>>>
>>>	As HTML is so simple and the level of programming needed to deal
>>>with text is so trivial one would have expected even rank
>>>amatuers to have grasped it by now.  But they have not.  
>
>>    The files were originally on an FTP site with no thought of HTML.  Of
>>course the problem has been priorities and time.  But what would a person
>>without full-time employment know about that?
>
>	Gee.  It appears you think I am the only person who has thought of
>writing a program to add HTML tags.

    Actually, you aren't.  I recently recommended that that be jumped up
in the priority queue.



>I did not realize you thought I was so unique.

    If it has taken you this long to realize that I (and many others) 
think you are very peculiar, then you are even more dimwitted than I
thought.


>But then they have not asked the price for that either.

    Perhaps they have already determined the value.

  
>>    Of course time cannot be used by Mr. Giwer as an excuse for his
>>execrable grasp of the English language.  He has had fifty-one years 
>
>	Eight more days before you can say 51.  
>
>to
>>get it right or at least up to a sixth-grade level and has failed
>>miserably.  He has insisted that "tortable"  and "paupacy" are words which
>>should be understood by all, while unable to use a dictionary to discover
>>the meaning of perfectly good English words such as "scantling" and
>>"muffle" (in its sense as an oven chamber).  Of course discerning meaning
>>through context is quite beyond his limited abilities even though he
>>insists others should manage it for his own neologisms. 
>
>>    And of course there are such hilarious episodes as his offering, when
>>asked to cite a story about screaming going on for "tens of minutes," a
>>testimony which said "after a few minutes there was silence."  No, I am
>>not making this up.
>
>	Sorry but I have both cited and posted both stories.  That you confuse
>them is your problem.

    You offered only the one story in direct response to my request for
evidence, and it did not meet the requirements.  Lying and weaseling
cannot change that.  Sorry about that.

    URL is:

http://xp5.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?recnum=6889244&server=dnserver.db96q1


    Yes, in at least two different and earlier posts you referred to
another story which did say the people went on crying for "about ten
minutes."  And I clearly addressed that one in text included in the above
referenced article.  The time from which the ten minutes was estimated was
not clear.  If it is from the time the SS man climbed onto the roof, you
have no idea how long it took until the Zyklon was poured.  But we have
been through all that. 

    URL is:

http://xp5.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?recnum=%3c4focv8$i1e@wi.combase.com
%3e&server=dnserver.db96q1

    DejaNews allows one to get the thread, so Mr. Giwer cannot pull his
usual "lacks honesty and integrity" scam.  I offer the posts and invite
anyone who has doubts to read the words and judge for themselves.

    I am still waiting for Mr. Giwer to meet the same standard he demands
>from  everyone else: the person making the claim bears the burden of proof.


>>     Rather than mock people for lacking time to convert files to HTML,
>>perhaps Mr. Giwer would be better served using some of his copious free
>>time to enroll in a remedial English class.
>
>	I am so impressed by that retort, I could just wither.  Lets review the
>bidding.  On my site I have over a meg of my own text files.  You don't
>have jack.  
>
>>>	The website itself is testimony to their level of intellige
>>>and ability.  
>
>>    Mr. Giwer's posts are testimony to his level of illiteracy and
>>dishonesty.  One need only look at his text quoted in this post to see his
>>inability to form coherent, grammatically correct English sentences.
>>Perhaps HTML is all that is within his powers.  It is after all much
>>simpler than English.
>
>	It is extremely simple.  That is why I am curious that the HTML pro 
>from Dover for Nizkor consistantly gets it wrong.

    If you are having trouble reading the files perhaps you should check
your browser configuration.  Things look fine when I call them up.  Much
more readable than some of your text, in fact.


>>    And he mocks people about kill files when he cannot even master a
>>spell checker.
>
>	Rather you need to learn how to configure your newsreader.  Or are you
>newsreader challenged also?  

    My newsreader works just the way I want.  Perhaps you have me confused
with someone else.  That seems to be a frequent problem for you. 

    I could configure my newsreader to send your articles through a spell
checker, I suppose.  They might or might not be more entertaining that way
- e.g., "paupacy" would probably have been corrected to "papacy" but
against that there are all the errors which the checker would guess
correctly on.  That's no fun at all.

    Of course that would only solve the problem for me.  If you expect
everyone else to filter your articles through a spell checker before
reading them, you are a very strange person.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Fri Jun 14 07:15:49 PDT 1996
Article: 43065 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Giwer, home of ignorance
Date: 13 Jun 1996 18:20:50 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <4pq482$dh6@access5.digex.net>
References: <31BC16A1.1310@sm.luth.se> <4pkvki$eof@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> <4pnfs5$hef@access5.digex.net> <4po05e$47e@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4po05e$47e@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>
>>In article <4pkvki$eof@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
>>Matt Giwer  wrote:
>>    Matt probably does not notice the man is posting from Sweden.  Fooling
>>a non-native speaker really should not earn any points at all.
>
>	All participants are equal.  I would NEVER insult his abilities with
>English as you have just done.  

    I am glad to hear that.  You are not qualified to criticize anyone's
English skills.


>>    Mr. Giwer is playing more trollish word games.  He is telling the
>>truth.  To start with, in order to attempt to prove something about the
>>Holocaust, he would have to offer evidence.  People have been asking for
>>him to provide it for many of his assertions and have gone away
>>empty-handed. 
>
>	I have been asking you folks for evidence for ages and all I get is
>testimonly

    There are documents as well.  Either you need to read everything which
is posted or you must be missing posts.  If the latter, get a new
provider.  That is a Giwer Rule. 


>and lies that testimony is evidence.  

    Do not complain to me.  Complain to the liars who wrote Webster's. 
See what they said at http://civil.colorado.edu/htbin/dictionary?testimony
- definition 2a. 

    Then complain to the liars from the state of Washington who wrote
http://www.wa.gov/courts/guide/glossary/glosse.htm - see "evidence" and
"expert evidence."

    And last but not least, complain to the liars who wrote Rule 602 of
the Federal Rules of Evidence.  You can view it at
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/602.html.

    I thank the people at Cornell for their scholarly input.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Fri Jun 14 07:15:49 PDT 1996
Article: 43066 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: No fuel needed
Date: 13 Jun 1996 18:32:36 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <4pq4u4$e92@access5.digex.net>
References: <4pq2in$8bh@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4pq2in$8bh@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>
>"MORGEN: These places were faked cloakrooms, and the person was given a
>check at each
>one so that the people believed that they would get their things back
>... When the last one was in,
>the doors were shut and the gas was let into the room. As soon as death
>had set in, the
>ventilators were started. When the air could be breathed again, the
>doors were opened, and the
>Jewish workers removed the bodies. By means of a special procedure...
>they were burned in the
>open air without the use of fuel. "
>IMT XX - p. 494. 
>
>	More Nazi physics at work. 
>
>	I am certain our favorite chemist can explain this one.
>
>	On the other hand, why did they ever need any crematoria if they 
>could do this?

    I note that Mr. Giwer has not presented the defense cross-examination
of this witness.  Why has he not done that?

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Fri Jun 14 07:15:50 PDT 1996
Article: 43067 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Giwer & gibberish
Date: 13 Jun 1996 19:40:34 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <4pq8ti$gut@access5.digex.net>
References: <4om9fu$a8e@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com> <31bf790b.13923897@news.skypoint.com> <31BFF477.1305@sm.luth.se> <4ppoom$2vq@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4ppoom$2vq@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>Johan Carlson  wrote:
>
>>All this about the communists and Jews in the Netherlands are nothing
>>but complete nonsense. There is not an ounce of truth in Mr. Apollos 
>>argument. Perhaps it's just a stupid a joke; but more likely i beleive
>>he's another anti-semite shithead just like Mr. Giwer. Although Mr. 
>>Giwer is a lot more refined in his use of the English language.
>
>	Be careful.  That observation is a violation of holohugger dogma.

    Obviously he did not get enough data points.


>>As you might notice english is not my native language and therefore Mr. 
>>Giwers 'word games' can seem a little strange to me. That's not to say 
>>that I'm stupid (as Mr. Giwer once implied). 
>
>That is SOP in this newsgroup.  But I have never critiqued your use of
>english as have the holohuggers.

    Really?  Now, who said there was anything wrong with Mr. Carlson's
English?  As you know, I never did.  Are you trying to mislead people into
thinking I had?  That would be deceptive and dishonest and lacking in
integrity.  But you know that.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Fri Jun 14 07:15:51 PDT 1996
Article: 43101 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!globe.indirect.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Giwer and contradictory true truths
Date: 13 Jun 1996 23:12:30 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <4pqlau$7g7@access1.digex.net>
References: <31aef597.2513807@news.pacificnet.net> <4p2gkg$s1d@Vir.com> <4pke4b$73j@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article <4pke4b$73j@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>Jean-Francois Beaulieu  wrote:
>
>>tm@pacificnet.net (tom moran) wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>> 	 "Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp"
>>> 
>>> 	"Jehuda Bacon was a 14-year-old member of the truck commando who
>>> had to retrieve ashes from the crematoria to spread onto the the icy
>>> paths during winter. He saw horrible events there, but also got to
>>> know Kalman Furman, who was always friendly to the teens and ready to
>>> help. Bacon remembers the '"Aryan"' kapo Jozef Ilezuk--a teacher who
>>> allowed children, upon completion of their work, to warm themselves in
>>> an empty gas chamber."
>>> 
>>  Yups, seems that the carbonized flesh around the bones have now
>>  turned into ashes.

    Ah, the joy of false dichotomies.  I had expected better of Mr.
Beaulieu.


>	The true truth depends only upon the story the huggers wants to
>tell.


>	You would think at some point they would be bright enough to refrain
>from telling contradictory stories.  

    You mean like the ashes that apparently must jump out of the river
onto the banks so that they should be findable but suddenly burrow down to
a deep layer so that they are impossible to find as soon as anyone claims
to have found them?  Mr. Giwer has posted these contradictory stories.  He
must not be very bright. 

    Posted/emailed to Mr. Beaulieu only.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Fri Jun 14 07:15:52 PDT 1996
Article: 43106 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!overload.lbl.gov!marlin.ucsf.edu!news.uoregon.edu!hunter.premier.net!uunet!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: missing files
Date: 12 Jun 1996 02:32:57 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 94
Message-ID: <4ploap$s7m@access1.digex.net>
References: <4pc0ch$5gc@Vir.com> <4pj52c$294@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article <4pj52c$294@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>Jean-Francois Beaulieu  wrote:
>
>>I've not follow all the exchange about missing files but the best
>>I could remember Tom was complaining that some of his post were not there. 
>>I've check
>>in my case also in the section people and it seems that they keep
>>track of only a part of the post.
>>Doesn't seems to be related to a 'choice' however, their system
>>seems to work sometimes and sometimes not, regardless of the contain.
>
>	Their site does not work for shit.

    Mr. Giwer does not work for shit either.  By his own words he is
retired at age 51.  Of course one could also call him unemployed. 

  

>	It is no more than a medium of self aggrandizement, expecting to
>be honored guests at Sedar or some such.  
>
>	Remember the claim that regex was a search engine to understand
>the technical ignorance of the people running the site.  

    Why should I remember the claim?  I have no desire to develop false
memory syndrome. 


>	I know of one site where there grunt delights in signing his
>messages VP.
>
>	And for Nizkor, incompetants delight in signing themselves
>co-webmasters.
>
>
>	Anyone who could read the help files could do better than they
>are doing.  
>
>	Anyone knowing what they are doing would have written an indexing
>program long ago.

    Being retired, or unemployed, as the case may be, with copious amounts
of free time on his hands, perhaps Mr. Giwer would have done so. 



>	What we have at Nizkor is a bunch of unqualified amateurs
>pretending to what they are not at the most basic level, that is,
>being able to maintain a website.
>
>	As HTML is so simple and the level of programming needed to deal
>with text is so trivial one would have expected even rank
>amatuers to have grasped it by now.  But they have not.  

    The files were originally on an FTP site with no thought of HTML.  Of
course the problem has been priorities and time.  But what would a person
without full-time employment know about that?

    Of course time cannot be used by Mr. Giwer as an excuse for his
execrable grasp of the English language.  He has had fifty-one years to
get it right or at least up to a sixth-grade level and has failed
miserably.  He has insisted that "tortable"  and "paupacy" are words which
should be understood by all, while unable to use a dictionary to discover
the meaning of perfectly good English words such as "scantling" and
"muffle" (in its sense as an oven chamber).  Of course discerning meaning
through context is quite beyond his limited abilities even though he
insists others should manage it for his own neologisms. 

    And of course there are such hilarious episodes as his offering, when
asked to cite a story about screaming going on for "tens of minutes," a
testimony which said "after a few minutes there was silence."  No, I am
not making this up.

     Rather than mock people for lacking time to convert files to HTML,
perhaps Mr. Giwer would be better served using some of his copious free
time to enroll in a remedial English class.


>	The website itself is testimony to their level of intellige
>and ability.  

    Mr. Giwer's posts are testimony to his level of illiteracy and
dishonesty.  One need only look at his text quoted in this post to see his
inability to form coherent, grammatically correct English sentences.
Perhaps HTML is all that is within his powers.  It is after all much
simpler than English.

    And he mocks people about kill files when he cannot even master a
spell checker.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Fri Jun 14 07:15:53 PDT 1996
Article: 43136 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: More conflicting true truths
Date: 14 Jun 1996 00:49:28 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <4pqr0o$a89@access1.digex.net>
References: <4pq6ej$omt@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article <4pq6ej$omt@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>
>4/30/81: 
>     The editorial page of the Los Angeles Times contains a piece by
>Rachel Patron, who
>     claims that as a Polish Jew she was shipped off to Siberia by the
>Soviets during WWII (and
>     you thought all Polish Jews were captured and gassed by Nazis). Ms.
>Patron goes on to
>     state that on later passing through Ukraine on her return to Poland
>she found a shed full of
>     soap made from Jews. Isn't it interesting how these Holocaust
>survivors can remember
>     seeing things that never existed? 

    It is quite true that people were shown bars of soap and told they
were made from Jews, but that in fact the bars stamped "RIF" had a
perfectly ordinary source.  The bars existed, of course; the problem was
not hallucination, but believing the rumor that circulated about the bars.


    It is also interesting that Holocaust deniers claim that the Russians
were really the ones responsible for making large number of Jews disappear
yet here Mr. Giwer tells us about one that was allowed to return home.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Fri Jun 14 07:15:54 PDT 1996
Article: 43142 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!en.com!news.his.com!news.frontiernet.net!news.texas.net!nntp.primenet.com!news.cais.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Many things change
Date: 12 Jun 1996 03:08:47 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <4plqdv$stq@access1.digex.net>
References: <4paukm$66k@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com> <4pi990$o3k@Vir.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article <4pi990$o3k@Vir.com>, Jean-Francois Beaulieu   wrote:
>mgiwer@ix.netcom.com (Matt Giwer) wrote:
>>      But let me remind you of one thing you must certainly
>> remember from history class; both Germany and Russia invaded
>> Poland.  But as we know England, and soon after, France, only
>> declared war on Germany and not Russia.  What is the explanation
>> for this?  If England's reason for declaring war upon Germany was
>> just then was it not equal cause to declare war upon Russia?
>> 
>
>
>  Never though to this one. It was under my nose for 2 decades
>  but I never asked myself questions about it before. Well, I
>  know why, but I'll keep this one in my bilological hard drive.

    Lack of a suicidal urge was the first idea that came to my mind.  As
it turned out, England could not even handle Germany without help from
both America and Russia, let alone Germany and Russia simultaneously.
Anyone who believes that the reason a country goes to war is justice has
some decidedly peculiar ideas about the way the world works.

    Posted/emailed to Mr. Beaulieu only.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Fri Jun 14 07:15:55 PDT 1996
Article: 43146 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!fury.berkshire.net!news.albany.net!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Prima Facie Extermination
Date: 13 Jun 1996 11:37:26 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <4ppcjm$oh6@access5.digex.net>
References: <833926605snz@abaron.demon.co.uk> <4p5kqf$2sb@news.enter.net> <834103824snz@abaron.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <834103824snz@abaron.demon.co.uk>,
Alexander Baron   wrote:
>In article <4p5kqf$2sb@news.enter.net> 
>yawen@enter.net "Yale F. Edeiken" writes:
>
>> >   Alexander Baron  writes:
>> 
>>         You are restricting the pleadings to a single claim.  No one has
>>  claimed 
>> you have stated the Protocols are genuine 
>
>Oh yes they have.

    This is true.  Al wrote something to that effect in a clearly ironic
mode, but I recall that at least one person misread it as being a serious
claim.  This goes to show a number of things, one of which is the point
that in evaluating a witness's testimony one must be careful to try to
separate what was truly observed from what is an interpretation of the
observation.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Fri Jun 14 07:15:56 PDT 1996
Article: 43168 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: 'I was afraid of Bothmann'
Date: 13 Jun 1996 19:17:23 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 96
Message-ID: <4pq7i3$fsi@access5.digex.net>
References: <4pdbun$9pi@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <4pn6eg$i2c@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> <4ppevn$qaq@access5.digex.net> <4pprls$666@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4pprls$666@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>>    I looked three times and while I could find the cancer reference, I
>>could not find Mark Van Alstine saying he _believed_ people could be
>>infected with cancer.  You wrote he _believes_ it.  You were asked to
>>support _that_ claim.  You can repost it ten times and the article still
>>will not contain Mark Van Alstine saying he believes that people can be
>>infected with cancer.  Sorry about that.
>
>	I was working by analogy.  ALL holohuggers believe ALL testimony
>regardless of how ridiculous it is.

    I have never met a holohugger, so I would not know.  Where do you find
them?  Can you name any of these holohuggers that believe all testimony? 
Can you cite evidence that they believe all testimony? 


>I also pointed out that Nizkor
>believes it else they would not be carrying it.

    If you believe that logic then you must believe that Nizkor believes
every word you post. They do carry it, you know - or at least everything
that makes it through the newsfeed. 


>It is also clear the
>French government believed it.  It is also clear that the information
>came from the Soviets who believed it.

    I had the impression that your true truth was that the Soviets made up
all the nonsense claims.  If they made it up surely they would know not to
believe it. 



>	Why would Van Alstine stand out in not believing it?  

    I have seen no evidence that anyone here believed it.  Have you?  Can
you produce it?



>Why would any holohugger disbelieve any statement the purpose of which
>was to support the death penalty?  After all, no one would lie about
>such things, would they?
>
>>    However, I certainly believe that Nazi doctors can inject people with
>>cancer cells to see if they _could_ become infected with cancer.  Not
>>quite what the witness said, of course, but within the boundaries of
>>normal interpretational drift.  You see, I am a silly person who thinks
>>one should read what a witness says with the purpose of trying to find the
>>most plausible understanding of what really happened, not trying to find
>>ways to troll. 
>
>Of course it is not what was said.  The word is "infectED" as you read.

    That is true.  But then, the word was not "air-tight" in reference to
the door at Auschwitz, either.  Sorry for bringing that up.


>As to your "interpretational" approach, this is not a casual comment or
>off-hand remark.  This is an indictment on a capital offense.  Wording
>is important in such matters.

    Yes, but we are long past that.  There is a difference between history
and legal cases.  I am interested in the historical record.  Historians
can properly use evidence that courts would exclude.

    In any event we would also have to go back and look at the original
language of the statement.


>Would you like to deal with them deliberately risking an outbreak of
>malaria next?

    If you present a convincing case that this would be a necessary
corollary of anything that was alleged, and that the risk was substantial,
I might.  Some people might doubt that anyone would deliberately risk
making the city of Harrisburg, PA uninhabitable for generations.  I'll bet
you deliberately risk dying in a traffic accident at least once a week.
And this is evidence of...?


>Would you like to go over everything else you believe is true simply
>because it was invented for war crimes trials?

    Sure:



    That didn't take long.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Fri Jun 14 07:15:57 PDT 1996
Article: 43169 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Giwer is seeing things
Date: 14 Jun 1996 00:11:27 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <4pqopf$983@access1.digex.net>
References: <31B3318F.1E4A@niven.imsweb.net> <8JUN199622193747@cmi.arizona.edu> <4pdps3$t7h@atlas.uniserve.com> <4pesou$aaa@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article <4pesou$aaa@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote [to Hilary Ostrov]:
>hostrov@uniserve.com (Hilary Ostrov) wrote:
>	You know you have a piece of shit site.  You even claimed that
>regex was a search engine.

    I have searched DejaNews for such a claim.  I looked for both "search
engine" and "regex."  These searches cannot find any post from Hilary
Ostrov which make any claim that: 

    a) Regex is a search engine
    b) Nizkor has a search engine

In fact, I cannot find either claim made by _anyone_, not just Hilary
Ostrov.  The closest thing I can find is a post by Gordon McFee asking if
Mr. Giwer knows about search engines - but that is not equivalent to
either claim above.  But once that question was asked, Mr. Giwer started
insinuating that such a claim had been made.  Others are encouraged to
confirm my results for themselves. 

    Now Mr. Giwer's insinuation has grown into an actual unequivocal
statement that such a claim had been made, and against a different person
to boot.  Given the search results above, I must ask Mr. Giwer to post the
quote which supports his assertion that such a claim was made, or admit
that he has lied.

    Posted/emailed to Ms. Ostrov.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Fri Jun 14 12:50:56 PDT 1996
Article: 43172 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Nizkor, Home of Superheroes
Date: 14 Jun 1996 02:20:58 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <4pr0ca$ds6@access1.digex.net>
References: <31BC16A1.1310@sm.luth.se> <4pnfs5$hef@access5.digex.net> <4pntqu$p0r@news1.io.org> <4po7p5$i3r@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article <4po7p5$i3r@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>alec@gryn.org@  (Alec Grynspan) wrote:
>>CONGRATULATIONS!!!! You've caught Matt's favorite trick: Set things up
>>where you think he said "X" and then sit back and insult everybody while
>>telling them exactly what he did above.
>
>>He's actually given an answer!! Only everybody keeps asking him for
>>"proof" to his challenges. He doesn't make a claim that he has to prove.
>
>>HE DENIES THE CLAIM AND PLACES THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE CLAIMANT!!
>
>>He's not very good at it, but he tries.
>
>	How can I not be very good at it and make this conference to 
>anything I want it to do?

    That is of course a very easy claim to make; no evidence is offered. 
But it is really very modest. 

    A mere newsgroup?  Hah!  I will have you know that the sun, moon, and
stars do everything I want them to. 

    And it goes without saying that I can call spirits from the vasty
deep. 

    I know you will have trouble believing it, but I swear it is true.

    So now that you have seen what a _real_ superhero can do, go back to
your troll-hole, Inadequate Boy. 
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Fri Jun 14 12:50:56 PDT 1996
Article: 43184 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!ott.istar!istar.net!winternet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.sprintlink.net!news-stk-3.sprintlink.net!newsreader.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-fw-6.sprintlink.net!news.clark.net!world1.bawave.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Dr. Klein Testifies About Auschwitz
Date: 12 Jun 1996 21:03:58 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <4pnpdu$pr4@access5.digex.net>
References:  <4o8itu$jjj@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <4p2e2j$con@access5.digex.net> <4p2klu$86h@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4p2klu$86h@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>>    The Giwer-troll does not know, or pretends not to know, that Birkenau
>>was a subcamp (albeit a very large one) of the Auschwitz complex and is
>>sometimes referred to as Auschwitz II.  The two camps together are often
>>called Auschwitz-Birkenau, but in colloquial discussion are simply both
>>referred to as Auschwitz.  Dishonest trolls who are more interested in
>>playing childish word games by seizing on any point of ambiguity and
>>pretending there is not another legitimate way to read the text can, of
>>course, have a field day with this one.  Wait until he hears about
>>Monowitz, sometimes also called Auschwitz III.
>
>>    Or wait until he hears about the stories as to where my grandfather
>>come from.  Some people say he came from Lemberg, while others insist that
>>the city he came from is Lvov.  I wonder if the 163 IQ type can tell me
>>how to resolve these conflicting true truths.
>
>	But you see this is where the IQ comes in handy.  We have several
>people here who have sworn,

    And who administered the oath?  I must have missed that.


>particularly in the "direction
>headed" picture exchange, that Birkenau was for those to
>exterminated immediately without selection.  So it can not be a
>reference to Birkenau but rather has to be a reference to
>Auschwitz proper.

    No, that is not correct.  Mr. Giwer has not been paying attention.  He
is thinking of Prozac.  What they have all sworn is that Birkenau is for
people who do not sleep where they worked.  People who sleep at work were
exterminated immediately, along with SS men for whom the living quarters
were built.  Those who were selected for special treatment worked like the
Dickens in creative writing courses where they were or were not allowed to
drink champagne.  And do not forget the screaming that went on for tens of
minutes when after five minutes there was silence.  This is a true truth:
Mr. Giwer swears. 

    It is all posted here somewhere, but do not ask Mr. Giwer for the
references as his sister's cat ate them all.  Instead you must read
everything which is posted, especially the posts which do not exist.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Fri Jun 14 12:50:57 PDT 1996
Article: 43207 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!news.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.dacom.co.kr!bofh.dot!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: No wonder we can't find the bodies
Date: 13 Jun 1996 19:32:39 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <4pq8en$git@access5.digex.net>
References: <4pq203$8bh@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4pq203$8bh@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>" MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, I have certain information, which was placed
>in my hands, of an
>experiment which was carried out near Auschwitz and I would like to ask
>you [Albert Speer] if you
>heard about it or knew about it. The purpose of the experiment was to
>find a quick and complete
>way of destroying people without the delay and trouble of shooting and
>gassing and burning, as it
>had been carried out, and this is the experiment, as I am advised. A
>village, a small village was
>provisionally erected, with temporary structures, and in it
>approximately 20,000 Jews were put. By
>means of this newly invented weapon of destruction, these 20,000 people
>were eradicated
>almost instantaneously, and in such a way that there was no trace."
>IMT XVI - p.529. 

    Mr. Giwer's quotation of this passage lacks honesty and integrity.  It
is out of context, and quite deceptively so.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Fri Jun 14 18:50:34 PDT 1996
Article: 43260 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: 'I was afraid of Bothmann'
Date: 14 Jun 1996 16:59:57 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 155
Message-ID: <4psjsd$rbt@access5.digex.net>
References: <4pdbun$9pi@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <4pprls$666@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com> <4pq7i3$fsi@access5.digex.net> <4pqgtm$bc5@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4pqgtm$bc5@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>
>>In article <4pprls$666@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>,
>>Matt Giwer  wrote:
>>>mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:

[snip]

>>>	I was working by analogy.  ALL holohuggers believe ALL testimony
>>>regardless of how ridiculous it is.
>
>>    I have never met a holohugger, so I would not know.  Where do you find
>>them?  Can you name any of these holohuggers that believe all testimony? 
>>Can you cite evidence that they believe all testimony? 
>
>	Of course you folks deny it.  But what else explains the silence?  For
>example, after so many exchanges over weeks with Keren, Green finally
>chimes in with the idea of confusing steam with oil vapor being absurd
>as I said all along.  Where was he?

    No evidence cited that they believe all testimony.  Let's move on.


>>>I also pointed out that Nizkor
>>>believes it else they would not be carrying it.
>
>>    If you believe that logic then you must believe that Nizkor believes
>>every word you post. They do carry it, you know - or at least everything
>>that makes it through the newsfeed. 
>
>So you are saying they carry information they know to be false.  I agree
>but it is surprising to see you agreeing with it.

    Nizkor knows Mr. Giwer's posts are false.  Mr. Giwer agrees.  Who
tortured him into this confession?


>>>It is also clear the
>>>French government believed it.  It is also clear that the information
>>>came from the Soviets who believed it.
>
>>    I had the impression that your true truth was that the Soviets made up
>>all the nonsense claims.  If they made it up surely they would know not to
>>believe it. 
>
>	As you know only the Soviets produced testimony and evidence regarding
>what happened in the territories they liberated.  That is the only
>source for the French claim.  
>
>>>	Why would Van Alstine stand out in not believing it?  
>
>>    I have seen no evidence that anyone here believed it.  Have you?  Can
>>you produce it?
>
>	Upon what ground could there be selective disbelief?  Are you claiming
>that one impossibility can be rejected but that other impossibilities
>must be accepted?  Upon what grounds can you make that claim?

    No grounds that I know of, but then I am not making that claim.


>	For example, how can you accept impossible cremation times on one hand
>and then reject an impossible infection on the other?
>
>	What criteria could you possibly have for selecting the impossibilities
>you want to believe?

    All impossibilities I want to believe must be color-coordinated.
After looking at your website I must say I do not trust you to make the
selection.


>>>Why would any holohugger disbelieve any statement the purpose of which
>>>was to support the death penalty?  After all, no one would lie about
>>>such things, would they?
>>>
>>>>    However, I certainly believe that Nazi doctors can inject people with
>>>>cancer cells to see if they _could_ become infected with cancer.  Not
>>>>quite what the witness said, of course, but within the boundaries of
>>>>normal interpretational drift.  You see, I am a silly person who thinks
>>>>one should read what a witness says with the purpose of trying to find the
>>>>most plausible understanding of what really happened, not trying to find
>>>>ways to troll. 
>>>
>>>Of course it is not what was said.  The word is "infectED" as you read.
>
>>    That is true.  But then, the word was not "air-tight" in reference to
>>the door at Auschwitz, either.  Sorry for bringing that up.
>
>	Any kind of "tight" is absurd with 3-4 huge holes in the roof.

    OK.  They might as well have a screen door on the gas chamber at San
Quentin, as there is an exhaust duct in the gas chamber and clearly there
is no reason to care which direction the gas goes after it is finished
killing the prisoner.  This is a Giwerundean True Scientific Truth (TM)
which cannot be questioned.



>>>As to your "interpretational" approach, this is not a casual comment or
>>>off-hand remark.  This is an indictment on a capital offense.  Wording
>>>is important in such matters.
>
>>    Yes, but we are long past that.  There is a difference between history
>>and legal cases.  I am interested in the historical record.  Historians
>>can properly use evidence that courts would exclude.
>
>	Then we can expect no truth from historians.

    Another one of the "we"s here.


>>    In any event we would also have to go back and look at the original
>>language of the statement.
>
>	I posted it.  It is as I said.  

    The person who made the initial statement about experimenting with
cancer made it in English?  Do you have evidence for such a claim?



>>>Would you like to deal with them deliberately risking an outbreak of
>>>malaria next?
>
>>    If you present a convincing case that this would be a necessary
>>corollary of anything that was alleged, and that the risk was substantial,
>>I might.  Some people might doubt that anyone would deliberately risk
>>making the city of Harrisburg, PA uninhabitable for generations.  I'll bet
>>you deliberately risk dying in a traffic accident at least once a week.
>>And this is evidence of...?
>
>	Evidence that all of the claims of medical experiments were fabricated
>of course.  

    Your crossing the street or driving your car is evidence about what
happened in the holocaust?  This is a truly, um, fascinating idea


>>>Would you like to go over everything else you believe is true simply
>>>because it was invented for war crimes trials?
>
>>    Sure:
>
>>    That didn't take long.
>
>	You forgot gassing.  

    Not at all.  Gassing was not invented for war crimes trials.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Sat Jun 15 10:17:34 PDT 1996
Article: 43305 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: No answer
Date: 14 Jun 1996 01:38:23 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 108
Message-ID: <4pqtsf$bkb@access1.digex.net>
References: <4plnuo$acg@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <4pq28t$c6r@access5.digex.net> <4pqntd$gpt@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article <4pqntd$gpt@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>
>>In article <4plnuo$acg@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
>>Matt Giwer  wrote:
>>>	All I have asked for is the number of Jews who were subject to summary
>>>execution solely because they were Jewish.
>
>>    The question is not clearly phrased.  Do you mean how many Jews were
>>killed immediately upon capture or arrival at a death camp for no other
>>reason than being Jewish?  Or how many were potential victims?
>
>	The number that were in fact so killed in either manner solely for that
>reason.  No potentials, actuals.
>
>	How much more clear can I make it?

    I would ask rather why you have such trouble making things clear.


>>>	No one has been willing to give a number.
>
>>    If you were to ask how many people were living in the United States, I
>>would not be willing to give a number, either.  Even the Census Bureau
>>cannot guarantee that it has counted everyone and of course even if it did
>>its number would become outdated with the first birth after it is
>>tabulated.  The best one can do is a range.
>
>	Fine, what is the range?  
>
>>>	Am I the only one who finds it strange there is no such number?  
>
>>    There are various estimates.  You can, I am sure, find them in
>>different books.  If you are too lazy to go to the library, I am sure you
>>can find some numbers on Nizkor.  But I will invoke a Giwer Rule: do your
>>own homework.  I do not play games that apply to only one person.  Sorry
>>about that.
>
>	That is not the point.  Any number I come up with someone will disagree
>with.  You folks will NOT agree upon a number among yourselves.

    I was not aware that this was a requirement.

    You revisionists cannot agree on the number of Jews who died either.
Nor the number of Soviet POWs.  Nor the number of Gypsies.  When are you
folks going to get around to it yourselves?


>So I want your number or range of numbers.

    If I were to give you a number it would be my number, not our number.


>>>From the partial answers I have over 3 million and not all the "death
>>>camps" have reported in.  
>
>>    Well, just for openers the Einsatzgruppen sent love letters to the
>>folks back home claiming to have done for a million or so.  At their
>>trials, the leaders did allow as to how they inflated them a la Vietnam
>>body counts.  To what extent this is true is something we'll probably
>>never know.  They probably didn't know the exact number themselves.
>
>So if your position is that no one can ever know then any number is good
>enough including zero.

    You don't understand statistics if that is your position.


>There has to be a better number than zero.

    Yes.  You can add to the Russian shooting total virtually everyone
shipped to the Reinhard camps - and even then, the people who died on the
train trip would have been killed on arrival.  Pressac believes there has
been some misinterpretation of documents regarding Auschwitz-Birkenau
which caused an overstatement of the number of people received and the
percentage killed on arrival.  From what I have seen so far I think there
is decent reason to agree.



>>    Now, how many were killed solely because of being Jews, and how many
>>killed because they were not only Jews but dirty rotten Bolsheviks as
>>well?  I can't help you with that one.  I don't think anyone can. 
>
>	That is one of the points I am making.

    It's a pseudopoint.  All Jews were suspected of being dirty rotten
Bolsheviks.  All Gypsies were dirty rotten spies.  There's a better way to
phrase it, though: how many Jews/Gypsies were killed with _no_ knowledge
of their ethnicity?  Because I'm sure there were Jews in various armies,
and Gypsies who died from the same bomb or artillery shell that took out
the Slavs next door.  I have said before that because six million is a
rounded figure taken from demographics, it is a gross oversimplification
to say that six million Jews were "murdered." 


>And another point is that you folks don't know either.

    What does it matter that I do not know how many died of direct wilful
active murder and how many died of what would be called "felony murder?" 
Not even the Nazis really knew.  Goebbels merely wrote in his diaries that
about 40% would have to be liquidated.  Even he was estimating.  Yet you
expect me to know better than him?
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Sat Jun 15 10:17:34 PDT 1996
Article: 43311 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!fury.berkshire.net!news.albany.net!news.sover.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-stk-200.sprintlink.net!news.clark.net!world1.bawave.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: No answer
Date: 13 Jun 1996 17:47:09 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <4pq28t$c6r@access5.digex.net>
References: <4plnuo$acg@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4plnuo$acg@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>	All I have asked for is the number of Jews who were subject to summary
>execution solely because they were Jewish.

    The question is not clearly phrased.  Do you mean how many Jews were
killed immediately upon capture or arrival at a death camp for no other
reason than being Jewish?  Or how many were potential victims?


>	No one has been willing to give a number.

    If you were to ask how many people were living in the United States, I
would not be willing to give a number, either.  Even the Census Bureau
cannot guarantee that it has counted everyone and of course even if it did
its number would become outdated with the first birth after it is
tabulated.  The best one can do is a range.


>	Am I the only one who finds it strange there is no such number?  

    There are various estimates.  You can, I am sure, find them in
different books.  If you are too lazy to go to the library, I am sure you
can find some numbers on Nizkor.  But I will invoke a Giwer Rule: do your
own homework.  I do not play games that apply to only one person.  Sorry
about that.


>From the partial answers I have over 3 million and not all the "death
>camps" have reported in.  

    Well, just for openers the Einsatzgruppen sent love letters to the
folks back home claiming to have done for a million or so.  At their
trials, the leaders did allow as to how they inflated them a la Vietnam
body counts.  To what extent this is true is something we'll probably
never know.  They probably didn't know the exact number themselves.

    Now, how many were killed solely because of being Jews, and how many
killed because they were not only Jews but dirty rotten Bolsheviks as
well?  I can't help you with that one.  I don't think anyone can. 
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Sat Jun 15 10:17:35 PDT 1996
Article: 43316 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!fury.berkshire.net!news.albany.net!news.sover.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: At least part of the Degesh publication
Date: 13 Jun 1996 19:29:49 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <4pq89d$gcl@access5.digex.net>
References: <4pq3i3$eoi@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4pq3i3$eoi@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>
>	I wonder if the ten hour ventilation time has anything to do with 
>the long promised Degesh pub not showing up before.  

[snip]

    It has been discussed here before.  The pub is for unpowered natural
ventilation in a normal living space, with all the nooks and crannies.
Sorry, it is not the same.  Notice that they say to open the windows, not
switch on the ventilation system.

    Then too, why should you believe the pub any more than the label that
said that the product deteriorates in three months?  Or more than a patent
for that matter?  If patents cannot be used as evidence, I fail to see why
a user's manual should be any better.

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Sat Jun 15 10:17:36 PDT 1996
Article: 43320 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!imci3!imci5!pull-feed.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!hunter.premier.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: No gas chamber in Germany
Date: 14 Jun 1996 00:39:05 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <4pqqd9$a17@access1.digex.net>
References: <4pq5vm$omt@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article <4pq5vm$omt@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>	If someone disagrees with me, take it up with Simon.  But then we all
>know he lies a lot.  

    We all know Mr. Giwer lies a lot.


>4/19/82: 
>     WW II American airman Paul Stralka shares details of his stay at
>Buchenwald for the Duluth
>     News Tribune by recalling "long lines of prisoners being led to the
>gas chambers, which
>     were usually disguised as showers." Unfortunately, Buchenwald is in
>Germany, and as we
>     all know, "there were no extermination camps on German soil" (Simon
>Wiesenthal, Books
>     and Bookmen, April, 1975). 

    Mr. Giwer is trading on the unstated idea that anyplace with a gas
chamber is, automatically, an "extermination camp."  That is false.  Thus
there is no logical connection between what Wiesenthal said and the state
of affairs at Buchenwald - whatever evidence there is or isn't for a gas
chamber there, Wiesenthsl's statement is irrelevant to that discussion. 
Mr. Giwer is merely trolling once atain.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Sat Jun 15 10:17:36 PDT 1996
Article: 43336 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: One man's opinion
Date: 14 Jun 1996 18:09:33 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 48
Message-ID: <4psnut$24f@access5.digex.net>
References: <4pq0el$plp@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com> <4psgt6$noq@access5.digex.net> <4pslq9$1d7@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4pslq9$1d7@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>
>>In article <4pq0el$plp@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
>>Matt Giwer  wrote:
>>>"The Nuremberg Trials ... had been popular throughout the world and
>>>particularly in the United
>>>States. Equally popular was the sentence already announced by the high
>>>tribunal: death. But what
>>>kind of trial was this? ...The Constitution was not a collection of
>>>loosely given political promises
>>>subject to broad interpretation. It was not a list of pleasing
>>>platitudes to be set lightly aside when
>>>expediency required it. It was the foundation of the American system of
>>>law and justice and
>>>[Robert Taft] was repelled by the picture of his country discarding
>>>those Constitutional precepts in
>>>order to punish a vanquished enemy." 
>>>-- U.S. President, John F. Kennedy 
>>>John Kennedy, Profiles in Courage (New York: Harper and Row, 1964),
>>>p.189-190. 
>
>>    You know, if I didn't know that Mr. Giwer knows that appeal to
>>authority is a fallacy, I'd say this looked an awful lot like an appeal to
>>authority.
>
>	But as you know it is corroboration of the statement I made.

    You offer this as corroboration?  Had I offered it you would be the
first to point out that it is not evidence.


>You also
>know that even our distinguished attorney from Pennsylvania insisted I
>was wrong.  
>
>	Don't forget the Justice Douglas also agreeing with me.  

    You know, this too looks like an appeal to authority.

    I also don't forget that the Justice Douglas mentioned "crime" in the
singular yet there were four charges brought at Nuremberg.  Did he really
have such a poor understanding of the proceedings?
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Sat Jun 15 10:17:37 PDT 1996
Article: 43347 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!fury.berkshire.net!news.albany.net!news.sover.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-stk-200.sprintlink.net!news.icsc.net!news.sprintlink.net!new-news.sprintlink.net!newsreader.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-2.sprintlink.net!ÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝ!news.sprintlink.net!news-fw-6.sprintlink.net!nntp.primenet.com!news1.best.com!sgigate.sgi.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Another one bites the bait
Date: 14 Jun 1996 02:33:27 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <4pr13n$e31@access1.digex.net>
References: <31BC16A1.1310@sm.luth.se> <4pkvki$eof@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> <4pnfs5$hef@access5.digex.net> <4po05e$47e@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article <4po05e$47e@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>
>>In article <4pkvki$eof@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
>>Matt Giwer  wrote:
>>>Johan Carlson  wrote:
>>>
>>>>With your so called proof you could probably prove that 'operation desert 
>>>>storm' was just a media trick. 
>>>
>>>	As I have noted, I have attempted to prove nothing about the holocaust.
>>>You can repeat it for years and that will not make it true.  Or do you
>>>understand what proof is?  
>
>>    Matt probably does not notice the man is posting from Sweden.  Fooling
>>a non-native speaker really should not earn any points at all.
>
>	All participants are equal.  I would NEVER insult his abilities with
>English as you have just done.

    And where have I done this?  I have made one statement regarding your
miserable powers of observation, and promulgated a general rule about
trolling.  _You_ were the one asking whether he understood what proof is
before I said a word.

    You know this is true.  Why would you try to lie about all of that? 
What could what you have done be but the action of a person who lacks
honesty and integrity?

    Not to mention a brainless fish. 

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Sat Jun 15 10:17:38 PDT 1996
Article: 43359 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: No gas chamber in Germany
Date: 14 Jun 1996 15:51:33 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <4psfs5$mao@access5.digex.net>
References: <4pq5vm$omt@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <4pqqd9$a17@access1.digex.net> <4prbm2$45o@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4prbm2$45o@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:

[snip]

>>>4/19/82: 
>>>     WW II American airman Paul Stralka shares details of his stay at
>>>Buchenwald for the Duluth
>>>     News Tribune by recalling "long lines of prisoners being led to the
>>>gas chambers, which
>>>     were usually disguised as showers." Unfortunately, Buchenwald is in
>>>Germany, and as we
>>>     all know, "there were no extermination camps on German soil" (Simon
>>>Wiesenthal, Books
>>>     and Bookmen, April, 1975). 
>
>>    Mr. Giwer is trading on the unstated idea that anyplace with a gas
>>chamber is, automatically, an "extermination camp."  That is false.  Thus
>>there is no logical connection between what Wiesenthal said and the state
>>of affairs at Buchenwald - whatever evidence there is or isn't for a gas
>>chamber there, Wiesenthsl's statement is irrelevant to that discussion. 
>>Mr. Giwer is merely trolling once atain.
>
>	Then complain to Wiesenthal not me.  
>
>	He is the one lying in this case.  

