The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/g/giwer.matt/1994/giwer_debate_9407


««■■ R_9407 ■■»»
+++■■■■■ r_940701 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1164)
To:      Susana Atanasova                       28 Jun 94 18:36:10
Subject: 4th Amendment Rights                   

SA>  Sounds like the kind of person we need less of these 
SA>  "daze".  Can't ya'll see that Waco was a BIG favor to our 
SA>  society by BTAF? If the government would just go a step 
SA>  further and allow us to ALL carry arms, and kill a criminal 
SA>  in the act, providing witnesses are around that can back up 
SA>  that so&so was stealing, raping, etc.  when killed, and that 
SA>  there be a provision for the immediate execution of anyone 
SA>  who kills for "fun", well, this would be a nicer, safer, 
SA>  more respectful place to live.  I feel the BTAF took a bunch 
SA>  of losers out of their misery; ended a cycle of losers by 
SA>  killing the offspring of losers; and, avoided a major 
SA>  psycho affair a la Jim Jones shuck the kool-aid pass the 
SA>  ammo style. 

     You are obviously a blood thirsty slut.  But beyond that you 
have provided no substantiation for your fantasies.  

     What is the scope of your hatred?  Would you like to talk 
about it?


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * BBQed Baby Back Ribs, Waco style.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 296 297 298 301 401 470 601
SEEN-BY: 250/701 714 801 901 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20
SEEN-BY: 3610/4 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1165)
To:      Jolene Post                            28 Jun 94 18:46:10
Subject: Hillary the BAM                        

JP>  MG>  They are called extended wear.  They came out in 1978.  
JP>  MG>  What was your learning curve?  Did you have trouble 
JP>  MG>  remembering where to put them?

JP> Nope, had no problem with them......

     Neither did I.



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Get Janet a fiddle.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 296 297 298 301 401 470 601
SEEN-BY: 250/701 714 801 901 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20
SEEN-BY: 3610/4 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1166)
To:      Susana Atanasova                       28 Jun 94 18:48:10
Subject: WACO                                   

SA>  MG>      Who breeds human females?

SA> Uh, human males, per chance  ;-)

     What were you bred for, blood lust?


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * W.A.C.O, acronym, Washington Approved Cook Out
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 296 297 298 301 401 470 601
SEEN-BY: 250/701 714 801 901 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20
SEEN-BY: 3610/4 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1167)
To:      Mark Brown                             28 Jun 94 18:49:10
Subject: WACO                                   

MB>  Excuse me, but I was just wondering if you could tell me 
MB>  what exactly was on that search warrant; wasn't it just 
MB>  alleging they had illegal weapons? I forget the details, 
MB>  and you seem to have sources.

                         The Waco Warrant

     What is the problem with the warrant.
     The law addresses the possession of parts which can be assembled
(the critical word here is assembled) into a weapon or device held to
be illegal, in this matter explosives and full automatic weapons.  In
this regard the law goes further to hold in the case of guns that the
critical part, a fully automatic receiver, to be the equivalent of the
assembled weapon.
     The warrant addresses the existance of some parts and the
knowledge, equipment and ability modify the parts possessed to
manufacture an illegal weapon or device.  This is not illegal
according to the law.  Only the possession of all modified or
manufactured parts or the possession of a receiver modified or
manufactured for full automatic would be illegal.  (Presuming the
proper taxes were not paid and / or the proper permits not possessed.)
     Thus the fallacy of the warrant is its implication that
assembly and ability to manufacture are the same thing, when in fact
the former is illegal, the latter is not.
     As such there was no basis for the issuance of the warrant as
there was no presentation of any law having been violated.

                              Matt Giwer
                              19 May 1993
                              Dunedin Florida

     I have had a problem with the items in the warrant for some time
now.  If there was illegal intent, what is listed simply does not make
sense.  The first example is parts purchases.
     Were I outfitting an army I would not be buying parts in the
hopes of modifying them to full automatic parts to assemble later.  I
would be buying complete, working guns WHILE I was developing the
techniques to make the conversion.
     In an attempt to make sense of what is listed I had the thought
that if I grouped them into related groupings it might make more
sense.
     I grant this is speculation.  However, with this grouping the
otherwise inexplicable cardboard tubes makes sense.

========

     As a result of my investigation of shipments to Howell/Koresh and
Mike Schroeder at the "Mag-Bag" Corporation, Waco, Texas, through the
United Parcel Service, and the inspection of the firearms records of
Henry McMahon, dba, Hewitt Hand Guns, Hewitt, Texas, I have learned
that they acquired during 1992, the following firearms and related
explosive paraphernalia:

========

{As it has been stated they worked gun shows in Texas nothing here is
out of the ordinary for dealers at such shows.  The following indicate
NO pattern that would lead to working weapons.  Their randomness
suggests they were for resale, and perhaps some were special orders. I
agree the latter is speculation, but the former is not.  These parts
do not lead to weapons.}

one hundred four (104), AR-15/M-16, upper receiver groups with
barrels.

Ninety one (91) AR/15 lower receiver units. {Note 104 + 91 = 91
assemblies.  104 and 91 are odd enough numbers to begin with in that I
could see 100 and 90, I could see 1 gross and 1/2 gross, I could see
multiples of case lots.  104 - 91 = 13 and that multiples into
nothing.}

Twenty (20), one hundred round capacity drum magazines for AK-47
rifles.  {noting no AK-47s are alledged.} {The drums come in 75 
round size.  Never heard of a 100 round drum.}

Two hundred sixty (260), M-16/AR-15 magazines.  {This is the only
allegation commensurate with the 104 receivers.}

Thirty (30) M-14 magazines.  {Noting no M-14s are alledged.}

Two (2) M-16 E2 kits. Two (2) M-16 car kits.

One M-76 grenade launcher. Two hundred (200) M-31, practice rifle
grenades.

Four (4) M-16 parts set Kits "A".  {Which are NOT conversion kits}

Two cases, (approximately 50) inert practice hand grenades.

     {Note these parts.  They do not make much sense.  Were I 
purchasing AK-47 magazines I would like to have couple AK-47s 
around.  Were those kits truly purchased with the intent of 
conversion, I would note I had purchased 104 AR-15/M-16 upper 
recievers and then buy 104 of each kind of kit.}
     {Under the presumption the grenade launcher fits an M-16 and 
were I expecting to use them I would have more than one of them, 
perferably 104 of them, but certainly more than one as I would 
not plan for only one rifle being sufficient to use the 200 rifle 
grenades (should they be modified.)}

=========

{Personal use}

Eight thousand, one hundred (8,100) rounds of 9mm and .223 
caliber ammunition for AR-15/M-16.
{noting no AK-47 ammunition of which I would expect 2000 rounds 
to fill those drums.}
Twenty-six (26) various calibers and brands of hand guns and long 
guns.
{Noting with around 80 adults, even 40 males, 26 is nothing.}

=========

{The following I would speculate as being their manufacturing their
own fireworks and fireworks displays.  Perhaps fireworks comes under
the BFART charter however illegal fireworks manufacture is not
alledged.}

Two (2) flare launchers  {impress the kids if they can get some
flares.}

30-40 cardboard tubes.           \
                                  > {rockets}
40-50 pounds of black gun powder./

Thirty (30) pounds of Potassium Nitrate.  \
                                           \
90 pounds of aluminum metal powder.         > {flash in the air}
                                           /
Five (5) pounds of Magnesium metal powder./

One pound of Igniter cord. ( A class C explosive)

{To ignite the potassium nitrate oxidizer and the metal powders.}

{I note further the citation of igniter cord as class C explosive is
in fact the category for fireworks.}

                      435 days after Waco
                  The murders are still free. 


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * "Flame on!" -- Janet "The Torch" Reno
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 296 297 298 301 401 470 601
SEEN-BY: 250/701 714 801 901 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20
SEEN-BY: 3610/4 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1168)
To:      Susana Atanasova                       28 Jun 94 19:00:10
Subject: WACO - MURDER BY OUR                   

SA>  MG>      Do you always favor exterminating undesirables?

SA>  I do not ALWAYS anything.

     But in this case your blood lust is up.  You can not be 
blamed.  It was bred into you.  Have you considered applying for 
a job with Reno?  

SA>  MG>       They why did the BATF kill some of them and the FBI 
SA>  MG>  poison the rest?

SA>   You mean those that were put in that dangerous 
SA>   circumstance by their parents ill judgement?  

     The BATF started it if you remember.  And then the FBI 
poisoned them.

I will liken 
SA>   this comment of yours to the following: I go to a church 
SA>   to fellowship and congregate with fellow worshipers.  I 
SA>   take my family with me.  I learn that the head of the 
SA>   church is a psyho nut.  

     There is no such evidence regarding Koresh.  In your reply 
be the FIRST person to cite evidence (not what you think you 
remember reading some place, no speculation, not a question to 
me) but your EVIDENCE he was psychotic.  And if you plan you say 
he claimed to be Christ don't waste the space, provide a 
quotation and the source of that quotation.  Else you will only 
be sharing your fantasies with the rest of us.

SA>   such a de- cision would be ill, and I am sure that we have 
SA>   a system in place for the care of individuals who are 
SA>   threat to themselves, others, or are unable to care for 
SA>   themselves...such as BD's case...  

     A request similar to the above is made.  Facts, not your 
fantasies.  

SA>   I feel the BDs were ALL "5150s" and , 

     As above, facts, not your fantasies.

SA>  MG>       Love your government baby killer.  You are a very 
SA>  MG>  strange person.

SA>   WHAT A RED HERRING!!!!!  HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!  I got a REAL 
SA>   laugh out of your desperation on THIS one!!!  
SA>   LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!! 

     I am not disagreeing you are a hebaphrenic.  I am only 
debating with myself whether or not you are treatable.

Yes, I love my government!  It is 
SA>   the ONLY nation on the face of this EARTH where people 
SA>   die, and pay, and risk all and GIVE UP all to GET IN...  in 
SA>   other countries all the above is done to get OUT!!! 

     It poison the children at Waco.  Had there been no fire they 
would have started dying in three days.  But you think that is a 
good thing to do.  

It is 
SA>   the parents fault they put their kids in such a dangerous 
SA>   situation.  

     We are talking about Waco here.  The Government did 
everything to them.

I do not blame them.  I blame our system for 
SA>   not getting them put away and the kids sent to good homes 
SA>   with MENTALLY STABLE adults at the helm.  

     As above, not your insane fantasies but rather evidence.

I pity the 
SA>   parents because I believe the were the sick, loser ilk of 
SA>   our society.  
     
     Your fantasy belief structure is to be studied by 
professionals not expounded by you.

I have mixed emotions for the kids: Sorrow 
SA>   because they missed out on life before it started; Relief 
SA>   because we are rid of that many more future nut cases / 
SA>   losers.  Part of the reason this country is having problems 
SA>   is that there are less and less PATRIOTIC souls, like 
SA>   mine!  I CARE ABOUT THE U.S.  of A.!!!

     You are a blood thirsty, vicious, poor excuse for a human 
being.  And so far as I can tell, living in a fantasy world.

SA>  MG>      Exterminate the vermin.  May I suggest labor camps?

SA>  That is your right.

     You prefer to simply shoot them down and poison their 
children.  You are disgusting.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Sometimes the Gov has to kill kids in order to save them.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 296 297 298 301 401 470 601
SEEN-BY: 250/701 714 801 901 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20
SEEN-BY: 3610/4 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1169)
To:      Susana Atanasova                       29 Jun 94 03:12:10
Subject: WACO                                   

SA>  LG> asking the both of you to put this to bed -- and I mean now.

SA> nighty-night!
     
     What kind of stupid shit response is this?


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * All right, Koresh, make my day. -- Reno
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 296 297 298 301 401 470 601
SEEN-BY: 250/701 714 801 901 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20
SEEN-BY: 3610/4 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1170)
To:      Susana Atanasova                       29 Jun 94 03:16:10
Subject: WACO AD INFINITUM POSTING              

SA>  This is a formal and cordial invitation to ANYONE on 
SA>  ANYSIDE of the WACO DEBATE who was, in fact, THERE WHEN IT 
SA>  HAPPENED.  To give me / us all THE FIRST HAND STORY.

     When you stop pretending you were we can get on with this.