    He is lying in this case?  Really?  OK, if your true truth is now that
there _were_ exermination camps on German soil, that is fine with me.


-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Sat Jun 15 10:17:39 PDT 1996
Article: 43362 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!imci3!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Many things change
Date: 14 Jun 1996 17:49:18 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 97
Message-ID: <4psmou$107@access5.digex.net>
References: <4paukm$66k@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com> <4pqogl$m32@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>  <4prdc3$435@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4prdc3$435@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>mvanalst@rbi.com (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:
>
>>In article <4pqogl$m32@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, gmcfee@ibm.net wrote:
>
>>> In article <4paukm$66k@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>, mgiwer@ix.netcom.com
>>> (Matt Giwer) said:
>>> 
>
>>[Giwer-Troll BS snipped]
>
>>> >For this we have to go back to WW I where one of England's greatest
>>> >weapons against Germany was a naval blockade.  And in that war Germany's
>>> >greatest weapon against the naval blockade was the submarine.  At the time
>>> >England selectively declared war on Germany, Germany had exactly 27
>>> >submarines.
>
>>As of September 1939 Germany had 98 U-boats in service. All were superior
>>to anything the Allies had at the time. (_The Harper Encylopedia of
>>Military History_, Fourth Edition, p.1152.) 
>
>>> Really Professor Giwer-troll?  Is that *all* the navy that Germany had?
>
>>Nope. But the German Navy, particularly the surface fleet, was no match
>>for the Royal Navy. (Not to mention the U.S. Navy.) The only _effective_
>>naval weapon the Germans had- one the Royal Navy almost didn't defeat -was
>>the U-boat. Fortunately, the the Royal Navy hadn't quite forgotten how
>>they defeated the U-boat in WWI: The convoy system, and quickly
>>re-established it. (To the the RN's frustration the U.S. Navy, at Adm.
>>King's insistance and the Allies detriment, declined to also switch to the
>>convoy system until well into the Battle for the Atlantic. Many hundreds
>>of thousands of tons of shipping were lost because of this. It would have
>>been much worse, possibly at the cost of losing the Battle for the
>>Atlantic- and knocking Britain out of the war, if the German Navy hadn't
>>suffered problems with their torpedos very much like the problems the U.S.
>>Navy also suffered with in its (successful) anti-shipping campaign against
>>Japan.
>
>>> >Despite what you might hear in the WW II documentaries, they were
>>> >being sunk as fast as they were being built.  There were never more than
>>> >29 operational submarines at any one time.  The damage you see is due to
>>> >the anti-submarine warfare technology and tactics of the day being such
>>> >that a torpedo hit was the first indication of a German submarine in the
>>> >area.  The sonars were only good enough help find them after heading in
>>> >the direction of the best guess as to where the submarine was.
>>> 
>>> Utter horseshit, Professor sir.  The earnest sinking of German submarines
>>> didn't start until 1942-1943.
>
>>Indeed Giwer-Troll's claim of "There were never more than 29 operational
>>submarines at any one time" is utter horseshit." Would Giwer-Troll care to
>>cite the source for that little road apple? 
>
>	Your assertion from ignoance of a Harper's Encyclopedia reference fails
>to note the difference between blue water and green water submarines.
>No on in their right mind would count green water subs in WW II.  

    What is today's true truth?  A green water submarine is not a
submarine?  For you did not say that Germany only had 29 submarines which
would be counted by people in their right minds.  Your original text was
unrestricted.  Sorry about that.

>	But then I will admit that you truly do think you know what you are
>talking about.   
>
>
>>As for a torpedo hit being the first indication that a U-boat was in the
>>area? Not quite. There was Ultra and DF. HQ often knew about how many
>>U-boats would be attacking a convoy. The escort commander generally knew
>>when to expect U-boats in his area. In fact, because of this, convoys were
>>generally routed _around_ the  wolfpacks. 
>
>	You are an idiot.  
>
>	First it was named HFDF or HuffDuff.  All of the "routing around" was
>based upon aircraft sightings as in those days subs spent most of their
>time on the surface.  
>
>>Then, of course, there was airborne anti-subnarine aircraft with radar.
>>Both land and carrier-based. They were quite effective, especially later
>>in the war when their numbers increased, in spotting and attacking U-boats
>>well outside the convoy's escort screen. 
>
>	The subject is the beginning of the war when radar was something no one
>really trusted.  
>
>>[Giwer-Troll BS snipped]
>
>	Because you are technoligically incapable of dealing with it.  

    Someone who is technologically incapable of mastering a spell-checker
is in no position to comment.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Sat Jun 15 10:17:40 PDT 1996
Article: 43364 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The case of the missing file
Date: 14 Jun 1996 18:32:45 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <4pspad$3c8@access5.digex.net>
References: <31b6f1cc.7611781@news.pacificnet.net> <31b8bf94.2305806@news.pacificnet.net>  <31b979e1.1481107@news.pacificnet.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <31b979e1.1481107@news.pacificnet.net>,
tom moran  wrote:
>jamie@voyager.net (Jamie McCarthy) wrote:
>
>>tm@pacificnet.net (tom moran) wrote:
>>
>>>     Who would guess that you would have to enter "camps" first then
>>> "Auschwitz" to get to "Zyklon B" the center of the Holocaust story.
>>
>>Who would have thought...!
>>
>>This _has_ to be a troll.  It just _has_ to be.  _Nobody_ could
>>possibly be this stupid.
>>
>>Moran is one notch closer to joining Giwer on my troll-killfile.
>
>	Jamie, does this mean you are not going to address the missing
>material that should be in the non-missing files? 
>	Jamie, where is the Degesch patent and the Degesch manual? Jamie,
>how come you have a "Rudolf report" listed and all it is, is a piece
>of a thread from someone else?  

    What is really interesting is that the "Rudolf Report" is cited as
evidence by the Zundelsite and CODOH's site.  Yet do you see the report
itself on their sites?  I hear revisionists talk about what really super
duper wonderful evidence it is, but I can't find it there either.  "It's
really good - trust us."
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Sat Jun 15 10:17:40 PDT 1996
Article: 43373 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: One man's opinion
Date: 14 Jun 1996 16:09:10 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <4psgt6$noq@access5.digex.net>
References: <4pq0el$plp@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4pq0el$plp@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>"The Nuremberg Trials ... had been popular throughout the world and
>particularly in the United
>States. Equally popular was the sentence already announced by the high
>tribunal: death. But what
>kind of trial was this? ...The Constitution was not a collection of
>loosely given political promises
>subject to broad interpretation. It was not a list of pleasing
>platitudes to be set lightly aside when
>expediency required it. It was the foundation of the American system of
>law and justice and
>[Robert Taft] was repelled by the picture of his country discarding
>those Constitutional precepts in
>order to punish a vanquished enemy." 
>-- U.S. President, John F. Kennedy 
>John Kennedy, Profiles in Courage (New York: Harper and Row, 1964),
>p.189-190. 

    You know, if I didn't know that Mr. Giwer knows that appeal to
authority is a fallacy, I'd say this looked an awful lot like an appeal to
authority.


-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access4.digex.net Sun Jun 16 16:13:01 PDT 1996
Article: 43894 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: One man's opinion
Date: 16 Jun 1996 16:50:45 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <4q1s35$61g@access4.digex.net>
References: <4pq0el$plp@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com> <4pslq9$1d7@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com> <4psnut$24f@access5.digex.net> <4psuvn$i4t@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net

In article <4psuvn$i4t@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>>>	Don't forget the Justice Douglas also agreeing with me.  
>
>>    You know, this too looks like an appeal to authority.
>
>>    I also don't forget that the Justice Douglas mentioned "crime" in the
>>singular yet there were four charges brought at Nuremberg.  Did he really
>>have such a poor understanding of the proceedings?
>
>	There was no justice at Nuremberg according to US and Canadian and
>British standards of Justice.  No one may be punished for anything he
>did prior to a law that makes the action criminal.  But you know that.  
>
>	You also know the IMT was not a military tribunal.  

    And I also know that Matt Giwer completely evaded the point.

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access4.digex.net Mon Jun 17 07:37:55 PDT 1996
Article: 43982 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.wildstar.net!news.sdsmt.edu!news.mid.net!mr.net!chi-news.cic.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Giwer, home of ignorance
Date: 16 Jun 1996 16:34:55 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <4q1r5f$5nd@access4.digex.net>
References: <4pqrpt$l99@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com> <4psm2p$l31@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4pt0uq$d86@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net

In article <4pt0uq$d86@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>pmccutc103@aol.com (PMccutc103) wrote:
>>>Rule 602. Lack of Personal Knowledge
>>>
>>>A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced
>>>sufficient to support a finding
>>>that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove
>>>personal knowledge
>>>may, but need not, consist of the witness' own testimony. This rule is
>>>subject to the provisions of
>>>rule 703, relating to opinion testimony by expert witnesses.
>
>>Your point being?  
>
>	That, being able to read, you know you are making statements contrary 
>to the rule you cite.  

    "Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but need not, consist of
the witness's own testimony."

    Cutting out the words that seem to be confusing our 163 IQ type,
"Evidence may consist of testimony."  If testimony is not evidence, as our
163 IQ type has claimed, how could that be true? 

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Mon Jun 17 11:03:27 PDT 1996
Article: 44042 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!world1.bawave.com!news2.cais.net!news.cais.net!van-bc!van.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!uunet!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Giwer, home of ignorance
Date: 17 Jun 1996 00:35:06 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <4q2n9q$iu2@access5.digex.net>
References: <4pqrpt$l99@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com> <4pt0uq$d86@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <4q1r5f$5nd@access4.digex.net> <4q2gnt$q1l@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4q2gnt$q1l@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>,   wrote:
>mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:

[Synopsis: Giwer claims testimony is not evidence.  I cided two sources
which Giwer did not challenge, plus Rule 602 of the Federal Rules of
Evidence.  Amazingly, Giwer said it supports him.]

>>>	That, being able to read, you know you are making statements contrary 
>>>to the rule you cite.  
>
>>    "Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but need not, consist of
>>the witness's own testimony."
>
>>    Cutting out the words that seem to be confusing our 163 IQ type,
>>"Evidence may consist of testimony."  If testimony is not evidence, as our
>>163 IQ type has claimed, how could that be true? 
>
>	You really can't figure it out can you?  
>
>	"I was an inmate at Auschwitz."  
>
>	"And what can you tell us that provide evidence that you were?"  
>
>	"Duh ..."  

[much irrelevant material snipped]

    Actually, there is quite a bit that one could say.

    But none of this answers the question.

    If testimony is not evidence, then FRE Rule 602 says that evidence may
consist of that which is not evidence.  Your attempt to divert and evade
the issue is noted but it is useless.

    And I did not even point out that testimony is covered not by the
Federal Rules of Testimony, and not the Federal Rules of Evidence and
Testimony, but by the Federal Rules of Evidence.

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Mon Jun 17 11:03:28 PDT 1996
Article: 44052 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!pull-feed.internetmci.com!imci5!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: No gas chamber in Germany
Date: 17 Jun 1996 00:01:57 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <4q2lbl$gp1@access5.digex.net>
References: <4pq5vm$omt@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <4prbm2$45o@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> <4psfs5$mao@access5.digex.net> <834958709snz@abaron.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <834958709snz@abaron.demon.co.uk>,
Alexander Baron   wrote:
>In article <4psfs5$mao@access5.digex.net>
>           mstein@access5.digex.net "Michael P. Stein" writes:
>> >>    Mr. Giwer is trading on the unstated idea that anyplace with a gas
>> >>chamber is, automatically, an "extermination camp."  [...]

>> >       Then complain to Wiesenthal not me.  
>> >
>> >       He is the one lying in this case.  
>
>Shame on you Mr Stein, you have read my documentation of the lies of 
>Organised Jewry about the Dachau "gas chamber". 

    I am not sure what you are criticizing me for.  The person who wrote
the last two quoted lines was Matt Giwer, not me.  And the initial
discussion is of Buchenwald, not Dachau.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Mon Jun 17 19:44:57 PDT 1996
Article: 44111 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Marduk forging again?
Date: 17 Jun 1996 17:49:35 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <4q4jtf$sia@access5.digex.net>
References: <4q45im$qcs@d31rz0.Stanford.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4q45im$qcs@d31rz0.Stanford.EDU>,
Richard J. Green  wrote:
>Mr. Giwer has been posting with two different headers.  Perhaps, he has
>just changed the way his software is set up, or perhaps Marduk is at it
>again.
>
>Comments?

    Genuine Giwer articles come from visibly different posting hosts than
the Marduk forgeries.  I haven't received any rugelach in the mail, so
unless Marduk has gotten smarter, the new headers are still genuine Giwer,
and the content appears to be as well.

    Posted/emailed.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Mon Jun 17 23:24:16 PDT 1996
Article: 44115 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.texas.net!nntp.primenet.com!news.cais.net!mr.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: another kind of gassing
Date: 16 Jun 1996 23:29:03 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <4q2jdv$erb@access5.digex.net>
References: <4pspjs$doj@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4pspjs$doj@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  plagiarized from Carlos Porter:

[snip]

    The least you could do, Mr. Giwer, is give your source, which appears
to be:

    http://www.valleynet.com/~brsmith/gcgv/dachau2.html

I never expected you would do any research which could not be conducted on
the Web.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Mon Jun 17 23:24:18 PDT 1996
Article: 44129 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: So long and thanks for all the BBQs
Date: 17 Jun 1996 18:36:14 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 54
Message-ID: <4q4mku$2s2@access5.digex.net>
References: <4q2c0t$kss@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article ,
Daniel Keren  wrote:
>mgiwer@ix.netcom.com (Matt Giwer) writes:
> 
>
> 
> Rajzman believed they killed between 10,000 and 12,000 
> people every day at Treblinka. There were plans to increase 
> the number of ovens from ten to tenty-five to keep up with 
> the output of the gas chambers. 
> 
>

    Although I was unable to verify an earlier Giwer claim about something
on Nizkor (the supposed Hoess acquittal), this quote is authentic. The
file is under

places/germany/nuremberg/tusa/east.001.


># Ovens.  Damn.  Where are all of those open pit BBQs we have been
># hearing about?  Rather where are the ovens?  Just another case of
># can't see the ovens for the trees so to speak.  
>#
># How is it the Polish spies and the other eyewitnesses missed 
># these ovens?  
> 
>In this article and others, Giwer made a great deal of noise
>about Rajzman's testimony of "ovens" in Treblinka, claiming
>(and correctly so) that these are not mentioned in other
>testimonies. (Naturally, Giwer also made infantile and offensive
>jokes about "BBQs").
> 
>I have just checked Rajzman's testimony in the IMT ("Blue Series",
>Vol. VIII, p. 329, given on 27 Feb. 1946). He explicitly talks
>about plans to increase the number of *gas chamber*, not *ovens*,
>to twenty-five. 
> 
>It seems that the person who wrote the material for Nizkor did
>make a mistake; fair is fair, and I thank Giwer for pointing
>this mistake out, although it was not his intention.
> 
>The bottom line, anyway, is that the mistake was not made by
>Treblinka witness Rajzman.

    It would appear to have been a pretty bad botch by John and Ann Tusa,
the authors of the book from which the quotation was taken.  (It was _not_
written specifically for Nizkor.)  The file has been revised to carry a
notation about the error, quoting the testimony from the Aristarchus IMT
CD-ROM, and Mr. Giwer has been credited for spotting it. 
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Mon Jun 17 23:24:19 PDT 1996
Article: 44134 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Then there were some show acquittals
Date: 17 Jun 1996 18:51:30 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <4q4nhi$3mh@access5.digex.net>
References: <4q2mto$aua@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4q2mto$aua@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
  plagiarized the work of Carlos Porter
without giving proper attribution:

[snip]

    Probably lifted from: 

http://www.valleynet.com/~brsmith/trials/trintglt.html

    Presenting the work of others without proper attribution is dishonest
and lacks integrity.  Mr. Porter should be given proper credit for his
work.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Mon Jun 17 23:24:19 PDT 1996
Article: 44148 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Trolling again, but with an interesting idea
Date: 17 Jun 1996 20:27:29 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 149
Message-ID: <4q4t5h$9q5@access5.digex.net>
References: <4ot8sk$3i@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com> <4q3b57$cl@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> <4q3nk6$l81@access5.digex.net> <4q4ak0$kn1@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4q4ak0$kn1@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>,
 wrote:
>
>mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>
>>In article <4q3b57$cl@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
>> wrote:
>>>gmcfee@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <4pls89$bf@access1.digex.net>, mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael
>>>>P. Stein) said:
>>>
>>>>>>>>	You really should contact the SWC and get an answer before you
>>>>>>>>continue.  
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    Did you contact them before you claimed that they were trying to say
>>>>>>>the Wannsee Document was evidence for _gassing_?  
>>>>>>
>>>>>>	Why should I?  I made no such claim.  But you know that.  
>>>
>>>>>    If you wish to play trollish word games, you are correct.  On the
>>>>>strict definition of the words, you insinuated it; the direct claim was
>>>>>that the SWC deliberately misrepresented.  Of course you have been
>>>>>deceptive and deliberately so.  And of course you have not met the burden
>>>>>of proof for your claim about deliberate misrepresentation.  Sorry about
>>>>>that. 
>>>
>>>>It's more than word games, Mike.  Giwer, the pathological liar, does say in
>>>>a post that anyone who cannot see the connection between Wannsee and gassing
>>>>is a liar.  So he certainly imputes a connection, which everyone but him
>>>>knows is untrue.
>>>
>>>========
>>>Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
>>>Subject: another kind of gassing
>>>From: mgiwer@ix.netcom.com (Matt Giwer)
>>>Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 22:35:03 GMT
>>>
>>>: "There was no gas chamber in the camp in working order (!). A gas
>>>chamber was being
>>>built in the crematorium and in January 1945, work was going on at a
>>>high speed. The chamber
>>>was soon completed except for the gas boiler (?). A railway worker who
>>>had to go in and out of
>>>the camp told me that a boiler had arrived at the Ostbanhof, Munich,
>>>from Auschwitz. But this
>>>boiler, together with many gas cylinders had been destroyed in an air
>>>raid. 
>
>>    Great.  Now, perhaps you'd like to explain who has claimed this was
>>spelled out in the Wannsee document?  
>
>	As you remember, I publically asked for documentation of gassing.

    No, I don't remember.  Why don't you repost the article in which you
did so?  I found one in which you talked about the Wannsee Protocol being
offered as evidence of _extermintion_.  But that is not identical to
gassing.

    Psychic prediction: Giwer will never post or give a DejaNews URL for
the article which supports this "memory." 


>	As you remember, Keren played a game of posting it in German for a
>couple weeks.

    No, I don't remember.  And neither does DejaNews.  It only remembers
Gordon McFee posting it in German.  And it was not in response to a
request for documentation of _gassing_.  I can not change the history as
recorded on DejaNews and neither can you.  It says you are lying.  Sorry
about that.

    Your eyewitness testimony of the history of this discussion makes John
Dean look like archival videotape.


>	As you remember, I found it in English and posted it.

    That I _do_ remember.


>	As you remember, Keren immediatedly claimed I had added words to it.

    No, I don't remember.  Please post it or provide a DejaNews URL.

    Psychic prediction:  Giwer will never do this.


>As you remember, Keren was wrong, saying he just didn't want the Nazis
>to look good.  

    No, I don't remember.  Please find it on DejaNews and post it or give
the URL if this is your claim about what happened. 

    Psychic prediction....


>	Now that your memory has been refreshed on all of that, 

    DejaNews explicitly refutes some of your refreshment.  Sorry about
that.  As for the rest, I see no reason to believe your John Dean-like
memory is any better.  As you know, it is not my job to provide evidence
for your claims.  Sorry.


>it was Keren who
>responded to my request for documentation of gassing with the Wannsee
>Protocol who said that.  Or else why was that his response?

    That was not the question which prompted the posting of the Protocol
in German.  And it was not Keren who posted it.

  
>It talked about mass death but the
>>technical means other than overwork was not spelled out.  It did, however,
>>say something about practical experience being gathered at that time. 
>>Perhaps you would like to address that point and, given the documentary
>>record (heck, you may even use testimony if you like) give us your most
>>honest hypothesis as to what that rather cryptic comment meant. 
>
>The document also refers to sterilization.  The problem they state is
>the resurgence of the Jewish race implying it would be stronger by
>natural selection.  Does it register on you that sterilization would
>accomplish that?  
>
>	It is all right in the document.
>
>>    And of course there is still the issue of what statistical argument
>>you are trying to convey, which I asked about in the post to which Gordon
>>McFee responded (the "grandfather," so to speak, of your post).  Perhaps
>>you would like to address that?  Or have you decided you weren't advancing
>>a serious point at all, but were just trying to cover up your embarrassing
>>misreading? 
>
>	Perhaps you would like to be more explicit?  It is not clear what you
>are talking about from this description.

    Read everything which is posted.  If you are missing posts, get a new
service provider.  That is the Giwer Rule. 

    Or you could walk straight back in this thread and find it.  It was
posted on the 12th of June; does Netcom really expire articles that fast? 
What's the matter?  Cannot master your newsreader?  If you need a hint
finding which of the thousands of articles in this thread from me could be
the right one, look for "Andrew Wiles" in the body of the article. 
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Tue Jun 18 10:16:23 PDT 1996
Article: 44193 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!gatech!news.fsu.edu!nntp.cntfl.com!imci4!imci5!pull-feed.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Endorsing things for Tom Moran's account
Date: 13 Jun 1996 19:20:52 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <4pq7ok$g25@access5.digex.net>
References: <31b9a362.155108@news.pacificnet.net> <8JUN199610094663@cmi.arizona.edu> <31baea20.6640157@news.pacificnet.net> <9JUN199611043144@cmi.arizona.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <9JUN199611043144@cmi.arizona.edu>,
Danny  wrote:
>In article <31baea20.6640157@news.pacificnet.net>, 
>tm@pacificnet.net (tom moran) writes...
>>dmittleman@cmi.arizona.edu (Danny) wrote:
>> 
>>>In article <31b9a362.155108@news.pacificnet.net>, 
>>>tm@pacificnet.net (tom moran) writes...
>>>>	
>>>>	Moran had posted recently "What is "trolling"? 	
>>>>			
>>>>>	I see a lot of dubbing of "troller" or "trolling" out here. What
>>>>>does that mean? 
>>>>>	Hold it! Don't just post something and say 'Heres an example'.
>>>>>You have to post the example and then show that it is trolling.
>>>> 
>>>>	Ken McVay responded:
>>>> 
>>>>"I am not surprised that you do not understand, given your
>>>>inability to use the English language properly, brush your
>>>>teeth, enjoy normal sex, or understand something if you _do_
>>>>manage to read it. You are simply too stupid to deal with it.
>>>> 
>>>>There. See if you have brains enough to figure it out, Morin.
>>>>(Somehow, I doubt it.)"
>>>> 
>>>>	NOw all we have to do is wait and see if McVay will include this
>>>>in Nizkor's dossier on Moran.
>>>
>>>    Of course they will.  Your response is probably already in there.  Have
>>>    you visited the May 96 subdirectory yet?
>> 
>>	Leave it up to 
>>>    daniel david mittleman
>>	to be the first to endorse another's idiocy.
>
>    Thank you Tommy.  Your aggravation is my pleasure.  By the way, have
>    your visited your May 96 subdirectory yet?


    Damnit, Danny, you beat me again.

    OK, I will just have to be the second to endorse another's idiocy. 
After all, it too will be deposited in Tom Moran's account on Nizkor.  And
everyone knows that what is deposited in an account generally needs an
endorsement.

    Or do you think Tommy has figured it out yet?  I sure hope he
appreciates everything we have done to help him.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Tue Jun 18 10:16:25 PDT 1996
Article: 44199 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Amazing scientific true facts!
Date: 17 Jun 1996 19:24:25 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 159
Message-ID: <4q4pf9$5jd@access5.digex.net>
References: <4q1p5v$nj@Vir.com> <4q315l$4h6@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4q315l$4h6@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
  wrote:
>But one of the major supporters of the 20 minute belief gave the a URL
>to the Internet Cremation Society we find they are in disagreement on
>most every major point the holohuggers are attempting to believe in.  
>
>========
>Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
>Subject: How many tons of bone fragments?
>From: mgiwer@ix.netcom.com
>Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 02:31:58 GMT
>
>http://www.cremation.org:80/faq.shtml
>
>Dec 26, 1995 @ 
>Q. What's left after a body is cremated? It's ash, but what size are the
>pieces? Are they fine, like
>dust, or larger? Can you still see pieces of bone or teeth?
>
>A. Tony, After the cremation process is complete, all that is left is
>very brittle bone fragments.
>Many of the bones are still distinguishable although not fully in tact.
>Technically, there are no
>ashes left at all but the term "ashes" is used to describe what is
>referred to as cremated remains
>or cremains. The pieces of bone fragments are then processed into a fine
>powder and placed in
>the urn selected. What remains after the cremation process is
>approximately 5 to 7 pounnds of
>cremated remains.
>
>	800,000 at Treblinka x 5 lbs

    Imagine that!  An infant and a 150-lb man both reduce to 5 lbs. of
ash!  How heavy a person does it take to get to 7 lbs. of ash?  Half a
ton?


> = 4,000,000 lbs = 2000 tons of bone
>fragments missing.  Buried in a 5 acre area.  400 tons of bone fragments
>per acre, approximately 15 pounds of bone fragments per square foot.

    Imagine that!  Bone fragments are two-dimensional objects which only
occupy area, not volume!  Oh, never mind.  I see our 163 IQ analytical
thinking type realized the problem below.  Better late than never.



>
>1,200,000 at Auschwitz.  3000 tons of bone fragments capable of passing
>through a 1 centimeter mesh.  
>
>	My thank again to Van Alstine for this website.
>
>
>
>========
>Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
>Subject: dem bones again
>From: mgiwer@ix.netcom.com
>Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 04:08:01 GMT
>
>You will recall from last time we has 2000 tons of bone fragments from
>Treblinka and 3000 tons from Auschwitz to find.  That was based upon the
>internet cremation society's statement of 5-7 pound of bone fragements
>remaining after cremation and I used 5 pounds so as not to exaggerate
>the number.

    I think you have still exaggerated the number a bit.  The range seems
to be from adults.



>2-7-96 @ 
>Q. Do you have standard requirements for an urn? Someone has asked me to
>design and
>fabricate two urns for he and his wife. I have no idea where to start.Do
>you have design
>specifications? 
>
>A. In order to accomidate the cremated remains of an average size adult,
>the urn should have a
>capacity of at least 205 cubic inches. Beyond that requirement, any
>shape, size and design is
>acceptable and the only limitations is your imagination.
>
>	Here we have the volume of this mass of bone fragments.
>
>	This gives us roughly 3500 cubic yards of bone fragments to fine at
>Treblinka

    Since you like Greg Raven's web site so much, you ought to read Weber
and Allen's article about Treblinka and see how deep the soil was dug up.


>and some 5200 cubic yards of them at Auschwitz.  This latter
>is a cube 52 feet on a side.  On the other hand it would cover three
>acres about one foot deep.  However there a convenient river there that
>has never been probed.

    But all the ashes and bone fragments jump out of the water onto the
bank, don't they?  Isn't that the Giwer True Truth as long as nothing is
found on the bank?  Or are these the ashes and bone fragments that would
dive to a deep layer whenever someone says they found them?  It appears
that ashes and bone swim or dive as is convenient at the moment for the
revisionist true truth.


>
>	So back to Treblinka.  There we have a 45 foot cube.  Thus we have
>enough to cover the five acres at Trblinka to a depth of 3.5 inches with
>bone fragments.  But of course they were buried so at some point coring
>would find a 3.5 inch thick layer of bone fragments.

    Or multiple thinner layers.


>
>	But of course folks like Keren keep muttering about 27 foot deep core
>fragments.  So let me address that for our applied mathematician.  The
>false assumption is that 27 feet means anything.  He assumes that 27
>feet means distributed over the 27 foot core.

    He does?  Why don't you try quoting instead of paraphrasing without a
proper reference?


>The fallacy of that
>assumption is that a 1000 foot core would not imply a 1000 distribution.

    Well, all the words are English....



>If they were buried then there would be a distinct layer or layers of
>these bone fragments.

    Ah, so there can be multiple layers.  Of course, the more layers and
thinner, the more it resembles a random distribution, but I shouldn't
point such things out.


>For those of you who may have missed it, a core preserves the layers.
>It does not randomize the contents of the entire core.

    So who said anything about how the core sample was actually
distributed? 

    But is this going to be more of the magic ash and bone fragments that
are findable in order to allow their unfoundness to support the
revisionist true truth, but become scientifically unfindable when a claim
of finding would threaten the revisionist true truth?  For I would not
want to go looking for something which would magically become unfindable
the instant I found it. 

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Tue Jun 18 10:16:26 PDT 1996
Article: 44201 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!gatech!arclight.uoregon.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Censorship and Nizkor, Giwer: a global response
Date: 18 Jun 1996 03:39:55 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 74
Message-ID: <4q5mgb$ogb@access1.digex.net>
References: <4q1lu7$vq6@Vir.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article <4q1lu7$vq6@Vir.com>, Jean-Francois Beaulieu   wrote:
>
> I've just spend few days in New York and with 22 emails in my box,
> I think it's preferable for me to respond to J.Morris, M.P.Stein and
> J. McCarthy about the 'Giwer issue' in a single message.
>
>   First, in 'a real fake barber shop', the reference to censorship from
>Jamie McCarthy and Morris against Matt Giwer was a small sentence
>in the whole message. I've already explain how it happened: I'm not checking
>all the messages here, and I wasn't there apparently when M. Giwer posted 13(?)
>times the wannsee minutes. I remembered to have catch randomly a message of
>J. Morris where he gave a public duplicata of his complain to Matt Giwer's
>provider and where he said that students in Alberta couldn't access the
>newsserver and alt.revisionism because the system was overload. Since Matt
>Giwer is posting a lot of messages here, I assumed that they were refering
>to his normal output, and J. Morris told me a couple of days ago that his
>letter asked to not expell Matt Giwer but to give him a warning about the
>Wansee minute. I don't know if the private part was identical, but since I've
>no proof of the contrary I will assume that it was. Now I've receive several
>email from M.P. Stein where he talks about mail bombing and other things.
>I'm not aware if Matt Giwer did mail bombing and if so, if he did it in
>retaliation to mail bombing directed against him.

    I have not seen him post such.  There was a mention of one impolite
email to Mr. Giwer's son from marduk@idirect.com.  And there were some
very easily spotted forgeries of Giwer articles by Marduk.  (Nonetheless,
a number of people were fooled by the forgeries.)  Mr. Giwer apparently
sent mail to all idirect.com users when the management of idirect.com did
not respond as he wanted. 

    Mr. Giwer emailed the idirect.com users from Combase.  Mr. Giwer was
not mailbombed (according to what he has posted publicly) until he moved
>from  Combase to Netcom.  Thus unless there was a mailbombing he didn't
tell us about, he could not have been retaliating.  In any event,
retaliation would have been hitting Marduk, not the whole site.


>We are now entering into
>details where I can hardly judge and this is why I prefer to not continue
>on that. I've read quickly something from J.Morris a couple of weeks ago,
>Matt Giwer who was complaining about that and I figure he's the guy who
>is more able to talk for himself. I said recently that I 'halfly apologize',
>because I wasn't aware about all the details, and 'hafly' here is simply
>there because I'm not accustom to trust entirelly your statements, John.
>It seems that M.P. Stein came back on that and ask me to retract. What
>more is need now? I believe that some Nizkor leaders are in favor of
>censorship, and I've not to retract about this. I've no formal proof
>actually, but you can be sure that I'll pay more attention in the future
>to grab such evidence if it is present in some occasions. There's
>half-evidence that I mentionned previously in 'a fake barber shop',
>the remaining of the stuff. I've not to apologize for a belief that I
>consider as the correct one.

    In other words, you hold a belief for which you can cite not one scrap
of evidence, when in fact all the evidence I have seen is to the contrary. 
I thought that was what we exterminationists were being criticized for? 



>   In this case, some emails from M.P. Stein didn't appear yet publically
> and I can't talk about it till I won't see Matt Giwer's response.

    You have permission to post any relevant email you have from me.  I
note that Mr. Giwer has offered to discuss things by email. I suggest you
ask alex@combase.com to confirm anything Mr. Giwer tells you.  Mr. Giwer
has lied about what Colin McGregor of idirect.com said.  Mr. Giwer has
lied about a lot of things.

    Posted/emailed.

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Tue Jun 18 10:16:26 PDT 1996
Article: 44213 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!netaxs.com!fish.phl.pond.com!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-2.sprintlink.net!news.inc.net!trellis.wwnet.com!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Trolling again, but with an interesting idea
Date: 17 Jun 1996 09:46:46 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 62
Message-ID: <4q3nk6$l81@access5.digex.net>
References: <4ot8sk$3i@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com> <4pls89$bf@access1.digex.net> <4q2e28$14p0@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4q3b57$cl@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4q3b57$cl@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,   wrote:
>gmcfee@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:
>
>>In article <4pls89$bf@access1.digex.net>, mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael
>>P. Stein) said:
>
>>>>>>	You really should contact the SWC and get an answer before you
>>>>>>continue.  
>>>>
>>>>>    Did you contact them before you claimed that they were trying to say
>>>>>the Wannsee Document was evidence for _gassing_?  
>>>>
>>>>	Why should I?  I made no such claim.  But you know that.  
>
>>>    If you wish to play trollish word games, you are correct.  On the
>>>strict definition of the words, you insinuated it; the direct claim was
>>>that the SWC deliberately misrepresented.  Of course you have been
>>>deceptive and deliberately so.  And of course you have not met the burden
>>>of proof for your claim about deliberate misrepresentation.  Sorry about
>>>that. 
>
>>It's more than word games, Mike.  Giwer, the pathological liar, does say in
>>a post that anyone who cannot see the connection between Wannsee and gassing
>>is a liar.  So he certainly imputes a connection, which everyone but him
>>knows is untrue.
>
>========
>Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
>Subject: another kind of gassing
>From: mgiwer@ix.netcom.com (Matt Giwer)
>Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 22:35:03 GMT
>
>: "There was no gas chamber in the camp in working order (!). A gas
>chamber was being
>built in the crematorium and in January 1945, work was going on at a
>high speed. The chamber
>was soon completed except for the gas boiler (?). A railway worker who
>had to go in and out of
>the camp told me that a boiler had arrived at the Ostbanhof, Munich,
>from Auschwitz. But this
>boiler, together with many gas cylinders had been destroyed in an air
>raid. 

    Great.  Now, perhaps you'd like to explain who has claimed this was
spelled out in the Wannsee document?  It talked about mass death but the
technical means other than overwork was not spelled out.  It did, however,
say something about practical experience being gathered at that time. 
Perhaps you would like to address that point and, given the documentary
record (heck, you may even use testimony if you like) give us your most
honest hypothesis as to what that rather cryptic comment meant. 

    And of course there is still the issue of what statistical argument
you are trying to convey, which I asked about in the post to which Gordon
McFee responded (the "grandfather," so to speak, of your post).  Perhaps
you would like to address that?  Or have you decided you weren't advancing
a serious point at all, but were just trying to cover up your embarrassing
misreading? 

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Tue Jun 18 10:16:27 PDT 1996
Article: 44220 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!news.structured.net!news.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: another kind of gassing
Date: 17 Jun 1996 18:57:30 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <4q4nsq$40l@access5.digex.net>
References: <4pspjs$doj@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> <4q2jdv$erb@access5.digex.net> <4q37bi$s1l@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4q37bi$s1l@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,   wrote:
>mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>
>>In article <4pspjs$doj@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
>>Matt Giwer  plagiarized from Carlos Porter:
>
>>[snip]
>
>>    The least you could do, Mr. Giwer, is give your source, which appears
>>to be:
>
>>    http://www.valleynet.com/~brsmith/gcgv/dachau2.html
>
>>I never expected you would do any research which could not be conducted on
>>the Web.
>
>	I have yet to see a holohugger here post from other than derivative
>sources so I am quite up to the holohugger standard.

    Not so.  Proper attribution to the original author is given, and Mr. 
Giwer has not met that standard.  But perhaps scientists think nothing of
palming off the work of others as their own.  I have heard rumors of
papers where the grad students do all or nearly all the work and the
professor shows up at publication time to claim a chunk of the glory. 
Maybe that is where Mr. Giwer learned his literary ethics. 

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Tue Jun 18 10:16:28 PDT 1996
Article: 44255 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!pull-feed.internetmci.com!imci5!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Boys in the Sand
Date: 18 Jun 1996 02:28:01 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <4q5i9h$n2n@access1.digex.net>
References: <31bd8578.6648396@news.pacificnet.net> <4pl0ks$50a@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article <4pl0ks$50a@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>tm@pacificnet.net (tom moran) wrote:
>
>
>>	On May 7, 1996
>>Moran posted: "The Official Nizkor Code of Responding"
>>                              
>>	                    Hillary Ostrov
>>                        (Nizkor co-webmaster)
>>			           alt.revisionism
>>			      "No Zyklone - then DDT"
>
>>	          "Many of us believe that ridicule
>>                  is the most appropriate response to
>>                  one who(offers) up thoroughly idiotic
>>                  questions and responses."
>
>
>>	'We at Nizkor will be the ultimate authority on what
>>constitutes "idiotic questions and responses".
>>	
>>	Actually, it is a childish ploy for evasion. Hilary has never,
>>as far as I know, posted anything of substance.	Of course she could
>>come back and post some of her stuff to rebuke this claim. Okay
>>Hillary, go for it.
>
>	Actually she did make the substantive contribution that regex is a
>search engine.  

    Another false John Dean-type hallucinatory eyewitness speaks of
something he never saw.  A DejaNews search for "regex" and "search engine"
reveals no such claim from Hilary Ostrov or anyone else for that matter. 
The closest thing is a question asking Giwer if he knew about search
engines.  No claim that Nizkor had one.

    Psychic prediction: Giwer will never post any evidence that I am
wrong.  Because, of course, he has none.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Tue Jun 18 10:16:29 PDT 1996
Article: 44261 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!zombie.ncsc.mil!nntp.coast.net!sgigate.sgi.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: truer than true testimony
Date: 17 Jun 1996 19:38:01 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <4q4q8p$6fl@access5.digex.net>
References: <4q0lco$1a@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> <4q23jn$7gn@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>  <4q392u$mi3@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4q392u$mi3@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
  wrote:
>dkeren@world.std.com (Daniel Keren) wrote:
>
>>mgiwer@ix.netcom.com writes:
>
>># Everything I post is up to holohugger standards so don't 
>># bother griping about it.  
>
>>Not really. You didn't give any sources whatsoever, and it's
>>impossible to check what you posted.
>
>>Ask your fuehrers to send you more complete information
>>next time.
>
>	I give many more sources than you folks, you in particular.  You give a
>book that quotes from a book without an original.

    Name an example, please.

    But at least the immediate source is given.  You can see if Dr. Keren
is being truthful in his representation of the source he is using.


> I cite the original.

    Original what?


>	What is your problem with this?  


    That you do not give the name of the original.  That you do not give
the pages cited.  It is a common technique to quote selectively and
deceptively.  If you are not doing that, then surely you should have no
reason to conceal the source.

    But if you are lying again then it is not surprising that you would
not want people to be able to read your source.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Tue Jun 18 11:20:09 PDT 1996
Article: 44295 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!psgrain!iafrica.com!pipex-sa.net!plug.news.pipex.net!pipex!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!usenet1.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!btnet!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: An interesting point
Date: 17 Jun 1996 18:18:34 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 144
Message-ID: <4q4ljq$1nu@access5.digex.net>
References: <4pt5qg$p91@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> <4q3pgi$np3@access5.digex.net> <4q471g$buc@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4q471g$buc@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
  wrote:
>mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>
>>In article <4pt5qg$p91@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>,
>>Matt Giwer  wrote:
>>>Even though the Kremas were supposed to be to get rid of the evidence,
>>>they were built in the same manner as all crematoria at the time.  It
>>>sort of indicates that they did not know what they were doing. 
>>>
>>>If getting rid of the evidence was the purpose then a common incinerator
>>>would be cheaper to build and operate, and faster.
>
>>Here's a REALLY interesting point: if Mr. Giwer is offering an
>>honest argument via the above, then he must believe the purpose in
>>burning a body changes both its physical burning characteristics and
>>construction costs for the disposal equipment.
>
>Not the body, the efficiency of the burning process.  In an incinerator
>you can dump a body right onto the fire.  In the crematoria used the
>burning is done by circulated hot air only.  
>
>>I would think that if simply getting rid of rotting bodies from a
>>typhus epidemic was the purpose, 
>
>Do not forget all the rest of the diseases.  
>
>then a common incinerator would _still_
>>be cheaper to build and operate, and faster.  But perhaps that is just
>>because I am (as Mr. Giwer repeatedly asserts) ignorant of science, 
>
>	As you are.
>
>and
>>Mr. Giwer will now provide us with a scientific explanation for this
>>amazing effect of intentions on physics. 
>
>>    Until that happens, I will assume that someone simply failed to break
>>out of the pattern of conventional thinking about how bodies are burned.
>>After all, I cannot believe that the people running the camps were all 163
>>IQ type rocket scientists.  If they were, they would have been at
>>Peenemunde.
>
>    Try to imagine this.  These people are being "gassed" and cremated in
>full view of anyone who happens to be nearby.  Everyone knows what is
>going on.  There are stories of the kremas being unusable at time and
>then finding it necessary to resort to open pit BBQing.


>
>    And no one thinks, "We have these incinerators ..."
>
>>>But instead they use a design that preserves the human ashes separate
>>>from the fuel ashes.  

    I have read that even Thies Christopherson, who denies mass
exterminations, acknowledges that he saw some open-air burning carried
out.  And that would of course mix the ashes of the bodies with the ashes
of the fuel.  I will attempt to verify this.



>>>How strange for people with such intentions.
>
>>    How strange for people with intentions of dealing with massive corpse
>>disposal problems for _any_ reason, legitimate or not.  Even if you assume
>>that they needed to have some regular cremation ability so that they could
>>return the ashes of the ordinary prisoners to the families (they did for a
>>fee, or at least pretended to, according to Pressac), 
>
>    Which of course explains why they used the proper crematoria.

    They were prisoners and dangerous enemies of the Reich.  If they had
just grabbed a bunch of ashes from the incinerator, were the families
going to send them out for forensic testing?  Still inefficient.


>this would not apply
>>to the Jews.  All money had already been taken from the Jews 
>
>    Excuse me ... where is it written that Jews were treated differently
>in this matter?  No place?  Thank you.

    Their money was taken.  Unlike the political prisoners, no families
were left behind to buy the ashes back.  They were going to a lot of
expense for no return.  You're welcome. 