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * God Lord!  It's a cookbook! -- FBI manual
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 296 297 298 301 401 470 601
SEEN-BY: 250/701 714 801 901 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20
SEEN-BY: 3610/4 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1245)
To:      Loring Young                           27 Jun 94 21:17:10
Subject: Verbal abuse                           

LY> PK***
LY> *_*****n****O*^**Oo*************R*P**
LY> *[***
LY> *>:***GO**f*6*[***ZJ*******[*****t****z*    *$**z**:***

     Repair to bathroom and wash your mouth out with lye soap.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * W.A.C.O, acronym, Washington Approved Cook Out
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 296 297 298 301 401 470 601
SEEN-BY: 250/701 714 801 901 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20
SEEN-BY: 3610/4 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1246)
To:      Rick Chadderdon                        27 Jun 94 21:17:10
Subject: Verbal abuse                           

RC>  MG>       I would rather ask if woman can provoke being beaten.  
RC>  MG>  I note there is nothing that can stop a determined women 
RC>  MG>  from continuing such provocation until successful.

RC>  Matt, I would *never* use physical force against a lover 
RC>  unless physically attacked, and then, only enough to stop 
RC>  the attack.
RC> 
RC>  Your contention is ridiculous.

     And you are contending that if you were subject to verbal 
abuse every waking moment from someone you love you could not 
possibly respond to it.  If you contend my position is ridiculous 
I contend you are inhuman.  

RC>  MG>       What does she get out of it?  First, the attention of 
RC>  MG>  friends, neighbors and the police.  Second, the courts 
RC>  MG>  automatically side with the poor, weeping victim on the 
RC>  MG>  stand.  Third, if the man should want to get back into his 
RC>  MG>  own home and see his own children again it will be on her 
RC>  MG>  terms.

RC>  Yeah, I'm sure that that's what women have in mind...  
RC>  "Dammit, will you just beat me and get it over with? I want 
RC>  to really screw you over."

     I know several who do.  Why is it you do not?

RC>  MG>       Can a woman be stopped with anything short of 
RC>  MG>  violence? Court relief from the common scold ceased a 
RC>  MG>  couple centuries ago.  In the past we had a recognized crime 
RC>  MG>  that certainly can lead to domestic violence.  Today we 
RC>  MG>  have no injunctive relief for it.  I am not suggesting 
RC>  MG>  bringing back the scold's bridle but certainly there is 
RC>  MG>  something between that and being laughed out of domestic 
RC>  MG>  relations court.

RC>  Only a fool justifies physical violence with verbal 
RC>  assault.  I've never struck anyone in anger over something 
RC>  that was said.

     Verbal assault used to be criminal matter.  Why is no longer 
a criminal matter?

RC>  Anyone who has needs to learn a little bit about self 
RC>  control...

     I can not deal with your inhuman viewpoint.  I was speaking 
of normal humans.

RC>  MG>       It would appear only reasonable in law to remove the 
RC>  MG>  presumption of victim status from the woman.  It should be 
RC>  MG>  recognized that women can just as easily be the cause of 
RC>  MG>  the abuse they receive.  Or shall it continued to be 
RC>  MG>  presumed that no man should ever snap under vicious verbal 
RC>  MG>  abuse every waking moment while knowing there will be no 
RC>  MG>  end until the woman gets the victim status she wants?

RC>  I'm sorry.  No woman can *ask* for abuse.  That's the only 
RC>  implication I can see with your post, so I must disagree.

     You don't know enough women.  When you have more experience 
get back to me.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * First thing we do, we arrest all the hostages.  FBI at Waco.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 296 297 298 301 401 470 601
SEEN-BY: 250/701 714 801 901 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20
SEEN-BY: 3610/4 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1250)
To:      All                                    27 Jun 94 21:20:10
Subject: The other side                         

                    Defense is not Abuse
                             by
                         Matt Giwer (c) 1994 <6/22>

     While the nation is attempting to avert wars in both Haiti
and Korea the attention of the nation is riveted on O. J.
Simpson.  As expected the professional whiners are on the talk
shows talking about spousal abuse.  And of course the evil male
is guilty again.
     The innocence of the woman is presumptive.  It is axiomatic
that a woman can do nothing to deserve physical abuse.  I have to
ask, how can a man ever deserve verbal abuse from a woman?
     The scold or shrew is a well known character in literature.
How common they are in real life has not been the subject of any
study.  A question we can discuss is how many women aspire to
being victims?
     Every time you see or read or hear of a woman telling about
how she was beaten you have a professional victim.  Can it happen
once?  Certainly but those are not professional victims.  Those
that go through relationship after relationship with the same
results are professional victims.
     Why?  Listen to the explanation as to why so many next time.
"I didn't understand the kind of men I was seeking out."  Note
that makes them even a victim of themselves.
     She is now the consummate victim.  And when they go public
they get public humiliation and all the pity they can wallow in.
It has to be seriously asked if they sought out the wrong kind of
man or whether any kind of man would do and those men provoked
into violence.  Back to the axiom, no woman can do anything to
deserve physical abuse.
     I would rather ask if woman can provoke being beaten.  I
note there is nothing that can stop a determined women from
continuing such provocation until successful.
     What does she get out of it?  First, the attention of
friends, neighbors and the police.  Second, the courts
automatically side with the poor, weeping victim on the stand.
Third, if the man should want to get back into his own home and
see his own children again it will be on her terms.
     Can a woman be stopped with anything short of violence?
Court relief from the common scold ceased a couple centuries ago.
In the past we had a recognized crime that certainly can lead to
domestic violence.  Today we have no injunctive relief for it.  I
am not suggesting bringing back the scold's bridle but certainly
there is something between that and being laughed out of domestic
relations court.
     It would appear only reasonable in law to remove the
presumption of victim status from the woman.  It should be
recognized that women can just as easily be the cause of the
abuse they receive.  Or shall it continued to be presumed that no
man should ever snap under vicious verbal abuse every waking
moment while knowing there will be no end until the woman gets
the victim status she wants?

                            * * * * *

      Further distribution is encouraged by the author.




---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Janet Reno, the third best woman for the job.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 296 297 298 301 401 470 601
SEEN-BY: 250/701 714 801 901 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20
SEEN-BY: 3610/4 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1252)
To:      Albert Quinn                           27 Jun 94 21:22:10
Subject: WACO                                   

AQ> MG>AQ>   This is my point exactly, People in a situation like that 
AQ> MG>AQ>   lose their free will because they believe so much in the 
AQ> MG>AQ>   man that they come to believe every word he says as gospel 
AQ> MG>AQ>   and then accepts it as empiracal truth.

AQ> MG>      Which is completely irrelevant to the illegal 
AQ> MG> government actions at Waco.

AQ>  It may seem to be irrelevant to you but I think it was very 
AQ>  relevant to the final outcome.  

     You may think whatever you wish.  If you wish to state it 
publically then you will have to justify it or you will be 
challenged on it.  Opinions can not be argued but they can be 
ridiculed quite effectively.

Koresh could have ended it 
AQ>  any time that he wanted after the BATF was called off.  

     The government MURDERED TWO Davidians AFTER the CEASE FIRE!  
Where do you get this, call it off crap?  

He 
AQ>  was supposed to give up after he read his manifesto on the 
AQ>  radio stations and he didn't or any of the other times when 
AQ>  he was given a chance.

     You never heard him say that.  You heard the the government 
tell you that.  What I specifically heard was that the deal was 
for his statement to be carried all over the country on radio.  I 
know for a fact only the first half hour was carried here.  Thus 
the government violated the agreement even as it stated it.  He 
was under no obligation as per the government's own statement even 
if it were truly and agreement.  

     You should learn to think things through.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * We are here to help you, Jude, I mean Mr. Koresh.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 296 297 298 301 401 470 601
SEEN-BY: 250/701 714 801 901 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20
SEEN-BY: 3610/4 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1253)
To:      Albert Quinn                           27 Jun 94 21:27:10
Subject: WACO                                   

AQ> MG>AQ>   I still think that that does not happen a great deal.  
AQ> MG>AQ>   Most of the time when you are injured in your own home or 
AQ> MG>AQ>   whatever then it is somebody you know or are related to.  
AQ> MG>AQ>   Besides that any weopon that is in your house can be used 
AQ> MG>AQ>   against you and if it is stored the way the feds say it 
AQ> MG>AQ>   should be then you would not have it close enough to be 
AQ> MG>AQ>   able to use it.  Also there is enough firearms stolen 
AQ> MG>AQ>   every year and if somebody breaks into your home the first 
AQ> MG>AQ>   thing they are going to take is a weopon.

AQ> MG>      We both know you are ignorant of guns.  Why do you 
AQ> MG> insist upon demonstrating it at every opportunity?

AQ>  Why do you insist on attacking me personally? 

     There is nothing personal about it.  You are defending the 
government based upon incorrect statements about guns.  Therefore 
you are either ignorant of guns or you are deliberately lying.  
Pointing it out as ignorance is not an attack merely an 
observation.  An attack would be to assume you know something 
about guns and to call you a liar.

Is your 
AQ>  argument that weak or do you know that I am right.  

     I know you are ignorant of guns.  That is painfully obvious.

I am not 
AQ>  for banning all guns but there has to be some reasonabble 
AQ>  compromise in there between what you people consider which 
AQ>  is to own any type of firearm there is and the other side 
AQ>  who want all guns banned outright.  

     Where do you compromise on the freedom of religion?

The truth is that the 
AQ>  states has all together too many guns floating around and 
AQ>  too many being manufactured and the government has to do 
AQ>  something.  

     Fuck the government.  That you have bought into its campaign 
of lies about guns only further demonstrates your ignorance of 
them.

Even the UN wants to get into the act as a lot 
AQ>  of weopons purchased quite legally in the US show up in 
AQ>  other countries and are found in the commission of a crime.  

     Because the countries sending drugs to this country don't 
like the guns that are mainly NOT coming from the US.  LEARN 
something about a subject before you write about it.

AQ>  I know for a fact that most of the illegal firearms that 
AQ>  find their way to Canada come from the states.

     So close your borders.  Where you exist is your problem.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Lt. Frank Drebbin was in Charge of Corpus Crispy OPS.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 296 297 298 301 401 470 601
SEEN-BY: 250/701 714 801 901 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20
SEEN-BY: 3610/4 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1261)
To:      All                                    28 Jun 94 00:39:10
Subject: Inquistion mentality                   