>Of course those who view it as a
>Jews only affair (all the holohuggers) certainly would give that
>impression.  
>
>and they were
>>not saving the ashes in separate urns pending the end of the war. 
>>Therefore it would have been more rational to build a smaller number of
>>ovens plus an incinerator regardless of whether the intentions were
>>sinister or innocent.
>
>    But of course there are zero reports of the use of any of the
>existing incinerators 

    Gee, I have seen zero reports of existing incinerators large enough to
burn bodies.  By your "what I have not seen reported does not exist" rule,
there were none. 

>no matter how great the need for added capacity.

>
>>>Looks like we are back to dealing with those stupid Germans again.  
>
>>    That does indeed seem to be the correct conclusion.  Also a stupid 163
>>IQ type for not realizing this.
>
>	Of course there is another explanation.  Respect for the dead.

    Holy cheeze whiz, due to respect of the dead, they risked the health
of the camp leaving unburnt bodies around during the typhus epidemic
rather than use the incinerators.  Maybe they wanted to have even more
dead around to respect?


>No mass exterminations.  Simply a properly run camp doing exactly what
>the Nazis said it was to do.  

    Excuse me, do prisons toss executed serial rape-murderers into
incinerators?  Let us assume you are correct as to the motive.  Where is
it written that one cannot have respect for the dead of the people one
executes?  Where is it written that Jews were treated differently in this
matter?  No place?  Thank you. 

    You are arguing that they might realistically have respect for the
dead to salvage your theory about the non-use of incinerators even during
a health crisis.  Yet you are using the groundless assumption that people
carrying out mass extermination of a perceived enemy probabably would not
have respect for those dead in order to be able to claim the non-use of
incinerators as evidence for your argument.  What was that about
contradictory true truths? 

    You must be a trollohugger.

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.



From mstein@access1.digex.net Tue Jun 18 17:18:16 PDT 1996
Article: 44338 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: No wonder we can't find the bodies
Date: 18 Jun 1996 02:42:01 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <4q5j3p$nc3@access1.digex.net>
References: <4pq203$8bh@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <31c411e7.144782@news.pacificnet.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article <31c411e7.144782@news.pacificnet.net>,
tom moran  wrote:
>
>
>	Here I keep seeing it said this guy Giwer is a troll and then he
>unleashes a cornucopia, a rapid fire, a whole volley, a flood, a
>hurricane, a 100 mega-ton series of articles that just about washes up
>the Holocaust story. 

    Tsk, tsk, Tommy.  Citing quantities as relevant to proof?  I know I
have my holocausterclonism pocket program here somewhere.

    He does seem to have shown that John and Ann Tusa were careless and
had the witness saying some inconsistent nonsense that the IMT record
shows he did not say.  But if that washes up anything, it washes up John
and Ann Tusa.

    As for the rest, he is very good at plagiarizing the work of other
people from web sites and posting it.  But that does not make them true.
Giwer is dishonestly hiding the references to things he posts.  Do you
think he has something to hide, Tommy?  I do.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Tue Jun 18 22:50:28 PDT 1996
Article: 44380 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!netaxs.com!news2.cais.net!news.cais.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Trolling again, but with an interesting idea
Followup-To: alt.revisionism,alt.usenet.kooks
Date: 18 Jun 1996 02:02:06 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <4q5gou$mnd@access1.digex.net>
References: <4ot8sk$3i@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com> <4q4ak0$kn1@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> <4q4t5h$9q5@access5.digex.net> <4q539s$hfg@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

[much prologue cut - the thread should still be visible on most servers]

In article <4q539s$hfg@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
  wrote:
>mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>>>	As you remember, I publically asked for documentation of gassing.
>
>>    No, I don't remember.  Why don't you repost the article in which you
>>did so?  I found one in which you talked about the Wannsee Protocol being
>>offered as evidence of _extermintion_.  But that is not identical to
>>gassing.
>
>>    Psychic prediction: Giwer will never post or give a DejaNews URL for
>>the article which supports this "memory." 
>
>	If you are not going to pay attention to the conference, I will not
>assume the duty of making up for your lapses.  I spend my time on this.
>The least you can do is spend your own time.

    I have done so.  I have paid attention.  And my memory tells me that
matters are not as you say.  And DejaNews tells me that for articles which
it can find, such as the posting of the German version of the Wannsee
Protocol, my memory is correct and yours is wrong.  I am sorry, but
DejaNews cannot find articles which you have hallucinated and neither can
I.

    You know that nobody can prove a negative.  Since you are the one
claiming the true history of the discussion is such and such, it is your
duty to provide the proof of the existence of articles such as you
describe.  I have looked and followed threads, but proof of its
nonexistence is not possible.  Sorry about that.  You made the claim of
existence, you bear the burden of proof.  Sorry about that again.  Deal
with it.  As you know, hypocrisy is not a nice thing to see.


>	But then of course, I have suddenly been getting the mantra to look it
>up on Dejanews.  What makes you special that you do not have to?  

    _You_ are the one engaging in special pleading, avoiding providing
proof for claims when you demand it from everyone else.  You claim an
article saying such-and-such exists, then you are responsible for backing
up that claim.

    I _did_ look it up on DejaNews, as I said in text you dishonestly cut
out of my post. The German version of the Wannsee Protocol is easily found
- "Sicherheitspolizei" doesn't crop up in too many posts.  You said Daniel
Keren posted it in response to a question about gassing.  DejaNews says
Gordon McFee was responsible, and shows that it was not in response to a
question about gassing.  Anyone can search as I did and confirm this.  At
this point the weight of evidence is that your eyewitness testimony here
about who said what when and why isn't worth the paper John Dean's false
testimony was written down on.

    Sorry, sport, but your cutting things out of my post without even
noting that you did and writing as if I never said them shows you are a
dishonest liar without any integrity.  And DejaNews also says you are a
false lying hallucinating worthless John Dean-type eyewitness.  And
perhaps I should not mention this, but I think it is fair to ask: if you
cannot remember what you read just a few weeks ago and who wrote it, why
should you remember science any better? 

    Give it up, boy.  Your sorry lying ass is nailed.  And DejaNews has it
all recorded for posterity.  I cannot change that.  And neither can you,
unless Marduk or the Israeli government lets you have root access to the
DejaNews server. 

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access4.digex.net Wed Jun 19 10:59:46 PDT 1996
Article: 44522 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!news.uoregon.edu!hunter.premier.net!netnews.worldnet.att.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: 960502: It is amazing that the world has not yet been informed of this
Date: 18 Jun 1996 12:59:00 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 215
Message-ID: <4q6n8k$oif@access4.digex.net>
References:  <4p7ns8$j65@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> <4pkm1q$h4p@arl-news-svc-4.compuserve.com> <4pl8gt$aoq@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net

In article <4pl8gt$aoq@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>100644.317@compuserve.com (Miloslav Bilik) wrote:
>
>>mgiwer@ix.netcom.com (Matt Giwer) wrote:
>
>>>100644.317@compuserve.com (Miloslav Bilik) wrote:
>
>>>>mgiwer@ix.netcom.com (Matt Giwer) wrote:
>
>>>>>rjg@d31rz0.Stanford.EDU (Richard J. Green) wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>Deception alert!  If we have 1 gram of hamburger and 18% of it is 
>>>>>>>>fat, then it releases .18 * (9000) = 1620 calories.  Mr. Giwer has
>>>>>>>>no justification to multiply this number by .1. 
>
>>>>>>>	Therefore after the 90% of water is gone you can only use 18% of
>>>>>>>the remaining 10% as fat.  Thus the justification.  
>
>>>>And with 75% of water, what would you say ? Some justification to 90%
>>>>instead of 75% (65% is more often admitted) ? Do you even have a clue,
>>>>somewhat that the fat is concerned with the water's rate ?
>
>>>>>	The floor is yours, Dr. Green.
>
>>>	It was an AGREED upon place to start from when WE started this
>>>some months ago.  Would you like to start over with different
>>>agree upon assumptions?  If you, you first.
>
>>I don't agree. You understimated the amount of water, what is 65-70%
>>for extracellular and at most 80%.
>
>>The fat is estimated with several ways, and the 18% from Mr Green is
>>among the lowest, and didn't suppose that some water was mixed with
>>it. With isotopics methods you can have near twice this number.
>
>	Which in any event would result in 18% of 20%.  He objected to
>that multiplication as you know if you were reading the thread.  He, on
>the other hand and in light of where we started, wanted both 10% (here
>20%) non-water AND 18% fat.  

    Deceptive figuring.  The calorie value of fat is computed on the
weight with the water in it.

    I will type this very slowly for Mr. Giwer's benefit.

    If you take one gram of the white stuff from the side of your raw
steak, that includes the water and all. 

    When you burn it, you get whatever the calorie value of a gram of fat
is regardless of what the percentage of water in that gram is.

    You are not entitled to take the energy value of a gram of fat with
the water in, then pretend that this is really the energy value per gram
for waterless fat.  To compute caloric value, you may not reduce the
amount of fat by 82%.  Or if you do, you must multiply its energy output
per unit of mass by 1/.18 = 5.56.  Mr.  Giwer is changing the definition
of "fat" in the middle of the game in order to pull a fast one. 

    Down in my refrigerator I have a package of Polish sausage.  One link
is 85g.  Fat grams are listed as 22.  Thus it is 25.9% fat.  Pretending no
water is introduced during the sausage making process, if this is Mr.
Giwer's "waterless" fat, that makes the sausage at most 74.1% water not
counting the protein, etc.  Pretty dehydrated cow.

    Clearly this fat counts the water in it.  Fat calories are listed as
190, but dietary calories are really kilocalories so we have 190,000
calories in 22g of waterlogged fat = 8636 cal/g.

    Call it 90% water, multiply by .1 to get 2.2g of dehydrated fat, but
unless you claim the ability to burn water and get energy out of it,
according to the observant Jews at Hebrew National that 2.2g of dehydrated
fat still clocks in at 190,000 calories.  I can not change that and
neither can Mr. Superscientist.  Unless he thinks those non-atheist Jews
are lying to the goyim at the FDA. 

    Or just go the easy route and take the 240 [kilo]calories for the 85g
link.  Now call it 90% water.  We have 76.5g of water to cook off.  We
have 240,000 calories to do it with.  I will even be nice to Mr. Giwer 
and let him start with a frozen sausage at 0C.  Can 240,000 calories heat 
76.5g of water enough to permit ignition of the non-water?

    No doubt Mr. Giwer will object that ordinary people aren't that fatty. 
Fine by me.  Let's make them 10% fat.  Let's see, 8.5g fat at 8636 cal per
~= 73,400 cal from the fat alone.  The lean portion of the sausage clocks
in at 63g and 50,000 cal = 794 cal/g of 100% lean meat.  Again, those are
waterlogged grams.  76.5g of lean in the 10% fat sausage ~= 60,700 more
calories.  Again, we have 76.5g of water and now must steam it off in only
134,100 cal.  This could be a toughie.  (I am hiding something.  Let's see
if our superscientist can figure it out.)


>>>	Want to go through the exercise?  Even if you win the first, you
>>>will lose the second.  Green must have finally realized that and
>>>stopped the exchange.  Or he is just laying in wait to continue
>>>the diversionary issue of bodies burning while trying to keep
>>>attention from the problem of not enough coke for the bodies
>>>claimed.

    Handwaving.  Go burn my Polish sausage and see what your calculator
tells you.

  

>>It is not a game, win, lose. It was human beeings. Thus, I'm unsure
>>that I will like to run into "exercices" as it was butchery meat. I
>>can't stand up any unethical claim and your one is very close to the
>>border line.
>
>It is an exercise in the credibility of the explanation for there not
>being enough coke used to cremate the number of people claimed.  If you
>would like to start with 20% non-water and 18% of that 20% as fat, it is
>fine with me.

    The fat must account for the heat to deal with its own water, and its
entire energy output may indeed come from only 18% of its mass or even
>from  only 10% of its mass.  Nevertheless, if its weight is measured with
the water in, as demonstrated above, the .18g of waterless fat still has
100% of the caloric value of 1g of waterlogged fat, not 18% as Mr. Giwer
would have it.  I thank the observant Jews at Hebrew National for their
scholarly nutrition label. 

    It appears Mr. Giwer is trying desperately to count the same water
twice in order to reduce the energy the corpse gives off while burning. 
Sorry for pointing that scam out.  As he claims to be a competent
scientist it is hard to explain this as anything but deliberate dishonesty
and deception.  No doubt he will respond to this with an ad hominem attack
on me, but it will not make this very valid point go away.  And Mr. Giwer
knows it. 

    This is now an exercise in Mr. Giwer's credibility as a scientist.  He
is now invited to behave like one and refute this point with documented
sources, detailed computations, and reasoned explanation.  But my psychic
prediction is that we will see more unscientific name-calling and
handwaving. 



>Because even if it is marginally correct that the there is more heat
>released than needed then all of that heat has to remain within the oven
>and none of it can go up the flue or be lost by any other means
>including opening the door to put in another body.

    These are valid considerations.  But until you quantify these sources
of loss, you are handwaving and you know it.  I interpret your
introduction of these issues before your computation of the burn as an
admission that you already know the body contains enough fuel to pay back 
what has to be invested in it to bring it to ignition, and you are now 
looking for someplace to run to where you can handwave and namecall and 
try to shift the burden of proof onto other people.

    I know you do not like patents as sources, but the Topf patent does
have a total gross energy value (i.e., the total energy without
subtracting anything needed for dealing with the water) for an average
70kg corpse.  That is 160,000,000 calories (those are small calories, not
dietary calories).  I leave you to work out how many calories per gram
that is.  Until you can come up with something better, as you yourself
once said, my something beats the hell out of your nothing.  Would you
like to work with that, or do you prefer the sausage label? 


>Rather the game is being played by the holohuggers to explain the lack
>of enough coke to cremate the number of people claimed.  
>
>Some time in your life you may be brave enough to face it.  There was
>not enough coke to cremate all of these people.

    You claim that.  Fine.  You may even be right.  But as you know, YOU
BEAR THE BURDEN OF PROOF.  You have evaded it at every turn, making
unequivocal claims as above yet insisting you do not have to show
anything.  Here things are computable at least as a first-order
approximation - or you have the option to run the experiment a second time
(I understand the British have some cows they want to get rid of).  So far
_you_ have avoided the work and handwaved it all.

    Please start by addressing the point that you cannot measure caloric
value with the water in yet pretend that the waterless version yields the
same energy per gram as the version with the water in.  Or if you now
agree that you were counting the same water twice, please proceed to burn
my Polish sausage and tell me whether it can manage to heat its own water
enough to permit ignition - that is, will it pay back what the coke must
put into the body in order to ignite it?  Since your memory is not
reliable, I will remind you that this is 240,000 calories to heat 76.5g of
water starting at 0C.  Can you heat it enough to permit ignition of the
solid part?  Or use a leaner sausage if you prefer and call it 134,100 
calories.  Now stop stalling and get out your calculator.


>That means very simply
>that there were not that many people cremated.  That means that the
>recorded deaths from stated, non-gassing causes and the amount of coke
>shipped there match.  

    Again, I've got something that beats the hell out of your nothing. 
Two somethings in fact.  Want to start computing with that, or would you
like to find your own published, verifiable source for caloric value of a
gram of fat or of corpse, which clearly specifies whether it is a net or
gross value?  (If it is a net value and positive, that means that the body
gives off more energy than it absorbs in the ignition process.)

    If the body contains enough energy to pay back the initial investment
in its ignition, the computations would then shift to the loss up the
flue, out the door, and to other parts of the "outside world" - including
the structure of the crematorium itself - vs. the gain from cremation.  We
would then have to figure out how much _additional_ coke per hour is
needed to make up _those_ losses.

    Are you brave enough to face what it might reveal, Mr. Superscientist? 

    Posted/emailed to Ingrid Rimland, who might want to run this past her 
skeptical engineering student.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Wed Jun 19 10:59:47 PDT 1996
Article: 44547 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!psgrain!iafrica.com!pipex-sa.net!plug.news.pipex.net!pipex!weld.news.pipex.net!pipex!hole.news.pipex.net!pipex!tube.news.pipex.net!pipex!lade.news.pipex.net!pipex!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!swrinde!newsfeed.internetmci.com!hunter.premier.net!uunet!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: missing files
Date: 12 Jun 1996 12:44:26 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 179
Message-ID: <4pms5a$40q@access5.digex.net>
References: <4pc0ch$5gc@Vir.com> <4pj52c$294@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> <4ploap$s7m@access1.digex.net> <4plqes$h0k@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4plqes$h0k@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>
>>>	Their site does not work for shit.
>
>>    Mr. Giwer does not work for shit either.  By his own words he is
>>retired at age 51.  Of course one could also call him unemployed. 
>
>	Retired at 46, presently 50.  Please keep your facts straight.

    Sorry I misjudged the almost in 51.  Of course you cannot keep
straight who said what, so please take your own advice.



>>>	Remember the claim that regex was a search engine to understand
>>>the technical ignorance of the people running the site.  
>
>>    Why should I remember the claim?  I have no desire to develop false
>>memory syndrome. 
>
>	You continue to defend the incompetent fool.  She has shown no signs of
>knowing what she is talking about.  My best guess is that the title is
>part of the payment for sleeping with one of the Gang of Six.

    Since you show no signs of knowing what you are talking about, why
should anyone take your guesses seriously?  Still no response to my wager
that I can prove my claim about the Israeli gopher site, I see.  What
happened to that confident conclusions?



>>>	Anyone knowing what they are doing would have written an indexing
>>>program long ago.
>
>>    Being retired, or unemployed, as the case may be, with copious amounts
>>of free time on his hands, perhaps Mr. Giwer would have done so. 
>
>	They have not asked me for my price.  What do you think they would 
>offer in return?  As I have pointed out, I do not contribute to society,
>I charge.

    Is it just me, or does this appear to be an admission that Mr. Giwer's
posts are worthless?  I certainly cannot see who pays Mr. Giwer to write
them.


>>>	What we have at Nizkor is a bunch of unqualified amateurs
>>>pretending to what they are not at the most basic level, that is,
>>>being able to maintain a website.
>>>
>>>	As HTML is so simple and the level of programming needed to deal
>>>with text is so trivial one would have expected even rank
>>>amatuers to have grasped it by now.  But they have not.  
>
>>    The files were originally on an FTP site with no thought of HTML.  Of
>>course the problem has been priorities and time.  But what would a person
>>without full-time employment know about that?
>
>	Gee.  It appears you think I am the only person who has thought of
>writing a program to add HTML tags.

    Actually, you aren't.  I recently recommended that that be jumped up
in the priority queue.



>I did not realize you thought I was so unique.

    If it has taken you this long to realize that I (and many others) 
think you are very peculiar, then you are even more dimwitted than I
thought.


>But then they have not asked the price for that either.

    Perhaps they have already determined the value.

  
>>    Of course time cannot be used by Mr. Giwer as an excuse for his
>>execrable grasp of the English language.  He has had fifty-one years 
>
>	Eight more days before you can say 51.  
>
>to
>>get it right or at least up to a sixth-grade level and has failed
>>miserably.  He has insisted that "tortable"  and "paupacy" are words which
>>should be understood by all, while unable to use a dictionary to discover
>>the meaning of perfectly good English words such as "scantling" and
>>"muffle" (in its sense as an oven chamber).  Of course discerning meaning
>>through context is quite beyond his limited abilities even though he
>>insists others should manage it for his own neologisms. 
>
>>    And of course there are such hilarious episodes as his offering, when
>>asked to cite a story about screaming going on for "tens of minutes," a
>>testimony which said "after a few minutes there was silence."  No, I am
>>not making this up.
>
>	Sorry but I have both cited and posted both stories.  That you confuse
>them is your problem.

    You offered only the one story in direct response to my request for
evidence, and it did not meet the requirements.  Lying and weaseling
cannot change that.  Sorry about that.

    URL is:

http://xp5.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?recnum=6889244&server=dnserver.db96q1


    Yes, in at least two different and earlier posts you referred to
another story which did say the people went on crying for "about ten
minutes."  And I clearly addressed that one in text included in the above
referenced article.  The time from which the ten minutes was estimated was
not clear.  If it is from the time the SS man climbed onto the roof, you
have no idea how long it took until the Zyklon was poured.  But we have
been through all that. 

    URL is:

http://xp5.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?recnum=%3c4focv8$i1e@wi.combase.com
%3e&server=dnserver.db96q1

    DejaNews allows one to get the thread, so Mr. Giwer cannot pull his
usual "lacks honesty and integrity" scam.  I offer the posts and invite
anyone who has doubts to read the words and judge for themselves.

    I am still waiting for Mr. Giwer to meet the same standard he demands
>from  everyone else: the person making the claim bears the burden of proof.


>>     Rather than mock people for lacking time to convert files to HTML,
>>perhaps Mr. Giwer would be better served using some of his copious free
>>time to enroll in a remedial English class.
>
>	I am so impressed by that retort, I could just wither.  Lets review the
>bidding.  On my site I have over a meg of my own text files.  You don't
>have jack.  
>
>>>	The website itself is testimony to their level of intellige
>>>and ability.  
>
>>    Mr. Giwer's posts are testimony to his level of illiteracy and
>>dishonesty.  One need only look at his text quoted in this post to see his
>>inability to form coherent, grammatically correct English sentences.
>>Perhaps HTML is all that is within his powers.  It is after all much
>>simpler than English.
>
>	It is extremely simple.  That is why I am curious that the HTML pro 
>from Dover for Nizkor consistantly gets it wrong.

    If you are having trouble reading the files perhaps you should check
your browser configuration.  Thinks look fine when I call them up.  Much
more readable than some of your text, in fact.


>>    And he mocks people about kill files when he cannot even master a
>>spell checker.
>
>	Rather you need to learn how to configure your newsreader.  Or are you
>newsreader challenged also?  

    My newsreader works just the way I want.  Perhaps you have me confused
with someone else.  That seems to be a frequent problem for you. 

    I could configure my newsreader to send your articles through a spell
checker, I suppose.  They might or might not be more entertaining that way
- e.g., "paupacy" would probably have been corrected to "papacy" but
against that there are all the errors which the checker would guess
correctly on.  That's no fun at all.

    Of course that would only solve the problem for me.  If you expect
everyone else to filter your articles through a spell checker before
reading them, you are a very strange person.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Wed Jun 19 10:59:48 PDT 1996
Article: 44549 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!overload.lbl.gov!marlin.ucsf.edu!news.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: An interesting point
Date: 17 Jun 1996 10:18:58 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <4q3pgi$np3@access5.digex.net>
References: <4pt5qg$p91@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4pt5qg$p91@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>Even though the Kremas were supposed to be to get rid of the evidence,
>they were built in the same manner as all crematoria at the time.  It
>sort of indicates that they did not know what they were doing. 
>
>If getting rid of the evidence was the purpose then a common incinerator
>would be cheaper to build and operate, and faster.

    Here's a REALLY interesting point: if Mr. Giwer is offering an
honest argument via the above, then he must believe the purpose in
burning a body changes both its physical burning characteristics and
construction costs for the disposal equipment.

    I would think that if simply getting rid of rotting bodies from a
typhus epidemic was the purpose, then a common incinerator would _still_
be cheaper to build and operate, and faster.  But perhaps that is just
because I am (as Mr. Giwer repeatedly asserts) ignorant of science, and
Mr. Giwer will now provide us with a scientific explanation for this
amazing effect of intentions on physics. 

    Until that happens, I will assume that someone simply failed to break
out of the pattern of conventional thinking about how bodies are burned.
After all, I cannot believe that the people running the camps were all 163
IQ type rocket scientists.  If they were, they would have been at
Peenemunde.


>But instead they use a design that preserves the human ashes separate
>from the fuel ashes.  
>
>How strange for people with such intentions.

    How strange for people with intentions of dealing with massive corpse
disposal problems for _any_ reason, legitimate or not.  Even if you assume
that they needed to have some regular cremation ability so that they could
return the ashes of the ordinary prisoners to the families (they did for a
fee, or at least pretended to, according to Pressac), this would not apply
to the Jews.  All money had already been taken from the Jews and they were
not saving the ashes in separate urns pending the end of the war. 
Therefore it would have been more rational to build a smaller number of
ovens plus an incinerator regardless of whether the intentions were
sinister or innocent.


>Looks like we are back to dealing with those stupid Germans again.  

    That does indeed seem to be the correct conclusion.  Also a stupid 163
IQ type for not realizing this.

    Hmn.  Did he finally master his spell checker, or was this just a
monkeys-at-the-typewriter kind of thing?
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Wed Jun 19 12:11:45 PDT 1996
Article: 23280 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.conspiracy,alt.revisionism,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Recipe of Hate: The "Kosher Tax" Scam
Supersedes: <4q997i$6ps@access5.digex.net>
Followup-To: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.conspiracy
Date: 19 Jun 1996 12:25:57 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 69
Message-ID: <4q99ml$767@access5.digex.net>
References: <4or1lf$p8s@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> <4pjti5$cbo@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4plido$f7s@news.usaor.net> <4pv1s0$5me@byatt.alaska.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23280 alt.politics.usa.republican:219067 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:324277 alt.conspiracy:60249 alt.revisionism:44594 alt.politics.perot:49303

    Followups severely trimmed, to newsgroups I don't ordinarily follow.
Email copies of followups appreciated.

In article <4pv1s0$5me@byatt.alaska.net>, Henry Ayre   wrote:
>Planing above all this dust, noise, and confusion which is deliberately 
>sought by one side of the argument about kosher certification for foods 
>is the definition of an anti-Semite by Joseph Sobran, nationally 
>syndicated columnist:"
>
>     "An anti-Semite is a man who is hated by the Jews."
>
>A national scam that is so successful and so long-lived as the kosher 
>food tax

    Pardon me?  A tax is a mandatory fee imposed by a governmental body. 
I expect stupid know-nothings to think that there can possibly be such a
thing as a kosher food "tax" in Canada and the US, but Mr. Ayre likes to
consider himself a professional thinker.

    Now, Mr. Ayre, do please tell us how this "tax" was passed, why some
companies seem to be exempt from this "tax," how both Revenue Canada and
the IRS collect and distribute it, how it is a "scam,"  etc.  I can give
you some rather unsavory stories of "scams" where products were
represented as kosher which were not.  Hence the system of inspections and
certifications. 

    It is sad that this is necessary, but there are crooks in the world. 
Does anyone remember the fake apple juice a baby food manufacturer got
caught selling a few years back?  Give the tykes colored sugar water -
they have no way of knowing the difference, and our profits will go up.

    As I recall, Sinclair Lewis gave some rather unsavory stories of
products represented as safe and wholesome food which were not - which led
to a "scam" of food inspection.  And that "scam" is funded by _real_ tax
dollars. 

    By all means, though, save your money and avoid products with the
letter "U" inside a circle.  This includes all the kosher electrical
products with the "Underwriters Laboratories" tag.  That scam is funded by
a tax demanded by orthodox insurance companies who don't want to pay fire
and injury claims.  Cheap bastards.  (I'll bet you can find at least a few
JOOS in those companies, too!  What more proof do you need?)


>will naturally be defended vigourously by its practitioners with 
>every argument at their disposal, including this nonsense epithet, 
>"You're an anti-Semite."

    There are plenty of companies who seem to escape paying this "tax" -
including the ones who put a simple "K" on their products and say, "We
won't pay a rabbi to certify we are both telling the truth and not making
stupid mistakes without realizing it.  But if you trust us to know what is
kosher and what is not, and not to lie to you, this is kosher."  So what
is the problem here?  Go buy those products and kwitcherbitchin.

    By the way, Mr. Ayre, got any kids?  If so, did you actually _taste_
any of the apple juice you gave them when they were infants?


>Once again, an anti-Semite is a person who is hated by the Jews. H. Ayre.

    If this is professional thinking, I'd hate to see the amateur variety.

    Posted/emailed.

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Thu Jun 20 07:23:08 PDT 1996
Article: 44762 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!fury.berkshire.net!news.albany.net!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.fan.newt-gingrich
Subject: Re: Company manager admits rabbi paid $5000/day salary! [was:Re: KOSHER TAX RIPOFF-Canada]
Followup-To: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.conspiracy
Date: 19 Jun 1996 13:02:23 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <4q9bqv$986@access5.digex.net>
References: <4or1lf$p8s@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> <4prlsa$b5@portal.gmu.edu>  
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:44762 alt.politics.nationalism.white:23360 alt.conspiracy:60399 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:324505 alt.politics.radical-left:99255 alt.politics.perot:49338 alt.politics.usa.republican:219362

    Followups trimmed.

In article , Max Kennedy  wrote:
>
>>>mkennedy wrote:
>>>: BTW: I've worked at a food factory, and they had a day set aside every 
>>>: so often for a Rabbi to come by and certify their food, as well as
>>>: one line entirely set apart for Kosher certified food.  I'm unaware
>>>: how much this cost them, or made them.   
>
>>>: It is pretty bizarre though.  
>
>BTW: I want to clarify something here.  This was a company that makes and
>packages SPICES and things like Mustard.  IE entirely non-meat, non-dairy
>products.
>
>So I confess it was a little odd for me in the first place to see these things
>needing "Kosher certification", because they could not, in any way, violate
>Kosher 'laws' in the first place, insofar as I understand them.
>
>My understanding, is of course, limited to the old testament prescriptions, 
>and does not extend to modifications of the same by latter day jews.

    You don't even understand the OT prescriptions, then - or maybe you
don't understand everything that goes on in food manufacturing.  I'll just
give one example.

    There is at least one red food coloring made from insects.  With a few
exceptions, insects are not kosher and you can find this in the OT.


>*My* understanding, however, is that these things were meant as camp
>laws, not moral laws, and could therefore only apply to someone still
>lost in the wilderness..  Ahoy out there!  

    Leviticus 3:17 says, "It shall be a perpetual statue for your
generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor
blood."  That seems to be quite a bit different than "It shall be a
temporary statute only while you are dwelling in the wilderness."  What
part of this escaped your understanding?  (BTW, the word for "fat" in in
the Hebrew does not mean all fat as we understand it, but only fat from
certain areas of the animal which was reserved for sacrificial use.)

    What part of Leviticus 11:44 escaped your understanding?  "And ye
shall be holy" sure sounds like a moral law to me.

    Look, just buy the products that have a simple letter "K" on them (not
enclosed in a triangle or other figure), or no symbols at all.  No rabbi
receives any money for those products.  The store shelves are full of
them.  So what is the problem? 

    Posted/emailed.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Thu Jun 20 10:57:02 PDT 1996
Article: 44856 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!gatech!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Giwer is seeing things
Date: 20 Jun 1996 11:41:15 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <4qbrer$sp7@access5.digex.net>
References: <31B3318F.1E4A@niven.imsweb.net> <4pesou$aaa@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com> <4pqopf$983@access1.digex.net> <4q6ptg$4eu4@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4q6ptg$4eu4@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>,
Gord McFee  wrote:
>In article <4pqopf$983@access1.digex.net>, mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael
>P. Stein) said:
>
>
>>    I have searched DejaNews for such a claim.  I looked for both "search
>>engine" and "regex."  These searches cannot find any post from Hilary
>>Ostrov which make any claim that: 
>
>>    a) Regex is a search engine
>>    b) Nizkor has a search engine
>
>That's because there are no such statements.  The Giwer-troll has told
>another whopper.

    He's just an unreliable eyewitness.  :)


>>In fact, I cannot find either claim made by _anyone_, not just Hilary
>>Ostrov.  The closest thing I can find is a post by Gordon McFee asking if
>>Mr. Giwer knows about search engines - but that is not equivalent to
>>either claim above.  But once that question was asked, Mr. Giwer started
>>insinuating that such a claim had been made.  Others are encouraged to
>>confirm my results for themselves. 
>
>You are correct.  The funny thing about this is that the Giwer-troll could
>simply use a search engine (Alta Vista being an example), and find almost
>anything he wants.

    Actually, that is not correct - have you actually tried to use
Altavista to find something on Nizkor?  It will get the FAQs, but most of
the Nizkor archives are still the plain text files from the old email
request system (does anyone remember oneb.almanac.bc.ca?) which preceded
Nizkor.  Those files are accessed through the CGI, and AltaVista doesn't
index those.  I believe this situation will be corrected in the near
future.

    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.

    Posted/emailed.

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Thu Jun 20 14:16:55 PDT 1996
Article: 44884 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!kryten.awinc.com!laslo.netnet.net!en.com!in-news.erinet.com!bug.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!genmagic!sgigate.sgi.com!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!world1.bawave.com!news2.cais.net!news.cais.net!nntp.primenet.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Holocaust; Six million dead
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: 19 Jun 1996 23:34:31 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <4qags7$66d@access1.digex.net>
References: <4pfqsh$2ud@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> <4pjb9u$eoo@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> <4pjchj$h3n@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com> <4plsqj$alc@nemesis.eo.lu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net


In article <4plsqj$alc@nemesis.eo.lu>,
Juergen Langowski <100273.3352@compuserve.com> wrote:
>Since you are able to judge translations, I take it you are able to
>read this text in the original language.
>
>		Noch im Sommer 1942 wurden die Leichen
>		in die Massengräber gebracht. Erst Ende des
>		Sommers fingen wir an mit der Verbrennung;
>		zuerst auf einem Holzstoß mit ca. 2000 Leichen,
>		nachher in den Gruben mit den wieder freigelegten
>		Leichen aus der früheren Zeit.[1]
>
>It's your turn now, Mr. Giwer. Please translate this quote for the
>convenience of those who can't read German.
>
>Then we'll discuss your translation, and then we'll discuss what is
>written in this text.
>
>A hint - "Massengräber" is German for "mass graves".
>
>A second hint - the first sentence should not read: "In the summer of
>1942 there were no mass graves."
>
>____________________
>[1] 	Höss, Rudolf,
>	"Kommandant in Auschwitz"
>	DVA Stuttgart 1958
>	zitiert nach Kogon u.a. (Hrsg.),
>	Nationalsozialistische Massentötungen durch Giftgas,
>	p. 233


    Well, I have to speak up for Mr. Giwer on this one.  Of course he
demands to see the graves themselves, not testimony that graves existed.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Fri Jun 21 16:14:26 PDT 1996
Article: 45166 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: 960502: It is amazing that the world has not yet been informed of this
Date: 21 Jun 1996 15:41:06 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 149
Message-ID: <4qetsi$f5a@access5.digex.net>
References:  <4pl8gt$aoq@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com> <4q6n8k$oif@access4.digex.net> <4qacpl$5vg@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4qacpl$5vg@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,   wrote:
>mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>
>	You should have left this to someone following the discussion.

    You are not following the discussion?  To whom should I have left it?


>>In article <4pl8gt$aoq@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>,
>>Matt Giwer  wrote:
>>>100644.317@compuserve.com (Miloslav Bilik) wrote:
>>>
>>>>mgiwer@ix.netcom.com (Matt Giwer) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>100644.317@compuserve.com (Miloslav Bilik) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>mgiwer@ix.netcom.com (Matt Giwer) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>rjg@d31rz0.Stanford.EDU (Richard J. Green) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Deception alert!  If we have 1 gram of hamburger and 18% of it is 
>>>>>>>>>>fat, then it releases .18 * (9000) = 1620 calories.  Mr. Giwer has
>>>>>>>>>>no justification to multiply this number by .1. 
>>>
>>>>>>>>>	Therefore after the 90% of water is gone you can only use 18% of
>>>>>>>>>the remaining 10% as fat.  Thus the justification.  
>>>
>>>>>>And with 75% of water, what would you say ? Some justification to 90%
>>>>>>instead of 75% (65% is more often admitted) ? Do you even have a clue,
>>>>>>somewhat that the fat is concerned with the water's rate ?
>>>
>>>>>>>	The floor is yours, Dr. Green.
>>>
>>>>>	It was an AGREED upon place to start from when WE started this
>>>>>some months ago.  Would you like to start over with different
>>>>>agree upon assumptions?  If you, you first.
>>>
>>>>I don't agree. You understimated the amount of water, what is 65-70%
>>>>for extracellular and at most 80%.
>>>
>>>>The fat is estimated with several ways, and the 18% from Mr Green is
>>>>among the lowest, and didn't suppose that some water was mixed with
>>>>it. With isotopics methods you can have near twice this number.
>>>
>>>	Which in any event would result in 18% of 20%.  He objected to
>>>that multiplication as you know if you were reading the thread.  He, on
>>>the other hand and in light of where we started, wanted both 10% (here
>>>20%) non-water AND 18% fat.  
>
>>    Deceptive figuring.  The calorie value of fat is computed on the
>>weight with the water in it.
>
>>    I will type this very slowly for Mr. Giwer's benefit.
>
>>    If you take one gram of the white stuff from the side of your raw
>>steak, that includes the water and all. 
>
>>    When you burn it, you get whatever the calorie value of a gram of fat
>>is regardless of what the percentage of water in that gram is.
>
>>    You are not entitled to take the energy value of a gram of fat with
>>the water in, then pretend that this is really the energy value per gram
>>for waterless fat.  To compute caloric value, you may not reduce the
>>amount of fat by 82%.  Or if you do, you must multiply its energy output
>>per unit of mass by 1/.18 = 5.56.  Mr.  Giwer is changing the definition
>>of "fat" in the middle of the game in order to pull a fast one. 
>
>	The game started with either 80 or 90% water.  Of the remaining, only
>20% or 10% only say 20% of that can be fat in the human body.

    Fine.  But the fat in that definition of fat has a calorie value of
approximately 48,000 calories per gram.  The total energy frm fat, you
see, remains the same.  But (see below) we can postpone this part of the
discussion while we work on something else which should be easier to agree
on. 


>>    Down in my refrigerator I have a package of Polish sausage.  One link
>>is 85g.  Fat grams are listed as 22.  Thus it is 25.9% fat.  Pretending no
>>water is introduced during the sausage making process, 
>	
>	And rather than be interested in added water in your sausage,
>consider the blood was drained from the animal before processing.  Call
>it a wash for the meat part.  
>
>if this is Mr.
>>Giwer's "waterless" fat, that makes the sausage at most 74.1% water not
>>counting the protein, etc.  Pretty dehydrated cow.
>
>	You sausage also lacks bones.

    Bones also lack water relative to meat and fat.  Lack of bones would
increase the percentage of water, not decrease it.  Oops there.


>>    Clearly this fat counts the water in it.  Fat calories are listed as
>>190, but dietary calories are really kilocalories so we have 190,000
>>calories in 22g of waterlogged fat = 8636 cal/g.
>
>	Fat is added to sausage in the form ground fat, so by weight it 
>still contains water.  Thus by weight, it still contains water. 

    Very good.  You now agree that fat (in the sense of the white stuff on
the side of your steak, or what is ground into the sausage, which is what
the nutritionists measure) _does_ contain water.  So you cannot subtract
all water from the body, including the water from the fat, then compute
the weight of dehydrated fat but use an energy value per gram as if it
were hydrated. 

    But once again (see below) we don't have to come to an agreement on
this point right now.  It can wait. 


>>    Call it 90% water, multiply by .1 to get 2.2g of dehydrated fat, but
>>unless you claim the ability to burn water and get energy out of it,
>>according to the observant Jews at Hebrew National that 2.2g of dehydrated
>>fat still clocks in at 190,000 calories.  I can not change that and
>>neither can Mr. Superscientist.  Unless he thinks those non-atheist Jews
>>are lying to the goyim at the FDA. 
>
>	But I can find the right inputs and then be able to make the correct
>calculations.  

    Then please do so.

    The amount of energy needed to deal with the water is independent of
the amount of energy in the body.  We do not have to agree right now on
how many calories there are in a human body in order to figure out how
many calories are needed.  In order to answer the question of whether the
body supplies enough calories, when burned, to repay the energy used to
ignite it, we must compute the ignition energy.  Without that, we have no
way of knowing if the calories available (whatever they are) would be
sufficient.  Correct?

    So take a 70kg person as your input.  Is 85% water an acceptable
assumption?  Compute the number of calories required to deal with the
water in cremating a corpse.  You have claimed you can do this
calculation.  Please proceed.  Show all your work.  After you have given
your number and the computations you used to arrive at that number, I will
either agree to it and we can then work on the second half - finding the
number of calories actually obtained by burning an average 70kg corpse -
or I will tell you why I disagree.

[Remainder deleted to be dealt with after Mr. Giwer shows the computation
he has said he knows how to do.]
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Fri Jun 21 18:07:10 PDT 1996
Article: 45187 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.cloud9.net!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: How to get a desired confession
Date: 21 Jun 1996 18:30:41 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 392
Message-ID: <4qf7qh$kas@access5.digex.net>
References: <4q5nbe$9nb@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

    I have decided to try an experiment.  Let's apply the same methods of
analysis to witnesses used by the "revisionists" to the witnesses they
adduce in their own arguments.


In article <4q5nbe$9nb@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
  wrote:
>	And holohuggers could produce only personal attacks when I talked about
>1940s interrogation methods.  
>
>When It's Confession Time at Dachau, 
>or, I Saw the Light While I Was Seeing Stars
>
>By Carlos Porter 
>
>In war crimes trials, confessions are usually typewritten by the
>interrogator, often entirely in English. Paragraphs in the prisoner's
>handwriting have usually been dictated by the interrogator.The First
>Dachau Trial (Trial of Martin Gottfried Weiss and Thirty Nine Others),
>offers an insight into the manner in which these confessions were
>obtained. 
>
>(TESTIMONY OF KICK, microfilm pages 000145-9). 
>
>Q: Are either of these two statements 96 or 97 in your handwriting? 
>
>A: The post-script on page 4 of 96 is in my handwriting. 
>
>Q: The rest of it is written in what manner? 
>
>A: The other part of it is typed. 
>
>Q: Did you dictate the typing? 
>
>A: No. 
>
>Q: Who did? 
>
>A: The interrogating officer. 
>
>Q: Who was the interrogating officer? 
>
>A: Lt. Guth. 
>
>Q: Is the language contained in either of those statements your language
>or the language of Lt. Guth? 
>
>A: Those are the expressions of Lt. Guth. 
>
>Q: And at the end of your statements you signed them, and swore to them
>as being the truth, did you not? 
>
>A: Yes. 
>
>Q: ... will you describe to the court the treatment that you received
>prior to your first interrogation anyplace? 
>
>(Prosecution objection as to whether beating received on the 6th of May
>could be relevant to confession signed on the 5th of November). 
>
>Q: ... Kick, did the treatment you received immediately following your
>arrest have any influence whatever on the statements that you made on
>the 5th of November? 
>
>A: ... The treatment at that time influenced this testimony to that
>extent, that I did not dare to refuse to sign, in spite of the fact that
>it did not contain the testimony which I gave. 
>
>Q: Now, Kick, for the court, will you describe the treatment which you
>received immediately following your arrest? 
>
>A: I ask to refuse to answer this question here in public. 
>
>President: The court desires to have the defendant answer the question. 
>
>A: I was here in Dachau from the 6th to the 15th of May, under arrest;
>during this time I was beaten all during the day and night... kicked...
>I had to stand to attention for hours; I had to kneel down on sharp
>objects or square objects;

    Square objects?  Not round ones?  What is so terrible about square
objects?  Why are they much different from the flat floor?  And why square
sometimes and sharp others?  Doesn't this witness know that consistency is
important? 