 *********** Original       To: ALL
 * SILICON *      was       By: MATT GIWER
 *  DUPE   *   posted:      On: MERCOPUS
 ***********              Conf: 1438 - WorldTalk-F
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Burn Him!
                             by
                         Matt Giwer (c) 1994 <6/27>
     Alternate titles for this article were "Heresy!" and "31
Million Missing, 12 Million Dead."  This is could also be called
"The Confessions of a Heretic."  What did I do?
     For decades I had been listening to the stories of the
Holocaust.  I believed them.  I had faith.  Certainly there was
no question of the 12 million or so who died in concentration
camps and there still is no question of it.
     Then I found a correspondent who was in investigator for the
War Crimes Courts after the war.  His unit accounted for four
executions, two life imprisonments, and a total of 65 years for
four others.  He kept his original notes.  His name is in the
Hall of the Righteous in Israel.
     He did not mention his name being in the Hall of the
Righteous.  I uncovered that while checking out his credentials.
He may be mistaken but he is certainly the last person to lie and
from what he did say it is difficult to imagine how he could
exaggerate and not be a screenwriter for Steven Spielberg.
     He has also written and lectured on the subject of the
Holocaust.  He was telling me nothing new.  Nothing he had not
said for years.
     He pointed out that no one was charged with gassing at
Nuremberg and thus obviously no one was convicted of gassing
anyone.  He pointed out the Rudolph Hoess, the notorious
Commandant of Auschwitz was never arrested but, after he
surrendered, was kept under house surveillance.  He was never
charged at Nuremberg.
     After his testimony against his superiors at Nuremberg he
was arrested and turned over to the Russians at the request of
General Rudenko and charged with gassing Russian citizens.  After
a two day trial he was acquitted of those charges for failure of
the prosecution to produce evidence there was any gassing.  He
was later tried on charges of crimes against the Russian people
and hung.
     This was the key to the issue.  Here was a man purported to
have written a book between the time of his surrender in 1946 and
his execution in 1947.  That book, Commandant of Auschwitz,
amounts to a full confession of gassing.  And yet the Russians
acquitted him of that charge for lack of evidence.
     Not even asking when he had time to write this book why
would not such a confession lead to a conviction on exactly those
charges?  It is obvious it did not exist at the time and what has
been published is a forgery.
     My correspondent went further.  He heard the first report of
gas chambers.  It was brought in by a fellow investigator and
the team immediately flew to a camp outside of Munich to examine
the evidence.
     The people reporting the gassing were asked to identify the
building where it occurred.  They identified four buildings with
no certainty.  None of the four were found suitable for gassing
and one of them was the office of the commandant of the camp.  As
he said, they could find no credible evidence of any gas
chambers.
     He pointed out there were attempts to follow up the charges
as a group of Russian officers had reported they found gas
chambers at Auschwitz.  However, the Russians refused access to
Auschwitz-Birkenau.  And it is noted their own court had thrown
out these reports in the Hoess trial.  Thus the evidence from
Auschwitz is not credible.
     It turns out that Lenin ordered the construction of a gas
chamber at Auschwitz some years later.  Then and only then were
people permitted to view what Lenin ordered to be built.  It is
interesting to examine what he ordered constructed.
     This is the famous room, the first gas chamber described in
Kommandant of Auschwitz.  In the book it was a spontaneous
experiment carried out hardly a month after the infamous Wannasee
Conference is supposed to have ordered the method used.  At this
point in my reconsideration of events I was reviewing some
material from people who were already skeptics of gassing.
     It turns out this was a rather small room and yet the
description is of at least 700 people being stuffed into it.
This works out to about three people per square foot.  And yet
the description of events holds that Nazis in gas masks walked
freely through the room pouring out Zyklon-B pellets.  It also
holds the room was prepared by covering glass windows with dirt
-- some glass.
     On cursory inspection the story is incredible.  Yet this is
the story.  And if one asks for better evidence?  This is where
the heresy comes in.
     I have asked for evidence.  I have presented all of the
above and more.  The response I have received is, "You are
denying the Holocaust."
     I have been asked how people died and I respond they were
worked to death in conditions of no sanitation and no medication
and on starvation level food.  That satisfies no one.  I have
been told by implication that a quick death by gassing is worse
than a slow death from disease and starvation.
     I have have dozens of people literally refuse to respond to
my requests because they know the truth.  When I ask them why
they will not post the evidence of that truth they refuse to
respond.
     Have I denied the Holocaust in anything of the above?  Yet
almost every response I have received has been a claim that I
have denied there was any massive death of Jews regardless of the
stipulation I have made up front.
     This is an interesting matter of mass psychology.  If I were
in the Dark Ages and professed to be a Christian and questioned
the Trinity the cry would be "Heretic" and the well done stake
would not be far behind.  In the 20th century I can profess to
believe in the deaths of tens of millions but if I question one
particular means of death the claim is that I have denied all of
the deaths.
     Deny the Trinity and deny Christianity.
     There is no difference.
     Now does anyone fail to understand the fervor of Torquemada
or the entire Inquisition?  Any slightest deviation from accepted
dogma, any slightest questioning of one small aspect of dogma is
considered the same as denying EVERYTHING.
     Watch the responses to this article if you think there is a
difference.  The responses will give you a concrete example of
the Inquisitional mentality as it exists today.

                            * * * * *

      Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

     1425 San Mateo Dr., Dunedin, Fl. 34698, 813-733-547


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 *               I don't call 911.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 296 297 298 301 401 470 601
SEEN-BY: 250/701 714 801 901 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20
SEEN-BY: 3610/4 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1265)
To:      Albert Quinn                           28 Jun 94 02:37:10
Subject: WACO                                   

AQ> TR>If someone wants to give up their free will, then that's their
AQ> TR>business to do so. That was my point.

AQ>  In this civilized world that we are supposed to live in 
AQ>  then it is our duty to protect the stupid.

     Why would you make an entreaty to protect the BATF?


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * All right, Koresh, make my day. -- Reno
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 296 297 298 301 401 470 601
SEEN-BY: 250/701 714 801 901 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20
SEEN-BY: 3610/4 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

+++■■■■■ r_940702 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1347)
To:      Pete Bucy                              29 Jun 94 15:04:10
Subject: Davidians are senten                   

PB>  MG>  There is a thing called the appeal process.  If the USSC 
PB>  MG>  finds the same way the FLSC found then all the convictions 
PB>  MG>  will be overturned based upon the manner in which the 
PB>  MG>  warrant was served.

PB>      Well, they have the right to appeal, but for the moment 
PB>      they stand convicted and imprisoned.  I somehow don't 
PB>      think that their appeals will be successful.  Appeals 
PB>      courts are populated by judges, not emotional jurors.

     How could you make that statement?  You have no idea what 
happened.  Why do not you simply give it up until you learn what 
happened?

PB>  MG> I listed those crimes several times.  Perhaps you were
PB>  MG> simply asleep?  You obviously have no idea what they were.

PB>     Perhaps I missed your message. Considering the volume that
PB>     Lester has on this echo every day, that is very possible.

     Perhaps you are lying.  That is more likely considering your 
ignorance of events.

PB>  MG> You again post from your personal fantasy world.

PB>      While I thank you for posting the charges, I am not 
PB>      living in a fantasy world.  Quit to the disbelief of the 
PB>      Davidians and their supporters, they are the ones who 
PB>      believe that you can conspire to kill and kill Federal 
PB>      officers, then expect to be released.

     As you know they were acquitted of both murder and 
conspiracy to murder charges.  Why do you continue to lie?

PB>      My reality seems to be running with the verdict, not 
PB>      with the fantasy of those who don't believe in the 
PB>      power that the Constitution extends to the Federal 
PB>      Government.

     You know what the verdict was and yet you lie about it as 
though you do not know.  Why do you continue to do this?  Are you 
attempting to formally label yourself a liar?                                  
                          


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * BBQed Baby Back Ribs, Waco style.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 296 297 298 301 401 470 601
SEEN-BY: 250/701 714 801 901 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20
SEEN-BY: 3610/4 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1348)
To:      Pete Bucy                              29 Jun 94 15:12:10
Subject: Waco                                   

PB>  MG>  Where did you come up with this red herring?  When WAS LHO 
PB>  MG>  required to surrender?  He was arrested.

PB>      A red herring it is not! The point that I tried to 
PB>      illustrate was that if the Davidians were not required 
PB>      to surrender, then would Lee Harvey Oswald have been 
PB>      required to surrender if he had decided to hold-up in 
PB>      the Texas Book Depository building after John Kennedy 
PB>      was shot?

     LHO was arrested at a movie theater after being thought to 
be the killer of a police officer.  

     You are obviously ignorant of the best known crime of this 
century.  

     Is there anything you know something about?  Or are you 
going to claim senility?

     I would suggest you consult your personal physician.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * W.A.C.O, acronym, Washington Approved Cook Out
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 296 297 298 301 401 470 601
SEEN-BY: 250/701 714 801 901 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20
SEEN-BY: 3610/4 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1349)
To:      Pete Bucy                              29 Jun 94 15:14:10
Subject: WACO - MURDER BY OUR                   

PB>  PB>       I don't remember exactly how this string started, but 
PB>  PB>       I believe that someone said that David Koresh was 
PB>  PB>       innocent of all crimes because he died before the 
PB>  PB>       could be charged with any crimes or made to stand 
PB>  PB>       trial.

PB>  MG>  No one said that.  YOU imagined it.  And then you proceeded 
PB>  MG>  to justify government actions based upon unsubstantiated 
PB>  MG>  allegations against him.

PB>      Matt, I could go over the past messages, but as I 
PB>      recall, Kate Secrest said just exactly that.  

     You can go over anything you wish but until you post the 
message you are a liar as is the norm.

The point 
PB>      was that he was not required to surrender because he 
PB>      had not been convicted of any crimes.  

     There was no arrest warrant either, fool.

It was not a 
PB>      hallucination.  This string has been running through 
PB>      quite a few replies, you should read the entire string 
PB>      to know what is being discussed.

     It is your fantasy until you post messages showing you are 
correct.  Until then, you are a liar and we all know it.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Waco lesson 2.  Obey or die.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 296 297 298 301 401 470 601
SEEN-BY: 250/701 714 801 901 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20
SEEN-BY: 3610/4 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1350)
To:      Rick Chadderdon                        29 Jun 94 17:03:10
Subject: Verbal abuse                           

RC>  MG> SP>      So it is your contention that, if the little woman 
RC>  MG> SP>      nags, a good backhand in the chops is just what she is 
RC>  MG> SP>      asking for, right?

RC>  MG>       Obviously you only read selectively.  I did refer to 
RC>  MG>  the man being subjected to intense abuse every waking 
RC>  MG>  moment until he snaps.  You obviously did not read that 
RC>  MG>  part or you do not believe it.
RC>  MG> 
RC>  MG>       But short of the response you are implying, NO, NO 
RC>  MG>  WOMAN has the right to nag, period.  It is a disgusting 
RC>  MG>  characteristic of some women and should be a matter of 
RC>  MG>  shame.

RC>  And *you* have no right to post here...

     Did LSG die and make you moderator?

RC>  Communication, no matter how annoying is *NEVER* grounds 
RC>  for physical violence.

     A nag is not communicating.  A common scold is a vicious 
person worthy only of the scold's bridle.

RC>  You really surprise me with this viewpoint.  Are you going 
RC>  to suggest now that since "nagging" doesn't "exchange 
RC>  information" in your opinion that it isn't communication?

     Of course it is not.  It is a form of deliberate torment 
with the intention of forcing compliance to whim.

RC>  In America, the nation with the Bill of Rights, remember, 
RC>  freedom of speech is constitutionally protected.  Even if 
RC>  it's a nagging woman.  (Or *man*)

     I agree.  You are ignorant of the meaning of the 1st 
amendment.

RC>  MG>       Backhanding under these circumstances is your choice 
RC>  MG>  of conditions, not the ones I proposed.
RC>  MG> 
RC>  MG>       However, NO, NO woman has the right to nag, period.  
RC>  MG>  Who the hell gave a woman that right?  Who is a woman to 
RC>  MG>  unilaterally determine what a man's duties are?
RC>  MG> 
RC>  MG>       He made her into a nag?  She made him hit her?  It is 
RC>  MG>  the same excuse turned around.

RC>  How can you justify removing *anyone's* right to free 
RC>  speech just because the speech is continuous and annoying?

     Remember, we agreed you are ignorant on the subject of free 
speech.

RC>  MG>       So when is the right to be self anointed judge of a 
RC>  MG>  man's duties and to run off at the mouth for days at a time 
RC>  MG>  going to be put back into law?

RC> It's already there, Matt. Amendment 1. U.S. Constitution.

     Are you going to learn the subject or are you going to 
continue rambling?

RC>  MG>      Evidence shows household violence is equally distributed
RC>  MG> between men and women.  You should know that.

RC>  Untrue.  You should know better than to use a study that as 
RC>  of yet stands by itself.

     The Canadian study has been mentioned in almost all of the 
discussions surrounding the OJ case.  How have you remained 
ignorant of that also?

RC>  Perhaps it will turn out that physical *attempts* at 
RC>  violence will be equally distributed.  I hope you can guess 
RC>  which sex is going to be the most frequently injured by 
RC>  it.

     Tough shit.  She starts it.  She gets hurt.  He is guilty.  
Grow up.

RC>  MG>      But a bitch running off at the mouth for weeks at a time
RC>  MG> because he won't obey her petty, dictatorial decisions is a
RC>  MG> sensible, mature person.

RC>  No.  But she is doing a hell of a lot less harm than the guy 
RC>  who breaks her jaw.

     And, saint that you are, you would never snap even though 
that is exactly what she is working on getting you to do.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * BATF Motto "Let God sort out the innocent!"
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 296 297 298 301 401 470 601
SEEN-BY: 250/701 714 801 901 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20
SEEN-BY: 3610/4 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1351)
To:      Kate Secrest                           29 Jun 94 18:19:10
Subject: 4th Amendment Rights                   

KS> MG>                       NEW WORLD ORDER MOVES IN HAWAII!!

KS> MG>                 The Christian Volunteers Information Service
KS>   >                           Reported by Lynn Shaffer

KS> MG>    Editor's note:  Is Ivy being made an example of as warning to
KS>   >all of us who are on the front lines here in Hawaii?  Please keep
KS>   >her and this situation in your prayers...

KS> MG> ------------------------------------------------------------------

KS> MG>  Welcome to Hitler's Germany - 1994 style.

KS>  Hell! I guess!  This just gets scarier and scarier.  I 
KS>  can't help wondering how long it will take folks to wake 
KS>  up.

     And people wonder how it happened in Germany?  People simply 
do not care.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Janet Reno, the third best woman for the job.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 296 297 298 301 401 470 601
SEEN-BY: 250/701 714 801 901 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20
SEEN-BY: 3610/4 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1353)
To:      Brad Stiles                            29 Jun 94 20:30:10
Subject: Call Me Master                         

BS>  MG>                        Call Me Master
BS>  MG>                              by
BS>  MG>                           Anonymous (c) 1994 <6/26>

BS>      You'll be glad to know that this piece is very rapidly 
BS>  making its way around the office where I work.  Seemed to 
BS>  rais quite a few hackles, too, if the number of red ears is 
BS>  any indication.

     It is good for them.  Gets the blood circulating.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Linda Thompson, loose cannon on deck.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 296 297 298 301 401 470 601
SEEN-BY: 250/701 714 801 901 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20
SEEN-BY: 3610/4 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1354)
To:      John Clifton                           29 Jun 94 20:33:10
Subject: Lawyer Matt fired?                     

JC> > He doesn't appear to want it.

JC>       Indeed.  We shall see if his pretrial motions result 
JC>  in his being able to avoid a court appearance.

     I don't see it happening.  The law specifically says for 
actions while in office.  If Congress had wished the law written 
differently they could have easily done so at the time.

JC> JC>       Who says Trooper Joe is telling the truth?  A jury
JC> JC> will have to establish "the facts" of the case.

JC> > He is hardly the first to tell the same story.

JC>      *If* she gets to court, she can call them all on her
JC> behalf.  It remains, of course, that it is the court that will
JC> establish the facts.

JC> >     Telling her the governor said "you make my knees knock" is
JC> > sufficient to make it a crime.

JC>      I don't think so.  More likely, his entire conduct would be
JC> deciding factor, not simply an offhand comment.

     That would mean he converted the service of the trooper to 
personal use.  That is a federal crime worth two years and 
$20,000 fine each instance.  How many times did they do such 
things?


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * First thing we do, we arrest all the hostages.  FBI at Waco.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 296 297 298 301 401 470 601
SEEN-BY: 250/701 714 801 901 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20
SEEN-BY: 3610/4 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1355)
To:      Jeff Welch                             29 Jun 94 20:40:10
Subject: OLLIE NORTH FOR SENAT                  

JW> MG>JW>   Iran certainly considered the U.S.  it's enemy.  They sure 
JW> MG>JW>   as hell kidnapped enough of our people.

JW> MG>      What Iran may or may not have considered itself has 
JW> MG> nothing to do with what the US considered it.

JW>  So, are you saying that Iran was *not* the enemy of the 
JW>  U.S.  government?

     I have never heard of one act of war by Iran against the US.  
Perhaps I missed something in the news?  

JW> MG>JW> "Liar".

JW> MG>     Synonymous with congressman.

JW>  So where are you going with this, Matt?

     Shooting down the sanctimony of those who would condemn him 
for being no worse than the rest of Congress.

  "All Congressmen 
JW>  are liars, therefore one more---what the hell."  North is a 
JW>  fool, a liar, a document shredder, 

     Document shredder?  He told Congress he did it in front of 
the congressional investigators and they could have stopped him 
any time they wished.

and a man who has no 
JW>  respect for the Constitution or the people of this country 
JW>  or their wishes.  

     Are you going to revive the story that he violated the 
Boland amendments even though he pointed out exactly how he 
avoided breaking each version of it?  

If this is what you want in Congress, 
JW>  then you deserve what you get.

     It is what we have now.  


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * All right, Koresh, make my day. -- Reno
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 296 297 298 301 401 470 601
SEEN-BY: 250/701 714 801 901 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20
SEEN-BY: 3610/4 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1356)
To:      Chris Baugh                            29 Jun 94 21:00:10
Subject: WACO                                   

CB>  MG>       Guns are like cars.  You can only use one at a time.

CB>  Should the government impose a limit on how many cars one 
CB>  can stockpile?

     Look at the idiots who think it is a good idea.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Waco!  Never again!  Vote Libertarian!
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 296 297 298 301 401 470 601
SEEN-BY: 250/701 714 801 901 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20
SEEN-BY: 3610/4 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1357)
To:      Chris Baugh                            29 Jun 94 21:06:10
Subject: Waco #5                                

CB>  MG>       Carrying in a portable radio Wayne demanded, "Listen to
CB>  MG> this.  They are saying we started it."

CB>  I missed part one of this account.  Is it your own write-up 
CB>  of the situation, or a quote?

     My own.  A fictionalization.  I've been trying to get the 
flavor of how things would appeared from their viewpoint.

      "David?  There is a phone call for you in your office."
     "This is David."
     "David, I met a TV guy on my way to the grocery.  He asked
directions to Mt. Carmel.  He said something big is coming coming
down there but he didn't know what.  I'll get back as soon as I
can."
     "No hurry, Jim, take your time.  Did he know who is
coming?"
     "No.  He said they never tell cameramen anything."
     "Finish up whatever you are doing and get back when you can.
I'll take care of everything."
     David returned to the front living room and shook hands with
the "secret" agent.  "I have enjoyed our conversations.  It looks
like you have work to do outside.  Good luck to you."  The secret
agent almost protested his innocence but thought better of it and
gripped David's hand harder.  "Good luck to you all."
     After the agent left he said to Wayne, "There goes a good
man.  I don't think he really liked being a Judas to us.  Too bad
he couldn't say who he works for.  I might have saved him if he
had."
     "You can't save everyone, David."
     "Thanks, Wayne, but when God works through me anything is
possible.  Would you ask Sarah to put up a pot of coffee for our
guests?"
     "Certainly, David."
     David retired to his upstairs room to pray for strength and
guidance. He offered some prayers almost every hour.  It inspired
him.  And now the Lord was sending him many converts and he had a
chance to testify for the Lord on camera.  The Lord was sending
him a test and a gift.  He was thankful.
     His prayers lasted hardly ten minutes when he heard
firecrakers outside.  He was indigent.  The kids were supposed
to be in the chapel for Sunday School.  He went down the stairs
working up a mood of righteous anger that he hoped was stern
enough to impress them this time.
     Heading for the front door he was stopped by Wayne.  "David
there are men outside, lots of them.  They shot our dogs."
     Now he was trying to control rage.  What right did anyone
have to come onto a man's property and shoot his animals?
     He swung open the front door and demanded, "What's going on
here."  Suddenly pain in his wrist and then again in his
shoulder.  He fell to the floor kicking the door shut seeing
bullet holes appear in the door above him.  He crawled away from
the door using his good arm.
     "Wayne!  Did you see who they are?"
     "No.  How badly are you hurt?"
     "I don't know yet."
     They heard a loud noise from the direction of the chapel
followed by the screams of women and children.
     "That sounded like an explosion, Dave."
     "My God, what are those people?"
     "See what happened.  Tell Steve to open the armory to the
men.  Tell them to hold their fire unless someone is hurt."
     From the top of the stairs Amy was screaming his name.
     "Everything will be fine, Amy.  The Lord will see us through
this."
     "David!  They are shooting at us and the babies up here!"
     Now was the time for the calm the Lord had taught him in his
ministry.  "Tell everyone to get down on the floor and pray.  I
will get help."
     He got to his feet and ran squat to the nearest phone in
Wayne's office bullets coming through the windows and walls.  He
brushed a curtain and it immediately drew machine gun fire.
     Getting to the office he heard the sound of helicopters and
the sound of different gunfire.  Amy screamed again, "They hit
me, David, they hit me trough the ceiling!"  From down the
hallway he heard a man shout, "Enough!," and the sound of a large
bore rifle.
     Koresh blessed his aim and immediately regretted the
thought.
     He tried to dial with his right hand but his arm would not
move, numb now, the pain had not started.  He tried to turn
himself to use his left and he fell to the floor with the pain in
his side.  Lay still and pulled the phone to the floor by its
cord to where he could use his left.
     "Tell them to call it off.  We told you we would talk.  You
didn't have to do this."
     "Who is this?"  
     "This is David Koresh at Mt. Carmel.  They are shooting at
us out here.  You've killed my children.  Call it off."
     "Who is doing it, David."
     "I don't know.  Call it off."
     "Are you shooting back?"
     "Now we are."
     The helicopters were coming back firing and firing through
the roof.  Sounds of explosions were making the house shake.
Bullets continued to come through the walls.
     The return fire was becoming more frequent.  To himself,
"Lord forgive me but I hope we kill them all."
     "You stay on the phone, David, I'll try to contact them."
     "Who are they."
     "That doesn't matter now.  I'll be back to you."
     Wayne returned to report.
     "I couldn't stop them from shooting, David.  When they heard
Amy scream I couldn't do a thing."
     "You tried, Wayne, now get your gun and try to keep us alive
until help gets here."
     "David, I think those people outside are the help."




---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * First thing we do, we arrest all the hostages.  FBI at Waco.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 296 297 298 301 401 470 601
SEEN-BY: 250/701 714 801 901 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20
SEEN-BY: 3610/4 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

+++■■■■■ r_940703 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1263)
To:      Mark Brown                             30 Jun 94 02:46:10
Subject: CONSCRIPTION                           

MB>      Your implying that if only 5,000 males suvived anf 
MB>  there were 50,000 females left, that this race could be 
MB>  carried on because the 5,000 males could impregnate the 
MB>  50,000 women.  This would work fine if polygamy were legal, 
MB>  but since its not, only 5,000 women will get to marry and 
MB>  carry on the race.  The vice-versa is true as well.  
MB>  Whether we have 5,000 women or 5,000 men left, only 5,000 
MB>  couples can be formed, so with respect to the propagation 
MB>  of our nation, it doesn't really matter if women fight or 
MB>  not.  Let the women fight!

     And you are under some delusion that if that odd population 
should occur that such laws would have any effect?


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * BATF Motto "Let God sort out the innocent!"
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1266)
To:      Susana Atanasova                       30 Jun 94 02:54:10
Subject: Elders Attacks Christians              

SA>  TR>      She attacked what she called the "un-Christian 
SA>  TR>  religious right" for its opposition to education programmes 
SA>  TR>  in such areas as sex and AIDS.

SA> Bully for her!
SA>  It's about time someone with a high profile came out and 
SA>  publicly exposed the obvious truth for ANYONE who just 
SA>  listens and doesn't stop to THINK! There is NOTHING 
SA>  "Christian" about attempting to impose life threatening 
SA>  ignorance upon others, in my opinion.  Susana ;-)

     You are truly psychotic.  Certainly terminally stupid.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * All right, Koresh, make my day. -- Reno
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1267)
To:      Linda Terrell                          30 Jun 94 02:59:10
Subject: GOD SUPPORTS ABORTION                  

LT>      Especially when there isn't a shred of Egyptian history 
LT>  that refers to the Hebrews in Egupt or that there was ever 
LT>  anything like an "Exodus"  And Rameses II was one of the 
LT>  better-documented Pharoah's in history.

     Worse than that.  There is no suggestion in Exodus of who 
might have been running the show at the time.  R II was Cecil B. 
DeMille's selection as was Yul Brenner's command to "remove all 
mention of Moses" to cover the lack of evidence and his poetic 
license.

     This has all been an open secret for at least a century 
starting with Napoleon occupying Egypt and the first 
archaeologists starting their research.  The Brits had more or 
less concluded the most interesting parts of it by 1890.  

     We have commonly accepted history based upon a movie.  It is 
that bad.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Ruby Creek, Waco; the war has already begun.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1268)
To:      Susana Atanasova                       30 Jun 94 03:20:10
Subject: Kill 'em ALL!                          

SA>  should all be killed on the spot with witnesses present 
SA>  willing to vouch for the facts of what happened, and a 
SA>  penalty of death to anyone who abuses this.  Susana
SA> 
SA>  Cheap, practical, effective.

     You forgot the death penalty for people who knowingly post 
lies about other people on public boards.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * God Lord!  It's a cookbook! -- FBI manual
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1269)
To:      Lisa Allison                           30 Jun 94 03:25:10
Subject: SECOND-HAND SMOKE ST                   

LA>  Are you paid by the tobacco lobby?  Your arguments are 
LA>  about as tissue thin as theirs.
LA> 
LA>  When you smoke around me you are filling your smoke into my 
LA>  lungs.  When the day comes such that you can wear a helmet 
LA>  that will keep your smoke to yourself then you can smoke 
LA>  around me.  Until that day comes you're stepping on my 
LA>  toes, not the other way around.