>I had to stand under the lamp for hours and
>look into the light, at which time I was also beaten and kicked; as a
>result of this treatment my arm was paralysed for about 8 to 10 weeks;
>only beginning with my transfer to Augsberg, this treatment stopped. 
>
>Q: What were you beaten with? 
>
>A: With all kinds of objects. 
>
>Q: Describe them, please. 
>
>A: With whips, with lashing whips, with rifle butts, pistol butts, and
>pistol barrels, and with hands and fists.

    Again, can't keep a consistent story.



>Q: And that continued daily over a period of what time? 
>
>A: From the morning of the 7th of May until the morning of the 15th of
>May. 

    Not one broken bone from all those rifle butts.  Not even a hairline
fracture.  At least I see no forensic report of it.  Amazing they had such
control over those rifle butts.

    But since there is no physical evidence, and testimony is not
evidence, we have no evidence.


>Q: Kick, why did you hesitate to give that testimony? 
>
>A: If the court hadn't decided I should talk about it, I wouldn't have
>said anything about it today. 
>
>Q: Would you describe the people who administered these beatings to you?
>
>
>A: I can only say that they were persons who were wearing the United
>States uniform and I can't describe them any better. 

    They did not have name patches on the uniforms in those days?

    Could not describe them better?  Could not remember hair color? 
Height?  Approximate age?  Terrible memory this witness has.


>Q: And as a result of those beatings when Lt. Guth called you in, what
>was your frame of mind? 
>
>A: I had to presume that if I were to refuse to sign I would be
>subjected to a similar treatment. 
>
>(TESTIMONY OF KRAMER, microfilm pages 000298-9). 
>
>Q: Kramer, were you interrogated after your arrest anywhere except
>Dachau? 
>
>A: Yes, in Fuerstenfeldbruck. 
>
>Q: Did that interrogation have any effect on the statement that you made
>here? 
>
>Prosecution: I object to that question as being immaterial and
>irrelevant. 
>
>President: Explain exactly what happened. 
>
>Q: Will you explain exactly what happened at that interrogation? A: I do
>not want to talk about it. 
>
>Q: The court desires you to explain what happened. 
>
>A: I was beaten by an interrogation officer. Several prisoners were also
>present.

    How very stupid, having around some of his fellow prisoners to serve
as witnesses to his mistreatment.  Well, perhaps it was to impress upon
them the example being made of this one, that they would get the same if
they did not cooperate.  But wait, where are they to corroborrate his
statement? 


>I was supposed to tell how many people I shot or hanged. I can
>say with a conscience that I never killed a person. Thereupon, I was
>beaten over the head with sticks and rubber hoses until I broke down. 

    No whips?  No rifle butts?  Consistency, where is the consistency?



>Q: Anything else to say about that? 
>
>A: No ... 
>
>(TESTIMONY OF DR. WITTELER, microfilm pages 000327-331). 
>
>A: During my interrogation I had to sit in front of the desk of Lt.
>Guth. A spotlight was turned on me which stood on the desk. Lt. Guth
>stood behind the spotlight and the interrogation started. "We
>know you, we have the necessary records about you..." I started to make
>an explanation. I was immediately stopped. I was yelled at. He called me
>a swine, criminal, liar, murderer, and that is the way the interrogation
>continued. I couldn't give any explanations. I was only told to answer
>"yes" or "no"... I was interrupted immediately and told that all I had
>to do was answer "yes" and "no". I couldn't even explain it. I was told
>to shut up and to answer "yes" or "no"... since it was not like he
>thought it was, I had to get up and stand. So I stood up until 1:30 in
>the morning - seven hours. 
>
>Q: ... at the conclusion of the drafting of this statement you signed
>it? 
>
>A: No, I answered that it is not correct... this statement was not
>written in my presence. It was written in another room. The reporter was
>with me in the room all the time, but the statement was
>written in another room. After I couldn't stand up any more this
>statement was put in front of me at 1:30. And then when I said that this
>testimony... is not by me, that is the testimony of Dr. Blaha --
>who was present for several hours that night... so that I didn't want to
>sign it. Lt. Guth said he would interrogate me until tomorrow morning,
>that he had other methods... 

    Must have had some respect for the medical profession.  Kick seems to
have claimed that he was beaten from the start, but they only shone lights
on this one.  Why the softer treatment?  It was the same Lt. Guth involved
both times, right? 


>(DR. BLAHA WAS A CZECH COMMUNIST WHO CLAIMED THE GERMANS FORCED HIM TO
>SKIN PEOPLE AND MAKE SLIPPERS, SADDLES, PURSES, HANDBAGS, GLOVES, AND
>TROUSERS OUT OF HUMAN SKIN. HE ALSO WAS THE ONLY WITNESS AT THE DACHAU
>TRIAL WHO CLAIMED THERE WAS A GAS CHAMBER AT DACHAU. HIS TESTIMONY WAS
>INTRODUCED INTO EVIDENCE AT NUREMBERG AS "PROVEN FACT"). 
>
>Q: How many people were present at the time you were interrogated? 
>
>A: Altogether, three: Lt. Guth, Dr. Leiss, and I, and, for a short time,
>Dr. Blaha. 
>
>Q: This writing in your own handwriting. Was that dictated or did you
>make it up? 
>
>A: When I found that the interrogation would end that way, I wrote down
>this last part and signed my name to it. 
>
>Q: Was it your own words or was it dictated to you? 
>
>A: Lt. Guth dictated those words... 
>
>Q: Prior to the time that you signed that statement, have you been
>served with any papers in this particular case? 
>
>A: No, I didn't know why I was in Dachau. I had no idea I was one of the
>accused. After the interrogation at 1:30 I was sent to the colonel and
>the colonel then read the charge to me. The first time I heard I was
>supposed to be a murderer, was then. 
>
>Q: You mean Col. Denson read the charges to you? 
>
>A: Yes. 
>
>(Col. Denson acted as prosecutor in this trial and delivered the
>prosecution summation. Lt. Guth appeared as a witness and denied all
>accusations of improper conduct. Guth was a Viennese who came to the
>United States in 1941).

    In the middle of the war in Europe?  From an enemy country?  And he
was made an officer?  And one of the interrogators? 


>(TESTIMONY OF GRETSCH, microfilm pages 000701-3). 
>
>Q: Gretsch, is this statement in your handwriting? 
>
>A: No, that isn't my handwriting. 
>
>Q: What part of this paper is in your handwriting? 
>
>A: This is my handwriting here. 
>
>Q: And what is this? What part of the paper is this? 
>
>A: That is, "I have made the above statements without compulsion, and I
>have read and corrected it and understand it fully. I swear before God
>that it is the pure truth". 
>
>Q: That is the oath, is it not? 
>
>A: Yes, that is the oath. 
>
>Q: And is the oath the only part of this statement that is in your
>handwriting? 
>
>A: Yes... 
>
>Q: ... Gretsch, you signed each page... did you not? 
>
>A: Yes, I signed it on the bottom, but I didn't read it. It was in a
>hurry... 
>
>Q: ...Were you told to sign your name to each sheet of paper? A: Yes... 
>
>(PROSECUTION REBUTTAL - TESTIMONY OF COL. CHAVEZ, microfilm pages
>000712-4). 
>
>Q: Kick testified that he was beaten daily from the 7th of May until the
>15th of May... did you have occasion to examine Kick? 
>
>A: Yes. 
>
>Q: ... did you have occasion to observe his physical condition? 
>
>A: I did. 
>
>Q: Did he have any black eyes? 
>
>A: He did not. 
>
>Q: Did he show any evidence of violence having been used upon him? 
>
>A: He did not. 
>
>Q: Was any one or both of his arms paralysed? 
>
>A: Not that I observed. He was just as natural as he is now. In fact, he
>looked better at that time than he does now. I observed nothing. He was
>very cooperative, and the record will so indicate. He was sworn and he
>gave his testimony in a very gently manner. 
>
>Q: Did he at any time state to you, Colonel, that he had been beaten or
>in any manner mistreated? 
>
>A: He did not. 
>
>Q: ... how often did you see him? 
>
>A: Just during the time that he was interrogated. 
>
>Q: ... of course he was fully clothed? 
>
>A: Yes. 
>
>Q: But there is no question about it - at the time you talked with him
>he was quite cooperative? 
>
>A: He was... 
>
>(COL. CHAVEZ WAS THE AUTHOR OF THE "CHAVEZ REPORT", WHICH WAS TO HAVE
>"PROVEN" THAT A GAS CHAMBER EXISTED AT DACHAU. THE REPORT WAS NEVER
>INTRODUCED INTO EVIDENCE, AND THIS ACCUSATION WAS DROPPED BEFORE TRIAL.
>COL. CHAVEZ APPEARED AS AN EXPERT WITNESS AT DACHAU ON NOV. 15, 1945,
>BUT MADE NO MENTION OF A GAS CHAMBER. THE CHAVEZ REPORT WAS THEN
>RE-WRITTEN AND INTRODUCED INTO EVIDENCE AT NUREMBERG AS DOCUMENTS
>2430 PS AND 159 L, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS KNOWN TO BE UNTRUE). 
>
>(TESTIMONY OF LT. LAURENCE, microfilm pages 000714-5). 
>
>Q: Did you have occasion to examine Albin Gretsch? 
>
>A: Yes, Sir. 
>
>Q: ... and did he complain of any mis-statements?... 
>
>A: Not at all, sir... they are mostly his own words, sir. And I may add,
>sir, that I wasn't in a hurry at all. He took many hours and as he was
>rather slow in answering, I gave him all the time he wanted... 
>
>Q: The statement, with the exception of the oath, is in your
>handwriting, is it not, Lt. Laurence? 
>
>A: Yes. 
>
>(Of course, while German allegations of mistreatment are always
>dismissed as baseless, similar accusations from prosecution witnesses
>are accepted as "proven facts".

    Of course, revisionists simply change the set of witnesses they
believe without question and the set of witnesses they claim are lying
through their teeth.



>Among the offenses for which KICK was
>hanged was knocking 15 teeth out of the lower jaw of Llewellyn
>Edwards of 12, Nora St. Cardiff, Wales, who claimed to have lost 15
>upper teeth at some other time[!]): 
>
>Q: At the time you went in Kick's office, how many teeth did you have in
>your head? 
>
>A: Fifteen, sir. On the bottom, sir. Fifteen of my own, sir. On the top
>I had artificial teeth. 
>
>(microfilm page 000722). 


    Did anyone catch the deliberate misreading?  That too is a common
denier technique in refuting testimony.  If you did not spot it go back
and look again.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Sat Jun 22 13:53:29 PDT 1996
Article: 45314 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!news.uoregon.edu!hunter.premier.net!uunet!inXS.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: An interesting point
Date: 21 Jun 1996 18:41:35 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <4qf8ev$kjt@access5.digex.net>
References: <4pt5qg$p91@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> <4q4ljq$1nu@access5.digex.net> <4q4sv2$6u5@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com> <4q6rj8$mn8@hackberry.zilker.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4q6rj8$mn8@hackberry.zilker.net>,
Mike Curtis  wrote:
>>>    Gee, I have seen zero reports of existing incinerators large enough to
>>>burn bodies.  By your "what I have not seen reported does not exist" rule,
>>>there were none. 
>
>>	Would you care to post a few of them?  You will make a signficant
>>contribution to the conference as no one else has posted such a report.
>
>
>I wouldn't if I were him. You don't read the NG.

    And what he does read, he doesn't comprehend.  How can I post evidence
of the existence of a few of the zero incinerators I have heard of?  Yet
that seems to be what he's asking me to do.  Besides, proving the
existence of unused large incinerators (in order to argue that their
non-use is evidentiary) is his job. 

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Sun Jun 23 08:12:59 PDT 1996
Article: 45420 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!loki.tor.hookup.net!nic.ott.hookup.net!hookup!gatech!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The holohugger conspiracy
Date: 21 Jun 1996 15:59:51 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <4qeuvn$fpu@access5.digex.net>
References: <4qdsee$ag8@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4qdsee$ag8@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>,
  wrote:

[email from Gordon McFee deleted]
>
>=====
>
>	You see McFly really is the idiot asshole he appears to be in public.
>And the nearly identical issues demonstrate that he is part of the
>private conspiracy to agree upon what to post.  
>
>	Now we all know that McFly is a terminat idiot but that does not excuse
>the other teminal idiots who he conspired with for this email.  
>
>	You will also note that after this failed the ISP harrassment started
>again.   It is nothing new.  It is the only thing the holohuggers have
>left.
>
>	They are very desperate at this point.  
>
>	Two of them have admitted that I have taken over this conferenence
>within four hours, one public, one private -- he imagined.  
>
>	Give it up.  You folks are mongoloid idiots compared to my minus 163 IQ.
>
>
>	You lost.  
>
>	I won, I continue to win and will continue to do so.  You reaslly
>intelligent idiots are no match for me even when you combine your
>non-existant brain power.

    I have a six-year-old nephew who also likes to go around saying, "I
win!  I win!"
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Sun Jun 23 08:13:00 PDT 1996
Article: 45428 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: MATT GIWER REPORT for Jun 1-9: 12.7% / 18.3%
Date: 21 Jun 1996 16:39:30 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <4qf1a2$h4d@access5.digex.net>
References: <4q8dtd$3i7@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4qau2l$lmo@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4qau2l$lmo@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
 wrote:
>	What an idiot. 
>
>	I told you folks I would do what you have now "discovered" months later.
>Alec told you what I would do.  And you choose to ignore it.  
>
>	Now that you have noticed I really can do what you were told I can do
>you propose a course of action that is rather counter productive.
>	
>	To wit, I will flay alive your holocaust alive even more quickly if
>people follow your suggestion.  But PLEASE do not believe me.  I love a
>fair fight.  That is why I handicap you folks by telling you what I am
>doing and am going to do.
>
>	To recap, what I have done is put this conference back to a discussion
>of revision rather than the orthodox who managed to take it over.  I put
>the NG back on track.  


    Excuse me, but I must be missing something.  Other "revisionists" have
posted here - Greg Raven, Tim McCarthy, Fritz Berg, Bradley Smith, Ross
Vicksell, et al.  And their claims have been addressed.  They seem to have
given it up.  The only other ones currently left on any regular basis are
J. F. Beaulieu, Tom Moran, Jeff Roberts, and Al Baron.

    So now the posting volume has increased.  If that is your definition
of "winning," then Tom Moran could have done the same long ago. 
Congratulations, you are smarter than he is.

    But "discussion" of revision?  You have made an assertion about the
amount of coke needed for cremation.  And several people have tried to sit
down with you (including myself) and discuss it with you, getting down to
hard numbers.  You seem to keep changing the ground rules and avoid
getting down to calculations.  What kind of a discussion is that?  What
kind of scientist is that? 

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access4.digex.net Sun Jun 23 08:13:00 PDT 1996
Article: 45449 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!gatech!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Another curiosity
Date: 23 Jun 1996 02:51:51 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <4qipi7$ldv@access4.digex.net>
References: <4q9ul0$mhj@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <4qf3d2$i6u@access5.digex.net> <4qhv90$mpf@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net

In article <4qhv90$mpf@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
  wrote:
>mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>
>>In article <4q9ul0$mhj@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
>>  wrote:
>>>	We all know that the evil Nazis were busy rounding up Jews and 
>>>executing them on the spot in all the places they controlled to the east
>>>of Germany, lands liberated by the Russians.
>
>>    Buzzer there.  It was done on a much smaller scale in Poland, but the
>>major method there involved shipping off to Treblinka et al.  Please post
>>any documentation you have of any claim that this was SOP in Rumania and
>>Hungary.
>
>	The last time I brought up a discrepency in total numbers, I was told
>that the Einstatzgruppen got over a million people.  Was that in error?
>Or is that only true when there are discrepencies in numbers being
>discussed?

    This does not in any way address the geographical issue.


>>>	Yet these same Nazis under the same orders were not doing it in
>>>any other of the countries they controlled,
>
>>    In occupied Russia, it was done by the Einsatzgruppen and
>>locally-recruited auxiliaries.  I am not aware that the Einsatzgruppen
>>operated in any other countries the Nazis controlled, under the same or
>>any other orders.  I would be interested in seeing any documentation you
>>have on this.
>
>
>>>that is, countries liberated by
>>>the British, French and Americans.  Not even to Jews who were supposed
>>>to have been the primary targets in the Russian liberated countries.
>
>>    This sort of contradicts the earlier line about on-the-spot execution
>>in "all lands east of Germany," doesn't it? 
>
>	It makes it unexplainable as to why the same thing was not found in
>countries liberated by the other three allies.

    It was not even found in all countries liberated by the Russians
unless you are aware of some documentation that I have not seen.  You
claim a 163 IQ, and you cannot think of an explanation? 


[old quotes snipped]
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access4.digex.net Sun Jun 23 08:13:01 PDT 1996
Article: 45474 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: MATT GIWER REPORT for Jun 1-9: 12.7% / 18.3%
Date: 23 Jun 1996 01:13:38 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 145
Message-ID: <4qijq2$kft@access4.digex.net>
References: <4q8dtd$3i7@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4qau2l$lmo@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> <4qf1a2$h4d@access5.digex.net> <4qhshh$ci8@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net

In article <4qhshh$ci8@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
  wrote:
>mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>
>>In article <4qau2l$lmo@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
>> wrote:
>>>	What an idiot. 
>>>
>>>	I told you folks I would do what you have now "discovered" months later.
>>>Alec told you what I would do.  And you choose to ignore it.  
>>>
>>>	Now that you have noticed I really can do what you were told I can do
>>>you propose a course of action that is rather counter productive.
>>>	
>>>	To wit, I will flay alive your holocaust alive even more quickly if
>>>people follow your suggestion.  But PLEASE do not believe me.  I love a
>>>fair fight.  That is why I handicap you folks by telling you what I am
>>>doing and am going to do.
>>>
>>>	To recap, what I have done is put this conference back to a discussion
>>>of revision rather than the orthodox who managed to take it over.  I put
>>>the NG back on track.  
>
>>    Excuse me, but I must be missing something.  Other "revisionists" have
>>posted here - Greg Raven, Tim McCarthy, Fritz Berg, Bradley Smith, Ross
>>Vicksell, et al.  And their claims have been addressed.  They seem to have
>>given it up.  The only other ones currently left on any regular basis are
>>J. F. Beaulieu, Tom Moran, Jeff Roberts, and Al Baron.
>
>	And I have read you folks bragging about driving them off.  That is 
>what you are missing. 

    No, you are the one missing something, or pretending to.

    Greg Raven was exposed as a liar.  It was repeatedly shown that he
posted dishonestly and deceptively edited sources and grossly distorted
paraphrases, and used invalid reasoning and arguments.

    Tim McCarthy was shown to have done the same thing to one particular
document, and to have missed something in one of his own claimed sources
that refuted his own theory.

    Fritz Berg was shown to have overlooked (at best) a number of issues
of toxicology and misrepresented some things in his own sources.

    Bradley Smith was exposed as a hypocrite when he admitted he
introduced the Leuchter Report even though he knew there were flaws in it,
yet criticized Michael Berenbaum for not checking his sources carefully
enough.

    Ross Vicksell simply wasn't capable of debating anything.  Every time
you turned around, he had to go ask someone else something.

    The were not driven out by namecalling.  Tim McCarthy certainly gave
as good as he got from the word go.

    They were driven out because they were exposed as dishonest and
hypocritical, and realized that they were not advancing the cause any.

    The only difference between you and them is, you don't seem to mind be
be embarrassed by being caught in hypocrisy or in a lie.  That is your
problem, not mine.



>>    So now the posting volume has increased.  If that is your definition
>>of "winning," then Tom Moran could have done the same long ago. 
>>Congratulations, you are smarter than he is.
>
>	It is not my definition.  You certainly read McCarthy's message.  I got
>a similar one from McFly by email.  They obvious had talked it over.  

    Yes, I read his message.  I am privy to the discussions that go on.

    Did you know that I was the one who wrote the mantra, as you call it? 
(The original, not Mark Van Alstine's mutated version.)  Yet I do not use
it.  Because, you see, there really was no conspiracy.  Other people
simply read it, liked it, and decided to use it.  There was no advance
agreement. I never suggested that it be used.  I never intended to use it. 
I have not killfiled you.  I respond to you just the same as I respond to
anyone else, on my own terms, if and when I choose.

    I find it uproariously funny that you think it is such a revelation
that you are now dealing with Nizkor on your own terms.  If you have
ever been doing anything but, then you are very, very, very stupid.

    I have not tried to silence you.  I merely point out when you are
lying or hypocritical.  I have said that if my goal were to defend the
orthodox holocaust story at any cost, I would want you posting forever,
because you are a liar and easily shown to be such.  But if my goal were
to defend the orthodox history at any cost, then I have done some very
strange things.  Ask Jeff Roberts who it was who reported survivor
testimony that they were held in Auschwitz unregistered, then sent off to
other camps without any records being made.

    So you have not beaten me, because I have never played any game other
than the one I have always played.  You can only beat me at it if and when
you start playing it.  But you are not capable of playing that game, 163
IQ or no.

    If and when I decide to deal with you, you will be dealt with, and on
my own terms.  Because just as you can get this newsgroup to do whatever
you want, I can summon spirits from the vasty deep, and invoke daemons by
name.  (And I do not even need a pentagram.)  I'm sure you are suitably
impressed.



>>    But "discussion" of revision?  You have made an assertion about the
>>amount of coke needed for cremation.  And several people have tried to sit
>>down with you (including myself) and discuss it with you, getting down to
>>hard numbers.  You seem to keep changing the ground rules and avoid
>>getting down to calculations.  What kind of a discussion is that?  What
>>kind of scientist is that? 
>
>	I have yet to see you folks post any calcualtions.  When are you going
>to get around to do so?  

    Excuse me.  You were the one claiming a physics degree and the ability
to do the calculations.  You were the one claiming there was not enough
coke.

    Your claims.  Therefore your burden of proof, as you do not hestitate
to point out to other people who make claims.  Yes, I know you hare not in
the least embarrassed when I point out your hypocrisy.  Nevertheless, you
are once again being hypocritical.

    Your claims, your burden of proof.  Start calculating.

    I think you are actually bluffing and cannot do the computations -
that you do not even know the correct equations.  You are hoping to get
someone else to do them so that you can sit back and say, "You're wrong!" 
without actually having to back up your claims or make any claim which can
then be shown wrong by someone who really _does_ know what they're doing.

    You could, of course, prove me wrong by doing the calculations and
showing your work as you claimed you could do and were challenged to do. 
But I predict you will not, because you are a lying fraud.  That is not an
insult, that is simply a fact, which I cannot change.  Only you can change
it.

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access4.digex.net Sun Jun 23 08:13:02 PDT 1996
Article: 45483 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news1.io.org!winternet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.asu.edu!ennfs.eas.asu.edu!gatech!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.misc,alt.revisionism,alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: Re: Giwer Responds to the Charges of Net Abuse
Date: 23 Jun 1996 02:31:25 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 212
Message-ID: <4qiobt$l7l@access4.digex.net>
References: <4q9apb$7mi@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4qfof8$2o6@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>  <4qi6rg$dt6@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca news.admin.net-abuse.misc:55548 alt.revisionism:45483 alt.usenet.kooks:25651

In article <4qi6rg$dt6@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>jamie@voyager.net (Jamie McCarthy) wrote:
>
>>In the last twelve to eighteen months, revisionists have pretty much
>>figured out that Usenet is not the place for them.  It's too easy for
>>their arguments to be taken apart.  Which is ironic, since for the past
>>ten or twenty years, they've been complaining that what they really want
>>is just the chance to be heard and to discuss their ideas freely, with
>>skeptics.
>
>	But you folks are unable to do so.  Rather as I have seen you do is post
>some nonsense and declare victory just as you do on Nizkor.

    In debate, when a factual argument is unanswered, then yes, the person
who failed to answer loses by default.


>>Well, they got their fill of skeptics!  Not a single one of the people I
>>mentioned above, with the occasional exception of Greg Raven, chooses to
>>return to alt.revisionism.  They say it's because we regulars on
>>alt.revisionism engage in mudslinging and generally aren't professional
>>enough for them.  I say it's because they got their facts and logic torn
>>apart by a bunch of amateurs.  The reader can make up his or her own
>>mind -- though I suggest first reading Mike Stein's autopsy of the
>>"diesel" arguments of Friedrich Berg, at:
>>http://www.almanac.bc.ca/features/denial-of-science/diesel-1.html
>
>	And this makes a perfect example of posting anything and declaring
>victory.

    Friedrich Berg never answered.  You are of course welcome to pick up
where he left off.


>This incomplete article does not address much of anything.  It
>is not a technical discussion in the least.  The author knows nothing of
>science.

    You are of course free to say anything you like.  Until you back it up
with hard facts, it is merely your empty assertion.


>	But you present it, falsely, as it being an answer when it is no such
>thing.  You have merely declared victory.

    Friedrich Berg seemed unwilling to discuss his distortion of sources
and the fact that his own technical papers showed that the thing he said
was extremely difficult was achieved by the people upon whom he relied for
his own sources.  And they said how they did it.

    But I will be happy to discuss that with you right after you provide
your calculations for the number of calories required to ignite the
average 70kg corpse.  You have a claim on the table about the amount of
coke required, and you bear the burden of proof on that one.


>>Either way, though, the reader cannot deny that "we" on alt.revisionism
>>have engaged in open debate with revisionists, debate about the facts.
>>Not only that, but we have openly solicited such debate.  We very much
>>_want_ revisionists to join us on the newsgroup, and to present their
>>claims and arguments to the best of their ability.
>
>	And I did and I got everything from written abuse and insults and my 
>ISP being harrassed to my family being harrassed.  That is apparently why
>you want revisionists to join, holohugger malice.

    If you have any evidence that any Jamie has ever initiated or
encouraged such behavior, please post it.  Otherwise, you are engaging in
malicious personal attack using the fallacy of guilt by association.


>>And, of course, we want to opportunity to try to convince lurkers that
>>those claims and arguments are wrong.  It goes without saying that we
>>realize that the best way of doing so, in the long run, is patient and
>>thorough analysis and research, not posting hundreds of articles in an
>>attempt to drown them out.
>
>	And anyone who has read or continues to read this NG knows you are lying
>through your teeth in representing the way you holohuggers behave here.
>You folks are notorious for it.  Your methods are common knowledge.  
>
>>I speak for most if not all of us when I say that hearing their errors
>>coming from their own mouths, and then seeing those errors
>>deconstructed, is much more likely to convince lurkers of revisionism's
>>faults.  It's Mark Twain's old comment:  "better to keep your mouth shut
>>and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."  We want
>>to help revisionists remove all doubt.
>
>	You mean you are promising good behavior in the future?   
>
>>So, what to make of Matt Giwer's claim that it has been our intention
>>"for years" to make alt.revisionism "useless" to our opponents?  What
>>of his claim that we are "thought control freaks" and are "quite proud
>>of it"?
>
>	Vain protests in the light of such low life extremes as harrassing my
>family give the clear lie to your statement.  
>
>>Well, in a word, he's a liar.
>
>	And there you have it.  The L word.  

    I will wager Mr. Giwer $1,000 that I can prove to a neutral arbiter
>from  the American Arbitration Association that I can prove to the "beyond
a reasonable doubt" standard that Mr. Giwer has made statements that he
knew or should have had good reason to know were false when he made them
according to the ordinary and reasonable interpretation of the words he
used.  Money to go to a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization of the winner's
choice.  Loser to pay all costs. 

    Mr. Giwer has run from two other wagers I proposed.  He will also run
>from  this one.



>>Since Mr. Giwer disagrees, he is welcome to state his case to the
>>contrary, as best he is able.  That's what this forum,
>>news.admin.net-abuse.misc, is for.
>
>>I've accused Mr. Giwer of net abuse, and I've collected a few hundred K
>>of his postings which I use to back up my case:
>
>>http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/g/giwer.matt/net-abuse
>
>	They are all censored, modified and distorted.  And you folks have
>admitted /proven that.

    When challenged to support this claim, Mr. Giwer falls back on the
argument that the entire thread is not saved.  However, he has never
provided evidence that any individual article from someone on the 'save'
list was a) deliberately omitted from the archives (news propagation
failures may mean that some are missing; DejaNews does not have all of my
articles), or b) had any text from the original article omitted or
modified, or any text added. 


>>Now Mr. Giwer has counter-accused me and my colleagues of the same
>>charges, and it is up to him to make _his_ case.
>
>>Since he claims that we have "bragged" about making or wanting to make
>>the newsgroup useless to our ideological opponents, he should have no
>>problem simply quoting examples.
>
>>That is, if he wasn't simply making it up.
>
>>Since he claims to know that we are "quite proud" of being "thought
>>control freaks," he must be basing this on something, which presumably
>>he could retrieve with DejaNews or AltaVista, and quote.
>
>>That is, if he wasn't simply making it up.
>
>>Mr. Giwer, you see, is quite fond of simply making things up.  [4]
>
>>He is quite proud of his abilities with HTML, and in managing web sites,
>>and in fact is quite scornful of those who he thinks are inferior in
>>that regard.  [5]  
>
>	Nizkor is inferior to even the make-a-site productions of AOL.  On the
>other hand, I am not particularly proud of my abilities.  I continually
>point out that HTML is trivial.  That is the basis of my scorn for
>Nizkor, that Nizkor is not even up to the beginner's level as yet.  
>
>So, he will surely have no problem with simply
>>finding the places where my acquaintances and I have "bragged" about
>>wanting to make the newsgroup useless to our ideological opponents,
>>archiving those quotes on his web site, and posting the URLs.  Such a
>>task should be child's play for Mr. Giwer.

    I note that Matt Giwer has not responded to this point.



>>That is, if he wasn't simply making it up.
>
>>Posted;  note followups;  _not_ emailed to Matt Giwer, because last time
>>I sent him email he angrily Cc'd my provider's root. [6]  Emailed to a
>>number of alt.revisionism regulars who may be interested in this
>>discussion (and who are invited to comment on my very loose use of the
>>first person plural!).
>
>>3. http://www.almanac.bc.ca/features/fallacies/ad-hominem-tu-quoque.html
>>4. http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/g/giwer.matt/lies
>>5. http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/g/giwer.matt/at-the-height-of-wit
>>6. http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/g/giwer.matt/email-voyager-root
>>-- 
>> Jamie McCarthy          http://www.absence.prismatix.com/jamie/
>> jamie@voyager.net     Co-Webmaster of http://www.almanac.bc.ca/
>> Unless you specify otherwise, I assume pro-"revisionism" email
>> to be in the public domain.            I speak only for myself.
>
>	Note here the co-webmaster.  The other co- knows even less than he does.
>
>	For a comparison check
>
>	www2.combase.com/~mgiwer/ 

    I note that Matt Giwer has made empty assertions and given no evidence
to support his defamatory accusations.

    I note in passing that Matt Giwer apparently does not object to
complaints to service providers about "tortable" libel, as he was the one
who first broached that subject with regard to web pages belonging to the
user posting under the handle "Rack Jite."  Nonetheless, if such
complaints come as a result of my pointing this out, I predict that Mr.
Giwer will suddenly forget that he once found it proper to contact a
service provider about libel, and continue to scream about a conspiracy to
censor him.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Sun Jun 23 08:13:03 PDT 1996
Article: 45514 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!news.uoregon.edu!hunter.premier.net!uunet!inXS.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Another curiosity
Date: 21 Jun 1996 17:15:14 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <4qf3d2$i6u@access5.digex.net>
References: <4q9ul0$mhj@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4q9ul0$mhj@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
  wrote:
>	We all know that the evil Nazis were busy rounding up Jews and 
>executing them on the spot in all the places they controlled to the east
>of Germany, lands liberated by the Russians.

    Buzzer there.  It was done on a much smaller scale in Poland, but the
major method there involved shipping off to Treblinka et al.  Please post
any documentation you have of any claim that this was SOP in Rumania and
Hungary.


>	Yet these same Nazis under the same orders were not doing it in
>any other of the countries they controlled,

    In occupied Russia, it was done by the Einsatzgruppen and
locally-recruited auxiliaries.  I am not aware that the Einsatzgruppen
operated in any other countries the Nazis controlled, under the same or
any other orders.  I would be interested in seeing any documentation you
have on this.


>that is, countries liberated by
>the British, French and Americans.  Not even to Jews who were supposed
>to have been the primary targets in the Russian liberated countries.

    This sort of contradicts the earlier line about on-the-spot execution
in "all lands east of Germany," doesn't it? 


>	Odd.
>
>	Where did they say this holocaust was manufactured?  Russia?  Nah!
>Couldn't be.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Sun Jun 23 08:13:04 PDT 1996
Article: 45522 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uunet!inXS.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: An interesting point
Date: 21 Jun 1996 18:58:19 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <4qf9eb$l71@access5.digex.net>
References: <4pt5qg$p91@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> <4q4sv2$6u5@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com> <4q6rj8$mn8@hackberry.zilker.net> <4q9teg$q37@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4q9teg$q37@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
  wrote:
>mike@aimetering.com (Mike Curtis) wrote:
>>Mr. Stein, this Giwer Troll does not care how honest you are. 
>
>	If he were there would be no issue.  

    I have on several occasions posted quotations and DejaNews URLs to
prove Mr. Giwer a liar.  I have neither the right nor the means to prevent
him from returning the favor any time he thinks such evidence exists.  So
far he has posted none.  Why do you suppose that could be?

    Errors?  Yes, I have made some.  I will undoubtedly make more.  When
called to my attention, I will publicly apologize and retract.  That is as
honest as I know how to be.  Speaking of which, I think I do owe one to
Mr.  Giwer: I made the same mistake as Dr. Bilik about _why_ he made the
statement about HCN from burning coke.  Of course, Mr. Giwer has made
countless mistakes (at least)  in his statements about what other people
have said.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Sun Jun 23 08:13:05 PDT 1996
Article: 45523 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.wildstar.net!news.sdsmt.edu!news.mid.net!sbctri.tri.sbc.com!newspump.wustl.edu!news.ecn.bgu.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!gatech!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: wpg.politics,alt.politics.white-power,alt.anything,can.politics,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.revisionism,alt.censorship,comp.org.eff.talk,can.general
Subject: Re: Soviate style McVay Justice:  how to spot aryans
Date: 23 Jun 1996 09:00:30 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 74
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <4qjf5e$pjf@access1.digex.net>
References: <4nus3o$flg@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4pvppf$pbp@orb.direct.ca> <4q4jko$l2c@atlas.uniserve.com> <4q6io1$2lt@aphex.direct.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:33815 can.politics:53800 talk.politics.misc:395556 alt.fan.ernst-zundel:1533 alt.revisionism:45523 alt.censorship:86327 comp.org.eff.talk:66495 can.general:81052

In article <4q6io1$2lt@aphex.direct.ca>, Lary Myles  wrote:
>>
>>"Alleged holocaust theory"?  Are you attempting to elevate the
>>denier/distortionist myths and lies to the status of a "theory"?  The
>>shame, Mr. Myles - as all reasonable people are fully aware - is all
>>yours.
>
>I'll give you a full mark for asking. Thank you. Your a lot smarter than the 
>idiot you toil for. 
>Loser McVay never did ask why I felt I had to preface holocaust with the word 
>'alleged'.  Now, you've asked, I'll tell you.
>
>One of my friends--who McVay would blow to have his support within the Jewish 
>community--and I were discussing some moron by the name of Ernst Zundel. At 
>the time, this idiot seemed to be getting a lot of press by saying that the 
>holocaust did NOT happen!!  I'm sure that we all know that the incident was 
>in fact a real occurence. I mean, after all...did not our governments tell us 
>it was so. Were there not warehouses full of photo's on what the conditions 
>were like in the camps?  Were there not (in the fifties at least) legions of 
>actual eye-witness survivors, ready to tell us the tales of horror? Etc.etc.
>
>So, when this ninnie, Zundel got taken to court and his Freedom of Speech 
>trampled, my Jewish friend and I agreed that it was a black day for that 
>Freedom. In my protest against the action against Zundel, I have little 
>choice in using the word 'alleged' before the word holocaust.
>
>You see...when the courts took away this total nutcase's right to freedom of 
>speech, there were skinners, dweebs, feebs and malcontents who were ripe for 
>his (Zundel) next pitch.  And that pitch was that if he were so wrong in his 
>mission, why were the governments beating up on him?

    Of course Ernst and others have played that violin like a virtuoso. 
I'm sure he understands well the "Big Lie" technique developed by his
mentor.  Nobody could possibly say something that outrageous knowing it
was not true, could they? 


>If he would have been 
>ignored in the first place, his star would not have risen. He would still be 
>some yokel, no different than the ones who run around with signs saying the 
>world is coming to an end.
>
>If audiences would have shown up and politely listened to his pitch..for at 
>least two minutes,and then broke up laffing and guffawing...if this happened 
>over and over again, how long do you think it would have taken this idiot 
>before he would have sat down?  And as long as we are on the topic of 
>idiots...

    Actually, I have always believed this method of responding much more
likely to discourage many of the types who are attracted to neo-Nazism -
they get gratification, a feeling of power, out of being feared and hated.
Being a laughingstock is their worst nightmare.


>What would have happened in pre-Nazi Germany, if audiences would have shown 
>up and giggled at the ex-wallpaper hanger, and chuckled at his silly brown 
>uniforms..and out and out pissed themselves laffing when his storm troopers
>goose stepped by on the streets.

    Except that far too many people took it quite seriously back then.  It
does not make for happy thinking about human nature. 


>Each time that we, as a government, sig, society take clowns too
>seriously there are cadres of morons that come out of the woodwork and
>claw around to share some of the moron's limelight.

    Alas, there are other cadres of morons who come out of the woodwork
entirely on their own.

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Sun Jun 23 11:18:01 PDT 1996
Article: 45420 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!loki.tor.hookup.net!nic.ott.hookup.net!hookup!gatech!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The holohugger conspiracy
Date: 21 Jun 1996 15:59:51 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <4qeuvn$fpu@access5.digex.net>
References: <4qdsee$ag8@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4qdsee$ag8@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>,
  wrote:

[email from Gordon McFee deleted]
>
>=====
>
>	You see McFly really is the idiot asshole he appears to be in public.
>And the nearly identical issues demonstrate that he is part of the
>private conspiracy to agree upon what to post.  
>
>	Now we all know that McFly is a terminat idiot but that does not excuse
>the other teminal idiots who he conspired with for this email.  
>
>	You will also note that after this failed the ISP harrassment started
>again.   It is nothing new.  It is the only thing the holohuggers have
>left.
>
>	They are very desperate at this point.  
>
>	Two of them have admitted that I have taken over this conferenence
>within four hours, one public, one private -- he imagined.  
>
>	Give it up.  You folks are mongoloid idiots compared to my minus 163 IQ.
>
>
>	You lost.  
>
>	I won, I continue to win and will continue to do so.  You reaslly
>intelligent idiots are no match for me even when you combine your
>non-existant brain power.

    I have a six-year-old nephew who also likes to go around saying, "I
win!  I win!"
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Sun Jun 23 11:18:02 PDT 1996
Article: 45428 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: MATT GIWER REPORT for Jun 1-9: 12.7% / 18.3%
Date: 21 Jun 1996 16:39:30 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <4qf1a2$h4d@access5.digex.net>
References: <4q8dtd$3i7@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4qau2l$lmo@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4qau2l$lmo@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
 wrote:
>	What an idiot. 
>
>	I told you folks I would do what you have now "discovered" months later.
>Alec told you what I would do.  And you choose to ignore it.  
>
>	Now that you have noticed I really can do what you were told I can do
>you propose a course of action that is rather counter productive.
>	
>	To wit, I will flay alive your holocaust alive even more quickly if
>people follow your suggestion.  But PLEASE do not believe me.  I love a
>fair fight.  That is why I handicap you folks by telling you what I am
>doing and am going to do.
>
>	To recap, what I have done is put this conference back to a discussion
>of revision rather than the orthodox who managed to take it over.  I put
>the NG back on track.  


    Excuse me, but I must be missing something.  Other "revisionists" have
posted here - Greg Raven, Tim McCarthy, Fritz Berg, Bradley Smith, Ross
Vicksell, et al.  And their claims have been addressed.  They seem to have
given it up.  The only other ones currently left on any regular basis are
J. F. Beaulieu, Tom Moran, Jeff Roberts, and Al Baron.

    So now the posting volume has increased.  If that is your definition
of "winning," then Tom Moran could have done the same long ago. 
Congratulations, you are smarter than he is.

    But "discussion" of revision?  You have made an assertion about the
amount of coke needed for cremation.  And several people have tried to sit
down with you (including myself) and discuss it with you, getting down to
hard numbers.  You seem to keep changing the ground rules and avoid
getting down to calculations.  What kind of a discussion is that?  What
kind of scientist is that? 

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access4.digex.net Sun Jun 23 11:18:02 PDT 1996
Article: 45449 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!gatech!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Another curiosity
Date: 23 Jun 1996 02:51:51 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <4qipi7$ldv@access4.digex.net>
References: <4q9ul0$mhj@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <4qf3d2$i6u@access5.digex.net> <4qhv90$mpf@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net

In article <4qhv90$mpf@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
  wrote:
>mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>
>>In article <4q9ul0$mhj@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
>>  wrote:
>>>	We all know that the evil Nazis were busy rounding up Jews and 
>>>executing them on the spot in all the places they controlled to the east
>>>of Germany, lands liberated by the Russians.
>
>>    Buzzer there.  It was done on a much smaller scale in Poland, but the
>>major method there involved shipping off to Treblinka et al.  Please post
>>any documentation you have of any claim that this was SOP in Rumania and
>>Hungary.
>
>	The last time I brought up a discrepency in total numbers, I was told
>that the Einstatzgruppen got over a million people.  Was that in error?
>Or is that only true when there are discrepencies in numbers being
>discussed?

    This does not in any way address the geographical issue.


>>>	Yet these same Nazis under the same orders were not doing it in
>>>any other of the countries they controlled,
>
>>    In occupied Russia, it was done by the Einsatzgruppen and
>>locally-recruited auxiliaries.  I am not aware that the Einsatzgruppen
>>operated in any other countries the Nazis controlled, under the same or
>>any other orders.  I would be interested in seeing any documentation you
>>have on this.
>
>
>>>that is, countries liberated by
>>>the British, French and Americans.  Not even to Jews who were supposed
>>>to have been the primary targets in the Russian liberated countries.
>
>>    This sort of contradicts the earlier line about on-the-spot execution
>>in "all lands east of Germany," doesn't it? 
>
>	It makes it unexplainable as to why the same thing was not found in
>countries liberated by the other three allies.

    It was not even found in all countries liberated by the Russians
unless you are aware of some documentation that I have not seen.  You
claim a 163 IQ, and you cannot think of an explanation? 