     But as you know all claims that that harms you have been 
completely discredited three times in a row, most recently by the 
Congressional Research Service.  So why do you continue to bring 
it up?


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * All right, Koresh, make my day. -- Reno
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1316)
To:      Michael Pilon                          30 Jun 94 17:57:10
Subject: VERBAL ABUSE                           

MP>  MG>  Certainly there was a discussion of masochism in your 
MP>  MG>  course  of study.  Do you really doubt it happens?

MP>  Some women do indeed seem to end up in sad relationships 
MP>  repeatedly, but does it justify the men beating them ?

     Just where did I talk about justifying it?  I pointed out 
there are women who want exactly that and work very hard to get 
it.

MP>  MG>  You asked the right question first but did not answer it.   
MP>  MG>  Why did she do nothing about it?

MP>  In the case in my office she did in fact do something about 
MP>  it when she realized the situation was out of control.  She 
MP>  got friends to help and left the marriage, but received 
MP>  threats for years even after a second marriage.

     Let tell you about a professional victim.  Just so happens 
I received a certified letter from a domestic court in New 
Jersey.  I lived with the woman for several years and we broke up 
to go our separate ways three years ago, me to Florida, her to 
New Jersey.

     At no time did  I ever ever harm her in the least.  The 
letter was a restraining order never to go near her home or her 
place of work.  Specifically written in is to stay away from the 
scene of domestic violence and prohibited from returning to the 
scene of domestic violence.  She is specifically referred to in 
the papers as the victim.

     I might point out I have not seen here in three years and 
have never been to New Jersey in my life.  I have no idea of her 
phone number or address and have made no attempt to contact her 
in two and a half years.  But she got herself an attorney and 
went to court and got this order.  

     That is what I mean by victim.  Some people find victim 
status very desirable.

MP>  No there may be other details, but having you back damaged 
MP>  and receiving death threats is part of a patern many abused 
MP>  women seem to be in.

     And what was his side of it?

MP>  MG>  If you will look at the records the "abuse" is equally  
MP>  MG>  divided between the sexes.

MP>  I have heard it is more the women who are physically 
MP>  abused, but that may be because men will feel unmacho if 
MP>  they complain to the authorities.

     It is supposed to be a Canadian study.  I didn't catch a 
formal reference to it but it was mentioned on a couple of the 
talking head shows around the story.
     
MP>  Gad 
MP>  maybe you are rightm she might have sent me round the bend.  

     You avoided spending 20 or so years finding out.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * All right, Koresh, make my day. -- Reno
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1317)
To:      Michael Pilon                          30 Jun 94 18:14:10
Subject: VERBAL ABUSE                           

MP>  MG>  But short of the response you are implying, NO, NO WOMAN 
MP>  MG>  has  the right to nag, period.  It is a disgusting 
MP>  MG>  characteristic of  some women and should be a matter of 
MP>  MG>  shame.

MP>  Nothing like a good stereotype to set the tone for a 
MP>  discussion, blacks have a great sense of rhythm, Italians 
MP>  are great singers, Chinese are inscrutible, Germans are 
MP>  autocratic, Canadians are great guys to know and fun to be 
MP>  with !

     Think in terms of your college girl friend.  You might even 
have noticed a message I received from a woman defending a 
woman's right to nag to make a man do what she thinks he should.

MP>  MG>  However, NO, NO woman has the right to nag, period.  Who 
MP>  MG>  the hell gave a woman that right?  Who is a woman to 
MP>  MG>  unilaterally determine what a man's duties are?

MP>  How many men does it take to clean a toilet ! None, that's 
MP>  woman's work ..indeed

     What is clean enough for a man to tolerate is his business.  
If you don't like the way a job is done or its frequency do it 
yourself.  


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * All right, Koresh, make my day. -- Reno
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1318)
To:      Kate Secrest                           30 Jun 94 19:40:10
Subject: Verbal Abuse                           

KS> From: LORING YOUNG                 Refer#: NONE
KS>   To: MATT GIWER                    Recvd: NO
KS> Subj: Verbal abuse                   Conf: (17) Debate
KS> LY>PK**

KS>   >*_*****n****O*^**Oo*************R*P**
KS>   >*[****>:***GO**f*6*[***ZJ*******[*****t****z*   *$**z**:***
KS>   >--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'e'
KS>   > * Origin: Lightning System III (OS/2) - Stateline, Nv. (1:203/36)

KS>  Was this person particularly mad at you to double post this 
KS>  message, or what?  Boy!  That's really some verbal 
KS>  abuse!

     You know how some women are.  


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * "Flame on!" -- Janet "The Torch" Reno
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1327)
To:      John Clifton                           30 Jun 94 21:57:10
Subject: Matt generalizes from the              

JC>       Should she have left?  Yes.  Should abused spouses, 
JC>  female and male, move out?  Yes.

     In other words would give the woman in this case the power 
to torment a man out of his house and away from his family 
probably forever.  Nothing makes a better victim than a poor, 
women left with the children.

     Sounds like a real fine deal there for the woman.  

JC>       Did she know just the right buttons to push to set him 
JC>  off? Perhaps.  Would her pressing these buttons be abuse 
JC>  or, at the very least, a provocation?  Certainly.  Does it 
JC>  justify verbal or physical abuse in return?  No.

     Does it justify the law not holding nagging deserving the 
same punishment as the man would get if he were to hit her?

JC> >  If you will look at the records the "abuse" is equally 
JC> >  divided between the sexes.

JC>       This is nonsense.  Abuse, particularly physical abuse, 
JC>  is more typically a male behavior.  That women are brought 
JC>  up to accept abuse and males to dish is out is the 
JC>  problem.

     Sorry, the study only related to physical abuse.  I hope to 
have a formal citation on the study within a week.  It is 
Canadian.

JC>       I, too, know a couple where the wife alleged physical 
JC>  abuse that he was able to *prove* he didn't commit.  
JC>  Fortunately for him, she was so drunk when she made up her 
JC>  stories that it was obvious they weren't cut from whole 
JC>  cloth.  BTW, she also alleged that he molested the 
JC>  children--another lie he was able to put to rest 
JC>  conclusively.

     And of course there were no penalties for the lies and you 
agree there should be no such penalties.

JC>       Who would deny there is another side?  I've seen the 
JC>  other side, too.  What *isn't* justified is your sweeping 
JC>  and quite inaccurate assertion that abuse is "equally 
JC>  divided between the sexes."

     When I have the study I will post it.  I do not see how you 
missed it.  I heard three references to it in relation to the OJ 
story.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * W.A.C.O, acronym, Washington Approved Cook Out
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1328)
To:      Michael Pilon                          30 Jun 94 22:04:10
Subject: MATT'S OJ DEFENCE !!!                  

MP>  MG>  However, NO, NO woman has the right to nag, period.  Who 
MP>  MG>  the hell gave a woman that right?  Who is a woman to 
MP>  MG>  unilaterally determine what a man's duties are?

MP>  Hmmmm wonder if OJ's  legal team have thought of this ? I 
MP>  wonder if this defence will work ? "He was just trying to 
MP>  put the bitch in her place ! "

     Rather he was given no legal recourse to the courts for 
protection from such abuse.  His alternative was never to see his 
children again in order to avoid her.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Sometimes the Gov has to kill kids in order to save them.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1330)
To:      Paul Smith                             30 Jun 94 22:47:10
Subject: Nonsmokers' ally                       

PS> MG>      So what?  There is no evidence of harm from second hand 
PS> MG> smoke.  You know that.  It is a problem only in your fantasy 
PS> MG> life.

PS>  So it IS IN FACT a mish-mash of toxic substances and proof 
PS>  or no, most people know enough not to breathe the crap if 
PS>  they can help it.

     There is no evidence of harm.  You are not forming an 
opinion based upon reality.  Therefore it is based upon your 
fantasy life.  Why should anyone listen to you rave about your 
unsubstantiated opinions?

PS> MG>      Fact is there is no evidence of harm to anyone but the 
PS> MG> smoker.  You would prefer to believe otherwise.  I have no 
PS> MG> idea why it pleases you to believe things for which there is 
PS> MG> no evidence.

PS>  You admit there is harm to the smoker.  Non-smokers in a 
PS>  smoke filled room must breathe precisely the same toxic and 
PS>  carcinogenic compounds as does the smoker.  Logic dictates 
PS>  here MUST be some harm and plenty of research studies 
PS>  confirm that fact.

     There is still NO EVIDENCE.  Why can you not see that?  I 
don't give a damn about what your overactive imagination.

PS> MG>      The Congressional Research Service did the third and 
PS> MG> most recent discreditation of the same group of studies.  
PS> MG> And unless you missed the history, the EPA started with a 
PS> MG> larger group of studies.  That was discredited.  They 
PS> MG> answered some of the objections with the second study but 
PS> MG> then they did not have a case.  So they selected only the 
PS> MG> studies that agreed with their desired conclusion and even 
PS> MG> then couldn't come up with anything serious.

PS>  I'm aware of the CRO's most recent allegations against the 
PS>  EPA report however I'm unfamiliar with previous efforts.  
PS>  Please give me the particulars on those CRO refutations of 
PS>  the EPA reports.

     You should be aware of the previous.  And since two reports 
on the CRO's analysis were posted here, one by me and one by 
Lester why should I re-post what you have already read?


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Let Waco be a lesson to all Americans.  Bill Clinton
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1438)
To:      Rick Chadderdon                         1 Jul 94 14:58:10
Subject: Verbal abuse                           

RC>  MG> RC>  Your contention is ridiculous.
RC>  MG>
RC>  MG>       And you are contending that if you were subject to 
RC>  MG>  verbal abuse every waking moment from someone you love you 
RC>  MG>  could not possibly respond to it.  If you contend my 
RC>  MG>  position is ridiculous I contend you are inhuman.

RC>  I didn't say I would not respond, Matt.  I said I would not 
RC>  respond physically.  If the abuse is as bad as you suggest, 
RC>  "every waking moment," and you can't take it, leave.

     Leave the house, the children, come out on the crap side of 
a divorce settlement.  

     Sure, she nags and gets the kids, the house, every penny you 
ever make and doesn't have to put up with you around.  Sounds 
like a great deal for her.

     And that is exactly how you would handle it.

RC>  I do not *know* of any for the same reason you probably do 
RC>  not *know* of any.  It is not the kind of thing that people 
RC>  admit to.  Did "several" women confess to you that the 
RC>  reason they nagged was to get beaten? If not, you are 
RC>  making conjecture.  Quite open to personal interpretation.

     One I had the pleasure of watching perform at close terms 
for several years.  And when she threw a glass at him in the 
middle of a tirade he slapped it back in her direction.  She 
immediately screamed he had thrown it at her and called the police 
claiming she had been attacked.

RC>  MG>       Verbal assault used to be criminal matter.  Why is no 
RC>  MG>  longer a criminal matter?

RC> I guess we've grown up a little. Some of us.

     Your pretentions are overwhelming.

RC>  The phrase "verbal assault" is a joke.  

     It was called being a common scold.  You should read a 
little more.

RC>  There are real kinds of verbal abuse to mention, those 
RC>  directed at children not mature enough to handle the 
RC>  stress.  Children's developing self image can be damaged by 
RC>  an abusive parent, even if the abuse is only verbal.

     And you would hold a child has no problem when the mother is 
a perpetual nag, bitch, hell on wheels, getting her way by 
running her mouth.  Very strange.

RC>  An adult should be well enough developed emotionally to 
RC>  deal with words without reacting physically.

     "Should" in your overwhelming opinion.

RC>  MG>       I can not deal with your inhuman viewpoint.  I was 
RC>  MG>  speaking of normal humans.

RC>  Define normal.  The most common? The most *idealized*? 

     Idealized is your idea of normal.  I am talking about human 
beings.  The usual fallible, imperfect people you see on the 
streets every day.

RC>  MG>       You don't know enough women.  When you have more 
RC>  MG>  experience get back to me.

RC>  Experience is partially defined by your personal 
RC>  interpretation of your actual "experiences."

     When you have met the type of woman I am talking about get 
back to me.  They are not uncommon.

RC>  You are confusing your interpretation with fact.  Are you 
RC>  willing to admit that your statements are *opinion*? I am.

     Mine are corroborated by experience.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * FOIA?  We don't need no stinking FOIA!
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1467)
To:      Jeff Welch                              1 Jul 94 16:29:10
Subject: OLLIE NORTH FOR SENAT                  

JW> MG>      I have never heard of one act of war by Iran against 
JW> MG> the US.  Perhaps I missed something in the news?

JW> So, are you saying that Iran was *not* the enemy of the
JW> U.S.  government?

     To repeat

JW> MG>      I have never heard of one act of war by Iran against 
JW> MG> the US.  Perhaps I missed something in the news?

JW> MG>      Shooting down the sanctimony of those who would condemn 
JW> MG> him for being no worse than the rest of Congress.

JW>  Surely we must have *some* criteria for those we elect, 
JW>  Matt?  Griping about what a big bunch of liars Congressmen 
JW>  are, then turning around and singing the praises of one 
JW>  more is hardly an admirable, or understandable act.

     I have seen little suggestion of standards.  Consider 1992 
when the first convicted welfare cheat was elected to the Senate.
I would presume that to be the most recent determination of a 
Senatorial minimum standard.

     I would certainly put North ahead of her.  At least North 
tried to free hostages and tried to overthrown a Communist 
country.  She tried to get more welfare money than she was 
entitled to.

     Rostenkowski re-elected when he is up to his eyebrows in the 
House Banking and Post Office scandals.  Such minimum standards 
for members of Congress are not to be overlooked.  

JW> MG>      Document shredder?  He told Congress he did it in front 
JW> MG> of the congressional investigators and they could have 
JW> MG> stopped him any time they wished.

JW>  Huh?  They could have stopped him *after the fact*?  How 
JW>  does that work, exactly?

     Not the way he described it.  He was asked were certain 
documents were.  He replied he shredded them.  He went on to say 
the investigators Congress had sent to his office to go over his 
files for evidence were there while he was doing it.  If they had 
wanted to see the documents they could have asked for them at any 
time or they could have reviewed what he was shredding before he 
did it.

     I do not see a problem.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Sometimes the Gov has to kill kids in order to save them.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1468)
To:      Susana Atanasova                        1 Jul 94 16:40:10
Subject: Waco - Murder By Our                   

SA>  I responded to a post RE: WACO with my *feelings* toward to 
SA>  content of *that specific post*.

     Who gives a damn about feelings when used in place of 
knowledge and reason?  

SA>  You have taken this so far away from WACO that I am *NOT* 
SA>  going to respond to *any* further "one-liners" from you.

     You never had to do so.

SA>  Please, go ahead and post away RE: WACo, or any other 
SA>  debate topic you desire and I will reply as I deem 
SA>  appropriate.

     That was your choice from the beginning.  I certainly will 
not miss your responses.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Let Waco be a lesson to all Americans.  Bill Clinton
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1470)
To:      David Lentz                             1 Jul 94 16:54:10
Subject: Clinton scandal                        

On 06/29/94 DAVID LENTZ to WILLIAM MERIWETHER on Clinton scandal

DL>  You claim William Clinton did not want to be drafted to 
DL>  fight an unjust war.  Please provide documentation, that the 
DL>  war was unjust.  All I am asking for is proof.
DL> 
DL>  Clinton took great efforts to avoid military service and 
DL>  then lied about it.  That has been proven.

     It is more clear that Clinton has completely refused to 
discuss his reasons.  That is a fact.  

     When he was in a photo-op with John Majors he said that 
being elected had depended upon keeping his actions in England a 
secret.

     I suspect that is clear enough.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Sometimes the Gov has to kill kids in order to save them.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

+++■■■■■ r_940705 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1261)
To:      Lester Garrett                          2 Jul 94 00:51:10
Subject: WACO                                   

LG>  MG>   Two Davidians were MURDERED after the cease fire.  What 
LG>  MG>   the fuck are you talking about?

LG>  Knock it off, Matt.  You're letting your temper get the 
LG>  better of you again.

     Good sir.  Unless you have changed the rules lately I am 
aware of no rule violation in this message.  Perhaps you could 
point it out to me?


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Waco lesson 1.  Kill them before they burn you alive.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1262)
To:      Lester Garrett                          2 Jul 94 00:56:10
Subject: Clinton Scandal                        

     Six of your messages got through tonight on a very sparse 
mail run.  If you have recently changed something, keep it up.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * "We execute peaple, not warrants."  BATF Motto
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1300)
To:      Chris Baugh                             2 Jul 94 17:15:10
Subject: Matt generalizes from the              

CB>  MG> Does it justify the law not holding nagging deserving the
CB>  MG> same punishment as the man would get if he were to hit her?

CB> Let me see if I understand what you are saying here.

CB>  It seems to me that you think the law should consider the 
CB>  following two situations to be exactly the same kind of 
CB>  criminal behavior:
CB> 
CB>  1.  Talking incessantly and annoyingly (nagging), and
CB> 
CB>  2.  Initiating physical violence against someone who has 
CB>  never placed you in physical danger (assault).
CB> 
CB>  Is this what you are saying?  If not, please explain what 
CB>  you actually think the law should say in these situations.

     That is what I am saying.  

     It should be a matter of domestic relations court and if it 
fails to cease criminal court.  It is known to provoke physical 
violence.  There is no reason it should be permitted to continue 
without relief.  


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * First thing we do, we arrest all the hostages.  FBI at Waco.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1301)
To:      Grant Karpik                            2 Jul 94 17:20:10
Subject: OLLIE NORTH FOR SENAT                  

GK> GK>  The Rosenbergs: found guilty of treason in 1951 and
GK> GK>  executed in 1953....

GK> MG>      Espionage not treason.

GK>  Actually we're both wrong.  I double checked and it was 
GK>  conspiracy to commit espionage.  I originally got some 
GK>  incorrect information on that one.

     Thank you for checking.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Linda Thompson, loose cannon on deck.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1302)
To:      Grant Karpik                            2 Jul 94 17:21:10
Subject: Ollie North for Senator                

GK> GK>   The, so-called, religious right, who are his main backers 
GK> GK>   are getting real good at getting their candidates 
GK> GK>   nominated.  Problem is, they tend to be non-electable.  
GK> GK>   The guy has too much baggage and too many 'important' 
GK> GK>   folks against him (i.e.  the 'sainted' Colin Powell).

GK> MG>      I am unaware of any particular religious right support

GK>  Then you are either deaf and blind or you are being 
GK>  deliberately obtuse.

     It was never considered to be more than one of three major 
groups Reagan put together in his coalition.  During the last 
election they appear to have jumped to Perot.  

     Myself I do not watch the god channel.  If they are 
supporting North I would certainly like to know about it.  So far 
as I am aware he has done nothing in particular to seek that 
support.  Their recent participation in Virginia politics was 
when the present governor was slammed for being a member of it 
and in response he agreed and got its support.  He did not start 
it.

     If they happen to be supporting people with similar values 
then that is the political process.  

     All together I don't see it as more than 10 million votes as 
a block which is less than the Black vote that votes Democrat.  
And if you want to talk holy rolling fundies you have to go a 
long way to beat them.  Do not forget that Black candidates 
campaign right from the pulpit of churches.  

     If you have a problem with Jerry Falwell then you should see 
a crisis in Jesse Jackson.

GK> MG> present governor  was accused of having it.  He won easily.

GK> Maybe he wasn't as much an ass-hole as North is.

     North has come back from ex-marine with no job skills to a 
viable candidate.  Sounds like my kind of person.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Ruby Creek, Waco; the war has already begun.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1303)
To:      Matthew Walton                          2 Jul 94 17:34:10
Subject: SECOND-HAND SMOKE ST                   

MW>  MG>  But as you know all claims that that harms you have been 
MW>  MG>  completely discredited three times in a row, most recently 
MW>  MG>  by the Congressional Research Service.  So why do you 
MW>  MG>  continue to bring it up?

MW>  Yes, but even if it doesn't damage your health, it's very 
MW>  annoying.  

     Annoying is not the basis for law, particular when it is 
such as obvious exaggeration.

The lady that lives next door to me smokes.  When 
MW>  I open the window to get some nice fresh breeze, I get a 
MW>  lung full of nice fresh smoke instead.  

     And this is the kind of exaggeration I am talking about.  Do 
you really expect anyone to believe this story?  

I'm not saying that 
MW>  shse shouldn't be allowed to smoke, but whether it harms 
MW>  you are not, it's not pleasent.......

     And people who make up stories like this are quite annoying 
also.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Let Waco be a lesson to all Americans.  Bill Clinton
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1304)
To:      Rick Chadderdon                         2 Jul 94 17:39:10
Subject: Verbal abuse                           

RC>  MG> RC>  And *you* have no right to post here...
RC>  MG>
RC>  MG>      Did LSG die and make you moderator?

RC>  Actually, I was made moderator by the same people who gave 
RC>  you the right to determine what is and is not acceptable 
RC>  speech.

     Which is no one.

RC>  Sarcasm is not usually too difficult to detect, I'll try to 
RC>  make it clearer next time, just for you...

     You made your foolishness quite clear.

RC>  MG>       A nag is not communicating.  A common scold is a 
RC>  MG>  vicious person worthy only of the scold's bridle.

RC>  A nag may not be communicating something you want to 
RC>  receive, but it is communication nonetheless.  

     Then you have little experience with women.  It appears you 
still respond to them as you do to your mother.

You "nag" 
RC>  people all of the time.  Or do you see incessant posting of 
RC>  information not desired by someone as something else?

     You have an N key in the middle of your BM.  You should 
stick your finger there more often.  

     Your contrived comparison is not worthy of a person of even 
average intelligence.

RC>  MG>       Of course it is not.  It is a form of deliberate 
RC>  MG>  torment with the intention of forcing compliance to whim.

RC>  One can *not* *force* compliance to *anything* by merely 
RC>  complaining.  

     Tell that to your Mommy.

You have a severe problem with being told that 
RC>  your opinion is viewed as wrong by some people.  

     Please post the evidence for that or retract the lie.

I think 
RC>  that must be the source of your problem with "nagging." 

     Long range psychobabble.  I am truly impressed.

You 
RC>  sure give it a hell of a lot more weight than it deserves.  

     Please post your evidence of that or retract your lie.

RC>  What you want is a good, quiet, obedient little woman, just 
RC>  like in the good old days.

     Please post where I have said or indicated that or retract 
your lie.

RC>  You know, you *could* move to the Middle East.  Your views 
RC>  would be right at home there.

     Please post how my views fit in with the Middle East or 
retract your lie.

RC>  MG> RC>  In America, the nation with the Bill of Rights, remember,
RC>  MG> RC>  freedom of speech is constitutionally protected.  Even if
              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ^^
RC>  MG> RC>  it's a nagging woman.  (Or *man*)
              ~~~~~~~^^^^^^^~~~~~~
RC>  MG>      I agree.  You are ignorant of the meaning of the 1st
RC>  MG> amendment.

RC>  Actually, I probably understand the *meaning* of it better 
RC>  than do you.  I do not imply that *any* of it's *intent* was 
                   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RC>  to protect "nags."

     No you do not imply it.  You directly state it.  You even 
lie about your own messages.  That is not a common behavior.  Is 
there anything you do not lie about?

RC>  MG> RC>  How can you justify removing *anyone's* right to free
RC>  MG> RC>  speech just because the speech is continuous and annoying?
RC>  MG>
RC>  MG>      Remember, we agreed you are ignorant on the subject of free
RC>  MG> speech.

RC>  :) Actually, *you* agreed with yourself.  

     And then you lied about what you said.  

Not uncommon in 
RC>  your postings.  There is no standing Supreme Court decision 
RC>  that eliminates "nagging" from protected speech.  

     Another demonstration of ignorance of not only the 1st 
amendment but of the Supreme Court.  

Until a 
RC>  type of speech is specifically *unprotected*, (fighting 
RC>  words, pornography) it must be a protected form.

     You really should learn what you are talking about before 
you post.  You would look less ignorant.

RC>  MG> RC> It's already there, Matt. Amendment 1. U.S. Constitution.
RC>  MG>
RC>  MG>      Are you going to learn the subject or are you going to
RC>  MG> continue rambling?

RC>  Actually, Matt, why don't *you* crack open a book on 
RC>  Constitutional law? You might actually learn a thing or 
RC>  two.

     I have.

RC>  MG>       The Canadian study has been mentioned in almost all of 
RC>  MG>  the discussions surrounding the OJ case.  How have you 
RC>  MG>  remained ignorant of that also?

RC>  Since when does the fact that *one* study makes the rounds 
RC>  make it correct? And since when do you care *what* studies 
RC>  the media uses to support whatever point of view they 
RC>  currently want to push on us?