[old quotes snipped]
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access4.digex.net Sun Jun 23 11:18:04 PDT 1996
Article: 45474 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: MATT GIWER REPORT for Jun 1-9: 12.7% / 18.3%
Date: 23 Jun 1996 01:13:38 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 145
Message-ID: <4qijq2$kft@access4.digex.net>
References: <4q8dtd$3i7@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4qau2l$lmo@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> <4qf1a2$h4d@access5.digex.net> <4qhshh$ci8@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net

In article <4qhshh$ci8@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
  wrote:
>mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>
>>In article <4qau2l$lmo@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
>> wrote:
>>>	What an idiot. 
>>>
>>>	I told you folks I would do what you have now "discovered" months later.
>>>Alec told you what I would do.  And you choose to ignore it.  
>>>
>>>	Now that you have noticed I really can do what you were told I can do
>>>you propose a course of action that is rather counter productive.
>>>	
>>>	To wit, I will flay alive your holocaust alive even more quickly if
>>>people follow your suggestion.  But PLEASE do not believe me.  I love a
>>>fair fight.  That is why I handicap you folks by telling you what I am
>>>doing and am going to do.
>>>
>>>	To recap, what I have done is put this conference back to a discussion
>>>of revision rather than the orthodox who managed to take it over.  I put
>>>the NG back on track.  
>
>>    Excuse me, but I must be missing something.  Other "revisionists" have
>>posted here - Greg Raven, Tim McCarthy, Fritz Berg, Bradley Smith, Ross
>>Vicksell, et al.  And their claims have been addressed.  They seem to have
>>given it up.  The only other ones currently left on any regular basis are
>>J. F. Beaulieu, Tom Moran, Jeff Roberts, and Al Baron.
>
>	And I have read you folks bragging about driving them off.  That is 
>what you are missing. 

    No, you are the one missing something, or pretending to.

    Greg Raven was exposed as a liar.  It was repeatedly shown that he
posted dishonestly and deceptively edited sources and grossly distorted
paraphrases, and used invalid reasoning and arguments.

    Tim McCarthy was shown to have done the same thing to one particular
document, and to have missed something in one of his own claimed sources
that refuted his own theory.

    Fritz Berg was shown to have overlooked (at best) a number of issues
of toxicology and misrepresented some things in his own sources.

    Bradley Smith was exposed as a hypocrite when he admitted he
introduced the Leuchter Report even though he knew there were flaws in it,
yet criticized Michael Berenbaum for not checking his sources carefully
enough.

    Ross Vicksell simply wasn't capable of debating anything.  Every time
you turned around, he had to go ask someone else something.

    The were not driven out by namecalling.  Tim McCarthy certainly gave
as good as he got from the word go.

    They were driven out because they were exposed as dishonest and
hypocritical, and realized that they were not advancing the cause any.

    The only difference between you and them is, you don't seem to mind be
be embarrassed by being caught in hypocrisy or in a lie.  That is your
problem, not mine.



>>    So now the posting volume has increased.  If that is your definition
>>of "winning," then Tom Moran could have done the same long ago. 
>>Congratulations, you are smarter than he is.
>
>	It is not my definition.  You certainly read McCarthy's message.  I got
>a similar one from McFly by email.  They obvious had talked it over.  

    Yes, I read his message.  I am privy to the discussions that go on.

    Did you know that I was the one who wrote the mantra, as you call it? 
(The original, not Mark Van Alstine's mutated version.)  Yet I do not use
it.  Because, you see, there really was no conspiracy.  Other people
simply read it, liked it, and decided to use it.  There was no advance
agreement. I never suggested that it be used.  I never intended to use it. 
I have not killfiled you.  I respond to you just the same as I respond to
anyone else, on my own terms, if and when I choose.

    I find it uproariously funny that you think it is such a revelation
that you are now dealing with Nizkor on your own terms.  If you have
ever been doing anything but, then you are very, very, very stupid.

    I have not tried to silence you.  I merely point out when you are
lying or hypocritical.  I have said that if my goal were to defend the
orthodox holocaust story at any cost, I would want you posting forever,
because you are a liar and easily shown to be such.  But if my goal were
to defend the orthodox history at any cost, then I have done some very
strange things.  Ask Jeff Roberts who it was who reported survivor
testimony that they were held in Auschwitz unregistered, then sent off to
other camps without any records being made.

    So you have not beaten me, because I have never played any game other
than the one I have always played.  You can only beat me at it if and when
you start playing it.  But you are not capable of playing that game, 163
IQ or no.

    If and when I decide to deal with you, you will be dealt with, and on
my own terms.  Because just as you can get this newsgroup to do whatever
you want, I can summon spirits from the vasty deep, and invoke daemons by
name.  (And I do not even need a pentagram.)  I'm sure you are suitably
impressed.



>>    But "discussion" of revision?  You have made an assertion about the
>>amount of coke needed for cremation.  And several people have tried to sit
>>down with you (including myself) and discuss it with you, getting down to
>>hard numbers.  You seem to keep changing the ground rules and avoid
>>getting down to calculations.  What kind of a discussion is that?  What
>>kind of scientist is that? 
>
>	I have yet to see you folks post any calcualtions.  When are you going
>to get around to do so?  

    Excuse me.  You were the one claiming a physics degree and the ability
to do the calculations.  You were the one claiming there was not enough
coke.

    Your claims.  Therefore your burden of proof, as you do not hestitate
to point out to other people who make claims.  Yes, I know you hare not in
the least embarrassed when I point out your hypocrisy.  Nevertheless, you
are once again being hypocritical.

    Your claims, your burden of proof.  Start calculating.

    I think you are actually bluffing and cannot do the computations -
that you do not even know the correct equations.  You are hoping to get
someone else to do them so that you can sit back and say, "You're wrong!" 
without actually having to back up your claims or make any claim which can
then be shown wrong by someone who really _does_ know what they're doing.

    You could, of course, prove me wrong by doing the calculations and
showing your work as you claimed you could do and were challenged to do. 
But I predict you will not, because you are a lying fraud.  That is not an
insult, that is simply a fact, which I cannot change.  Only you can change
it.

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Sun Jun 23 11:18:06 PDT 1996
Article: 45514 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!news.uoregon.edu!hunter.premier.net!uunet!inXS.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Another curiosity
Date: 21 Jun 1996 17:15:14 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <4qf3d2$i6u@access5.digex.net>
References: <4q9ul0$mhj@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4q9ul0$mhj@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
  wrote:
>	We all know that the evil Nazis were busy rounding up Jews and 
>executing them on the spot in all the places they controlled to the east
>of Germany, lands liberated by the Russians.

    Buzzer there.  It was done on a much smaller scale in Poland, but the
major method there involved shipping off to Treblinka et al.  Please post
any documentation you have of any claim that this was SOP in Rumania and
Hungary.


>	Yet these same Nazis under the same orders were not doing it in
>any other of the countries they controlled,

    In occupied Russia, it was done by the Einsatzgruppen and
locally-recruited auxiliaries.  I am not aware that the Einsatzgruppen
operated in any other countries the Nazis controlled, under the same or
any other orders.  I would be interested in seeing any documentation you
have on this.


>that is, countries liberated by
>the British, French and Americans.  Not even to Jews who were supposed
>to have been the primary targets in the Russian liberated countries.

    This sort of contradicts the earlier line about on-the-spot execution
in "all lands east of Germany," doesn't it? 


>	Odd.
>
>	Where did they say this holocaust was manufactured?  Russia?  Nah!
>Couldn't be.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Sun Jun 23 11:18:06 PDT 1996
Article: 45522 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uunet!inXS.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: An interesting point
Date: 21 Jun 1996 18:58:19 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <4qf9eb$l71@access5.digex.net>
References: <4pt5qg$p91@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> <4q4sv2$6u5@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com> <4q6rj8$mn8@hackberry.zilker.net> <4q9teg$q37@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4q9teg$q37@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
  wrote:
>mike@aimetering.com (Mike Curtis) wrote:
>>Mr. Stein, this Giwer Troll does not care how honest you are. 
>
>	If he were there would be no issue.  

    I have on several occasions posted quotations and DejaNews URLs to
prove Mr. Giwer a liar.  I have neither the right nor the means to prevent
him from returning the favor any time he thinks such evidence exists.  So
far he has posted none.  Why do you suppose that could be?

    Errors?  Yes, I have made some.  I will undoubtedly make more.  When
called to my attention, I will publicly apologize and retract.  That is as
honest as I know how to be.  Speaking of which, I think I do owe one to
Mr.  Giwer: I made the same mistake as Dr. Bilik about _why_ he made the
statement about HCN from burning coke.  Of course, Mr. Giwer has made
countless mistakes (at least)  in his statements about what other people
have said.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Sun Jun 23 13:48:48 PDT 1996
Article: 45563 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!gatech!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: MATT GIWER REPORT for Jun 10-13: 21.1% / 26.1%
Date: 23 Jun 1996 14:16:16 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 99
Message-ID: <4qk1lg$37q@access1.digex.net>
References: <4q9apb$7mi@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4qc06s$g8h@newsbf02.news.aol.com>  <4qcru6$cq3@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article <4qcru6$cq3@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
  wrote:
>dkeren@world.std.com (Daniel Keren) wrote:
>
>>dvdthomas@aol.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.  

    I note that Mr. Giwer has used these alleged sigs in followups to
articles which could not in any way be called attacks on him.


>	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?

    Is it an attack on you to point out what can be demonstrated to
courtroom standards?



>	And just what is it that you are objecting to really?  
>
>	Don't tell me.  I know.  I do not believe as you do.

    I have no objection to your believing what you wish.  But you make
provably false statements which you know or have reason to know are false
when you make them.  You dishonestly edit.  Etc. 


>># 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.

    Do you deny making those statements?


>>-- 
>>In Message-ID: <4n0ik8$1a8@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>, 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: mgiwer@ix.netcom.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?

    Yes.  How does this address the alleged attack?  Do you deny making
those statements?  If not, how can they be an attack?
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Sun Jun 23 17:24:21 PDT 1996
Article: 45593 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: MATT GIWER REPORT for Jun 1-9: 12.7% / 18.3%
Date: 23 Jun 1996 10:14:21 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 231
Message-ID: <4qjjft$r1f@access1.digex.net>
References: <4q8dtd$3i7@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4qhshh$ci8@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com> <4qijq2$kft@access4.digex.net> <4qj4ug$9g@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article <4qj4ug$9g@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
  wrote:
>mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>
>>In article <4qhshh$ci8@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
>>  wrote:
>>>>    Excuse me, but I must be missing something.  Other "revisionists" have
>>>>posted here - Greg Raven, Tim McCarthy, Fritz Berg, Bradley Smith, Ross
>>>>Vicksell, et al.  And their claims have been addressed.  They seem to have
>>>>given it up.  The only other ones currently left on any regular basis are
>>>>J. F. Beaulieu, Tom Moran, Jeff Roberts, and Al Baron.
>>>
>>>	And I have read you folks bragging about driving them off.  That is 
>>>what you are missing. 
>
>>    No, you are the one missing something, or pretending to.
>
>>    Greg Raven was exposed as a liar.  It was repeatedly shown that he
>>posted dishonestly and deceptively edited sources and grossly distorted
>>paraphrases, and used invalid reasoning and arguments.
>
>>    Tim McCarthy was shown to have done the same thing to one particular
>>document, and to have missed something in one of his own claimed sources
>>that refuted his own theory.
>
>>    Fritz Berg was shown to have overlooked (at best) a number of issues
>>of toxicology and misrepresented some things in his own sources.
>
>>    Bradley Smith was exposed as a hypocrite when he admitted he
>>introduced the Leuchter Report even though he knew there were flaws in it,
>>yet criticized Michael Berenbaum for not checking his sources carefully
>>enough.
>
>>    Ross Vicksell simply wasn't capable of debating anything.  Every time
>>you turned around, he had to go ask someone else something.
>
>>    The were not driven out by namecalling.  Tim McCarthy certainly gave
>>as good as he got from the word go.
>
>>    They were driven out because they were exposed as dishonest and
>>hypocritical, and realized that they were not advancing the cause any.
>
>>    The only difference between you and them is, you don't seem to mind be
>>be embarrassed by being caught in hypocrisy or in a lie.  That is your
>>problem, not mine.
>
>	Thank you for being the first to post the evidence I was looking for.
>You folks declared victory.  You are now repeating the one sided
>declaration of victory.  

    It seems to me the gentlemen who left admitted defeat.  Contrary to
what is claimed, they were met with more than just name-calling (although
yes, there was some - but you provide your share).  They were presented
with logic and documentation (and I am talking not just about
documentation of evidence for the orthodox history, but documentation that
their own cited sources were used deceptively and dishonestly).

    Many of then explicitly said they wanted open debate.  That game was
agreed to.  Debate is a game with well-understood rules.  One of them is,
you get caught falsifying your evidence, you lose.

    Who agreed to play your game?  That is a relevant distinction.


>	You have shot down your own side's position.  Thank you again.  

    Many of them falsified evidence and were caught at it. They were not
able to play the game according to the standard rules.  And please, spare
me the irrelevant digression about the Soviets.  You are free to post any
evidence you have that any particular document is forged.  "It could be" 
and "they did it elsewhere" doesn't count.  And we could also discuss a
few documents which either did not come from Soviet sources, or which have
had corroborations of authenticity.  But that would expose your lie that
there is nothing but eyewitness testimony.

    Nobody agreed to play your game, which seems to have rules you make up
as you go along.



>>>>    So now the posting volume has increased.  If that is your definition
>>>>of "winning," then Tom Moran could have done the same long ago. 
>>>>Congratulations, you are smarter than he is.
>>>
>>>	It is not my definition.  You certainly read McCarthy's message.  I got
>>>a similar one from McFly by email.  They obvious had talked it over.  
>
>>    Yes, I read his message.  I am privy to the discussions that go on.
>
>	Conspiracy admitted.  Thank you again.  It is only a matter of time
>before you folks contradict those who deny these things are going on.

    By that definition you conspired with Combase to censor Rack Jite. 
Let's leave aside for now the fact that no court ruled on this alleged
libel.  As you know, you did not simply say that the libelous statements
would go away from the page.  You said the whole page would go away.  So
you can predict the future now?

    It is only a conspiracy when people agree to do something to achieve a
common devious purpose.  Much of the discussion consists of stupefaction
at your latest stupidity. 

    Yes, we are all conspiring to have a good laugh at you.  Call the
police, that is clearly illegal.


>>    Did you know that I was the one who wrote the mantra, as you call it? 
>
>	And you were a conspirator.  Thank you again. 

    I never agreed to do anything nor urged anyone else to take their
courses of action.  I wrote something and others picked it up and used it
at their own decision for their own purposes.  And what was so nefarious
about those purposes?

    You have conspired with Greg Raven by that definition.  His website
carries text you wrote.  He has used it for his own purposes which are at
least as nefarious as those for which the "mantra" was used.

    You are a conspirator as well.


>>(The original, not Mark Van Alstine's mutated version.)  Yet I do not use
>>it.  Because, you see, there really was no conspiracy.  Other people
>>simply read it, liked it, and decided to use it.  There was no advance
>>agreement. I never suggested that it be used.  I never intended to use it. 
>>I have not killfiled you.  I respond to you just the same as I respond to
>>anyone else, on my own terms, if and when I choose.
>
>	The agreement was posted.   It is on Dejanews.

    Got a URL to go with that?  Your claim, your burden of proof.  I post
the URLs with my claims or will do so if challenged.  I am now challenging
you.

    I will not be holding my breath.



>>    I find it uproariously funny that you think it is such a revelation
>>that you are now dealing with Nizkor on your own terms.  If you have
>>ever been doing anything but, then you are very, very, very stupid.
>
>	Agreed in that.  I am certainly not capable of singlehandedly hijacking
>this conference as I have been accused of doing.
>
>>    I have not tried to silence you.  I merely point out when you are
>>lying or hypocritical.  I have said that if my goal were to defend the
>>orthodox holocaust story at any cost, I would want you posting forever,
>>because you are a liar and easily shown to be such.  But if my goal were
>>to defend the orthodox history at any cost, then I have done some very
>>strange things.  Ask Jeff Roberts who it was who reported survivor
>>testimony that they were held in Auschwitz unregistered, then sent off to
>>other camps without any records being made.
>
>>    So you have not beaten me, because I have never played any game other
>>than the one I have always played.  You can only beat me at it if and when
>>you start playing it.  But you are not capable of playing that game, 163
>>IQ or no.
>
>	Right, just one more stupid holohugger among many, right up there with
>Ferree and Dahlman.

    Any time you wish to play the debate game you can find out how stupid
I am.  Right now you are just engaging in empty insult.


>>    If and when I decide to deal with you, you will be dealt with, and on
>>my own terms.  Because just as you can get this newsgroup to do whatever
>>you want, I can summon spirits from the vasty deep, and invoke daemons by
>>name.  (And I do not even need a pentagram.)  I'm sure you are suitably
>>impressed.
>
>	Sounds serious.  Why am I not concerned in the least?

    Did you know the daemons come when I call them?  Now are you
concerned?


>>>>    But "discussion" of revision?  You have made an assertion about the
>>>>amount of coke needed for cremation.  And several people have tried to sit
>>>>down with you (including myself) and discuss it with you, getting down to
>>>>hard numbers.  You seem to keep changing the ground rules and avoid
>>>>getting down to calculations.  What kind of a discussion is that?  What
>>>>kind of scientist is that? 
>>>
>>>	I have yet to see you folks post any calcualtions.  When are you going
>>>to get around to do so?  
>
>>    Excuse me.  You were the one claiming a physics degree and the ability
>>to do the calculations.  You were the one claiming there was not enough
>>coke.
>
>	You can not disagree with me without having first run your own
>calculations to establish your position.

    That is true.  But I do not need to run them now.  And even if I have
run them, I do not need to post them now.  They will be as true or as
false now as they would be later.

    Your claim, your burden of proof.  Therefore you first.

    That is how the debate game is played.

    But lying frauds are not capable of playing that game according to the
well-established rules.


>When do we all see them?  NEver?

    Your claim, your burden of proof.  Therefore you first.  And remember,
you cannot merely pick a number out of the air and say, "prove me wrong." 
You must show support for it.  You must present your formula and justify
it.  You must provide evidence, not assertion.

    Once you have done that, and only then, the burden shifts to me to
show where you are wrong.

    That is how the debate game works.

    But lying frauds are not capable of playing that game.  163 IQ or no.


>That is what I knew all along.  

    Lying frauds are not capable of playing the debate game according to
the well-defined rules, 163 IQ or no.  That is what I knew all along.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access4.digex.net Sun Jun 23 17:24:22 PDT 1996
Article: 45598 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!chi-news.cic.net!news.nd.edu!spool.mu.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!sdd.hp.com!news1.best.com!nntp.primenet.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Where smoke and flame stories come from
Date: 23 Jun 1996 00:09:26 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <4qig1m$jpm@access4.digex.net>
References: <4pq44f$2o8@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com> <4qg08e$3e0@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net

In article <4qg08e$3e0@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
RuthSommer  wrote:
>
>That has got to be one of the most incredible and rediculous stories I
>have ever heard -
>being able to tell from the smoke and flames coming out of a chimney,
>which bodies
>were being burned and where they came from.

    The person who told this story admitted at the Zundel trial that it
was hearsay.  But actually, in theory such a thing would be possible -
different fuels can change smoke and flame somewhat, and some people are
fatter than others.


>Why aren't these kinds of stories questioned, laughed at, rejected, and
>ridiculed,
>more often?  Are there unspoken rules being applied here, that prohibit
>this?
>
>This censorship thing is amazing.  If a Jew says something, it cannot be
>questioned.

    No, that's not true.  The principle is this: if someone claims to have
seen something, you cannot arbitrarily say it is false Because!  I!  Say!
So!  You have to have a reason.

    When I first heard the story and thought it over to decide if it
_could_ be true or not, I _only_ heard about the color part.  _Without_
knowing the full story behind the claim, I surmised that it might have
something to do with fat people vs. skinny people.  Only then did I hear
that this is exactly what the person telling the story claimed.

    Holocaust "revisionists" claim that crematoria cannot shoot out
flames.  Ordinarily they do not.  But I actually talked to someone who
designed one of the cremation systems currently sold, a Mr. Steven Looker
of B&L Cremation Systems.  Without any prompting from me, he volunteered
that older crematoria _could_ shoot out flames if overloaded - the
phenomenon was called a "candle."  He even said that while his product was
designed to prevent it, he thought that if he really tried, he could get
it to do the same thing.  And there is a record of one of the chimneys
needing repair due to a fire.


>That's what I infer from all this.  And how much eyewitness testimony from
>the
>Holocaust is similarly unquestioningly accepted, like this smoke and
>flames nonsense?

    A surprising number of things are not as nonsensical as they first
seem.  Now, as I said, the person who told the story admitted it was
hearsay so you may discount it on that basis.  And you may still think it
unlikely.  But I don't think you can flatly say that it is impossible.

    Posted and emailed.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Sun Jun 23 20:57:57 PDT 1996
Article: 45635 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!uunet!inXS.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Dresden?
Date: 23 Jun 1996 13:55:46 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 109
Message-ID: <4qk0f2$2mh@access1.digex.net>
References:  <4pvr85$t4r@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>  <4qaquc$amf@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article <4qaquc$amf@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>,
  wrote:
>mvanalst@rbi.com (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:
>
>>In article <4pvr85$t4r@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
>>mgiwer@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>>> mvanalst@rbi.com (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:
>>> 
>
>>[snip]
>
>>> >In comparison, the _incineration_ of the Nazi victims of homicidal gassing
>>> >at Auschwitz was done with no such restrictions. This can be seen in the
>>> >_Operating Instructions for Coke-Fired Topf Double-Muffle Incineration
>>> >Furnace_:
>>> 
>>> >"As soon as the remains of the corpses have fallen from the chamotte grid
>>> >to the ash collection channel below, they should be pulled forward towards
>>> >the ash removal door, using the scraper. Here they can be left a furhter
>>> >20 minutes to be fully consumed, then the ashes should be placed in a
>>> >container and set aside to cool.... In the meantime, further corpses can
>>> >be introduced one after the other into the chambers." (_Technique_,
>>> >p.136.) 
>>> 
>>> >[Note: the operating instruction fo the triple-muffle furnaces are the same.]
>>> 
>>> If there were no such restrictions why did they use the slower method of
>>> a standard cremation rather than cheaper and faster incinerators?  
>
>>Not only is the Giwer-Troll deaf and dumb, but he is blind as well. The
>>Nazis did indeed use "faster incinerators" rather than "the slower method
>>of a standard cremation." This was clearly evidenced in the _Operating
>>Instructions for Coke-Fired Topf Double-Muffle Incineration Furnace_. Not
>>to mention by eyewitness testimonies that described the continuous
>>re-charging of the muffles which mixed the remains of the victims. 
>
>>Then, of course, the Nazis used incineration pits, and of course, there
>>was	 the proposed Krema VI....
>	
>	Of course you will never post your evidence of this nor will you ever
>admit you made it up.  There were common trash incinerators around

    Around Auschwitz?  Large enough to accommodate a corpse?  Of course
you will never post your evidence of this nor will you ever admit you made
it up. 



>and
>there is no mention whatsoever of their ever having been used.  You know
>that but you will claim to the contrary.

    He has made no claim that common trash incinerators were used that I
have seen.


>That is the power of myth over your mind.  

    That is the lack of reading comprehension in your 163 IQ-powered mind,
the same megabrain that read "... fuel thanks ..." as "fuel tanks."

    "What makes illiterates think they can possibly participate in this
discussion?" - Matt Giwer


>>> >This clearly depicts an incineration process where the remains of the
>>> >victims are clearly mixed with each other. What this means, then, after a
>>> >corspes of the previous charge had been consumed to the point where they
>>> >fell through the chamotte, the next charge was added, being consumed above
>>> >on the chamotte,  while the partially consumed remains of the previous
>>> >charge(s) were being fully consumed in the ash channel.
>>> 
>>> I do not see that at all.  Simply a matter of being less careful with
>>> the 5-7 pounds of bone fragments.  
>
>>Of course the Giwer-Troll doe not "see" it. After all the Giwer-Troll is
>>deaf, dumb, and blind! In licensed civilian crematoria the cremation
>>process _never_ allowed the charging of the muffle while the remains of
>>another persons were still in the ash channel. This meant that cremations
>>could _never_ overlap each other- that one corpse would be on the chamotte
>>while the remains of another were in the ash channel. 
>
>>This, of course, was not the case in the furnaces of the Kremas at Auschwitz. 
>
>	We have been over this and the more you repeat your nonsense the more I
>will repeat what you claim is my nonsense.  The longer you get, the
>longer I will get but you will be the cause of it.  

    So you are saying you have no free will?  You are his puppet?  You are
helplessly addicted to posting responses?  Do we need to find you a
twelve-step group?

    This gets funnier and funnier. 


[seeing no new text, remainder deleted].

    I note that in this thread you did give a figure of 30,000 kcal for
dealing with the water.  Very good.  But of course you did not show your
work, not even the assumptions you made as to corpse weight and percent
water by weight.  If you will do so I will address that figure.  Still, it
does look like you avoided one of the two stupid mistakes I would have
anticipated.

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Sun Jun 23 22:57:19 PDT 1996
Article: 45642 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!news.serv.net!news.ac.net!news1.erols.com!hunter.premier.net!uunet!inXS.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Does a stuck pig squealing remind you of this?
Supersedes: <4qkshl$fsd@access1.digex.net>
Date: 23 Jun 1996 21:56:56 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 109
Message-ID: <4qksl8$fvu@access1.digex.net>
References: <4qfkv2$hgl@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> <4qhp3b$ohv@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article <4qhp3b$ohv@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
RuthSommer  wrote:
>>Subject: Does a stuck pig squealing remind you of this?
>>From: mgiwer@ix.netcom.com
>>Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 02:12:51 GMT
>>Message-ID: <4qfkv2$hgl@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>
>>
>>	He were have the Gang of Six complaining about exactly what they
>have
>>been doing for years, monopolizing the conference and preventing any
>>discussion of revisionism.

    How were discussions prevented?  Were forged cancels issued? 


>>	Not only as individuals but by email conspiracy as to how to deal
>with
>>people who won't believe what the Gang insists they must believe.  

    Where is this list of things which must be believed?

    It is true that I "conspire" to conduct research to prove that people
who tell lies have told lies, and to post the evidence of same.  But that
is my free speech right, is it not?



>>	Their entire intention to silence those who will not believe as
>they
>>believe.  And they have been doing it for years, driving people out of
>>the NG...

    What amazing powers Mr. Giwer ascribes to these unnamed shadowy
"Them."  Those who left got in their own cars with their own keys. 


>I think you are right on the button.  Believe as I do, or be censored! 
>Agree with me, or be driven off the newsgroup through harassment and
>vicious hate! 

    I see below you're not much on this evidence thing.

    It is of course true that Mr. Giwer has claimed that one or more
people have mailbombed him.  Assuming he is telling the truth, he has no
idea who.  Not that this stops him from trying to smear everyone with the
actions of one.

    But then, Ken McVay was also mailbombed.  The perp was caught.  The
story is on Nizkor.  Do you see Ken McVay making a big deal of it and
accusing all revisionists of trying to silence him?

    As for empty namecalling, I wish there were less of it and have said
so, publicly, on more than one occasion.  But if the people who left have
not learned that sticks and stones and all that, I'm afraid I can't do
anything about that.  Namecalling is also free speech, or hadn't you
noticed?


>My impression, from reading so many of these kinds of vicious
>anti-revisionist posts,
>are that the LAST thing these people want is a free and open, rational
>exchange of
>opinions on the Holocaust.

    Speaking only for myself, I admit you are in a sense correct.  That is
the last thing I want.  The first thing I want is a free and open,
rational exchange of facts and logic about the Holocaust.  Opinions really
don't feed the kitty here.  Feel free to express 'em, but evidence and
rational argument is what trips my trigger. 


>Your 'Holoterrorist' expression is perfect.  Other lurkers here ought to
>take this very
>seriously.  What kind of a society are we living in, where freedom of
>speech is so
>scantily protected?  And why are Jewish people so apparently determined to
>smash it?

    Ernst Zundel is Jewish?

    Yes, I am sorry to inform you that the great martyr to the cause of
free speech (and I agree he should not have been prosecuted, BTW) was not
above calling for the use of hate speech laws himself.

    What is very funny about this "Jewish people so determined to smash
it" is that, e.g., it was a Jew who defended the legal right of the Nazis
to march in Skokie.  I've told Bernie Farber to take a long walk off a
short pier when it comes to controlling content on the 'net.  Just a
couple of examples.

    No coercion was applied to force the people to leave the newsgroup.  I
am only aware of Mr. Giwer's claim of mailbombing - but then, the same has
been directed at Ken McVay, and he did not run off screaming about how he
was forced off.  For the others, having seen the posts directed their way,
all I can say is that apparently they did not like the free speech that
was directed at them.  Some of it was rude, I agree, but rude is still
within the bounds of free speech.  And you somehow think that this is the
same thing as censorship?  You are very, very confused. 

    Posted/emailed to Ms. Sommer.  (This is intended as a courtesy in case
news transmission fails, as it sometimes does.  I appreciate the same
courtesy in return - please indicate that it is an email copy of a post,
so I know to look out for a response to something I wrote in the NG.
Requests to cease will be honored, of course.)

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access4.digex.net Mon Jun 24 06:59:01 PDT 1996
Article: 45660 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!decwrl!spool.mu.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: How to get a desired confession
Date: 23 Jun 1996 02:58:33 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 65
Message-ID: <4qipup$lf4@access4.digex.net>
References: <4q5nbe$9nb@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> <4q7gdr$o5b@news.enter.net> <4qaot3$i6d@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net

In article <4qaot3$i6d@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
  wrote:
>yawen@enter.net (Yale F. Edeiken) wrote:
>
>>>   mgiwer@ix.netcom.com writes:
>>>  	And holohuggers could produce only personal attacks when I talked 
>>about
>>>  1940s interrogation methods.  
>
>>	A lie, of course.  The results of several careful investigations were 
>>printed.  None demonstrated any physical abuse.
>
>	You must be very young.
>
>>>  (TESTIMONY OF KICK, microfilm pages 000145-9). 
>>>  A: I was here in Dachau from the 6th to the 15th of May, under arrest;
>>>  during this time I was beaten all during the day and night... kicked...
>>>  I had to stand to attention for hours; I had to kneel down on sharp
>>>  objects or square objects; I had to stand under the lamp for hours and
>>>  look into the light, at which time I was also beaten and kicked; as a
>>>  result of this treatment my arm was paralysed for about 8 to 10 weeks;
>>>  only beginning with my transfer to Augsberg, this treatment stopped. 
>
>>	A medical report contradicted this testimony.
>
>	Please post it.  
>  
>>>  Q: What were you beaten with? 
>>>  
>>>  A: With all kinds of objects. 
>>>  
>>>  Q: Describe them, please. 
>>>  
>>>  A: With whips, with lashing whips, with rifle butts, pistol butts, and
>>>  pistol barrels, and with hands and fists. 
>
>>	None of which even bruised the "victim."
>
>	That is why the rubber hose was preferred in the US.  But then he was
>not examined immediately after.  
>
>>>  A: I was beaten by an interrogation officer. Several prisoners were also
>>>  present. I was supposed to tell how many people I shot or hanged. I can
>>>  say with a conscience that I never killed a person. Thereupon, I was
>>>  beaten over the head with sticks and rubber hoses until I broke down. 
>
>>	Medical examination contradicted this witness.  All investigating bodies 
>>concluded that he was lying.
>
>	Of course.  On what date was he examined?  Please post the quotation.
>  
>


    The fact remains, there is no evidence of these beating according to
your standards.  Correct? 

    In another article I pointed out the many contradictions and
implausibilities in the testimony of beatings.  Perhaps you would like to
address them. 

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Mon Jun 24 06:59:01 PDT 1996
Article: 45689 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!psgrain!reuter.cse.ogi.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken.llnl.gov!nntp.coast.net!news.kei.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,soc.history.what-if
Subject: Matt Giwer, Holocaust Revisionsism
Supersedes: <4qjg6b$puq@access1.digex.net>
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: 23 Jun 1996 09:20:41 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <4qjgb9$q25@access1.digex.net>
References: <4q1dcc$q3u@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu> <4qa6lu$qdj@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> <4qijgv$f8o@cnn.cc.biu.ac.il> <4qj46c$om3@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:45689 soc.history.what-if:11092

In article <4qj46c$om3@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
  wrote:
>schultr@ashur.cc.biu.ac.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
>
>>Prince Myshkin (mgiwer@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
>>[re: so-called "harassment" of his family]
>
>>: 	I am posting what happened.  If you choose not to believe it, 
>>: that is your problem.  
>
>>It's not a matter of what I believe or don't believe.  You have presented
>>*no* evidence (as in zero, zilch, zip) for your claim.  And by your own
>>arguments, if there's no evidence, it didn't happen.  Right?
>
>	I have presented EXACTLY as much evidence as you have for you imbecile
>little holocaust, eyewitness testimony.  If mine is no good, yours is no
>good.  

    What about documents?  I believe you called the Wannsee Protocol
evidence when you wanted to argue it said nothing about gassing.  (Of
course, neither Danny Keren - whom you falsely stated posted the German
version - nor Gordon McFee, who actually was the one who did it - ever
said it did.) 

    So let's talk documents.  Let's start with one about gas vans which
was apparently affirmed by Rauff in a deposition in Chile, where (I
believe) he was safe from extradition. You seem to conveniently forget
about that one. You diverted attention with a specious comment about
translation which you were not qualified to make.  But you never addressed
the substance.  Would you care to do so now?  Or will you go back to your
claim that there is nothing but testimony, even though you have reason to
know it is false? 

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access4.digex.net Mon Jun 24 06:59:02 PDT 1996
Article: 45720 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!uunet!inXS.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: The holohugger conspiracy
Supersedes: <4qil34$kli@access4.digex.net>
Date: 23 Jun 1996 01:36:25 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <4qil4p$kmv@access4.digex.net>
References: <4qdsee$ag8@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> <4qeuvn$fpu@access5.digex.net> <4qi1nr$6v3@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net

In article <4qi1nr$6v3@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>,   wrote:
>mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>
>>In article <4qdsee$ag8@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>,
>>  wrote:
>>>	I won, I continue to win and will continue to do so.  You reaslly
>>>intelligent idiots are no match for me even when you combine your
>>>non-existant brain power.
>
>>    I have a six-year-old nephew who also likes to go around saying, "I
>>win!  I win!"
>
>	You must have missed the original message.  

[Irrelevant repost snipped]

    You actually reposted something.  And I didn't even ask for it.  What
happened to the Giwer Rule?

    So?  You are now claiming that whatever Jamie McCarthy says is true
just because he says it?

    You have only rediscovered what Serdar Argic found out long ago.  You
merely have the advantage of having more ready-made material from Raven's
and Smith's web sites to work with. 

    As for coming in under different names to escape the killfile, you
have only figured out what T. M. "Cat3wog" Kaus has been doing for months.
And I don't think he has a 163 IQ.  Yet he seems to have figured it out
before you did.

    I am still not impressed.  Sorry about that.

    And since I never tried to play any game other than the one which I
have always played, you have not beaten me.  Because you are playing a
completely different game, one I never agreed to play.  Sorry about that
again.  But I never expected anything but six-year-old behavior from you.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access4.digex.net Mon Jun 24 20:42:44 PDT 1996
Article: 45762 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: What "DIESEL EXHAUST CONTROVERSY?"
Date: 24 Jun 1996 20:17:27 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <4qnb6n$9bs@access4.digex.net>
References: <4qjugd$el5@news-e2b.gnn.com> <4qkclq$cbe@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4ql7pv$p43@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net

In article <4ql7pv$p43@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,   wrote:
>kmcvay@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Ken McVay OBC) wrote:
>
>>In article <4qjugd$el5@news-e2b.gnn.com>, 
>>Widmann@gnn.com (Richard Widmann) wrote:
>
>>>Revisionists - I thought I would share this recent article by Mr. 
>>>Grieb with the book.  He has some fascinating insights.
>
>>>Pat Buchanan and the Diesel Exhaust Controversy
>>>By Conrad Grieb 
>
>>http://www.almanac.bc.ca/features/denial-of-science/diesel-1.html
>
>
>	And upon going there you find Stein, a man of not credentials in the
>subject whatsoever.

    Appeal to authority, which Mr. Giwer has elsewhere identified as a
fallacy.  Note that Mr. Giwer has identified nothing wrong with the
article.  (Nor, come to think of it, has he identified his credentials in
this area.) 

    Of course, there is also Scott Mullins, who does.


>Beyond that, he makes no technical points.

    I pointed out where Berg misread and misrepresented his sources,
including the way in which the authors of the paper achieved high CO
output.  I also pointed out the shortcomings in Berg's toxicology.  "No
technical points" indeed.  References are cited, which is something Mr.
Giwer is not noted for.  He would rather make empty assertions Because!
I!  Say!  So!


>	And thirdly, the is the kind of trash Nizkorites think is refutation.  

    This is the kind of unsupported assertion, fallacious argument, and
outright lying that Mr. Giwer hopes he can palm off as refutation.  I
invite Mr. Giwer or anyone to read the article and address any errors they
think they can find.  Mr. Giwer has identified none.    
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Tue Jun 25 07:12:12 PDT 1996
Article: 45788 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,alt.revisionism,alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: Such mastery of the English Language!
Supersedes: <4qkpag$e42@access1.digex.net>
Followup-To: alt.usenet.kooks
Date: 23 Jun 1996 21:05:01 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <4qkpjt$e9q@access1.digex.net>
References: <4pt5qg$p91@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> <4qddfc$nmt@atlas.uniserve.com> <4qgdge$b62@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com> <4qgkmk$fl4@Networking.Stanford.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.usage.english:54327 alt.revisionism:45788 alt.usenet.kooks:25759

In article <4qgkmk$fl4@Networking.Stanford.EDU>,
Rich Graves  wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>mgiwer@ix.netcom.com writes:
>>hostrov@uniserve.com (Hilary Ostrov) wrote:
>>>In <4qd875$n56@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>, mgiwer@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>>>>Still name-calling. I see.
>>
>>>>	Holohugger is a legitimate acronym  [...]
>>
>>>One wonders when we are due to be enlightened as to the expansion of
>>>each letter of the word "holohugger".  Then again, I suppose if one
>>>were to find the mythical dictionary containing the definition of
>>>"paupacy", one would no doubt find that the word "acronym" has a
>>>completely different meaning to that which all reasonable people
>>>understand.
>>
>>	If you are interested in the dictionary it is right there before
>>fatbroad.  
>
>Giwer's rigii have grown increasingly tortable and paupacious these days.
>
>Isn't the normal usage "fat broad"? Or is it now recognized as a compound
>word?

    Alt.usage.english is for questions related to the English language. 
Your article is not appropriate for this newsgroup.  Please post your
query to the appropriate newsgroup, alt.usage.giwerundean. 

    Posted/emailed.

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Tue Jun 25 08:56:48 PDT 1996
Article: 45848 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: Those missing computations
Date: 24 Jun 1996 13:22:35 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 173
Message-ID: <4qmisr$cv1@access1.digex.net>
References:  <4qhof7$34f@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com> <4qkofc$dm4@access1.digex.net> <4qlceo$fi4@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:45848 alt.usenet.kooks:25782

In article <4qlceo$fi4@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
  wrote:
>mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>
>>In article <4qhof7$34f@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>,
>> wrote:
>>>mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>
>>[much prologue snipped re energy input required to ignite a body]
>
>>>
>>>>>	But I can find the right inputs and then be able to make the correct
>>>>>calculations.  
>>>
>>>>    Then please do so.
>>>
>>>>    The amount of energy needed to deal with the water is independent of
>>>>the amount of energy in the body.  We do not have to agree right now on
>>>>how many calories there are in a human body in order to figure out how
>>>>many calories are needed.  In order to answer the question of whether the
>>>>body supplies enough calories, when burned, to repay the energy used to
>>>>ignite it, we must compute the ignition energy.  Without that, we have no
>>>>way of knowing if the calories available (whatever they are) would be
>>>>sufficient.  Correct?
>>>
>>>>    So take a 70kg person as your input.  Is 85% water an acceptable
>>>>assumption?  Compute the number of calories required to deal with the
>>>>water in cremating a corpse.  You have claimed you can do this
>>>>calculation.  Please proceed.  Show all your work.  After you have given
>>>>your number and the computations you used to arrive at that number, I will
>>>>either agree to it and we can then work on the second half - finding the
>>>>number of calories actually obtained by burning an average 70kg corpse -
>>>>or I will tell you why I disagree.
>>>
>>>>[Remainder deleted to be dealt with after Mr. Giwer shows the computation
>>>>he has said he knows how to do.]
>>>
>>>	Why do you not show me how to do it.
>
>>    I do not show you how to do it because you have said you know how to
>>do it already.  Therefore there is no reason for me to show you as it is
>>needless.  Or is this an admission that you were lying? 
>
>	Lets see.  You deleted the computation and then you imply I have not
>posted the computaion.

    I have deleted nothing that looked remotely like a computation of the
amount of energy needed to deal with the water in a corpse.  At least, in
the English language.

    Anybody?  Has anyone seen Mr. Giwer post a detailed computation of the
number of calories needed to handle the water in cremating a corpse? 
Please provide me with the article ID, subject, and date - anyone, not
just Mr. Giwer.  I really, really, want to see it. 


>  Why do you not post yours so I can do the same thing?  

    I will do it after you post yours - remember, your claim, your burden
of proof, therefore you first.  Repost them as a followup to this article
(assuming you posted them elsewhere and I missed them).  That shouldn't be
so hard, should it?  Post the subject, date, and article ID of the article
I am supposed to have edited them out of.  Or the DejaNews URL.

    Psychic prediction: Mr. Giwer will never post his evidence.


>>    I also do not do it because it is your claim that you know how to do
>>it, and your claim there was not enough coke.  Therefore your burden of
>>proof for these claims.  It is not my responsibility to do your work for
>>you.  Sorry about that. 
>
>	You are incapable of doing them.  The only thing you can do is delete
>mine.  

    You will never know unless you post yours where I can see them.  You
are also invited to send an email copy.


>>>Post you calculations.  
>
>>    After you, my dear Alphonse.  Your claim, your burden of proof.  Sorry
>>about that.
>
>	I did.  You deleted them, asshole.  What kind of stupid game do you
>think you are playing?  

    Backing the lying Giwer-troll into a corner, of course.  I did not
delete any computations of the number of calories needed to deal with the
water in igniting a corpse.  Mr. Giwer does not provide the date, subject,
and article ID (or DejaNews URL) of his article where I allegedly did so. 
He or anyone else is cordially invited to supply this information to
document the charge.



>>    Remember, show your work.  Posting a number without showing the
>>assumtions and formulas used is not acceptable.  Any lying fraud could do
>>the same.  Elsewhere you gave a figure of 30,000 kcal but showed no work
>>nor the assumptions about starting temperature and body weight and
>>percentage water by weight.  Only if and when you fill in the blanks must
>>I either agree to accept your figure or show where you are wrong. 
>
>	You deleted what I did.

    If you can repeat that a few trillion times it will become true.


>Now you make a 30,000 kcal claim which I never made.  

    This is _too_ easy.