     If you have any other studies I would certainly like to hear 
of them.  All you have is your opinion to present at this point.  
Just how many cases of this are you personally familiar with?

RC>  You are becoming quite inconsistent in your arguments.  
RC>  You'll use whatever information agrees with your viewpoint, 
RC>  whether it comes from a source you have previously accepted 
RC>  as reliable or not.

     Post contrary information.  Take all the screens you need.  
(Anecdotal is not information.)



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Children of Waco, I feel your pain.  Bill Clinton
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1305)
To:      Rick Chadderdon                         2 Jul 94 17:58:10
Subject: Verbal abuse                           

RC>  Matt, is it possible for you to discuss a subject without 
RC>  turning it into an attack on the "ignorance" of your 
RC>  opponent? 

     You began it with a message attacking me.  You went on to 
demonstrate your ignorance of most of what you were talking about.  
Do you have a problem if I point it out?  After all, once you 
realize the areas of your ignorance you can correct them.

If not, I can't help but think that your own 
RC>  position is not a secure as you want us to believe.

     I never accused you of thinking.

RC>  MG> RC>   Perhaps it will turn out that physical *attempts* at 
RC>  MG> RC>   violence will be equally distributed.  I hope you can 
RC>  MG> RC>   guess which sex is going to be the most frequently injured 
RC>  MG> RC>   by it.

RC>  MG>       Tough shit.  She starts it.  She gets hurt.  He is 
RC>  MG>  guilty.  Grow up.

RC>  I am not the juvinile here.  The guy who can't (read: 
RC>  doesn't *want* to) control himself well enough to avoid 
RC>  physical violence *is*.

     And there you are, the perfect person with not one weakness.  
You could never lose control no matter how many years it goes 
one.  

RC>  MG> RC>  No.  But she is doing a hell of a lot less harm than the guy
RC>  MG> RC>  who breaks her jaw.
RC>  MG>
RC>  MG>       And, saint that you are, you would never snap even 
RC>  MG>  though that is exactly what she is working on getting you 
RC>  MG>  to do.

RC>  If that is what this particular woman *is* working on, 
RC>  (granting you that silly precept for the moment) aren't you 
RC>  one hell of an idiot for giving her exactly what she wants?
RC> 
RC>  I'm not a saint.  Merely an adult.  Matt, children have no 
RC>  place telling people to grow up.  Are you a child?

     Have you stopped beating your wife?  Is this why you protest 
so much?  (This long range psychobabble is fun.  I should have 
tried it earlier.

RC>  One sign of childhood is the inability to deal well with 
RC>  emotional stresses.  Lashing out at someone who called you a 
RC>  name, for instance.

     You have a good babble worked out.  Keep up the good work.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Janet Reno, the third best woman for the job.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1306)
To:      Chris Baugh                             2 Jul 94 17:59:10
Subject: WACO                                   

CB>  CB> Should the government impose a limit on how many cars one can
CB>  CB> stockpile?

CB>  MG> Look at the idiots who think it is a good idea.

CB>  My original comment wasn't serious; I didn't know that 
CB>  anyone actually did believe there should be a limit on the 
CB>  freedom of individuals to purchase as many cars as they 
CB>  wanted, as long as they didn't pile up heaps of old junkers 
CB>  in the front yard.

     I did not intend to make a direct response.  

     Think about it.  Lets say you did want to do some form of 
mass murder.  You have all the money you need to buy guns and 
ammunition.  Would you buy a dozen guns?  Why?  If you want to 
do serious damage you get one rifle, possibly one handgun and all 
the ammunition you can carry.  

     That is the way to do it.  What possible problem could there 
be with an arsenal?  One man, one rifle.  The rest of them were a 
waste of money.  But it is certain Brady II is going have have 
some sort of arsenal provision.  They are going to scare people 
with it.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Waco lesson 1.  Kill them before they burn you alive.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

+++■■■■■ r_940705 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1261)
To:      Lester Garrett                          2 Jul 94 00:51:10
Subject: WACO                                   

LG>  MG>   Two Davidians were MURDERED after the cease fire.  What 
LG>  MG>   the fuck are you talking about?

LG>  Knock it off, Matt.  You're letting your temper get the 
LG>  better of you again.

     Good sir.  Unless you have changed the rules lately I am 
aware of no rule violation in this message.  Perhaps you could 
point it out to me?


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Waco lesson 1.  Kill them before they burn you alive.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1262)
To:      Lester Garrett                          2 Jul 94 00:56:10
Subject: Clinton Scandal                        

     Six of your messages got through tonight on a very sparse 
mail run.  If you have recently changed something, keep it up.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * "We execute peaple, not warrants."  BATF Motto
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1300)
To:      Chris Baugh                             2 Jul 94 17:15:10
Subject: Matt generalizes from the              

CB>  MG> Does it justify the law not holding nagging deserving the
CB>  MG> same punishment as the man would get if he were to hit her?

CB> Let me see if I understand what you are saying here.

CB>  It seems to me that you think the law should consider the 
CB>  following two situations to be exactly the same kind of 
CB>  criminal behavior:
CB> 
CB>  1.  Talking incessantly and annoyingly (nagging), and
CB> 
CB>  2.  Initiating physical violence against someone who has 
CB>  never placed you in physical danger (assault).
CB> 
CB>  Is this what you are saying?  If not, please explain what 
CB>  you actually think the law should say in these situations.

     That is what I am saying.  

     It should be a matter of domestic relations court and if it 
fails to cease criminal court.  It is known to provoke physical 
violence.  There is no reason it should be permitted to continue 
without relief.  


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * First thing we do, we arrest all the hostages.  FBI at Waco.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1301)
To:      Grant Karpik                            2 Jul 94 17:20:10
Subject: OLLIE NORTH FOR SENAT                  

GK> GK>  The Rosenbergs: found guilty of treason in 1951 and
GK> GK>  executed in 1953....

GK> MG>      Espionage not treason.

GK>  Actually we're both wrong.  I double checked and it was 
GK>  conspiracy to commit espionage.  I originally got some 
GK>  incorrect information on that one.

     Thank you for checking.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Linda Thompson, loose cannon on deck.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1302)
To:      Grant Karpik                            2 Jul 94 17:21:10
Subject: Ollie North for Senator                

GK> GK>   The, so-called, religious right, who are his main backers 
GK> GK>   are getting real good at getting their candidates 
GK> GK>   nominated.  Problem is, they tend to be non-electable.  
GK> GK>   The guy has too much baggage and too many 'important' 
GK> GK>   folks against him (i.e.  the 'sainted' Colin Powell).

GK> MG>      I am unaware of any particular religious right support

GK>  Then you are either deaf and blind or you are being 
GK>  deliberately obtuse.

     It was never considered to be more than one of three major 
groups Reagan put together in his coalition.  During the last 
election they appear to have jumped to Perot.  

     Myself I do not watch the god channel.  If they are 
supporting North I would certainly like to know about it.  So far 
as I am aware he has done nothing in particular to seek that 
support.  Their recent participation in Virginia politics was 
when the present governor was slammed for being a member of it 
and in response he agreed and got its support.  He did not start 
it.

     If they happen to be supporting people with similar values 
then that is the political process.  

     All together I don't see it as more than 10 million votes as 
a block which is less than the Black vote that votes Democrat.  
And if you want to talk holy rolling fundies you have to go a 
long way to beat them.  Do not forget that Black candidates 
campaign right from the pulpit of churches.  

     If you have a problem with Jerry Falwell then you should see 
a crisis in Jesse Jackson.

GK> MG> present governor  was accused of having it.  He won easily.

GK> Maybe he wasn't as much an ass-hole as North is.

     North has come back from ex-marine with no job skills to a 
viable candidate.  Sounds like my kind of person.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Ruby Creek, Waco; the war has already begun.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1303)
To:      Matthew Walton                          2 Jul 94 17:34:10
Subject: SECOND-HAND SMOKE ST                   

MW>  MG>  But as you know all claims that that harms you have been 
MW>  MG>  completely discredited three times in a row, most recently 
MW>  MG>  by the Congressional Research Service.  So why do you 
MW>  MG>  continue to bring it up?

MW>  Yes, but even if it doesn't damage your health, it's very 
MW>  annoying.  

     Annoying is not the basis for law, particular when it is 
such as obvious exaggeration.

The lady that lives next door to me smokes.  When 
MW>  I open the window to get some nice fresh breeze, I get a 
MW>  lung full of nice fresh smoke instead.  

     And this is the kind of exaggeration I am talking about.  Do 
you really expect anyone to believe this story?  

I'm not saying that 
MW>  shse shouldn't be allowed to smoke, but whether it harms 
MW>  you are not, it's not pleasent.......

     And people who make up stories like this are quite annoying 
also.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Let Waco be a lesson to all Americans.  Bill Clinton
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1304)
To:      Rick Chadderdon                         2 Jul 94 17:39:10
Subject: Verbal abuse                           

RC>  MG> RC>  And *you* have no right to post here...
RC>  MG>
RC>  MG>      Did LSG die and make you moderator?

RC>  Actually, I was made moderator by the same people who gave 
RC>  you the right to determine what is and is not acceptable 
RC>  speech.

     Which is no one.

RC>  Sarcasm is not usually too difficult to detect, I'll try to 
RC>  make it clearer next time, just for you...

     You made your foolishness quite clear.

RC>  MG>       A nag is not communicating.  A common scold is a 
RC>  MG>  vicious person worthy only of the scold's bridle.

RC>  A nag may not be communicating something you want to 
RC>  receive, but it is communication nonetheless.  

     Then you have little experience with women.  It appears you 
still respond to them as you do to your mother.

You "nag" 
RC>  people all of the time.  Or do you see incessant posting of 
RC>  information not desired by someone as something else?

     You have an N key in the middle of your BM.  You should 
stick your finger there more often.  

     Your contrived comparison is not worthy of a person of even 
average intelligence.

RC>  MG>       Of course it is not.  It is a form of deliberate 
RC>  MG>  torment with the intention of forcing compliance to whim.

RC>  One can *not* *force* compliance to *anything* by merely 
RC>  complaining.  

     Tell that to your Mommy.

You have a severe problem with being told that 
RC>  your opinion is viewed as wrong by some people.  

     Please post the evidence for that or retract the lie.

I think 
RC>  that must be the source of your problem with "nagging." 

     Long range psychobabble.  I am truly impressed.

You 
RC>  sure give it a hell of a lot more weight than it deserves.  

     Please post your evidence of that or retract your lie.

RC>  What you want is a good, quiet, obedient little woman, just 
RC>  like in the good old days.

     Please post where I have said or indicated that or retract 
your lie.

RC>  You know, you *could* move to the Middle East.  Your views 
RC>  would be right at home there.

     Please post how my views fit in with the Middle East or 
retract your lie.

RC>  MG> RC>  In America, the nation with the Bill of Rights, remember,
RC>  MG> RC>  freedom of speech is constitutionally protected.  Even if
              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ^^
RC>  MG> RC>  it's a nagging woman.  (Or *man*)
              ~~~~~~~^^^^^^^~~~~~~
RC>  MG>      I agree.  You are ignorant of the meaning of the 1st
RC>  MG> amendment.

RC>  Actually, I probably understand the *meaning* of it better 
RC>  than do you.  I do not imply that *any* of it's *intent* was 
                   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RC>  to protect "nags."

     No you do not imply it.  You directly state it.  You even 
lie about your own messages.  That is not a common behavior.  Is 
there anything you do not lie about?

RC>  MG> RC>  How can you justify removing *anyone's* right to free
RC>  MG> RC>  speech just because the speech is continuous and annoying?
RC>  MG>
RC>  MG>      Remember, we agreed you are ignorant on the subject of free
RC>  MG> speech.

RC>  :) Actually, *you* agreed with yourself.  

     And then you lied about what you said.  

Not uncommon in 
RC>  your postings.  There is no standing Supreme Court decision 
RC>  that eliminates "nagging" from protected speech.  

     Another demonstration of ignorance of not only the 1st 
amendment but of the Supreme Court.  

Until a 
RC>  type of speech is specifically *unprotected*, (fighting 
RC>  words, pornography) it must be a protected form.

     You really should learn what you are talking about before 
you post.  You would look less ignorant.

RC>  MG> RC> It's already there, Matt. Amendment 1. U.S. Constitution.
RC>  MG>
RC>  MG>      Are you going to learn the subject or are you going to
RC>  MG> continue rambling?

RC>  Actually, Matt, why don't *you* crack open a book on 
RC>  Constitutional law? You might actually learn a thing or 
RC>  two.

     I have.

RC>  MG>       The Canadian study has been mentioned in almost all of 
RC>  MG>  the discussions surrounding the OJ case.  How have you 
RC>  MG>  remained ignorant of that also?

RC>  Since when does the fact that *one* study makes the rounds 
RC>  make it correct? And since when do you care *what* studies 
RC>  the media uses to support whatever point of view they 
RC>  currently want to push on us?

     If you have any other studies I would certainly like to hear 
of them.  All you have is your opinion to present at this point.  
Just how many cases of this are you personally familiar with?

RC>  You are becoming quite inconsistent in your arguments.  
RC>  You'll use whatever information agrees with your viewpoint, 
RC>  whether it comes from a source you have previously accepted 
RC>  as reliable or not.

     Post contrary information.  Take all the screens you need.  
(Anecdotal is not information.)



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Children of Waco, I feel your pain.  Bill Clinton
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1305)
To:      Rick Chadderdon                         2 Jul 94 17:58:10
Subject: Verbal abuse                           

RC>  Matt, is it possible for you to discuss a subject without 
RC>  turning it into an attack on the "ignorance" of your 
RC>  opponent? 

     You began it with a message attacking me.  You went on to 
demonstrate your ignorance of most of what you were talking about.  
Do you have a problem if I point it out?  After all, once you 
realize the areas of your ignorance you can correct them.

If not, I can't help but think that your own 
RC>  position is not a secure as you want us to believe.

     I never accused you of thinking.

RC>  MG> RC>   Perhaps it will turn out that physical *attempts* at 
RC>  MG> RC>   violence will be equally distributed.  I hope you can 
RC>  MG> RC>   guess which sex is going to be the most frequently injured 
RC>  MG> RC>   by it.

RC>  MG>       Tough shit.  She starts it.  She gets hurt.  He is 
RC>  MG>  guilty.  Grow up.

RC>  I am not the juvinile here.  The guy who can't (read: 
RC>  doesn't *want* to) control himself well enough to avoid 
RC>  physical violence *is*.

     And there you are, the perfect person with not one weakness.  
You could never lose control no matter how many years it goes 
one.  

RC>  MG> RC>  No.  But she is doing a hell of a lot less harm than the guy
RC>  MG> RC>  who breaks her jaw.
RC>  MG>
RC>  MG>       And, saint that you are, you would never snap even 
RC>  MG>  though that is exactly what she is working on getting you 
RC>  MG>  to do.

RC>  If that is what this particular woman *is* working on, 
RC>  (granting you that silly precept for the moment) aren't you 
RC>  one hell of an idiot for giving her exactly what she wants?
RC> 
RC>  I'm not a saint.  Merely an adult.  Matt, children have no 
RC>  place telling people to grow up.  Are you a child?

     Have you stopped beating your wife?  Is this why you protest 
so much?  (This long range psychobabble is fun.  I should have 
tried it earlier.

RC>  One sign of childhood is the inability to deal well with 
RC>  emotional stresses.  Lashing out at someone who called you a 
RC>  name, for instance.

     You have a good babble worked out.  Keep up the good work.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Janet Reno, the third best woman for the job.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1306)
To:      Chris Baugh                             2 Jul 94 17:59:10
Subject: WACO                                   

CB>  CB> Should the government impose a limit on how many cars one can
CB>  CB> stockpile?

CB>  MG> Look at the idiots who think it is a good idea.

CB>  My original comment wasn't serious; I didn't know that 
CB>  anyone actually did believe there should be a limit on the 
CB>  freedom of individuals to purchase as many cars as they 
CB>  wanted, as long as they didn't pile up heaps of old junkers 
CB>  in the front yard.

     I did not intend to make a direct response.  

     Think about it.  Lets say you did want to do some form of 
mass murder.  You have all the money you need to buy guns and 
ammunition.  Would you buy a dozen guns?  Why?  If you want to 
do serious damage you get one rifle, possibly one handgun and all 
the ammunition you can carry.  

     That is the way to do it.  What possible problem could there 
be with an arsenal?  One man, one rifle.  The rest of them were a 
waste of money.  But it is certain Brady II is going have have 
some sort of arsenal provision.  They are going to scare people 
with it.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Waco lesson 1.  Kill them before they burn you alive.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

+++■■■■■ r_940706 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1359)
To:      Grant Karpik                            3 Jul 94 00:00:10
Subject: Lawyer Matt fired?                     

GK> MG>       It sounds like a clean offer to me.  The cover story 
GK> MG>   is simply the Billie Jeff magnanimously wanted to repair 
GK> MG>   any harm  that might have come to her because he is now a 
GK> MG>   falsely accused  target of media attention.  Another 
GK> MG>   example of how he takes care  of his friends, loyalty and 
GK> MG>   all that.

GK>  A "clean offer"? Give my husband a job or I'll go public 
GK>  with my story? ROFL!

     Actually the true formal offer was simply an apology.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * BBQed Baby Back Ribs, Waco style.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1360)
To:      Ed Mathis                               3 Jul 94 00:01:10
Subject: SECOND-HAND SMOKE ST                   

EM>  MG>  But as you know all claims that that harms you have been 
EM>  MG>  completely discredited three times in a row, most recently 
EM>  MG>  by the Congressional Research Service.  So why do you 
EM>  MG>  continue to bring it up?

EM>  And as you know, Matt, the Congressional Research Service 
EM>  -- if they exist at all -- is an obscure group.  

     They certainly exist.  They were given 1/3rd of the 
MacNeal-Lehrer Newshour and coverage on the ABC Evening News.  
Obscure to the public is not relevant to credibility.  And if you 
know anything about statistics (probably not) if you had heard 
them or read the two news reports of their testimony you would 
know just how damning it was.  

     To summarize clearly, the EPA engaged in an exercise of 
lying with statistics.

Noone I 
EM>  have talked to has ever heard of them.  

     I can not comment upon the ignorance of your acquaintances 
much less upon yours.

I suspect they are 
EM>  just another of the multitude of fronts established by the 
EM>  tobacco industry.  Therefore their "research" is very 
EM>  suspect.

     Your ignorance and that of your friends leads you to 
incorrect assumptions.  They are an agency of Congress and on the 
Federal payroll.  

EM>  Would you kindly give some information about them?  Or is 
EM>  this just another paper tiger?

     If you would pay attention to the news I would not have to 
do that.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * First thing we do, we arrest all the hostages.  FBI at Waco.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1382)
To:      All                                     3 Jul 94 05:00:10
Subject: Coming laws                            

 *********** Original       To: ALL
 * SILICON *      was       By: MATT GIWER
 *  DUPE   *   posted:      On: GUNTALK
 ***********              Conf: 0002 - MEMBER
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

                     Afraid of an Arsenal
                             by
                         Matt Giwer (c) 1994 <7/3>
     This is a bit ahead of schedule.  I find it more fun to
respond to things before they happen rather than after they
happen.  It is good to find my chosen opposition to be so
predictably stupid.
     The subject is arsenals and the laws that will be proposed
to regulate arsenals.  It is clear to any rational person that a
person may own a million guns but that he can only use one gun at
a time.  Any rational person will conclude that a dangerous
person will buy one gun and lots of ammunition for it rather than
a second gun.
     Unfortunately the legislative process is not rational.
There will soon be a proposed regulation to no constructive
purpose regarding the number of guns a person can own.  And this
will NEVER, EVER address in the public debate by the talking
heads on word as to the absolutely insane concept that a person
can use more than one gun at a time.
     The above is guaranteed.  I have gazed into my crystal
monitor and I have seen it.  Praise me, I am a prophet.  But if
you insist I be honest I will have to admit I have read it in the
plans for Brady II.  I hate to be honest it ruins my reputation.
     We know this irrational garbage is going to be proposed as
law and that its irrationality will never be debated in public.
We know that more than ten guns (obviously if you have more guns
than fingers you are dangerous) is a public menace and must be
regulated or stamped out.  The magic number is ten.  Only an
idiot can not count higher than his fingers.
     So let us presume this law passes and given the current
climate it will pass.  Conspiracy to possess more than ten weapons
will be illegal and the BATF in its infinite wisdom will become
the arbiters of your intentions.  It is clearly established in
law that the BATF can attack upon suspicion that you are planning
to convert semi to full automatic, to add pistol grips to rifles
or that you are capable of threading a barrel.  There is no
question you can be attacked on suspicion you plan to have more
than ten weapons.  
     I have said "Wake up, America" far too often and that is not
my intention.  The people reading what I write know that already.
I am only pointing out what is going to happen.  Of course I can
not predict the future.  But I have this uncanny knack of getting
the future right more often than not.  
     I do not ask you to believe me.  I only ask you to remember
and judge for yourself.  If you ask for confirmation in the
future I will do my best to keep copies of what I have written
that will survive disk crashes so that I can repost upon request.
     Now that that is clear lets take the next step.  Only
non-criminals will be required to have a license to own a
handgun.  This takes no crystal CRT to predict but it will
happen.  The "useful dupe" from the NRA will be cited as the
justification for the government to define the protected hunting
weapons and to ban all others.  In the Feinstein Amendment we
clearly have the government pretending to the ability to define
legal guns that are exempted.  It is a simple step to say those
are the only permitted. 
     In one swell foop we have lost all handguns and most rifles.
That or some minor variation of it will happen.  After all, no
one needs a semiauto for hunting, do they?  Don't tell me about
it, tell your Congressrat.
     Congress may have the noblest of intentions.  The BATF has
the most murderous of intentions.  Do not forget, Congress can
not control the BATF.  The Executive Branch has admitted it can
not control the BATF.  The uncontrollable BATF will be coming
after you.
     This is not a prediction.  This is a fact.


                            * * * * *

      Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

     1425 San Mateo Dr., Dunedin, Fl. 34698, 813-733-547


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * All right, Koresh, make my day. -- Reno
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1384)
To:      John Clifton                            3 Jul 94 06:08:10
Subject: Hillary the BAM                        

JC> >      Why go light?  Remember the early stories of her 
JC> >  spending just to look vaguely acceptable?

JC>       Actually, I think you have a point about Hillary.  I 
JC>  saw a picture of her the other day from the 1970s and I 
JC>  about fell out of my chair--she *was* "uglier than dog 
JC>  shit."  She looks better now, but I have to say that she's 
JC>  not my type.  Too prissy and uptight.

     It is called Hollywood.  With a few thousand dollars you 
could look exactly like her.  I have no idea why you might want 
to but makeup artists are not to be denigrated.  ANY image she 
wants can happen on camera.  The reality is she can even change 
into a wolf on camera.  That she can look good on camera is 
hardly and issue.

JC>       Further on the point--I don't like his politics but I 
JC>  like *him* even less.  He's a slimeball.  I'm not surprised 
JC>  one little bit by the Woodward book.

     I am surprised the book gets an audience.  So far as I have 
heard it contains nothing I have not posted.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Waco lesson 4.  The Feds can get away with it.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1494)
To:      Hamilton & Co. Flowers                  3 Jul 94 18:08:10
Subject: Inquistion mentality                   

HF>  MG>  Certainly there is no question of the 12 million or so who 
HF>  MG>  died in concentration camps and there still is no question 
HF>  MG>  of it.

HF>  Although I am not Jewish nor extremely educated on this 
HF>  matter, it is only my opinion that this is about the only 
HF>  factual statement in your message.

     It is also about the only statement I make.

HF>  MG>  Then I found a correspondent who was in investigator for 
HF>  MG>  the War Crimes Courts after the war.  His unit accounted 
HF>  MG>  for four executions, two life imprisonments, and a total of 
HF>  MG>  65 years for four others.  He kept his original notes.  His 
HF>  MG>  name is in the Hall of the Righteous in Israel.

HF>  I believe this man probably did not lose any family as did 
HF>  millions of others murders Jews, Poles, and Russians.

     What conceivably does this have to do with the lack of 
evidence for the use of gas chambers?

HF> MG> He may be mistaken but he is certainly the last
HF> MG> person to lie

HF>  We are all capapble of lying and for a variety of reasons.  
HF>  I can not imagine what the purpose of this particular 
HF>  individuals statements were.

HF>  He pointed out that no one was charged with gassing at 
HF>  Nuremberg and thus obviously no one was convicted of 
HF>  gassing anyone.

HF>  If what you say is correct, are we to believe that if your 
HF