   Linkname: Deja News Retrieved Document
        URL:
          http://xp4.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?recnum=%3c4pvr85$t4r@dfw-ixne
          ws8.ix.netcom.com%3e&server=dnserver.dbapr
          
Subject:      Re: Dresden?
From:         mgiwer@ix.netcom.com
Date:         1996/06/16
Message-Id:   <4pvr85$t4r@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>
References:    <4ppguv$ibm@newsbf02.n
ews.aol.com> <4pq95k$slh@d31rz2.Stanford.EDU> <4psh8e$9im@dfw-Ixnews8.ix.netcom
.com> 
Organization: images incarnate
X-Netcom-Date: Sat Jun 15  9:24:05 PM CDT 1996
Newsgroups:   alt.revisionism

mvanalst@rbi.com (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:

>In article <4psh8e$9im@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>, mgiwer@ix.netcom.com
>(Matt Giwer) wrote:

>> rjg@d31rz2.Stanford.EDU (Richard J. Green) wrote:


[much deleted - refer to the URL above to see the full text - mstein]

>> You are the one supporting 2 kg of coke for each body after the first.

>According the Walter Mu"ller, of the engineering firm Allach, in regards
>to the fuel consumption of incineration furnaces:

>"Mu"ller claimed that there was a direct relation between increased use
>and increased economy. If the cold furnace required 175 kilograms (kg) of
>coke to start up a new incineration, it needed only 100 kg. if it had been
>used the day before; a second and third incineration on the same day would
>not require any extra fuel thanks to the compressed air; and those that
>followed would call for only small amounts of extra energy..." (_Anatomy_,
>pp.185-186.)

>How small is "amounts of extra energy?" Two kg of coke's worth?

        As you will need on the order of 30,000 kcal you are not going to get
that out of 2 kg of coke.  That is only a ballpark on boiling out the
water while maintaining the same temperature.

[Remainder deleted.  Thanks to DejaNews, again.]

    See the 30,000.  So, are you posting in your sleep?  Or are you (as
some people suspect) allowing other people to post through your account
and you are not aware of what they are posting in your name?  Or will you
declare that this is a Marduk forgery? 


>	Anything else you want to try to run with on this on?

    Any more lies you want to tell?
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Tue Jun 25 10:14:52 PDT 1996
Article: 45866 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!gatech!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: MATT GIWER REPORT for Jun 10-13: 21.1% / 26.1%
Date: 24 Jun 1996 14:09:12 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 117
Message-ID: <4qmlk8$ete@access1.digex.net>
References: <31ccbfaf.1255182@news.eden.com> <4qj28r$9lp@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4qk3ns$5fd@d31rz0.Stanford.EDU> <4qkjf7$opi@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article <4qkjf7$opi@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>,   wrote:
>rjg@d31rz0.Stanford.EDU (Richard J. Green) wrote:
>
>>In article <4qj28r$9lp@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
>>Ehrlich606  wrote:
>
>>>You are such a birdbrain.  I don't have the time to let you make me sick. 
>>>I have stated many times where I stand.  I am not going to repeat what
>>>_my_ null hypothesis is to someone who is severely mentally challenged and
>>>whose reactive and testosterone-dripping posts constitute the best
>>>possible advertisement for the revisionist position.
>
>>Mr. Ehrlich, I am quite disappointed by your post.  I thought you were
>>above such juvenile tit-for-tat arguments.
>
>>>Giwer's posts in recent days have stuck to the details from the war crimes
>>>tribunals.  All such posts are legitimate fodder for this NG.  It is up to
>>>*fighters of hate* like you to step forward and endorse all of this
>>>balderdash, or else admit that it is false or doubtful testimony.  You
>>>have done neither.  You never get past letter *A* as in ad hominem.  So
>>>you get it back, see? 
>
>>Mr. Ehrlich, Mr. Giwer seems to leave a lot of loose ends in his posts.
>>It seems that every post he makes contain scientific and historical
>>errors.  Certainly, you can't be blind to the caliber of his responses
>>to being challenged on such facts.  I'm certain, however, that you can
>>do better.  Perhaps, you can make up for the intellectual paucity of Mr.
>>Giwer's posts by providing evidence where he refuses.
>
>	You flat out misrepresent posts here.

    That is false.



>>For instance, eyewitness testimony, in many cases, refers to Zyklon-B
>>as being blue.  Mr. Giwer claims that Zyklon-B cannot be blue.  When
>>pressed, he changes the topic or engages in argumentum ad hominem.  Mr.
>>Ehrlich, what is your opinion?  Is ERCO one of the supports for
>>Zyklon-B?  Is ERCO blue?
>
>	At this point I FOUND AND POSTED the Degesh Publication regarding the
>use of Zyklon B for pest control.

    Did anyone ever see a date and source for this?


>This is the same document some
>holohugger claimed to have but would not post.  I pointed out that this
>publication mentions only wood pulp.  
>
>	That is what I did.  That is what YOU DESCRIBE as changing the subject
>and ad hominem attack.
>
>	I also found and posted another document that it NOT limited to pest
>control and which mentions two other carriers, one of which is described
>as blue.  THEN you folks started claiming that this proves blue is
>correct, even insisting it was in fact the Degesh pub when it clearly
>was not.
>
>	That is what I did.  That is what YOU DESCRIBE as changing the subject
>and ad hominem attack.
>
>	And what you are clearly doing now is misrepresenting what happened.  
>
>	Why do you do that?  
>
>>When you resolve this question perhaps we can address the exothermicity
>>of combusting the human body.  In your opinion, Mr. Ehrlich, is
>>combustion of the human body an exothermic or an endothermic process?
>
>	Weren't you the one who was using Hebrew Union sausage which has fat
>with more than 900 calories per gram?  What do they use in it?  Pure
>Jewish Fat?  

    No, I was the one introducing a Hebrew National Polish sausage with
190 fat calories in 22 grams of fat.  Anyone can visit the grocery store
and look at the nutrition label themselves.  But a dietary calorie is
actually what a physicist would call a kilocalorie.  So we have 190,000
small calories over 22g.  That works out to 8,636 small calories per gram.
Rich Green had rounded it to 9,000, it appears.  But that is 9 dietary
calories per gram.

    Mr. Giwer a) could not remember who said what, b) could not remember
the number which was cited, and c) appears to be trying to deceive people
over the difference between a dietary calorie and a calorie in physics.
And remember, Mr. Giwer claims a degree in physics.

    Mr. Giwer is the one misrepresenting here.


>>I hope that we can finally address many more of Mr. Giwer's assertions
>>with someone who is more reasonable than Mr. Giwer.  I await your
>>response.
>
>	How many more of them do you plan to misrepresent?  

    Mr. Giwer cannot keep anything straight, it would seem.  He has also
denied writing words DejaNews records him as writing.


>>Regards,
>
>>Rich Green
>
>>PS I'm sure that Mr. Giwer will respond to this post, but I've abandoned
>>any hope of getting a rational response from him.   I hope that Mr.
>>Ehrlich will do me the courtesy of replying.
>
>	Yes, you were quite correct that I would.  I corrected your
>misrepresentation.  

    Mr. Giwer lied again.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Tue Jun 25 10:45:53 PDT 1996
Article: 45873 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: MATT GIWER REPORT for Jun 10-13: 21.1% / 26.1%
Date: 24 Jun 1996 13:55:33 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 114
Message-ID: <4qmkql$ebc@access1.digex.net>
References: <31ccbfaf.1255182@news.eden.com> <4qj28r$9lp@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article <4qj28r$9lp@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
Ehrlich606  wrote:
>In article <31ccbfaf.1255182@news.eden.com>, mcurtis@eden.com (Mike
>Curtis) writes:
>
>>
>>And where have you been, Alan? All this time you have been agreeing
>>with this moronic troll? Well, glad you have come out of the denier
>>closet. Have you been having fun using all of those folks that
>>actually thought you were an upstanding functionalist. I for one know
>>better.
>>
>>You make me sick.
>>
>>
>
>You are such a birdbrain.  I don't have the time to let you make me sick. 
>I have stated many times where I stand.  I am not going to repeat what
>_my_ null hypothesis is to someone who is severely mentally challenged and
>whose reactive and testosterone-dripping posts constitute the best
>possible advertisement for the revisionist position.
>
>Giwer's posts in recent days have stuck to the details from the war crimes
>tribunals.

    If you don't count the lies, refusals to post documentation, etc.


>  All such posts are legitimate fodder for this NG.  It is up to
>*fighters of hate* like you to step forward and endorse all of this
>balderdash, or else admit that it is false or doubtful testimony.

    Much of it is doubtful.  I want to go back and check the full context
to see if some of it is not really testimony.  Carlos Porter pulled things
out of prosecutors' statements and presented it as if it had been actual
evidence.  But prosecutors' statements (which can include rumors) are not
evidence.  And I know much of what Mr. Giwer has posted has come from
Porter.  But Giwer also plagiarizes, sometimes (not always) taking text
>from  web sites without giving the source so that it can be seen in
context, footnotes checked, etc.

    If _you_ want to discuss something without the intellectually
dishonest tactics Matt Giwer uses when issues are discussed with him, I'll
be happy to talk to you.  But Mr. Giwer does not engage in fair debate
according to the rules.


>You
>have done neither.  You never get past letter *A* as in ad hominem.  So
>you get it back, see? 
>
>Meanwhile, my main sticking point with Giwer, namely, what I would
>consider gratuitous slurs against Jews, have been largely absent.  So I
>will compliment him on that one.  And since the conventionalists have now
>started another campaign to either ignore him, or destroy him, I am going
>to defend him. Here. Now.

    You have no problem with his provable lies?  You have no problem with
the fact that he kept insisting I should do the computations to back up
his claim (for which he bears burden of proof)?  You have no problem with
the fact that when I steadfastly refused, saying he should go first, he
lied and accused me of deleting his computations - which he had not posted
in any article to which I had responded?  You have no problem with his
denying words DejaNews records him as having written?  You have no problem
with the fact that he writes in a way as to insinuate that _anyone_ who
opposes him is complicit in attempts to harrass his family, shut him up,
etc.?

    If you have no problem with any of that, I think you have a problem,
sir.



>You are so blind that you have no conception of what a good Nazi or NKVD
>boy you would be.  On second thought, you do make me sick.
>
>Meanwhile, jump to whatever silly conclusions you like, just don't hurt
>yourself in the process.  I will call things as I see them, giving credit
>where credit is due on both sides, and slinging garbage to garbage slung. 

    I must have missed your response to Mr. Giwer's garbage-slinging as I
have described above.  Whatever your opinion of Mr. Curtis, I defy you to
find evidence that I have engaged in any of the things Mr. Giwer has
accused me of.

    I have "conspired" to build the most effective documented case to
prove that Mr. Giwer has told the lies he has told and made the errors he
has made.  If coordinating and consulting to document the truth is an evil
conspiracy, then I guess I am guilty.  But shut him up?  I have not even
complained to Mr. Giwer's service provider about his provable libel,
complaints Mr. Giwer implies are OK to make.  Yet he has called me a
member of the "conspiracy."

    The conspiracy is not to destroy him.  Mr. Giwer has destroyed himself
by lying.  If he doesn't like people using their free speech rights to
point this out, that's tough.


>What?  Did you think it requires some special _skill_ to kick out your
>vociferous, angry, frustrated trash?
>
>Maybe some day you will find some other way to get off in life other than
>by engaging in stupid ad hominems on the Usenet.  But I doubt it.

    Perhaps you should check more carefully the people you are defending. 
Matt Giwer has lied, and lied repeatedly, both about evidence regarding
the Holocaust and about persons posting in this newsgroup, including me.
You are defending a liar.

    Posted/emailed.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Tue Jun 25 11:33:09 PDT 1996
Article: 45880 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!nntp.primenet.com!uunet!inXS.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Giwer Responds to the Charges of Net Abuse
Date: 24 Jun 1996 12:48:42 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 107
Message-ID: <4qmgta$b70@access1.digex.net>
References:  <4qhonc$ofi@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article <4qhonc$ofi@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
RuthSommer  wrote:
>>Subject: Giwer Responds to the Charges of Net Abuse
>>From: jamie@voyager.net (Jamie McCarthy)
>>Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 04:01:27 -0400
>>Message-ID: 
>>
>>Since Matt Giwer appears to be trying to back away from his earlier
>>braggadocio about "controlling this conference" [1], and simultaneously
>>to attack his opponents for doing exactly what he is accused of, I think
>>a response is necessary...
>
>What I see from Matt Giwer's posts are pretty reasonable.

    He lies.  I have offered a wager of $1,000 payable to the 501(c)(3)
organization of the winner's choice that I can prove this to courtroom
standards before a neutral arbiter of the American Arbitration
Association.

    He has accused me of doing things I have not done.  He has done the
same to others.  He has deceptively edited my posts in his
responses, deleting text without warning and replying to a false and 
distorted version of my argument.  He smears everyone for the actions of
unknown persons.  This is reasonable?  You and I have very different
definitions of the word.


>But I do see a lot of vicious and hateful attacks on him.  It's possible
>that now and then, after many such attacks, he might respond.

    And it's possible that now and then, after being libeled by Mr. Giwer,
some people might get vicious and hateful.


>Are you saying that the attacks on Mr Giwer are ok, but his response
>are not?

    I would suggest that the truth is OK and lying is not.  Mr. Giwer
lies.  You are defending a liar.  Would you like to accept my wager if he
does not?


>
>>Note that the topic here is net abuse, not revisionism...
>
>The anti-revisionist abuse here is appalling.

    Please tell us what you are defining as abuse.


>Are you doing anything at all to squealch this viciousness?  Are you
>approaching the servers of the anti-revisionists?

    One identifiable user, marduk@idirect.com, seems to have moved over to
Netcom and has not been forging articles lately.  Mr. Giwer claims an
unidentified person mailbombed him.  (Hebrew text was allegedly emailed
>from  an Israeli gopher site - amusingly, Mr. Giwer insisted that the
Israeli government or someone with root access did it, though in fact this
is not necessary.)  Mr. Giwer accuses an unnamed shadowy "them" for
Marduk's actions and the alleged actions of the mailbomber.  (Mr. Giwer
could, of course, have manufactured the mailbombing himself to claim
martyrdom.  He has no real evidence other than his own word, and he is
provably a liar. But I am prepared to believe the mailbombing claim
anyway.) 



>>My claim is that Matt Giwer's intentions are to make alt.revisionism
>>useless to anyone who wants to discuss rationally the phenomenon of
>>revisionism and/or specific arguments and claims of revisionists...
>
>Some of the anti-revisionists respond to the revisionists rationally, but
>most of them obviously do not.  What do you think about this?  Shouldn't
>these people be encouraged to be more civil and decent?

    I do try from time to time.  Perhaps I should try more often.  But
would you say that rudeness should not be protected speech?


>It seems to me that your attitude to all this is very one-sided.  You say
>you want rational debate but really you only target one side.  I can only
>conclude, from reading all this, that you are yet another Holocaust
>propagandist, or, to coin one of Mr Giwer's expressions, a
>'Holoterrorist'.

    Jumping to conclusions, and rather rude in my opinion given that you
do not have a firm foundation for this accusation.


>I think the last thing you are interested in is rational debate.

    So far you have showered us with opinions.  Rational debate requires
actual evidence and argument.  This too has been sorely lacking in Mr. 
Giwer's posts.  I've been chasing him on computations for energy required
for cremation - to support his own claims - and all he comes back with is
that _I_ should post _my_ calculations.  His claim, his burden of proof. 
The last I saw, he falsely accused me of deleting his computations and in
the bargain denied posting an unsupported figure of 30,000 kcal, a post
that I could easily find on DejaNews from little more than a week ago. 

    Posted/emailed.


-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Tue Jun 25 18:55:48 PDT 1996
Article: 45960 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!kryten.awinc.com!laslo.netnet.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-5.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-9.sprintlink.net!news-penn.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!world1.bawave.com!news2.cais.net!news.cais.net!nntp.primenet.com!uunet!inXS.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Giwer Responds to the Charges of Net Abuse
Date: 25 Jun 1996 13:18:26 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <4qp712$fad@access5.digex.net>
References:  <4qhonc$ofi@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4qmgta$b70@access1.digex.net> <4qn5uo$3tb@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4qn5uo$3tb@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
  wrote:
>mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>
>>In article <4qhonc$ofi@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
>>RuthSommer  wrote:
>>>>Subject: Giwer Responds to the Charges of Net Abuse
>>>>From: jamie@voyager.net (Jamie McCarthy)
>>>>Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 04:01:27 -0400
>>>>Message-ID: 
>>>>
>>>>Since Matt Giwer appears to be trying to back away from his earlier
>>>>braggadocio about "controlling this conference" [1], and simultaneously
>>>>to attack his opponents for doing exactly what he is accused of, I think
>>>>a response is necessary...
>>>
>>>What I see from Matt Giwer's posts are pretty reasonable.
>
>>    He lies.  I have offered a wager of $1,000 payable to the 501(c)(3)
>>organization of the winner's choice that I can prove this to courtroom
>>standards before a neutral arbiter of the American Arbitration
>>Association.
>
>>    He has accused me of doing things I have not done.  He has done the
>>same to others.  He has deceptively edited my posts in his
>>responses, deleting text without warning and replying to a false and 
>>distorted version of my argument.  He smears everyone for the actions of
>>unknown persons.  This is reasonable?  You and I have very different
>>definitions of the word.
>
>>>But I do see a lot of vicious and hateful attacks on him.  It's possible
>>>that now and then, after many such attacks, he might respond.
>
>>    And it's possible that now and then, after being libeled by Mr. Giwer,
>>some people might get vicious and hateful.
>
>  The first libel in any such exchange was against me in that I was
>called without cause, both antisemitic and a nazi.  

    You have libeled me by posting to make people think I am guilty of
doing dishonest things I have not done, such as editing out your
computations of calorie requirements.  So where did I call you antisemitic
and a Nazi?  Please produce those posts.  Or do you claim that if one
person libels you, you have the right to libel anyone you like?


>You folks are doing yeoman's work attempting to appear as innocent lambs
>these days.  
>
>What you do not appear to realize is that you trying to claim it to
>peope who have experienced it first hand.  

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Wed Jun 26 07:18:16 PDT 1996
Article: 46004 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!gatech!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news.ultranet.com!news.sprintlink.net!news-stk-200.sprintlink.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: MATT GIWER REPORT for Jun 1-9: 12.7% / 18.3%
Date: 25 Jun 1996 12:56:09 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 63
Message-ID: <4qp5n9$ebv@access5.digex.net>
References: <4q8dtd$3i7@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4qj4ug$9g@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> <4qjjft$r1f@access1.digex.net> <4qkkk0$ni9@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4qkkk0$ni9@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
  wrote:
>mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>
>>In article <4qj4ug$9g@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
>>  wrote:
>>> Mike Stein wrote:
[snip]
>>>>    The were not driven out by namecalling.  Tim McCarthy certainly gave
>>>>as good as he got from the word go.
>>>
>>>>    They were driven out because they were exposed as dishonest and
>>>>hypocritical, and realized that they were not advancing the cause any.
>>>
>>>>    The only difference between you and them is, you don't seem to mind be
>>>>be embarrassed by being caught in hypocrisy or in a lie.  That is your
>>>>problem, not mine.
>>>
>>>	Thank you for being the first to post the evidence I was looking for.
>>>You folks declared victory.  You are now repeating the one sided
>>>declaration of victory.  
>
>>    It seems to me the gentlemen who left admitted defeat.  Contrary to
>>what is claimed, they were met with more than just name-calling (although
>>yes, there was some - but you provide your share).  They were presented
>>with logic and documentation (and I am talking not just about
>>documentation of evidence for the orthodox history, but documentation that
>>their own cited sources were used deceptively and dishonestly).
>
>>    Many of then explicitly said they wanted open debate.  That game was
>>agreed to.  Debate is a game with well-understood rules.  One of them is,
>>you get caught falsifying your evidence, you lose.
>
>>    Who agreed to play your game?  That is a relevant distinction.
>
> Debate was not the method here.  Personal and family harrassment was the
>name of the method here.  

    Please post your evidence that any of the other people who left were
victims of personal and family harrassment.


>	In my experience the constant claims of debate ring very hollow.  

    Of course you dishonestly insinuate all are complicit in the actions
of one or two.  Who besides Marduk emailed your son?  By your standard you
are complicit in the mailbombing directed against Ken McVay before you
ever appeared here.  It was someone who agreed with you, ergo by your
standards I am entitled to call that the "revisionist" method of debate,
not just the methods of the one perpetrator. 

    I am prepared to debate you.  But you would have to start providing
evidence and meeting the burden of proof for your claims.  You seem to
have some trouble with that.  Would you care to finally produce your
calculations for the number of calories needed to deal with the water in a
corpse for cremation?  Or show how you arrived at the 30,000 kcal figure
you gave without any mention of the assumptions or formula used?

    (Cue up the theme music from "Jeopardy....")
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Wed Jun 26 07:18:16 PDT 1996
Article: 46095 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.cloud9.net!imci4!imci5!pull-feed.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.misc,alt.revisionism,alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: Re: Procmail Vrs. Giwer: Procmail 2, Giwer 0
Date: 23 Jun 1996 14:48:01 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <4qk3h1$400@access1.digex.net>
References: <4qgdb2$b62@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com> <4qgk8f$fjl@Networking.Stanford.EDU> <4qhb8d$oo4@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4qhlef$oaa@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca news.admin.net-abuse.misc:56032 alt.revisionism:46095 alt.usenet.kooks:25845

In article <4qhlef$oaa@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>kmcvay@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Ken McVay OBC) wrote:
>
>>In article <4qgk8f$fjl@Networking.Stanford.EDU>, 
>>llurch@Networking.Stanford.EDU (Richard Charles Graves) wrote:
>
>>>mgiwer@ix.netcom.com writes:
>>>>       This one came through five minutes after the post demonstrating
>>>>that Greenies bot on the server is supported by Stanford University and
>>>>they will do nothing to stop this email harrassment.
>
>>>Translation: Procmail is now refusing Giwer's mail.
>
>>Nizkor's Procmail also bounces Mr. Giwer's mail, and it would
>>appear that being ignored is, to Giwer, the ultimate
>>humiliation. Being rejected by a few lines of code is
>>apparently far worse.
>
>	However, as you know, I am not talking about mail.  I am talking about
>newsgroup posts.  That is what the bot is dealing with.  It is taking NG
>posts and turning them into email to me.  

    No, it is taking things you intended to post but clumsily sent as
email instead and mailing them back to you.  Then, when you respond, that
email is also mailed back to you.

    I have a simliar missive from you in my inbox.  Have you noticed one
of your posts missing from the newsgroup?  Or are you posting too much to
keep track of what you have written?  Nevertheless, unless it was an
accidental Cc:, one of your responses to me is missing from the newsgroup
because you mailed it to me instead. 

    The reason you didn't get it back is that unlike Rich Green, I don't
find your occasional goofs are worth setting up procmail to deal with.


>	But thank you for taking the time to lie about it.  

    Would you like to accept either my latest wager or the previous one? 

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Wed Jun 26 08:04:15 PDT 1996
Article: 46004 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!gatech!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news.ultranet.com!news.sprintlink.net!news-stk-200.sprintlink.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: MATT GIWER REPORT for Jun 1-9: 12.7% / 18.3%
Date: 25 Jun 1996 12:56:09 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 63
Message-ID: <4qp5n9$ebv@access5.digex.net>
References: <4q8dtd$3i7@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4qj4ug$9g@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> <4qjjft$r1f@access1.digex.net> <4qkkk0$ni9@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4qkkk0$ni9@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
  wrote:
>mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>
>>In article <4qj4ug$9g@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
>>  wrote:
>>> Mike Stein wrote:
[snip]
>>>>    The were not driven out by namecalling.  Tim McCarthy certainly gave
>>>>as good as he got from the word go.
>>>
>>>>    They were driven out because they were exposed as dishonest and
>>>>hypocritical, and realized that they were not advancing the cause any.
>>>
>>>>    The only difference between you and them is, you don't seem to mind be
>>>>be embarrassed by being caught in hypocrisy or in a lie.  That is your
>>>>problem, not mine.
>>>
>>>	Thank you for being the first to post the evidence I was looking for.
>>>You folks declared victory.  You are now repeating the one sided
>>>declaration of victory.  
>
>>    It seems to me the gentlemen who left admitted defeat.  Contrary to
>>what is claimed, they were met with more than just name-calling (although
>>yes, there was some - but you provide your share).  They were presented
>>with logic and documentation (and I am talking not just about
>>documentation of evidence for the orthodox history, but documentation that
>>their own cited sources were used deceptively and dishonestly).
>
>>    Many of then explicitly said they wanted open debate.  That game was
>>agreed to.  Debate is a game with well-understood rules.  One of them is,
>>you get caught falsifying your evidence, you lose.
>
>>    Who agreed to play your game?  That is a relevant distinction.
>
> Debate was not the method here.  Personal and family harrassment was the
>name of the method here.  

    Please post your evidence that any of the other people who left were
victims of personal and family harrassment.


>	In my experience the constant claims of debate ring very hollow.  

    Of course you dishonestly insinuate all are complicit in the actions
of one or two.  Who besides Marduk emailed your son?  By your standard you
are complicit in the mailbombing directed against Ken McVay before you
ever appeared here.  It was someone who agreed with you, ergo by your
standards I am entitled to call that the "revisionist" method of debate,
not just the methods of the one perpetrator. 

    I am prepared to debate you.  But you would have to start providing
evidence and meeting the burden of proof for your claims.  You seem to
have some trouble with that.  Would you care to finally produce your
calculations for the number of calories needed to deal with the water in a
corpse for cremation?  Or show how you arrived at the 30,000 kcal figure
you gave without any mention of the assumptions or formula used?

    (Cue up the theme music from "Jeopardy....")
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access4.digex.net Wed Jun 26 16:43:40 PDT 1996
Article: 46130 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!news.reed.edu!camelot.ccs.neu.edu!nntp.neu.edu!grapevine.lcs.mit.edu!uhog.mit.edu!news.intercon.com!udel!delmarva.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: I control Giwer
Date: 22 Jun 1996 23:15:43 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <4qicsv$itd@access4.digex.net>
References: <4qh5bg$1jag@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4qi8ho$dt@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net

In article <4qi8ho$dt@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
Ehrlich606  wrote:
>In article <4qh5bg$1jag@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, gmcfee@ibm.net (Gord
>McFee) writes:
>
>>
>>As will now be obvious to even occasional readers of this newsgroup, I
>>clearly control Giwer.  
>
>I think you are basically OK, Gord, but I also think that you have a few
>major screws loose if you expect any of the hundreds of passive readers of
>this board to believe this.

    But Giwer has said that Gordon is Marduk.  And Marduk _does_ control
Giwer.  Marduk has the power to cause Giwer to post anything Marduk wants
Giwer to post.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Wed Jun 26 16:43:41 PDT 1996
Article: 46157 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.cloud9.net!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: What "DIESEL EXHAUST CONTROVERSY?"
Date: 25 Jun 1996 12:27:29 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 929
Message-ID: <4qp41h$cfb@access5.digex.net>
References: <4qjugd$el5@news-e2b.gnn.com> <4ql7pv$p43@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> <4qnb6n$9bs@access4.digex.net> <4qo0ev$32n@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4qo0ev$32n@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
  wrote:
>mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>
>>In article <4ql7pv$p43@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,   wrote:
>>>kmcvay@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Ken McVay OBC) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <4qjugd$el5@news-e2b.gnn.com>, 
>>>>Widmann@gnn.com (Richard Widmann) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Revisionists - I thought I would share this recent article by Mr. 
>>>>>Grieb with the book.  He has some fascinating insights.
>>>
>>>>>Pat Buchanan and the Diesel Exhaust Controversy
>>>>>By Conrad Grieb 
>>>
>>>>http://www.almanac.bc.ca/features/denial-of-science/diesel-1.html
>>>
>>>
>>>	And upon going there you find Stein, a man of not credentials in the
>>>subject whatsoever.
>
>>    Appeal to authority, which Mr. Giwer has elsewhere identified as a
>>fallacy.  Note that Mr. Giwer has identified nothing wrong with the
>>article.  (Nor, come to think of it, has he identified his credentials in
>>this area.) 
>
>    Well taken.  He posted an idiot response that had nothing to do with
>the substance.

    By the way, I do have some small credentials in one area.  I worked on
the programming for a pesticide/herbicide/fungicide research system,
including the statistical computations for multiple chemical formulations. 
I had to compute whether a combination was synergistic, antagonistic, or
additive. 


>	Feel better?  Or are you the same Stein.
>
>	The message ends "continued" but that is not a link to the rest.  
>What ever that idiot Stein posted is forever lost.

    Ah, you are right about the "continued," but it is not forever lost. 

    Let's see, the article is diesel-1.html.  Now, for 163 IQ points, what
do you suppose the name of the continuation file might be?  (Shh!  No help
>from  the studio audience!)

    But I will post the entire article below, as the appendix is not
there.  I know that is what you will want to see.



>>    Of course, there is also Scott Mullins, who does.
>
>>>Beyond that, he makes no technical points.
>
>>    I pointed out 
>
>	You are the same Stein.

    Wow!  What keen powers of observation!


>where Berg misread and misrepresented his sources,
>>including the way in which the authors of the paper achieved high CO
>>output.  I also pointed out the shortcomings in Berg's toxicology.  "No
>>technical points" indeed.  References are cited, which is something Mr.
>>Giwer is not noted for.  He would rather make empty assertions Because!
>>I!  Say!  So!
>
>    Go take a look, fool.  If you ever made the points you claim it must
>be in the unavailable "continued" section of the post.
>
>    In other words, your post is quite worthless as it has been truncated
>by the brain dead idiots who claim to be webmasters.  Take it up with
>them.

    I will.  There is no reason to cut it up that way, you are correct.
And the appendix is missing.  I was told it was put up, but I did not
actually check it out.  Thank you for calling it to my attention.


>>>	And thirdly, the is the kind of trash Nizkorites think is refutation.  
>
>>    This is the kind of unsupported assertion, fallacious argument, and
>>outright lying that Mr. Giwer hopes he can palm off as refutation.  I
>>invite Mr. Giwer or anyone to read the article and address any errors they
>>think they can find.  Mr. Giwer has identified none.    
>
>    There is not enough of whatever you wrote posted to get beyond what
>is clearly mere assertion by you.  

    OK, here you are, the whole thing.  Now be sure to identify the
errors.  And no assertion, please.  You have no credentials. 



   This article discusses the errors and deceptions contained in 
   Friedrich Berg's "proof"[1] that it would be nearly impossible to use 
   diesel exhaust to kill people as described by the witnesses to the 
   Reinhard death camp gassings.  The case is given in nontechnical 
   terms, though for those who want to wade through the detailed 
   technical arguments, they are given in an appendix which reproduces 
   the case with full details and references.

   Still, people are encouraged to read all the details.  One thing 
   "scientific" Holocaust deniers like Berg and Fred Leuchter count on 
   is the fact that many non-scientists can't follow scientific debates, 
   and assume that if it is dressed up in scientific terms, it must be 
   right.  But there are many other scientific debates we see today - 
   pollution, cancer, global warming, etc. - which enter into the 
   political arena.  Some of these arguments are made to support a 
   hidden ideological agenda, and the science is dishonest.  We hope that 
   following the full argument will help people realize that just 
   because something comes dressed up as "science" doesn't mean you 
   should stop thinking critically about what you're being told. 

   Berg's arguments boil down to the following:

       1) Diesel engines, unlike gasoline engines, do not produce
          large amounts of carbon monoxide (CO) under normal operation, 
          and it is extremely difficult to get them to produce levels
          of CO sufficient to cause death within the time reported by
          the witnesses.
       2) Eyewitnesses described the corpses from a diesel gassing
          as blue in color - but acute carbon monoxide poisoning victims
          are red.
       3) Furthermore, the Germans had much better ways to produce
          carbon monoxide than diesel engines (the "producer gas" 
          trucks and busses), so using diesels makes no sense.

   Therefore (reasons Berg) contrary to the assertion of historians, the 
   victims were _not_ killed by carbon monoxide. 

       4) Diesel engines normally produce a fairly high proportion
          of oxygen in the exhaust, so people would not die of
          asphyxiation in the amount of time claimed by the witnesses.
       5) Even if the above were not true, if execution were to be
          by asphyxiation, there was no sense in running the engine -
          it would have been sufficient to seal the victims in an
          airtight chamber, so pumping in exhaust for asphyxiation
          made no sense.

   Therefore (reasons Berg) they were not killed by asphyxiation 
   either; the whole affair is a hoax.

   There is a core of truth to all of the five points.  Point (2) above 
   is often true, though not always.  However, as Berg failed to mention 
   in his paper the witness, SS hygienist Dr. Wilhelm Pfannenstiel, 
   explicitly mentioned asphyxiation as the cause of death[2].  Point 
   (1) is not so true as Berg believes, but given point (2), it is 
   quite possibly irrelevant. 

   Berg relies heavily on "psychological" arguments such as points (3) 
   and (5), the idea that the SS personnel in charge of the death camps 
   would have done things in better ways if they had really wanted to 
   kill people.  For example, in Usenet alt.revisionism article 
   <2vt3du$t0b@mary.iia.org>, Friedrich Berg wrote: "[Scott] Mullins 
   should try to run a heavily-loaded 150 HP engine, that is still 
   small, with a propeller or fan in a closed loop without making lots 
   and lots of noise." 

   Is Berg trying to argue that the Nazis wouldn't have committed mass 
   murder with diesels because they would have been too afraid of 
   getting a ticket for violating noise ordinances?

   In the same article, Berg also wrote, "Since the load of any fan or 
   propeller varies non-linearly with RPM, it is still quite a 
   trick to choose the right sized fan or propeller.  Ivan with the big 
   wrench won't know how." 
   
   Here Berg is actually arguing two contradictory things at once.  
   If this had been done, "Ivan," of course, wouldn't have done it.  It 
   was the Nazis who created the system, not the Russians or Ukranians.  
   The Russians just built the original engine.  The Nazis would have 
   modified it.  Is Berg saying the Nazis wouldn't have known how to do 
   this?  Is Berg saying the Germans had no competent engineers?  On the 
   other hand, arguing that an unsophisticated "Ivan" was responsible
   for the idea and the modification damages points (3) and (5), that it 
   wouldn't have been done because it wasn't a good idea technically. 
   An unsophisticated person would probably not realize that there's 
   anything wrong with using a diesel engine to generate carbon 
   monoxide.  This sort of self-contradictory argument is one advanced 
   by a defense lawyer, not a scientist.

   Although Berg says it's very difficult to tinker with the engine to 
   produce high CO levels, the same technical papers he quotes in his 
   own paper show that the authors were able to produce CO levels up to 
   6% by adjusting the fuel system.  It may also have been possible to 
   block the air intake to alter the fuel/air mixture.  Berg cannot 
   escape the fact that if the authors of his own references were able 
   to produce lethal exhaust from a diesel, so would an SS technician.

   Still, due to the testimony about the blue color of the bodies, the 
   one crucial point on which Berg may very well be correct is that 
   contrary to popular belief, the people who died in chambers fed by 
   diesel engines didn't die of acute CO poisoning.  From this he would 
   like people to believe that if they didn't die from that cause, as 
   commonly believed, the whole story must be a hoax. 
   
   However, there are many separate pieces of evidence all pointing 
   to the conclusion that hundreds of thousands of people entered the 
   camps of Treblinka, Sobibor, and Belzec and never emerged alive.  
   There are records of rail shipments of people going in, and large 
   quantities of clothing - but not people - going out.  There are 
   reports from the Polish resistance corroborating this.  There are 
   large quantities of bones.  There are testimonies from the few 
   survivors as well as many guards in the camp.  To this day only two
   of the approximately 600,000 people sent to the camp of Belzec have 
   ever been found alive.

   So if Berg is correct that the victims did not die of carbon monoxide 
   if gassed with diesels, how did they die?  Unfortunately, since the 
   camps were destroyed before the end of the war, and the gas chambers 
   and engines with them, it is not possible to reconstruct precisely 
   what happened.  Nevertheless, it is possible to work out the 
   possibilities and determine the _general_ cause of death, if not the 
   precise combination of causes.  Actually, Berg had the answer all 
   along, but refused to see it - or pretended not to.  They probably 
   did die of some form of asphyxiation, with other contributing 
   factors.

   How can this be, if Berg "proved" that there is too much oxygen in 
   diesel exhaust for this to be possible?  There are a number of 
   significant items Berg overlooks.  First, diesels also produce fairly 
   high levels of nitrogen oxide (NOx) compounds, which are also toxic.  
   Berg only discussed the long-term carcinogenic potential of these 
   chemicals, but in sufficient concentration they have short-term toxic 
   effects as well - 250 to 500 ppm of NO2 or N2O4 is "rapidly fatal"
   all by itself[3].  While there is no way of telling if the levels 
   were this high in the diesel gas chambers, as there are many 
   variables involved, Berg's own principal source on diesel exhaust 
   composition gives NOx emissions as high as 690 ppm in one test - 
   depending on the precise distribution of compounds, possibly a lethal 
   dose within the allotted time even without the additional 
   considerations given below.[4]  Many test run results from the paper 
   are in the 267-448 ppm range - a significant contributing factor, 
   even if not the sole cause of death.  Interestingly, the highest
   concentrations were achieved at a fuel-air ratio of just under 0.03
   and an engine speed of 600 RPM - a significant fact given Berg's
   insistence that only at higher fuel-air ratios does diesel exhaust
   become sufficiently toxic to kill in the half hour reported by 
   witnesses.
   
   Second, the people in the chambers would have an elevated respiratory 
   rate due to panic, the exertion of being run into the chambers, and 
   high levels of carbon dioxide (CO2), and thus would have consumed the 
   available oxygen more quickly.  This aspect cannot be ignored.
   
   Third, and most importantly, the chambers were described by the 
   witnesses as having a low ceiling, and the people were packed into 
   the chambers as tightly as possible.  This means that there was not 
   much air per person to start with.  As the diesel pumped in exhaust 
   gas relatively poor in oxygen, high in CO2, soot, NOx (and if, unlike 
   the fuel in the Holtz-Elliot paper, the Nazis used high-sulphur 
   diesel fuel, there would also be sulphur dioxide, another toxin), the 
   people would both take in the toxins and use up the available air 
   (and load the chamber with even more carbon dioxide, causing more 
   rapid breathing, a vicious cycle). 

   This can be done without any tampering with the engine.  However, by 
   adjusting the fuel flow, or partially blocking the air intake, an 
   even less oxygenated exhaust can be produced.  (Again, it is not 
   certain that this was done, but it was entirely possible.) 
   
   Thus it is possible to generate lethal conditions using diesel 
   engines, although there is not much margin for error.  And indeed, 
   testimony indicates that sometimes it was discovered that the process 
   did not produce death in everyone, and bullets to the back of the 
   head had to be administered from time to time.  Rudolf Hoess, 
   commandant of Auschwitz, testified that on a trip to Chelmno, where 
   there were gassing vans, sometimes the exhaust buildup was not 
   sufficient for killing.

   What about the argument that this was not efficient?  This argument 
   first of all assumes that the people choosing the diesel engines were 
   as technically sophisticated as Berg himself.  Few people know that 
   diesels don't produce just as much carbon monoxide as gasoline 
   engines.  If they hooked it up and it worked, that was all that 
   mattered.

   The producer gas vehicles certainly would have worked better, but 
   there were two problems with them.  First, the level of CO was so 
   high that it was potentially explosive (a point Berg made in one of 
   his own Usenet articles cited in the appendix, yet failed to see the 
   significance of).  Second, the vehicles had a more important use - as 
   vehicles.  The diesel engine came from a captured Soviet tank.  There 
   were thousands of them littering the countryside, most of them 
   completely unusable because the Germans didn't have the facilities to 
   repair them.  Thus when the economic considerations are examined, not 
   just the technical, the use of the diesels makes more sense. 

   What about the argument that the people would have died of 
   asphyxiation if just put into an airtight chamber?  This argument 
   trades on the myth that all Nazis were sadistic monsters.  They were 
   killers, yes, but they did _not_ have a policy of causing maximum 
   suffering.  The attempt to use carbon monoxide was in order to have a 
   relatively humane execution.  This was important for the morale of 
   the SS men, as their experience with mass shooting in occupied Russia 
   proved. 

   The use of diesels to run gas chambers was not the best technical 
   means, but it could (and, as the eyewitnesses testified, did) work.  
   Eventually, at Auschwitz, a better method was found, and the diesels
   were abandoned.
   
   [1] Berg, Friedrich Paul: "The Diesel Gas Chambers: Myth Within a 
   Myth," Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 5 No. 1, Spring 1984.

   [2] Friedlander, Saul: "Counterfeit Nazi: The Ambiguity of Good" 
   (Knopf, New York, 1969) pp. 116-120.

   [3] Thienes, Clinton and Haley, Thomas: "Clinical Toxicology,"
   (Lea & Febiger, Philadelphia, 1972), p. 189.

   [4] Holtz, John and Elliot, M. A.: "The Significance of Diesel-
   Exhaust-Gas-Analysis," Transactions of the American Society of 
   Mechanical Engineers, Vol. 63, Feb. 1941, pp. 97-105.


   APPENDIX


   Below is the relevant section of Berg's own paper in the Journal of 
   Historical Review, plus extracts from one of his Usenet articles, 
   interspersed with comments.


      Oxygen in Diesel Exhaust

           If the Jews were not murdered with carbon monoxide from Diesel 
      exhaust, could they have died instead from the effects of reduced 
      oxygen in Diesel exhaust?  Such a theory would at least be 
      consistent with the claim that the corpses were "blue."
      
         [Berg cites SS hygienist Dr. Wilhelm Pfannenstiel as one witness.  
         However, he did not include in his paper Pfannenstiel's explicit 
         diagnosis of asphyxiation.  While Berg pretends to explore this 
         possibility, he rushes through it while ignoring significant 
         factors - most notably Pfannenstiel's testimony - which point 
         strongly to a conclusion of death by asphyxiation.  Omission of 
         both Pfannenstiel's explicit diagnosis and these other factors is 
         deceptive.] 
      
      A bluish coloring to certain parts of a corpse is indeed a symptom 
      of death from lack of oxygen.  This theory, however, does not hold 
      up very well because of the fact that Diesels always operate with 
      excess air.
      
         [That is how they are _normally_ operated, if one wishes to 
         run them to run a truck or a pump.  This says nothing about how
         they could be operated if one wishes to kill people.]


      [Graph captioned, "Figure 6:  Exhaust gas constituents of internal 
      combustion engines.^22  The heavy vertical line at a fuel:air ratio 
      of 0.055 has been added by the author."
      
          [This graph can be retrieved from Ken McVay's archives as a GIF.]


           Normal air contains 21% oxygen.  In Figure 6 we see that the 
      oxygen concentration corresponding to idle in the exhaust of any 
      Diesel (divided or undivided chamber), shown near the top of the 
      chart at a fuel/air ratio of 0.01, is 18%, which is just a few per 
      cent less than one finds in normal air.  At full load, which 
      corresponds to a fuel/air ratio of 0.055, the oxygen concentration 
      in the exhaust of any Diesel is 4%.
      
         [The graph only covers two diesels, not "any Diesel."  And, as 
         will be seen below, the graph was generated from diesels "in 
         proper mechanical condition."   Although he argues elsewhere 
         that these are the worst numbers one finds in the Society of 
         Automotive Engineers transactions, it should be noted that's 
         the worst one finds for any _American_ diesel.  The Nazis used 
         Soviet diesels.  (Technologies can converge within one nation 
         and diverge between nations, as people are trained in the same 
         schools.)  And he should go to the primary source - the raw 
         numbers which generate the graph.  As will be shown below, the 
         numbers tell a very different story.] 

           Probably the best discussion of the effects of reduced oxygen 
      levels or asphyxia is provided by Henderson and Haggard: 


           SECOND STAGE.  When the oxygen is diminished to values between 
           14 and 10 per cent the higher values of the brain are affected.  
           Consciousness continues, but judgement becomes faulty.  Severe 
           injuries, such as burns, bruises and even broken bones, may 
           cause no pain.  Emotions, particularly ill temper and 
           pugnacity, and less often hilarity, or an alteration of moods, 
           are aroused with abnormal readiness.... 

           THIRD STAGE.  When the oxygen is diminished to values between 
           10 and 6 per cent, nausea and vomiting may appear.  The subject 
           loses the ability to perform any vigorous muscular movements, 
           or even to move at all.  Bewilderment and loss of consciousness 
           follow, either with fainting or a rigid, glassy-eyed coma.  If 
           revived, the subject may have no recollection of this state, or 
           an entirely erroneous belief as to what has happened.  Up to 
           this stage, or even in it, he may be wholly unaware that 
           anything is wrong.... 

           FOURTH STAGE.  When the oxygen is diminished below 6 per cent, 
           respiration consists of gasps separated by apneas of increasing 
           duration.  Convulsive movements may occur.  Then the breathing 
           stops, but the heart may continue to beat for a few minutes and 
           then develop ventricular fibrillation, or stand still in 
           extreme dilation.^23 


           According to Haldane and Priestley, "air containing less than 
      9.5 per cent of oxygen would ordinarily cause disablement within 
      half an hour."^24  Disablement is still not death.

         [This makes it sound as if there's no difference between 9.5%
         and 0%.  With 0% oxygen, death - not disablement - comes in a
         few minutes.  Berg is trying to confuse matters here.]

           It is clear that there is no magic number below which death 
      would occur, or above which life would continue.  However, for any 
      gas chamber relying upon reduced oxygen as the killing method, one 
      would have to reduce the oxygen to below 9.5%--perhaps even below 
      6%.

         [There is no magic number, true, but Berg's argument is again
         misleading.  What is really clear is that the lower the oxygen
         goes, the faster death comes.  And O2 below 6% is feasible within
         Berg's constraints.  See below.]

           From Figure 6 we see that to reduce the oxygen concentration 
      in the exhaust to just 9%, any Diesel would have to operate at a 
      fuel/air ratio of about 0.040, which corresponds to about 3/4 of 
      full load.  To reduce the oxygen concentration to as low as 6%, 
      which would be the fourth stage according to Henderson and Haggard 
      and would almost certainly be the condition needed to kill "all" 
      members of any intended group of victims, any Diesel would have to 
      operate at a fuel/air ratio of about 0.048, which is close to full 
      load.  In other words, any Diesel gas chamber relying on the 
      reduction of oxygen as a killing method would have to operate at 
      more than 3/4 of full load, but probably closer to full load. 

         [This depends on exactly how Berg is defining "full load".
         See below.]

           From the above it should be obvious that over most of their 
      operating ranges, Diesels discharge sufficient oxygen so that one 
      can literally inhale pure Diesel exhaust and survive on the oxygen 
      in the exhaust.  From idle to at least 3/4 of full load, Diesel 
      exhaust contains sufficient oxygen to sustain human life for at 
      least half an hour.

      [notes]
      22.  Edward F. Obert, _Internal Combustion Engines and Air 
           Pollution_ (New York and London:  Intext Educational Publishers,
           1973), p. 361.

      23.  Y. Henderson & H.W. Haggard, _Noxious Gases_ (New York:
           Reinhold Publishing, 1943), pp. 144-45.

      24.  J.S. Haldane & J.G. Priestly, _Respiration_ (New Haven:  Yale
           University Press, 1935), pp. 223-24.

   

       Berg pays lip service to the idea of dealing with the possibility 
   of looking at combined effects:

   

             An analysis of the combined effects of carbon monoxide, 
         carbon dioxide and reduced oxygen might be possible on the 
         basis of the research of Haldane and Henderson, but it would 
         not give any significantly different results than what has 
         already been concluded on the basis of reduced oxygen acting 
         alone.  The reason is that the carbon monoxide and carbon 
         dioxide levels are just too low to make any difference.

   

       First, one can never make blithe assumptions about the combined 
   effects of substances.  If two different chemicals both have a lethal 
   dose of one gram, that does _not_ necessarily mean that half a gram of 
   each will be equally lethal.  The two substances may work together such 
   that a quarter gram of each is lethal - or one may be an antidote for 
   the other!  And indeed, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide are 
   synergistic in effect.
   
       Second, there are additional effects that Berg did not look at.  
   The eyewitness reports (as well as some reports, dismissed as forgeries 
   by the Holocaust deniers) point out the fact that people were packed as 
   tightly in the chambers as possible.  Thus once the chambers were 
   sealed, the people's own consumption of oxygen would be a significant 
   factor.  Berg also completely failed to look at other toxic effects, 
   such as nitrogen oxides, soot, and heat.

       The most significant is nitrogen oxides.  According to p. 189 of
   "Clinical Toxicology" by Clinton Thienes and Thomas Haley, NO2 or
   N2O4 concentrations of 250-500 ppm are "rapidly fatal."  And the
   Holtz-Elliot paper shows NOx concentrations as high as 690 ppm -
   interestingly, at a fuel-air ratio of less than 0.03 and an engine
   speed of 600 RPM.  Unfortunately, the paper does not break down the
   NOx emissions by specific compound.

   In his Usenet article, Berg continues:

      In the Holtz paper I cited from 1960, there are two extremely 
      relevant sections which your challenge has prodded me to notice.  
      I urge you to read them also.  The first section is: 'Engine 
      tests' on pages 68 and 69. 

   

       Let's turn to that other reference that has given Mr. Berg a bit 
   of confusion, the paper by Holtz and Elliot in the 1941 Transactions 
   of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Vol. 63, Feb. 1941, 
   pp. 97-105.  On page 98, we find exactly the same graph referred to 
   in Berg's note 22.  But on page 99, we find some very interesting 
   numbers - some of the raw data used to generate the graph. 

       Engines A and B in the paper are four-cylinder four-stroke 
   engines. Engine B is rated at a maximum 70 brake horsepower; it has a 
   displacement of 226 cubic inches and maximum RPM of 2600. 

       Remember these crucial words from Berg's paper: "At full load, 
   which corresponds to a fuel/air ratio of 0.055, the oxygen 
   concentration in the exhaust of any Diesel is 4%."  It has already 
   been noted he is on very shaky ground in claiming this was true for
   "any" diesel, when it's clear that this graph was generated from these 
   two _specific_ engines.  But is he right about the rest? 

       Experiment B-12 ran the engine at 1400 RPM at a fuel/air ratio of 
   0.056 (one thousandth more than Berg's 0.55, but one hopes he won't 
   argue that the extra thousandth makes a difference).  Oxygen was 
   3.44%.  The difference between 3.44 and 4 doesn't look like much, but 
   in percentage terms, it's a difference of 14%.

       Is he right about full load?  Well, it depends on what he means 
   by "full load."  If he is talking about maximum rated torque at the 
   given RPM, yes.  But if he's talking about full power output, no.  
   Experiment B-12 was run with a net output of 37.8 HP.

       Is he right about "any diesel?"  Turn to the discusson by H. E. 
   Degler, University of Texas professor of mechanical engineering, on 
   p. 104: 

          "Engine manufacturers and operators have been increasing 
      jacket-water temperatures in recent years, some as high as 212 F at 
      atmospheric pressure, thus taking advantage of the latent-heat 
      cooling effect in addition to the sensible-heat removal.  These 
      higher temperatures will reduce the "chilling effect of direct 
      oxidation reactions," as mentioned by the authors, and assure 
                                                             ^^^^^^
      lower CO, decrease aldehydes, and reduce the free carbon in the
      ^^^^^^^^ 
      engine exhaust.

   So it seems there are some other considerations which affect exhaust 
   gas composition.  Without more information on exactly what kind of 
   engine was used, there's no way of knowing if Soviet diesels used 
   those higher water temperatures.  Yet from two engines Berg thinks he 
   knows what's true for "any diesel." 

       Let's look at some text of the Holtz-Elliot paper on p. 99:

         Although Fig. 2 [the same graph Berg uses as Fig. 6 of his own 
      paper] presents data on exhaust-gas composition at fuel-
      air ratios on the rich side, such conditions of operation are not 
      normal and were obtained in these tests by changing the adjustment 
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
      of the stop limiting the travel of the rack on the fuel pump of 
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
      engine B.  After this change the fuel injected at full throttle was 
      increased by approximately 60 per cent. 

   

   Now, these are out of normal range.  But the technique used was not 
   overloading.  It was adjustment of the fuel system.  And they said 
   nothing about restricting the air intake as was done in experiments
   performed by Pattle et al.  One must wonder what would happen if they 
   tried doing _both_? 


   [Berg:]
      In 1984 I wrote the following in my article on page 38:
          "For all their efforts they would have had an average 
          concentration of less than 0.4% carbon monoxide and more than 4%
          oxygen."

   [Scott Mullins:]
      I'm sorry, but this is simply false. The Elliot-Davis paper that 
      you cite _clearly_ demonstrates that diesel engines can generate 
      CO concentrations of approximately 1.0% and O2 concentrations less 
      than 2.0% at fuel/air ratios _less_than_stoichiometric_. For proof 
      please see figure 4 on page 333 of the Elliot-Davis paper. 

      [Note: "stoichiometric" means the ratio at which there is just 
      enough oxygen to burn all the fuel completely.  That ratio is 
      approximately 0.068 for the Holtz-Elliot paper.  It is also 
      referred to as the "chemically correct ratio."]
       
   [Berg:]
      What I wrote is not false at all. Figure 4 shows some data taken 
      beyond the normal operating range of the engine.  From the upper 
      limit of the normal operating range to stoichiometric, there is 
      still quite a stretch. Read Elliott and Davis again.  You can only 
      get to stoichiometric by operating at GREATER than FULL LOAD.  
      Read pages 334 and 335. 


       Our old friend, Fig. 6 from Berg's paper, shows up in this reference 
   (Elliot-Davis) as well (they call it Fig. 2).  But Elliot-Davis doesn't 
   have the raw data found in the older Holtz-Elliot paper. 

       Let's look at that raw data, specifically experiment B-70 at the top 
   of p. 99 in the Holtz-Elliot paper.  The fuel/air ratio is 0.07 (greater 
   than the chemically correct ratio).  The speed is 1400 RPM.  What is the 
   load?  Is it indeed "GREATER than FULL LOAD?"

       Well, again it depends on what Berg means by this.  The power 
   output is only 40.20HP (70 maximum).

       What is the exhaust composition?  CO 0.7% - very bad.  CO2 13.8%  
   (Getting worse - CO and CO2 are synergistic, something Berg completely 
   failed to mention in his paper.) 

       What is the oxygen content?  Oxygen content is down to 0.8%.  
   Forget the carbon monoxide.  An atmosphere with less than 1% oxygen 
   kills all by itself.  

       Mr. Berg has volunteered to breathe diesel exhaust to show how 
   safe it is.  One wonders if he would still willing to do that if the 
   exhaust composition were set to less than one percent oxygen and he
   were stuck in a fairly small chamber so he starts using up the 
   existing oxygen relatively quickly.  (This was the situation at 
   Treblinka, where people were crammed like sardines into the 
   chambers). 

       For all of Berg's claims of how difficult it is to obtain such 
   fuel-air ratios, Holtz and Elliot seemed to have no trouble doing it.
   Berg cannot get around that fact.


   [Berg:]
      If you operate above the Normal Operating Range of fuel/air 
      ratios, you produce excessive quantities of smoke rapidly. That is 
      why I referred to the discussion by E.W. Landen at the end of the 
      Elliott and Davis paper and why I included his diagram as well.  
      At fuel/air ratios beyond about 0.055, the smoke "solid" line 
      becomes almost vertical and that means, according to Landen on 
      page 346: "short engine life." 

   

       Berg still can't understand that there were literally thousands 
   of surplus Soviet engines available.  Wear and damage were not a 
   source of worry.  This engine's dead?  Oh well, hook up the next one 
   and start killing Jews again. 

       And HOW short?  Ten minutes?  A week?  A month?  A year?  Berg 
   doesn't say.  Why not? 

       But is he even right in the first place about the amount of 
   smoke?  Again, let's turn to Holtz and Elliot, page 101: 

       TABLE 4           FREE CARBON IN THE EXHAUST GASES FROM ENGINE B

                         Free carbon in dry exhaust gases
       Fuel-air ratio    Lb per lb                Lb per 1000
        lb per lb         of fuel                   cu ft
          0.01             0.060                    0.047
          0.02             0.034                    0.053
          0.03             0.019                    0.046
          0.04             0.021                    0.068
          0.05             0.029                    0.117
          0.06             0.044                    0.213
          0.07             0.066                    0.361
          0.08             0.091                    0.576


       Let's look at that graph on solid components of smoke Berg talks 
   about.  At a fuel/air ratio of 0.05, the graph shows 4 grams 
   exhausted solid material per hour.  At about 0.57, the graph shows 
   above 16 grams - more than a factor of four. 
   
       Is that true?  Look at the numbers above.  At 0.05, the middle 
   column shows 0.029.  At 0.06 fuel-air ratio, the middle column shows 
   0.044.  That's only 1.5 times the 0.05 output, not four times!  Even at 
   0.07, the output is only 2.3 times as much as the 0.05 output.

       So something appears to be wrong with the graph Berg uses.  
   Either it was done wrong, or done from different engines than in the 
   Holtz-Elliot paper.

       Scott Mullins pointed out why it was done wrong.  The graph Berg 
   cites had its units in grams per hour - that is, the total output by 
   weight.  But Berg has cackled gleefully about how it's the percentage 
   of CO in exhaust that determines lethality, not total volume.   (An 
   oversimplification, by the way - there are other factors such as 
   pressure.)  Thus he should know very well that it is the percentage 
   of soot in the exhaust which gives short engine life, not the gross 
   amount - especially since his _own reference_ makes this point. 

       Berg is _definitely_ distorting Landen by quoting out of context 
   - another technique of Holocaust denial.  Let's turn to page 346 of 
   the Elliot-Davis paper, and see the _entire_ context of the words 
   "short engine life." 

       "[T]he quantities of material sticking in an engine in the form of 
   deposits amounts to possibly 0.0001% or 0.01% of the fuel burned.  
   The 0.0001% figure corresponds to an engine with a normal life while 
   the 0.01% figure means short engine life due to heavy deposits."  
   Now, this is the percentage _sticking_ in the engine, not the percent 
   exhausted, and again it is a percentage of fuel burned, not total 
   volume per hour.  So Berg's graph is another red herring.  Note that 
   even if the amount of soot as a percentage of fuel burned were 
   _constant_, when measured in grams per hour, doubling the fuel/air
   ratio will double the _weight_ of output.

       There are other solid components besides carbon, but on page 100 
   of the Holtz-Elliot paper it is shown that even at a high fuel/air 
   ratio, carbon makes up 99.1% of the soot.


   [Berg:]
      There is some technical complexity to this subject matter,

       True.  Berg hopes people will be dazzled by his science and take his 
   word for everything he says, not checking up on him thinking it's too 
   complicated to understand.


   [Berg:]
      Exterminationists who have enormous resources available to them 
      have been too lazy--to put it as mildly as one imagine. 

       Here is the work.  Berg was right about one thing - everyone just 
   assumed that since it was an engine, it must have been carbon 
   monoxide.  It's one of those things that "everone knows."  The 
   problem was, the Nazi killers disposed of the evidence. 

       The courts and the historians believed the witnesses that gassing 
   happened.  They were lawyers and historians, not diesel engineers.  
   No, things weren't up to the standard of forensics used in modern 
   American courts.  But that doesn't prove that the gassing didn't 
   happen.  All it proves is that the exact cause of death may have 
   been a little different than what people thought. 


   [Berg:]
      Before you accuse someone of murder, make sure you have a murder 
      weapon that makes sense.  

       Sophistry.  Murder doesn't make sense period.  But it happened.  
   It happened at Treblinka, Sobibor, and Belzec.  It happened at 
   Auschwitz.  It happened to the Armenians.  It happened to millions of 
   kulaks starved to death during Stalin's forced collectivizations.  It 
   happened in Cambodia, in Rwanda.

       The Nazis tried diesels because they were available.  They 
   probably never realized how stupid they were.  It made sense to the 
   people who did it.  It worked.  That's all they needed or cared to 
   know.  They were killers, not diesel engineers. 


   [Berg:]
      Surely, you must agree that to make a lethal Diesel gas chamber, a 
      lot more is involved than simply connecting the exhaust pipe of a 
      Diesel-driven tank or truck to a closed room.  Otherwise, just 
      headaches. 

      Surely you must agree that to make a lethal Diesel gas chamber, a 
      lot more is involved than simply turning an adjustment screw 
      somewhere on the Diesel engine.  Otherwise, just headaches. 

   

       Or asphyxiation, or death by pulmonary edema due to NOx 
   poisoning, or some combination of toxic effects.  Berg should have 
   read the Holtz and Elliot paper, and should have done more research 
   on toxicology as well.  To make a scientific case, a lot more is 
   involved than simply reading one graph based on two engines and
   handwaving through the toxicology.


   [Berg:]
      Surely, you must also agree that to make a lethal Diesel gas 
      chamber, a lot more is involved than simply restricting the air 
      intake to the engine.  Otherwise, a barely noticeable effect. (See 
      my tabulation from Henderson and Haggard.) 

       Holtz and Elliot show it's quite possible.  Pfannenstiel noticed 
   an effect.  He called it asphyxiation.  Gerstein noticed an effect.  
   He called it death.  The Jews - well, they noticed too, but that was 
   the last thing they ever noticed. 


   [Berg:]
      The fact, which you may indeed never concede (and that is entirely 
      up to you), is that any Diesel gaschamber method is absurd. 

       Mass murder is absurd by any method.  But it happens.  After 
   reading Holtz and Elliot, and looking more deeply into the toxicology, 
   it becomes clear that it may not be the best method available, but it 
   is feasible.


   [Berg:]
      Can anyone really believe the Germans would have used Diesel 
      exhaust as a source of CO, when they had 18% to 35% CO?  These 
      were essentially the same people who built the first jet and 
      rocket-propelled fighter airplanes, the first ballistic missiles, 
      who also invented the gasoline engine, Diesel engine and even the 
      automobile. 

       Yes, but they weren't the ones building the gas chambers.  Berg is 
   dishonestly trying to slip past the idea that every German knew as much 
   as every other German about all these technical issues.  The rocket 
   scientists were off at Peenemunde building, well, rockets.  What did 
   Wirth and Globocnik do before the war?  Were they diesel engineers?

       Berg's argument only carries weight if the people who were trying 
   to use diesels _knew_ that they were a bad choice.

       In fact, Berg argues out of both sides of his mouth.  On the one 
   hand, he tells us how terribly, terribly complicated it is to change 
   the composition of the exhaust gas of a diesel, proving the murderers 
   couldn't possibly have done it.  On the other hand, he tells us how 
   brilliant German scientists and engineers were, proving - they 
   couldn't possibly have done it!? 

       Well, no.  Not quite.  Berg argues they _wouldn't_ have done it, 
   because there were better methods.  His reason tells him that his way 
   is the best, and the Nazis would have done things only in the best 
   way, so any other story is a "dirty Jewish hoax."  However, as the 
   eminent revisionist historian Greg Raven, associate editor of the 
   Journal for Historical Review (which Berg tells people to buy all the 
   time) says: 

       "It is sophistry to proclaim that something must have happened a
       certain way because your 'reason' demands it."

       With Berg's "better method" (the producer gas-powered vehicles 
   which put out 18% to 35% CO), not only was there so high a 
   concentration of CO that explosion was a danger (as he himself 
   admitted with no recognition of its significance in an unquoted part 
   of his Usenet article), but also that the vehicles in question  had 
   an alternative use, as vehicles.  The diesel engines from captured 
   Soviet tanks had no productive use - while the German army did use 
   some captured tanks, they were hardly able even to keep up with the 
   repair demand for their own tanks, and thousands of Soviet tanks sat 
   in place for the duration of the war.  Furthermore, diesel fuel is 
   cheaper to make than gasoline - it's not so highly refined.  So when 
   Berg argues that there were better methods, he's only talking from a 
   technical standpoint.  When looked at from the viewpoint of an 
   economist, suddenly it makes a _lot_ more sense. 

                    *******************************

       So for all his intellectual arrogance, Berg does not analyze 
   things completely - he doesn't look at _all_ aspects of the question. 

       That's the scientific end and analytical end.  But there's 
   another, more important aspect.  There were witnesses.  Berg ignores 
   the testimonies of Gerstein, of Pfannenstiel, of Suchomel, of Fuchs.  
   He says they must be liars or lunatics or victims of torture or 
   coercion. 

       Suchomel appeared on camera for Lanzmann's documentary "Shoah" 
   and didn't deny anything.  He could have simply refused to appear.  
   Did the filmmaker torture him? 

       Gerstein tried to get the story out _during the war_.  He told 
   the Swedish that Jews were being killed at Belzec, Sobibor, and 
   Treblinka.  He told trusted friends that killing was going on.  So 
   how did the Soviets torture him into doing that? 

       Pfannenstiel testified many times, and as Berg's own paper notes, 
   his testimony always supported the Gerstein statement.  Berg actually 
   oversimplified - Pfannenstiel contradicted Gerstein on some details, 
   but not about gassing. 

       Because Berg has a scientific "theory" that "proves" that diesel 
   gas chambers are "stupid," all eyewitness testimony is dismissed. 

       Well, someone once "proved" that bumblebees cannot possibly fly.  
   Do you see bumblebees walking everywhere? 

       When facts contradict his theory, Berg revises the facts.  He is 
   no honest scientist.

       Has this paper proved that gassing did occur at Treblinka with 
   diesel engines?  No.  It has only proved that contrary to Berg's 
   claims, there is sufficient reason to believe that it is technically
   possible.  To try to claim any more would be to engage in the 
   same violation of scientific principles that Berg commits.


   Referenced works:

   Berg, Friedrich Paul: "The Diesel Gas Chambers: Myth Within a Myth,"
   Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 5 No. 1.

   -- Usenet alt.revisionism article <2vt3du$t0b@mary.iia.org>, "Diesel
   A, B, C's and Scott Mullins," 12 July 1994.

   Elliot, Martin and Davis, Rogers: "Composition of Diesel Exhaust 
   Gas," SAE Quarterly Transactions, July 1950.

   Elliot, Martin and Holtz, John: "The Significance of Diesel-Exhaust-Gas
   Analysis," Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 
   Vol. 63, Feb. 1941.

   Friedlander, Saul: "Counterfeit Nazi: The Ambiguity of Good" 
   (Knopf, New York, 1969).

   Pattle et al, "The Toxicity of Fumes from a Diesel Engine Under Four
   Different Running Conditions," British Journal of Industrial 
   Medicine, Vol. 14, 1957.

   Thienes, Clinton and Haley, Thomas: "Clinical Toxicology," (Lea &
   Febiger, Philadelphia, 1972).

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Thu Jun 27 07:32:47 PDT 1996
Article: 46266 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-2.sprintlink.net!ipac.net!jolt.pagesat.net!news.uoregon.edu!hunter.premier.net!netnews.worldnet.att.net!uunet!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: a surprise
Date: 27 Jun 1996 00:16:45 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <4qt1vd$eli@access1.digex.net>
References: <4qdqfe$i3f@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com> <4qlc6q$fi4@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> <31CF0B81.8AD@unb.ca> <4qnitk$9ut@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article <4qnitk$9ut@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>,   wrote:
>	Some day they may post what they think debate consists of.  

    Been there, done that.  Pay attention to everything that is posted.
If you are missing posts, get a new service provider.  That is the Giwer
Rule.

    Did you ever find those computations of the number of calories needed
to deal with the water in order to ignite a corpse?  Remember, show all
assumptions and formulas used.

    If you ever get around to it, we might have something resembling a
debate.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Thu Jun 27 18:00:05 PDT 1996
Article: 46316 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: NIZKOR AND DENIERS
Date: 26 Jun 1996 10:25:24 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 114
Message-ID: <4qrh8k$36h@access5.digex.net>
References: <4qm4bv$u7u@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4qq42s$t2n@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4qq42s$t2n@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
Ehrlich606  wrote:
>In article <4qm4bv$u7u@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, gmcfee@ibm.net (Gord
>McFee) writes:
>Another problem here.  Some of the FAQs or whatever you call them are not
>particularly strong.  For example, the matter of the soap making.  As we
>all know, the only evidence for this activity was given by Mazur at
>Nuremberg,

    Not so!  Two British POWs, Witton and Neely, also testified.


>who claimed that his boss, Dr. Spanner, made about 400
>kilograms  (?)

    25 kg.  Your recollection of the digit '4' may have come from the 40
bodies in Mazur's testimony.

    Damn unreliable eyewitnesses.  :)


>of such soap which Dr. Spanner reserved for his personal
>use.  Although the Nizkor historian admits that Dr. Spanner was
>investigated anent these charges more than once, and was never prosecuted,
>this individual nevertheless insists on concluding -- with a question mark
>-- that Dr. Spanner could well have done so.

    There are some inconsistencies even in the postwar history.  There is
a letter from the Flensburg prosecutor saying that the case against
Spanner was dropped because an investigation concluded there was no soap
made "at that time" (whenever "that time" is; I have not seen the letter
to which the prosecutor's letter responded).  But the Institute for
Contemporary History says that the prosecutors were told that soaplike
substances were the natural byproduct of chemical maceration of anatomical
specimens.  Of course, this may be the basis for the prosecutor's letter. 
But Mazur says the soapmaking was not accidental. 


>Since Mazur's testimony in
>its entirety contains elements that are even more far out than the above,
>and which no responsible historian accepts, I frankly consider such an
>analysis a slander on Dr. Spanner's memory.

    It is an unsettled question.  The "accidental byproduct" story may be
true, or may be a convenient defense which successfully hoodwinked the
prosecutors.

    My own position on this is that even if the story is true, and an
experiment was tried, the following points should be kept in mind:

    - There is no evidence any of the corpses used were murdered for the
      specific purpose of making soap, or even murdered at all.

    - There is no evidence that any of the corpses used were Jewish.

    - This story refutes the "RIF" story all by itself, as there is no
      reason to do this experiment if it was already known how to 
      mass-produce soap from human fat (apparently nobody realized this
      at the time).

    - It would appear to have been a "brainstorm" of someone at the
      Institute.

    - Given the timing, when the tide had turned against Germany, I
      can see this as being a desperation measure rather than a gratuitous
      atrocity.

One myth that is used to advantage by Holocaust deniers is that the Nazis
were infinitely evil and sadistic.  In my study of the subject since
coming here, I have learned that this is not so, that the reality is far
>from  the myth I learned as a child.  They were murderers, yes, but even
while engaging in that evil they did (officially) have a sort of ethical
system about it, as contradictory as that sounds.  (It might be easier to
think of the parallel with capital punishment in this country, where some
states kill murderers but try to do so in the least cruel way. That too
seems contradictory.) 

    Many of the most lurid stories were not official policy, but
individual brutality by individual sadists encouraged by the atmosphere of
the time.  One could say the same of My Lai - it was not official US
policy yet was certainly fostered by the atmosphere in which the war was
prosecuted.

    For example, the tanned human skin at Buchenwald (and a U. S.  Army
pathology report _does_ confirm the human origin of three samples)  and
shrunken heads occurred under the regime of Commandant Karl Koch, a man so
corrupt that the Allies never had a chance to try him because the SS
_itself_ executed him for crimes, apparently including crimes against the
prisoners in his care.

    The infamous Himmler Posen speech and the SS court judgement against
Max Taubner both support this point - they contain the idea: "We must kill
them, it is our duty, but we must be civilized about it."  But really,
that is the rule for an ordinary army.  One tries to kill the enemy, but
there are still limits on "civilized war."  (Talk about an oxymoron!) 

    Deniers use the "infinitely evil and sadistic" myth to pose arguments
of the form "Anyone who would try mass murder must be infinitely sadistic
and evil; here is a case where the Nazis were not infinitely sadistic and
evil, therefore the Nazis never tried mass murder."

    The first premise is, of course, false.  Hiroshima and Dresden could
arguably be called mass murder.  Were the allies infinitely sadistic and
evil?

    Of course, this brings up another great fallacious argument I have
seen on more than one occasion, one which boils down to: "The Nazis didn't
commit mass murder because you did it too." 

    Posted/emailed.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Thu Jun 27 18:00:11 PDT 1996
Article: 46343 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!news.serv.net!news.ac.net!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: the parallels
Date: 23 Jun 1996 22:15:04 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 71
Message-ID: <4qktn8$gjj@access1.digex.net>
References: <4qiugm$1dc@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> <4qkg7s$lp4@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article <4qkg7s$lp4@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
RuthSommer  wrote:
>I agree with Matt Giwer's feelings about the horror stories that Jews
>indulge in.
>
>I think that for Jews to be so fixated on this Holocaust thing, and to
>actually make it a part of their religion, is pathological.

    It is part of the religion?  I really hadn't noticed that.  I cannot
find it in the Torah nor in the Talmud.

    There is one day set aside for a special memorial each year.  There is
also a day set aside in this country for memory of our war dead.  So does
this make war part of our national religion? 


>What does it
>do to up and coming generations, to their minds I mean, to constantly harp
>on dead Jews and cooked Jews and gassed Jews and steamed Jews and cremated
>Jews?
>
>All these survival accounts and tales they spin, it could be neuroticizing
>the entire Jewish younger generation.

    The sincerity of your concern overwhelms me.


>Above it, it's filling their minds
>with hate towards Germans and towards ALL people who aren't Jewish.

    That's very strange.  Because what I have noticed it doing is filling
minds with concern about things like Bosnia.  But they aren't Jewish.  In
fact, a lot of the victims were Moslems, whom Jews are supposed to hate.
Something doesn't add up here.


>Is it
>a good thing for Jews to be taught to hate non-Jews?  Isn't that what the
>rabbis are now doing with the Yom Hashoah rituals?

    If that's what they're trying, they're certainly doing a poor job of
it.



>It's a hatefest really.

    Really?  Your evidence?  Or do you prefer fact-free opinionating?


>Jews need to learn to be part of the wider
>community and stop thinking of themselves as a persecuted little ghetto
>within it.  They need to learn to be tolerant and civil towards others,

    Well, all this I can agree with, but ...


>instead of the hate-filled bigots that they're being trained to become by
>their rabbis and by this fixation on the Holocaust in general.

    ... not this part.

    But that's right, you've implied you're not much on this evidence
thing.  You'd apparently prefer to exchange opinions rather than facts. 

    Posted/emailed.

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access4.digex.net Thu Jun 27 20:58:17 PDT 1996
Article: 46362 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!fury.berkshire.net!news.albany.net!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Giwer finally realized this?
Date: 22 Jun 1996 23:05:15 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <4qic9b$imj@access4.digex.net>
References: <4q2qbf$2r1@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com> <4q750f$84f@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>  <4qaq9d$ksa@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net

In article <4qaq9d$ksa@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>,
 wrote:
[snip]

>>Translation of relevant part (courtesy of Mr. Van-Alstine):
>
>	Excuse me but which one is the translation?  I really do not have all
>that much time to play with Nizkor save on my terms.  

    Does this mean that for the past five months he has been posting on
someone else's terms?  And he only just now figured out his own terms?  I
guess that 163 IQ isn't all it's cracked up to be....

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Thu Jun 27 20:58:18 PDT 1996
Article: 46367 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news1.io.org!winternet.com!n1ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!scramble.lm.com!news.math.psu.edu!news.cse.psu.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken.llnl.gov!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Soviate style McVay Justice:  how to spot aryans
Date: 23 Jun 1996 09:08:15 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <4qjfjv$poj@access1.digex.net>
References: <4nus3o$flg@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4qd8a6$n56@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com> <31ca5836.4868839 <4qf2be$srr@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:1554 alt.revisionism:46367

In article <4qf2be$srr@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>jmorris@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (John Morris) wrote:
>>The law was a holdover from the criminal statutes that Canada
>>inherited from Britain. 
>
>	That is hardly an excuse.  
>
>The actual law was passed in the fourteenth
>>century to protect the Magnates from slander. Britain repealed its
>>false news law in the 1880s. Canada never repealed it because it was
>>never used until Zuendel was charged under it in a private prosecution
>>whcih was unfortunately supported by the Attorney General's office of
>>Ontario. Your "blatant misrepresentation" is actually a minor quibble
>>over the meaning of "news."
>
>	Excuse me, just how is news defined in Canada?  

    Excuse me, but wouldn't the proper question be: how was news defined
in Britain in the fourteenth century? 


>
>>But I will say this: passing such a law was a disgrace; prosecution
>>under it was a disgrace.

    I agree.

    Though I'm sure Mr. Morris knows that this will not keep certain
people from claiming that he really wants to censor others.

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Fri Jun 28 10:39:53 PDT 1996
Article: 46476 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: The true revisionist theme
Date: 26 Jun 1996 20:41:20 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 117
Message-ID: <4qslbg$qiq@access5.digex.net>
References: <4pq44f$2o8@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com> <4qntjc$nk@atlas.uniserve.com> <4qoh46$m66@news-e2d.gnn.com> <4qpm13$6uc@atlas.uniserve.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4qpm13$6uc@atlas.uniserve.com>,
Hilary Ostrov  wrote:
>In <4qoh46$m66@news-e2d.gnn.com>, Widmann@gnn.com (Richard Widmann)
>wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>Revisionism is a label.  It has as much and as little value as just 
>>about any other label.  Classical music is a label as well.  Listen 
>>closely and you will find many different ideas. 
>
>Indeed it is ... and one, I might add, that many of the authors to
>whom you referred appear to have expropriated so that others might be
>persuaded that they are engaging in the accepted practice of
>historical revisionism.  Unfortunately, the works of those to whom you
>have referred do not meet the standards and criteria for this practice
>and consequently have devalued this particular label.
>
>But I do find your music analogy somewhat apt.  Those writers to whom
>you have referred tend to hit the same few notes - reminds me of much
>of contemporary symphonic music which to my ear is a veritable
>caucophony.  But if one listens carefully, one will find that they are
>all variations on the same theme.  In my humble opinion, of course.

    I have to agree and disagree with both positions.

    Not that a certain very prolific poster I could name has noticed, but
I have tried to stay away from addressing any argument by saying, "You're
an antisemite" or "You're a Nazi" even when the antisemitism was quite
overt. It is a logical fallacy (check the "fallacies" feature on Nizkor).
2+2=4 even if a Nazi says so.  So I have tried to stick to addressing the
substance (or pointing out the lack thereof) in arguments.

    In my experience, there _is_ a higher than normal level of
antisemitism, racism, and/or Nazi sympathy among "revisionists" than among
the population at large.  But I am quite prepared to state that there are
those who are not, and others about whom I am still not sure - all I can
say is, I have seen no evidence. 

    So I was not thrilled with Dr. Keren's use of Milton Kleim as
emblematic of "revisionism" as a whole.  I side with Mr. Widmann on this
one.  But I have to side with Hilary in saying that they are variations on
a theme, albeit one other than she intended.  That theme is: inconsistency
of standards of evidence and argument.  It is for _this_ reason that I use
"sneer quotes" around the word "revisionism."

    As an example: the rarity of documentation for gas chambers is cited
as evidence of their nonexistence, but the rarity of documentation of the
true resettlement of the Jews (railroad records, etc.) is not viewed with
similar suspicion.  Russians can destroy evidence but Germans cannot?

    Despite Mr. Widmann's (proper) rejection of the notion of painting
with a broad brush, revisionist methodology - and here it is a true
Johnny one-note from all I have seen - holds that since some eyewitness
testimonies are unreliable, _all_ of them are, _even the ones from SS
men_.  (Except, of course, for those which claim torture at the hands of
their interrogators.  Despite the fact that genuine criminals do confess
and then think better of it, claiming coercion in an attempt to get off,
apparently no SS man could do that.)

    I've rebuked my ostensible allies both privately and in public on
occasion, perhaps not often enough.  I think that those revisionists who
are sincere in their beliefs (and I do believe they exist) should be more
willing to do the same.  Greg Raven _has_ presented blatantly dishonest
and distorted editing and paraphrases.  Mark Weber _has_ quoted Gitta
Sereny deceptively and out of context on the soap issue.  I don't care how
dubious you find even the story of the Mazur experiment, simple
intellectual honesty demands that if you are quoting an author to support
your argument, you should admit those points where the author does not
agree with you.  Friedrich Berg did a lot of handwaving in his work on
diesel exhaust - read my writeup on Nizkor, but also look at the end where
I acknowledge that I have not proved that anything of the sort _did_
happen, only that Berg made so many mistakes that he fell far short of
making his case that it was nearly impossible. 

    If I were really in the business of defending a Holocaust myth at all
costs, I would not be saying what I am about to say.  Because I am telling
the revisionists what needs to be done to clean up revisionism to make it
respectable.  It's not to get rid of the antisemites and Nazi
sympathizers.  It's to get rid of - or at least acknowledge the
shortcomings of - those who are approaching this business as defense
lawyers whose purpose is to get their clients off the hook by creating
"reasonable doubt" by any means possible, no matter how ridiculous the
argument.  (The most extreme example I know: Degrelle's letter to the Pope
in which, in order to "prove" that there was not enough time to pull all
the gold teeth, he claimed that it was faster to pull a tooth from a live
patient than from a corpse.) 

    I have my doubts that the numbers at Auschwitz were over a million. 
However, part of that is due to the testimony (oops!) produced by Mattogno
that the registration records were misinterpreted, and that the number
_sent_ to Auschwitz was not as great as previously believed.  Lowering the
death toll for this reason really doesn't lend any support to the case
that there were no gas chambers.  And I know from anecdotal survivor
testimony that some people _were_ shipped into and then out of Auschwitz
to other work sites without ever being registered there.  Unfortunately,
that still doesn't explain what happened to the unregistered people unable
to work.

    I told Al Baron some months ago that catching a liar does not entitle
you to claim that all those who say the same thing are liars - if it did,
I could have pointed to all the lies told by revisionists and declared
victory two years ago.  But revisionists have to acknowledge the same
thing about eyewitness testimony, and it is certainly the case that when I
see so many lies (and by this I include lies by omission, the most
frequent sort) I am not willing to trust anything I have not doublechecked
for myself.

    Someone recently asked (in essence) what difference it would make if
everything I believed about Auschwitz turned out to be false.  Not a bit,
really.  What makes a difference to me is that it be established using
consistent and _honest_ standards of evidence and reasoning.

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Fri Jun 28 13:24:09 PDT 1996
Article: 46502 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: MATT GIWER REPORT for Jun 10-13: 21.1% / 26.1%
Date: 27 Jun 1996 01:36:15 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 95
Message-ID: <4qt6kf$ft5@access1.digex.net>
References: <4q9apb$7mi@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4qki0q$t82@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> <4qp7ia$fn8@access5.digex.net> <4qpgcn$no1@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article <4qpgcn$no1@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>,   wrote:
>mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>
>>In article <4qki0q$t82@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
>>  wrote:
>>>jmorris@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (John Morris) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 23 Jun 1996 09:26:03 GMT, mgiwer@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>>jmorris@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (John Morris) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 22 Jun 1996 20:00:43 GMT, mgiwer@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>>>>>	You fail to note that the Gang of Six at Nizkor conspires by email to
>>>>>>>prevent discussion of revisionism on alt.revisionism.
>>>
>>>>>>Mr. Giwer, you have frequently posted my name in alt.revisionism as a
>>>>>>member of this so-called "Gang of Six."
>>>
>>>>>>I categorically deny conspiring with anyone, by e-mail or otherwise,
>>>>>>to prevent discussion on any Usenet newsgroup.
>>>
>>>>>>Please post your evidence that I have been involved in such a
>>>>>>conspiracy, or withdraw the accusation.
>>>
>>>>>	I got the contributor's list from Nizkor.  Tell them to take you off of
>>>>>it if you do not want the honor.  Until they take you off, don't
>>>>>complain to me.  
>>>
>>>>Your response is unsatisfactory. It does not address the issue at
>>>>hand. So what if I have contributed my volunteer labour to the Nizkor
>>>>web pages? You have accused me of conspiring to prevent discussion on
>>>>alt.revisionism; I deny this and challenge you to post evidence of
>>>>such a conspiracy or to withdraw the accusation.
>>>
>>>    There have been three posts referencing Nizkor email discussions to
>>>plan how to deal with people.  It is clearly implied that it is the
>>>Nizkor gang.  As they appear to all have the new approach the next day,
>>>the posts have been confirmed.
>
>>    Except that I have elsewhere been named as one of the "Gang of Six," 
>>yet my approach has not changed.  It appears we have a very unreliable
>>eyewitness once again. 
>
>
>>>	When you hang out with the wrong crowd you get tarred with the same
>>>brush.  Sort of like lying with dogs, hro excepted from this one.  
>
>>    Then Matt Giwer must now admit it was reasonable and acceptable to
>>call him an Nazi and antisemite.  For a good many of the revisionist crowd
>>are antisemites and neo-Nazi types.  He was just tarred with the same
>>brush. 
>
>	Then you have no gripe, do you?

    I have not used that brush.


>All you have to do now is support your
>claim about the "revisionist" crowd.  

    Milton Kleim, Jr. will tell you himself that he is a National
Socialist.

    Friedrich Berg, when he graced us with his presence, spoke of "filthy
Talmudic logic" and all the Jews in Poland, spottable by the fact that
they were ugly and they answered questions with questions.

    Michael Hoffman II gave the standard dishonestly edited and distorted
list of out-of-context quotes from the Talmud.  He said Paul Shrader, the
screenwriter for "The Last Temptation of Christ" (which Hoffman considered
anti-Christian) was Jewish (Shrader is not).

    There is a start.  And they all posted here.

    But I have not used the broad brush.  I have never claimed that they
were all in that category.  Quite the opposite.


>	Of course all that you have to point to are the self-avowed nazi types
>and then to claim the reverse is true in an amazing exercise of a known
>fallacy. 

    I have not exercised the fallacy, however.  You are cordially invited
to document any occasion where I have asserted guilt by association,
either against you or any other person.  I am quite confident that you
cannot.  Yet you have done it to me.  You exercised the fallacy, not I.


-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Fri Jun 28 13:24:10 PDT 1996
Article: 46507 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: MATT GIWER REPORT for Jun 1-9: 12.7% / 18.3%
Date: 27 Jun 1996 03:03:36 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 143
Message-ID: <4qtbo8$gu6@access1.digex.net>
References: <4q8dtd$3i7@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4qkkk0$ni9@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> <4qp5n9$ebv@access5.digex.net> <4qpis2$no1@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article <4qpis2$no1@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>,   wrote:
>mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>
>>In article <4qkkk0$ni9@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
>>  wrote:
>>>mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <4qj4ug$9g@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>> Mike Stein wrote:
>>[snip]
>>>>>>    The were not driven out by namecalling.  Tim McCarthy certainly gave
>>>>>>as good as he got from the word go.
>>>>>
>>>>>>    They were driven out because they were exposed as dishonest and
>>>>>>hypocritical, and realized that they were not advancing the cause any.
>>>>>
>>>>>>    The only difference between you and them is, you don't seem to mind be
>>>>>>be embarrassed by being caught in hypocrisy or in a lie.  That is your
>>>>>>problem, not mine.
>>>>>
>>>>>	Thank you for being the first to post the evidence I was looking for.
>>>>>You folks declared victory.  You are now repeating the one sided
>>>>>declaration of victory.  
>>>
>>>>    It seems to me the gentlemen who left admitted defeat.  Contrary to
>>>>what is claimed, they were met with more than just name-calling (although
>>>>yes, there was some - but you provide your share).  They were presented
>>>>with logic and documentation (and I am talking not just about
>>>>documentation of evidence for the orthodox history, but documentation that
>>>>their own cited sources were used deceptively and dishonestly).
>>>
>>>>    Many of then explicitly said they wanted open debate.  That game was
>>>>agreed to.  Debate is a game with well-understood rules.  One of them is,
>>>>you get caught falsifying your evidence, you lose.
>>>
>>>>    Who agreed to play your game?  That is a relevant distinction.
>>>
>>> Debate was not the method here.  Personal and family harrassment was the
>>>name of the method here.  
>
>>    Please post your evidence that any of the other people who left were
>>victims of personal and family harrassment.
>
>
>>>	In my experience the constant claims of debate ring very hollow.  
>
>>    Of course you dishonestly insinuate all are complicit in the actions
>>of one or two.  Who besides Marduk emailed your son?  By your standard you
>>are complicit in the mailbombing directed against Ken McVay before you
>>ever appeared here.  It was someone who agreed with you, ergo by your
>>standards I am entitled to call that the "revisionist" method of debate,
>>not just the methods of the one perpetrator. 
>
>	In case you folks have missed it, it would be a trivial matter to shut
>down Nizkor.  
>
>	Beyond that, the only thing I read from the Nizkor types on the matter
>were "denials" and "couldn't happen to a nicer guy" kind of comments.
>But you know that.  So the Nizkorites were publically approving to the
>point of encouraging that clown who idirect told combase, had root
>access at idirect.  
>
>	So have no complicity in any mailbombing of McVay as I neither condoned
>more encouraged the person who did it.  You holohuggers did both.  That
>makes you folks complicite.  
>
>>    I am prepared to debate you.  But you would have to start providing
>>evidence and meeting the burden of proof for your claims.  You seem to
>>have some trouble with that.  Would you care to finally produce your
>>calculations for the number of calories needed to deal with the water in a
>>corpse for cremation?  Or show how you arrived at the 30,000 kcal figure
>>you gave without any mention of the assumptions or formula used?
>
>	I made no claim of 30,000 kcal, but you know that.  Obviously you are
>not prepared to debate honestly as yet.  

    Obviously you are prepared to lie and deceive.  DejaNews has a long
memory.


   Linkname: Deja News Retrieved Document
        URL:
          http://xp4.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?recnum=%3c4pvr85$t4r@dfw-ixne
          ws8.ix.netcom.com%3e&server=dnserver.dbapr
          
Subject:      Re: Dresden?
From:         mgiwer@ix.netcom.com
Date:         1996/06/16
Message-Id:   <4pvr85$t4r@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>
References:    <4ppguv$ibm@newsbf02.n
ews.aol.com> <4pq95k$slh@d31rz2.Stanford.EDU> <4psh8e$9im@dfw-Ixnews8.ix.netcom
.com> 
Organization: images incarnate
X-Netcom-Date: Sat Jun 15  9:24:05 PM CDT 1996
Newsgroups:   alt.revisionism

mvanalst@rbi.com (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:

>In article <4psh8e$9im@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>, mgiwer@ix.netcom.com
>(Matt Giwer) wrote:

>> rjg@d31rz2.Stanford.EDU (Richard J. Green) wrote:


[much deleted - refer to the URL above to see the full text - mstein]

>> You are the one supporting 2 kg of coke for each body after the first.

>According the Walter Mu"ller, of the engineering firm Allach, in regards
>to the fuel consumption of incineration furnaces:

>"Mu"ller claimed that there was a direct relation between increased use
>and increased economy. If the cold furnace required 175 kilograms (kg) of
>coke to start up a new incineration, it needed only 100 kg. if it had been
>used the day before; a second and third incineration on the same day would
>not require any extra fuel thanks to the compressed air; and those that
>followed would call for only small amounts of extra energy..." (_Anatomy_,
>pp.185-186.)

>How small is "amounts of extra energy?" Two kg of coke's worth?

        As you will need on the order of 30,000 kcal you are not going to get
that out of 2 kg of coke.  That is only a ballpark on boiling out the
water while maintaining the same temperature.


[end excerpt]

    Perhaps you would like to explain how you reconcile your denial with
the above text.  You threw out the line "30,000 kcal" as a "ballpark" on
"boiling out the water."  There certainly seems by any ordinarly reading
of the text to be some association between "30,000 kcal" and boiling out
the water in a corpse (of unspecified weight).  Or did you mean the pot of
water the SS men were using to boil their wienerschnitzel?

    Now perhaps you could add just a leetle scientific precision to your
work.  Remember, your claim, your burden of proof.  You have failed to
meet it.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Sat Jun 29 07:30:34 PDT 1996
Article: 46632 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!en.com!in-news.erinet.com!imci5!pull-feed.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!uunet!inXS.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: 960502: It is amazing that the world has not yet been informed of this
Date: 23 Jun 1996 20:45:32 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <4qkofc$dm4@access1.digex.net>
References:  <4qacpl$5vg@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> <4qetsi$f5a@access5.digex.net> <4qhof7$34f@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article <4qhof7$34f@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>,   wrote:
>mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:

[much prologue snipped re energy input required to ignite a body]

>
>>>	But I can find the right inputs and then be able to make the correct
>>>calculations.  
>
>>    Then please do so.
>
>>    The amount of energy needed to deal with the water is independent of
>>the amount of energy in the body.  We do not have to agree right now on
>>how many calories there are in a human body in order to figure out how
>>many calories are needed.  In order to answer the question of whether the
>>body supplies enough calories, when burned, to repay the energy used to
>>ignite it, we must compute the ignition energy.  Without that, we have no
>>way of knowing if the calories available (whatever they are) would be
>>sufficient.  Correct?
>
>>    So take a 70kg person as your input.  Is 85% water an acceptable
>>assumption?  Compute the number of calories required to deal with the
>>water in cremating a corpse.  You have claimed you can do this
>>calculation.  Please proceed.  Show all your work.  After you have given
>>your number and the computations you used to arrive at that number, I will
>>either agree to it and we can then work on the second half - finding the
>>number of calories actually obtained by burning an average 70kg corpse -
>>or I will tell you why I disagree.
>
>>[Remainder deleted to be dealt with after Mr. Giwer shows the computation
>>he has said he knows how to do.]
>
>	Why do you not show me how to do it.

    I do not show you how to do it because you have said you know how to
do it already.  Therefore there is no reason for me to show you as it is
needless.  Or is this an admission that you were lying? 

    I also do not do it because it is your claim that you know how to do
it, and your claim there was not enough coke.  Therefore your burden of
proof for these claims.  It is not my responsibility to do your work for
you.  Sorry about that. 



>Post you calculations.  

    After you, my dear Alphonse.  Your claim, your burden of proof.  Sorry
about that.

    Remember, show your work.  Posting a number without showing the
assumtions and formulas used is not acceptable.  Any lying fraud could do
the same.  Elsewhere you gave a figure of 30,000 kcal but showed no work
nor the assumptions about starting temperature and body weight and
percentage water by weight.  Only if and when you fill in the blanks must
I either agree to accept your figure or show where you are wrong. 

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Sat Jun 29 07:30:36 PDT 1996
Article: 46675 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!news.serv.net!news.ac.net!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uunet!inXS.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Giwer finally realized this?
Date: 24 Jun 1996 12:10:55 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <4qmemf$9sd@access1.digex.net>
References: <4q2qbf$2r1@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com> <4qaq9d$ksa@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com> <4qic9b$imj@access4.digex.net> <4qkcj2$7qn@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article <4qkcj2$7qn@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>,   wrote:
>mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>
>>In article <4qaq9d$ksa@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>,
>> wrote:
>>[snip]
>
>>>>Translation of relevant part (courtesy of Mr. Van-Alstine):
>>>
>>>	Excuse me but which one is the translation?  I really do not have all
>>>that much time to play with Nizkor save on my terms.  
>
>>    Does this mean that for the past five months he has been posting on
>>someone else's terms?  And he only just now figured out his own terms?  I
>>guess that 163 IQ isn't all it's cracked up to be....
>
>	It was quite enough to crack this conference wide open.  
>
>	Or have you not noticed all the new and old names that are back?  

    Well, Roberts came and went for a while and then came again before you
arrived.  Baron comes and goes according to his legal schedule.  (And both
of them are at the mercy of their ISP.)

    As for the rest, they were too stupid to figure out they could post
anytime they pleased?  They needed a 163 IQ genius to show them how to
post articles?

    Why, one would almost think that you are implying you have entered
into some sort of conspiracy with them.  You know, how to deal with the
Nizkorites.

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Sat Jun 29 07:30:36 PDT 1996
Article: 46697 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!news.serv.net!news.ac.net!news.cais.net!world1.bawave.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.misc,alt.revisionism,alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: Giwer runs away from wager that he can be proved liar
Date: 24 Jun 1996 13:08:46 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 69
Message-ID: <4qmi2u$c77@access1.digex.net>
References: <4q9apb$7mi@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4qi6rg$dt6@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com> <4qiobt$l7l@access4.digex.net> <4qk79c$gou@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca news.admin.net-abuse.misc:56517 alt.revisionism:46697 alt.usenet.kooks:25978

In article <4qk79c$gou@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>
>>In article <4qi6rg$dt6@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
>>Matt Giwer  wrote:
>>>jamie@voyager.net (Jamie McCarthy) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In the last twelve to eighteen months, revisionists have pretty much
>>>>figured out that Usenet is not the place for them.  It's too easy for
>>>>their arguments to be taken apart.  Which is ironic, since for the past
>>>>ten or twenty years, they've been complaining that what they really want
>>>>is just the chance to be heard and to discuss their ideas freely, with
>>>>skeptics.
>>>
>>>	But you folks are unable to do so.  Rather as I have seen you do is
>>>post some nonsense and declare victory just as you do on Nizkor.
>
>>    In debate, when a factual argument is unanswered, then yes, the person
>>who failed to answer loses by default.
>
>	That is not what happens.  When nonsense is posted and it is pointed
>out to be nonsense, the nizkorites declare victory claiming it was not up
>to their lofty, prescientific standards.  

    No evidence, of course.  Mere empty assertion.

    I have been chasing Mr. Giwer to back up his claims regarding
cremation energy requirements.  His efforts are not up to any scientific
standards.  His last offering was to lie and accuse me of deleting his
computations - which, of course, he never offered in any post to which I
have responded. 


>>>>Well, they got their fill of skeptics!  Not a single one of the people I
>>>>mentioned above, with the occasional exception of Greg Raven, chooses to
>>>>return to alt.revisionism.  They say it's because we regulars on
>>>>alt.revisionism engage in mudslinging and generally aren't professional
>>>>enough for them.  I say it's because they got their facts and logic torn
>>>>apart by a bunch of amateurs.  The reader can make up his or her own
>>>>mind -- though I suggest first reading Mike Stein's autopsy of the
>>>>"diesel" arguments of Friedrich Berg, at:
>>>>http://www.almanac.bc.ca/features/denial-of-science/diesel-1.html
>>>
>>>	And this makes a perfect example of posting anything and declaring
>>>victory.
>
>>    Friedrich Berg never answered.  You are of course welcome to pick up
>>where he left off.
>
>	I will deal with my own statements.  
>
>

    But Mr. Giwer did not deal with my challenge that I could prove to a
neutral arbiter that he has told lies.  He simply edited it out in his
response. 

    I leave it to others to decide whether this indicates Mr. Giwer admits
he is a liar.

    I am always happy to have a fair, open, civil, rational discussion of
the Holocaust.  I can deal with uncivil as well - I don't care.  But one
cannot have a fair and open rational debate with someone who lies when
backed into a corner.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Sat Jun 29 13:20:55 PDT 1996
Article: 46765 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!newsfeed.internetmci.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!hunter.premier.net!uunet!inXS.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Well designed mass gassing chambers
Date: 28 Jun 1996 11:41:13 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 173
Message-ID: <4r0uep$8f4@access5.digex.net>
References: <4qdhsv$sa3@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4qdhsv$sa3@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
  wrote:
>     A lot is made about these well designed Liechenkellers yet 
>there are some serious gaps in the arguement.
>
>     The first is that as these were the first mass extermination 
>gas chambers no one knew how to design them.  I would have 
>thought this to be the most obvious but none of the holohuggers 
>seem to realize this.  Therefore what they declare as "obvious" 
>can be no more than first cut guesses without experimentation.  
>
>     That there was an engineering miracle of getting it right 
>the first time is a subject they will never address.  

    What's so hard?

    You need a way to dump Zyklon into the room.  This is not a difficult
problem.

    Doors with seals were nothing new - they had to do them for the
delousing chambers, which were nothing new.

    Putting some sort of bar or locking mechanism on the door was nothing
new.

    Engineering to do ventilation systems and air exchange should have
been nothing new, and this would be the hardest part to get right.

    What, you think there were no ventilation systems prior to 1943?


>     Next we have people with no engineering or scientific 
>knowledge declaring they are correctly designed.  That claim can 
>pass without further notice.

    They may not be as efficiently designed as possible.  But as long as
they work, they are correctly designed for acceptable values of
"correctly."


>     The evidence that they were incorrectly designed, presuming 
>the currently popular L.Keller belief, is quite evident.  
>
>     First it had a ventilation system.  At first glance that 
>appears to be something expected.  Save there is a problem with 
>the condensation point of HCN, room temperature.  But real room 
>temperature.
>
>     If one simply uses external air for ventilation then if that 
>air is below room temperature the HCN is NOT ventilated but 
>condenses and "rains" out of the air.  Not quite the process but 
>it collects on the walls, ceiling and floor.  There is no 
>question of this happening.

    There is, of course, a question of the amount.  I note that this
question is not addressed.

    After that there is a question of the danger this amount poses.  I
note that this question is not addressed.  As I asked in another thread,
does HCN have evil intelligence that it latches onto walls, etc. for dear
life so that it can lie in wait and suddenly zoom up the nose of the first
person to walk into the room?



>     Thus even if the never reported gas masks were used

    They were reported for the chambers in IV and V, which did not have
the high-capacity ventilation system of II and III.


>and if 
>all of the reports of eating and smoking by those removing the 
>bodies are not true, the next group of "exterminatees" that 
>enters the room start dropping like flies from the evaporation 
>from vapor pressure.  Needless to say, this is not a reported 
>phenomenon.

    Needless to say, we would have to have condensation rates and
re-evaporation rates in order to declare that this would happen.  Oh,
dear, there don't seem to be any in Mr. Giwer's post.  Maybe those packets
somehow got lost in transmission?


>     More importantly, it points to these well designed gas 
>chambers being unusable in anything close to winter.  And in 
>Poland there is a very lot more that is close to winter than in 
>the rest of the world.

    Oh, dear, still no rates and computations.


>     There is one report that burning coke was brought into the 
>LKs to warm it up for the executions.  That is a nice touch.  
>Given that it was there long enough to warm up the room and the 
>walls and floor and all let us continue.
>
>     This heating process takes a lot of time to occur. 

    Assertion.  No documentation, rates, or computations.  As usual.

    Remember to include the body heat of the people going in should you
ever get around to providing rates and computations.


>This drastically reduces the available time for gassing.

    Assertion.  No documentation, rates, or computations.  As usual. 


>Faceciously 
>it cuts down the claimed fifty million a day to a mere 20 million 
>a day.  

    Four chambers, only 400 per chamber, only four gassings a day in each,
6,400 gassed per day.  100 days of this, 640,000 gassed.  Not that I'm
saying it was done this way, just pointing out the math.  (The affidavit
of Alter Fajnzylberg says that within his experience, gassings only took
place more than once a day during the mass deportation of Hungarian Jews
in 1944.)


>     It also fills the room with CO and CO2 which start killing 
>the people entering the room before it is halfway filled.

    And takes how long to finish?  Rates?  Computation?  Support?  None,
as usual.



>     But then if all of these things are avoided, the ventilation 
>system cools down the air by turbulent mixing and the HCN 
>condenses and we are back where we started with the condensation 
>problem.

    Rates?  Computations?  Support?  None, as usual.


>     These well designed chambers are simply unusable whenever 
>the outside air is at or below the condensation point of HCN, 
>that is, room temperature.  To do it right, you preheat the air 
>before it enters so that it is warmer than room temperature.

    That may be, but it does not prove that the other way would not work
well enough for the purpose at hand.  Assertion. No documentation or
support. As usual.


>     The "expert" designs that the holohuggers "instantly" 
>recognize are deficient in critically important design features.  

    It may not be the best, but all it had to do was work.  Nothing in Mr. 
Giwer's post gives any solid reason to think it wouldn't.  If he would
like to get around to providing some documented rates and computations,
then there would be something to discuss.


>
>=====
>
>     All holohugger responses are invited so that I can 
>pre-answer the objections in the next version of this short 
>article.     

    Assertion.  No support with documentation, rates and computations.  As
usual.  Therefore nothing to discuss.

    Psychic prediction: this objection will not be answered with
documentation, rates, and computations.  As usual.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access4.digex.net Sat Jun 29 15:46:28 PDT 1996
Article: 46799 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.cloud9.net!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Baron exposes shameless Jewish Holocaust liars
Date: 24 Jun 1996 21:26:47 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <4qnf8n$als@access4.digex.net>
References: <835453607snz@abaron.demon.co.uk> <4qhn60$o0j@newsbf02.news.aol.com>  <835547173snz@abaron.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net

In article <835547173snz@abaron.demon.co.uk>,
Alexander Baron   wrote:
>In article  dkeren@world.std.com "Daniel Keren" writes:
>
>> But Baron is a "revisionist scholar". So when he lies through his
>> teeth, it's a "mistake". And he's not, of course, a "damned liar",
>> or a "dumb Jew", or whatever his favorite expression for that week is.
>> 
>I have never claimed to be any sort of "scholar". Your reference to my
>"lying" is my misreading of a piece of text. I have only ever made one
>such gaff in print and Mike Stein will confirm that this has been 
>corrected.

    Um.  There are two at least that I can remember.  You did not notice
that Kitty Hart's writing indicated the story of the baby surviving the
gassing was hearsay - the way you first presented her story you made it
sound as if she had made an unequivocal claim of being a direct
eyewitness.  She did not.

    The second was your reading of Bendel's testimony.  You read it as
being five killed by a signle bullet passing through all five.  I read it
as the victims being lined up in rows of five but one bullet being used on
_each_ of them.  At the very least, the writing is ambiguous.  And I do
remember that you repeated the claim of five on a bullet after I had
warned you that the interpretation was debatable.

    I am persuaded that you don't do this intentionally, that rather you
see what you expect to see, but it still creates problems.  You really
need to present exact quotes rather than paraphrases.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access4.digex.net Sat Jun 29 15:46:28 PDT 1996
Article: 46819 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.cloud9.net!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uunet!inXS.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Can't We All Just Learn to Read?
Date: 24 Jun 1996 21:46:58 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <4qngei$b0a@access4.digex.net>
References: <31ccc234.1900516@news.eden.com> <4qisod$846@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <31cdc853.4766109@news.eden.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net

In article <31cdc853.4766109@news.eden.com>,
Mike Curtis  wrote:
>ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606) wrote:
>
>>In article <31ccc234.1900516@news.eden.com>, mcurtis@eden.com (Mike
>>Curtis) writes:
>>
>>>>And that is what the Nizkor bunny does: over, and over, and over.
>>>
>>>What is the Nizkor bunny, Alan? You going to keep playing this stupid
>>>game or come clean?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>And what is your stupid game, pal?  Or do you just want to insult me by
>>lower casing my name?
>
>I apologize for that. Lower-casing your name was just an accident of
>not hitting the shift key. Sorry.
>
>>  Once again, ad hominem triumphs, for people who
>>can't wait to get off by attacking people.  Poor baby!  Haven't had any
>>fresh meat in awhile?
>
>I asked what the Nizkor bunny was, Alan, and you resrted to
>assumptions and attacks rather than answer the question. What the
>stupid game with Nizkor? You do realize that not all of us are a part
>of Nizkor. But I guess you have to have a bogey man when the your
>losing the arguments.
>
>>
>>
>
>He who laughs last thinks slowest.


    *groan*  I can sort of understand how Hilary might have been offended,
but my first impression of Ehrlich's line was an Energizer Bunny
reference, not a sexist remark against  Hilary.  I expect he's referring
to the periodic FAQ posting and Daniel Keren's reposts.

    And Ehrlich, by the same token you should have recognized the
probability of a simple typo.

    I'm sure I'm going to sound like David Thomas, but it _is_ incumbent
on everyone to read for _all_ reasonable interpretations of the text of
others, pick the likeliest one, but recognize plausible alternative
interpretations and allow for the existence of ambiguities - even in the
middle of a debate.

    Two points for the person who first figures out the allusion in the
subject line of this article.  :)

    Posted/emailed to all concerned.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access4.digex.net Sun Jun 30 09:33:34 PDT 1996
Article: 46828 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!gatech!news.jsums.edu!news2.cais.net!news.cais.net!nntp.primenet.com!uunet!inXS.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.bonehead.matt-giwer,alt.revisionism,alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: Re: MATT GIWER REPORT FOR JUN 17-18: 32.1% / 37.4%
Followup-To: alt.bonehead.matt-giwer,alt.usenet.kooks
Date: 24 Jun 1996 20:50:45 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <4qnd55$9ri@access4.digex.net>
References: <4qe3da$7dv@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4qghbv$goh@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.bonehead.matt-giwer:86 alt.revisionism:46828 alt.usenet.kooks:26007

In article <4qghbv$goh@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Giwer  wrote:
>jamie@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Jamie McCarthy) wrote:
>
>>   "As long at you folks continue to post about me I will respond.
>>    The longer the post the long[er] my tagline will be."
>>                                      - Matt Giwer, June 20, 1996
>
>>Matt Giwer has singlehandedly hijacked alt.revisionism.  
>
>	Keep that singlehandedly firmly in mind.  
>
>	You folks called me an anti-semite and a nazi without cause.  You
>harrassed my service provider.  You harrassed my family.  You did
>anything you could to silence me.

    Except, of course, issue forged cancels.  Interesting how those who
scream that Nizkor is out to silence people "at all costs" never notice
that the simplest way to do so has not been employed.


>	Consider it righteous Jewish revenge.

    Libeling those who did not wrong you in those ways is not righteous.


>	I never did tell you that, did I.  

    You identify yourself as a member of what you previously called an
unidentifiable group? 

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access4.digex.net Sun Jun 30 09:33:35 PDT 1996
Article: 46829 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.cloud9.net!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Dresden?
Date: 24 Jun 1996 22:16:48 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <4qni6g$bno@access4.digex.net>
References:  <4qaquc$amf@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> <4qk0f2$2mh@access1.digex.net> <4qko3f$da8@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net

In article <4qko3f$da8@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
  wrote:
>mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:

[...]


>>>>Then, of course, the Nazis used incineration pits, and of course, there
>>>>was	 the proposed Krema VI....
>>>	
>>>	Of course you will never post your evidence of this nor will you ever
>>>admit you made it up.  There were common trash incinerators around
>
>>    Around Auschwitz?  Large enough to accommodate a corpse?  Of course
>>you will never post your evidence of this nor will you ever admit you made
>>it up. 
>
>	It would be interesting to read your ideas of just how small the
>incinerators would be in the equivalent of a city of 80,000.  

    That's right - I guess you don't have landfill in Florida.

    I don't know if they had any incinerators at all, as opposed to
landfill or pit burning.  If you can document the existence of any
incinerators at Auschwitz at all, of any size, please do so. 


>	I would also be interested in reading your ideas as to why, when the
>entire purpose was get rid of the bodies of the exterminated that they
>chose crematoria rather than simply large incinerators.  

    If you were interested, why didn't you read it the first time I posted
it?
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Sun Jun 30 09:33:36 PDT 1996
Article: 47050 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Well designed mass gassing chambers
Date: 29 Jun 1996 22:51:05 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 98
Message-ID: <4r4q2p$agb@access1.digex.net>
References: <4r0uep$8f4@access5.digex.net> <4r127b$1kj@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article <4r127b$1kj@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
Ehrlich606  wrote:
>In article <4r0uep$8f4@access5.digex.net>, mstein@access5.digex.net
>(Michael P. Stein) writes:
>
>>    Assertion.  No support with documentation, rates and computations. 
>>As usual.  Therefore nothing to discuss.
>
>I disagree. Matt raises a number of issues about the condensation and
>evaporation of HCN that even you admit are probably valid.  The fact that
>he does not do a set of calculations to _prove_ they are valid is
>irrelevant.  He is raising legitimate points.  Respond to them on that
>level.

    Let's leave aside for the moment that this would only be true in the
winter - in the summer, things would work very well in Kremas II and III,
because they were underground rooms and the incoming air would tend to be
warmer.  Spring and fall days would be a wash.  The most active period of
gassing, according to the witnesses, was in May, 1944, when the Hungarian
Jews were arriving en masse.  No heating needed, and no prolonged
temperature difference problems during the day, at least. 

    The short answer is that since the witnesses reported no problems, the
effects were not enough to cause problems - or they did not conduct
gassings under conditions which would cause problems.  Imagine if I
questioned whether you were telling the truth about seeing a catcher catch
a baseball because it had been thrown at 90mph.  "It would break his
wrist!"  Do you really need to compute the force of a baseball at 90mph,
the characteristics of a catcher's mitt, and the strength of the bones in
the wrist in order to prove to the world that you are not lying about
seeing a fastball caught?  According to one theory, bumblebees could not
fly.  Should we revise the theory, or declare that all observation of
flying bumblebees are lies or hallucinations?

    He did not question whether there would be problems.  He made specific
assertions of fact - not just that there would be certain phenomena to
some degree, but that these phenomena would cause problems (with the
insinuation that the witnesses were lying).  Therefore he has the burden
of proof for backing up his claims, and of proving that the witnesses
lied.  Besides, in order to make a claim, he must have certain knowledge. 
Therefore he ought to give an accounting of the source of that knowledge
so that others may evaluate it.

    He is playing a very dishonest game: he demands that everyone else
provide proof of their claims, but that everyone else must also provide
supported rebuttal of his unsupported assertions.  And then he will
reject technical references as being invalid Because!  He!  Says!  So!

    If you have not noticed this, you are blind.  And if you have noticed
this, you are aiding and abetting intellectual dishonesty.

    I have attempted to address claims about energy requirements for
cremation.  And he has weaseled, dodged, evaded, used false and deceptive
computations, and then outright lied about having posted detailed,
supported computations of the amount of energy needed to heat the water in
a 70kg corpse to the point necessary to permit ignition.  The closest he
ever got involved numbers pulled from his demonstrably unreliable memory
and backed up by a book that was still packed away somewhere.  Sorry, that
doesn't cut it.

    If I were to post numbers, he would simply say they were wrong
Because!  He!  Says!  So!  Anything he doesn't like, he simply accuses the
other poster of lying.  Rich Green is a doctoral student in chemistry. 
Richard Schultz is a chemistry professor.  Yet they have both been told by
a person that has _no_ credentials in chemistry that they are wrong about
a number of items - but no documentation is offered to support that
assertion.

    Therefore I have insisted that he be the first to produce the figures
he says he knows how to compute - and besides, it was his claim and he
bears burden of proof for claims which he makes.  Once he gives properly
supported figures, _then_ it is for me to either accept them or bring
equally well-supported rebuttal to show where he went wrong. 

    In case you hadn't figured it out, he is not acting as a scientist
engaged in a dispassionate search for truth.  He is acting as a defense
lawyer, looking for any means he can to produce "reasonable doubt."  If he
were interested in the truth, he would provide the computations he says he
knows how to do rather than engaging in game-playing.

    And what about you?  Are you interested in the truth?  Or are you here
to aid and abet intellectual dishonesty?  Why don't _you_ investigate this
matter if you are interested?  Why is it always _my_ responsibility not
only back up my own claims, but to provide proof that everyone else's
unsupported assertions are false, and to do all the work only to be told
that my evidence is not good enough (Because!  I!  Say!  So!).

    Because, you see, that is the final bit of intellectual dishonesty
going on here: like Greg Raven before him, he is surreptitiously playing
both defense attorney and judge.

    And what are you playing? 

    Posted/emailed.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Sun Jun 30 09:33:37 PDT 1996
Article: 47069 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news1.io.org!winternet.com!nntp.primenet.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The true revisionist theme
Date: 29 Jun 1996 23:41:39 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 119
Message-ID: <4r4t1j$buu@access1.digex.net>
References: <4qslbg$qiq@access5.digex.net> <4qu2g9$nkv@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article <4qu2g9$nkv@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
DvdThomas  wrote:
>Mike Stein wrote:
>
>>As an example: the rarity of documentation for gas chambers is cited
>>as evidence of their nonexistence
>
>I do not interpret it that way and know of few who do.

    I have seen the argument advanced that it is unbelievable that the SS
would have detailed records of the cost of dog kennels, but not for gas
chambers.  Of course, the fact that dog kennels were not Geheime
Reichsache might have something to do with it. 


>What I have said,
>and continue to say, is that the total lack of documentation (not rarity)
>is certainly cause for skeptical inquiry and further investigation.  I
>also do not say that gas chambers did not exist, only that I have not seen
>a shred of evidence to support that as yet except for oral testimonies of
>suspect origin.

    Then you have not been looking.  What about the letter from Bischoff
to Kammler talking about a "Vergasungskeller?"  The letter from Topf about
cyanide gas detectors?  (Topf should not have been the firm to provide
them.)  The peculiar changes in the Bauleitung plans eliminating a corpse
chute from the design, which made it much harder to get bodies into the
ostensible morgue?  The inventory sheet showing showerheads in a room
whose construction plans show no plumbing for showers, though other
plumbing is shown?  These are documents, not testimony.


>>but the rarity of documentation of the
>>true resettlement of the Jews (railroad records, etc.) is not viewed with
>>similar suspicion.  Russians can destroy evidence but Germans cannot?
>
>The "but" doesn't apply to me in this case.  I know little of this
>subject, have no present opinions to offer.  As for evidence, I don't
>think that the Germans were known for destroying anything save some
>individual diaries and personal papers of the higher leaders.  Detailed
>records of many things that would be uncomfortable for a conqueror to find
>were indeed found, totally intact--such as Hitler's written orders to kill
>commissars and every adult male in Stalingrad (the former being the basis
>for the execution of a couple of generals at Nuremberg).

    OTOH, Hitler's signed order for the euthanasia program was only found
in photostatic copy, with handwritten notes from the recipient.  The
original was not found.


>And regarding
>Russian evidence, only Russia can answer that one.  Their country wasn't
>conquered and occupied so that anyone could determine if documents exist,
>or had been destroyed.

    Well, their archives are now open for business.  Mattogno and Graf
seem to theorize that documents proving the innocence of the Nazis were
all destroyed.  But why would the Russians destroy documents in archives
they controlled?  James Bacque says the archives are chock-full of proof
of Russian crimes; why weren't those destroyed?


>>Despite Mr. Widmann's (proper) rejection of the notion of painting
>>with a broad brush, revisionist methodology - and here it is a true
>>Johnny one-note from all I have seen - holds that since some eyewitness
>>testimonies are unreliable, _all_ of them are
>
>Once again I will reply in the key of D, as in Disagree.  This is not my
>position at all.  I am skeptical of all the testimonies--I think they are
>next to worthless in determining what really took place without physical
>corroboration because of the obvious bias of their presenting sources. 
>But untrue?

    Read my text again, carefully.  I said _unreliable_.  And you said
"next to worthless."  Now, please explain the great difference. 


>There's no way I could make that judgment, any more than
>anyone else can prove them true.  You either believe them or you don't. 
>Refusing to accept something as the truth does not mean that you are
>saying it is false--only that you have no clear reason to accept it as
>truth and are bothered by the lack of supporting physical evidence.  That
>seems to me a reasonable and prudent stance.  Its use in our judicial
>system certainly helped get the poor McMartin clan out of the clutches of
>some hysterical witch hunters.  Remember the "eyewitness" testimony there?
> There was a consistency to it too.  What discredited it was its fantastic
>nature and total absence of corroborating physical evidence.

    Also the fact that it came from very young children, who are less
reliable as witnesses and more pliable to leading by authority figures
(i.e. adults).  The jury saw the techniques used to get the testimony.
See the July/August issue of _Mother Jones_, p. 36.


>However,
>this did not prove that the testimonies were lies, only that the court
>considered them inadequate to use as evidence when presented alone.  There
>are still people who believe them, by the way.  Believe passionately that
>the evil Raymond Buckey took children to a church through underground
>tunnels to see animals sacrificed in Satanic rituals.  These people aren't
>wackos from the north woods either.  They're ordinary middle and upper
>middle class folks living in Manhattan Beach, California who believe what
>they believe.  That they do so doesn't change the fact that the odds are
>better than a few million to one that they're wrong.

    Buckey never confessed.

    Franz Suchomel demanded anonymity to talk to Claude Lanzmann.  He was
caught on hidden camera admitting that gassing took place at Treblinka. 
He was not in any possible position of coercion; the Staeglich thesis
cannot explain this confession.  (And see my other article where I
question the probability of no recantations after these supposedly
innocent men were released from prison and it would have been safe to do
so.) 

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Sun Jun 30 13:33:44 PDT 1996
Article: 62951 of alt.conspiracy
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news.uoregon.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.research,alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.abduct,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.conspiracy.area51,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Edelman suggests that UFO witnesses are drunk (was Re: The logical trickery of the UFO)
Date: 28 Jun 1996 17:49:29 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <4r1k19$oh0@access5.digex.net>
References: <4qi23c$59r@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> <4qrspg$l7f@cwis-20.wayne.edu> <31D19DDD.929@students.wisc.edu> <4qtu2m$ic9@cwis-20.wayne.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.alien.research:12028 alt.alien.visitors:91206 alt.paranet.abduct:5120 alt.paranet.ufo:41545 alt.conspiracy.area51:4803 alt.conspiracy:62951

In article <4qtu2m$ic9@cwis-20.wayne.edu>,
Michael Edelman  wrote:
>Brian Zeiler (bdzeiler@students.wisc.edu) wrote:
>: Michael Edelman wrote:
>
>: > Yeah, but we have convergent validity on the part of those who have seen the
>: > B2. We have high-resolution films. And most of the people who have seen
>: > the B2 weren't drinking beforehand.
>
>: Are you suggesting that UFO witnesses are disproportionately likely to be 
>: drunk?  Do you have any data to support this claim, or is it just a 
>: typical insult of yours?
>
>That's not an insult. THIS is an insult:
>
>----------------------------
>
>From bdzeiler@students.wisc.edu Thu Jun 27 08:00:14 1996
>Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 15:55:50 -0500
>From: Brian Zeiler 
>To: Michael Edelman 
>Subject: Re: The logical trickery of the UFO debunker
>
>>Still waiting for that loophole in the field equations...
>
>I didn't say there was one IN THE FIELD EQUATIONS, you dumbfuck.
>
>------------------------------------------
>
>You know, it is *sooo* easy to pull Brian's chain...!

    Well, some people's chains are pulled by intellectual dishonesty.
Mine, for example.

    I am skeptical of extraterrestrial explanations for UFOs, but I agree
with Brian that you have pulled some intellectually dishonest stunts in
this discussion.  There is no need for that.  If you are claiming to
uphold scientific standards, stick to the evidence and leave the cheap
shots like allegations of drinking at home, unless you can back them up.

    I will affirm, however, that Brian also denied making a statement that
he clearly made - that was in fact quoted in the very post in which he
denied making it.  (The one that McDonald _cannot_ be refuted by
scientific means.  Brian did write that, although he backpedaled to "has
not.") 

    Posted and emailed to both participants.  (Usenet posts sometimes end
up in the Bermuda Triangle.)
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Sun Jun 30 13:33:45 PDT 1996
Article: 62953 of alt.conspiracy
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news.ultranet.com!zombie.ncsc.mil!nntp.coast.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-stk-200.sprintlink.net!news.fibr.net!nntp.primenet.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.research,alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.abduct,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.conspiracy.area51,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Edelman suggests that UFO witnesses are drunk (was Re: The logical trickery of the UFO)
Date: 30 Jun 1996 01:44:30 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <4r547u$egi@access1.digex.net>
References: <4qi23c$59r@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> <4qtu2m$ic9@cwis-20.wayne.edu> <4r1k19$oh0@access5.digex.net> <31D47748.DC9@students.wisc.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.alien.research:12031 alt.alien.visitors:91210 alt.paranet.abduct:5121 alt.paranet.ufo:41548 alt.conspiracy.area51:4805 alt.conspiracy:62953

In article <31D47748.DC9@students.wisc.edu>,
Brian Zeiler   wrote:
>Michael P. Stein wrote:
>
>>     I will affirm, however, that Brian also denied making a statement that
>> he clearly made - that was in fact quoted in the very post in which he
>> denied making it.  (The one that McDonald _cannot_ be refuted by
>> scientific means.  Brian did write that, although he backpedaled to "has
>> not.")
>
>I don't recall the exact dialogue of that post, but what I probably said 
>was that the fact that it has not been rebutted likely means it cannot be 
>rebutted.

    The word "likely" did not appear in your text.  I will accept that you
wrote hastily and meant "This _probably_ means that it cannot be
rebutted," but it doesn't help.  The logical inference is not valid.  It
may only mean that nobody has seriously tried to conduct the investigation
necessary to do so.

    Posted/emailed.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Sun Jun 30 15:33:49 PDT 1996
Article: 47123 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!news.serv.net!news.ac.net!news.cais.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Welcome back, Mr. Raven - any answers yet?
Date: 25 Jun 1996 12:46:54 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 48
Message-ID: <4qp55u$dpn@access5.digex.net>
References: <4q8dtd$3i7@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4qf1a2$h4d@access5.digex.net> <835481149snz@abaron.demon.co.uk> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article ,
Greg Raven  wrote:
>> In article <4qf1a2$h4d@access5.digex.net>
>>            mstein@access5.digex.net "Michael P. Stein" writes:
>> >     Excuse me, but I must be missing something.  Other "revisionists" have
>> > posted here - Greg Raven, Tim McCarthy, Fritz Berg, Bradley Smith, Ross
>> > Vicksell, et al.  And their claims have been addressed.  They seem to have
>> > given it up.  The only other ones currently left on any regular basis are
>> > J. F. Beaulieu, Tom Moran, Jeff Roberts, and Al Baron.
>
>My claims were addressed? This is news to me. I have repeatedly posted a
>couple of simple questions to this newsgroup, and virtually all the
>responses were personal attacks and long digressions on matters almost
>totally unrelated to my question.

    There was also a dissection of the method of analysis proposed, which
was to look at one piece of evidence at a time and decide if, all by
itself, it constituted sufficient proof.  I know of no criminal case which
has been proved on one piece of evidence alone.


>The one or two "substantive" responses were laughably silly.

    I found Mr. Raven's rebuttals to be laughably silly, except for the
ones which were blatantly dishonest and deceptive paraphrases and editing
of source material.  The comments of Pressac on the testimony of Bo"ck
comes to mind. 


>Or did someone post proof for the existence of a Nazi gas chamber when I
>wasn't looking?

    I have repeatedly posted a couple of simple questions to Greg Raven,
and he never gave a direct, unequivocal response.

    What standard of "proof" are you looking for?  Beyond a reasonable
doubt, preponderance of evidence, what?

    What do you consider evidence?

There is a third question I would like to explore but cannot until I have
the answers to the two above:

    Are you consistent in your application of the two answers above?
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Sun Jun 30 15:33:50 PDT 1996
Article: 47126 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.cloud9.net!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uunet!inXS.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: MATT GIWER REPORT for Jun 10-13: 21.1% / 26.1%
Date: 25 Jun 1996 13:27:38 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <4qp7ia$fn8@access5.digex.net>
References: <4q9apb$7mi@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4qj2nn$rc9@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com> <31cda0a4.4292426@news.srv.ualberta.ca> <4qki0q$t82@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4qki0q$t82@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
  wrote:
>jmorris@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (John Morris) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 23 Jun 1996 09:26:03 GMT, mgiwer@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>>>jmorris@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (John Morris) wrote:
>
>>>>On Sat, 22 Jun 1996 20:00:43 GMT, mgiwer@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>>>>[snip]
>
>>>>>	You fail to note that the Gang of Six at Nizkor conspires by email to
>>>>>prevent discussion of revisionism on alt.revisionism.
>
>>>>Mr. Giwer, you have frequently posted my name in alt.revisionism as a
>>>>member of this so-called "Gang of Six."
>
>>>>I categorically deny conspiring with anyone, by e-mail or otherwise,
>>>>to prevent discussion on any Usenet newsgroup.
>
>>>>Please post your evidence that I have been involved in such a
>>>>conspiracy, or withdraw the accusation.
>
>>>	I got the contributor's list from Nizkor.  Tell them to take you off of
>>>it if you do not want the honor.  Until they take you off, don't
>>>complain to me.  
>
>>Your response is unsatisfactory. It does not address the issue at
>>hand. So what if I have contributed my volunteer labour to the Nizkor
>>web pages? You have accused me of conspiring to prevent discussion on
>>alt.revisionism; I deny this and challenge you to post evidence of
>>such a conspiracy or to withdraw the accusation.
>
>    There have been three posts referencing Nizkor email discussions to
>plan how to deal with people.  It is clearly implied that it is the
>Nizkor gang.  As they appear to all have the new approach the next day,
>the posts have been confirmed.

    Except that I have elsewhere been named as one of the "Gang of Six," 
yet my approach has not changed.  It appears we have a very unreliable
eyewitness once again. 


>	When you hang out with the wrong crowd you get tarred with the same
>brush.  Sort of like lying with dogs, hro excepted from this one.  

    Then Matt Giwer must now admit it was reasonable and acceptable to
call him an Nazi and antisemite.  For a good many of the revisionist crowd
are antisemites and neo-Nazi types.  He was just tarred with the same
brush. 
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Sun Jun 30 15:33:51 PDT 1996
Article: 47132 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.cloud9.net!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Return of the Prodigal Poster  - Faustian Follies?
Date: 25 Jun 1996 13:33:19 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <4qp7sv$g1n@access5.digex.net>
References: <4qnnta$346e@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4qp6dl$fjh@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <4qp6dl$fjh@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
DvdThomas  wrote:
>Gordon McFee wrote:
>
>>If you have studied history as much as
>>you claim, you know that statement is wrong; it is the deniers who are
>>dishonest.
>
>Both, sir.  On occasion it is both.  And much of what is lableled
>dishonesty is simply ignorance in action.

    I have always tried to observe the maxim, "Never attribute to malice
what can adequately be explained by stupidity."

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor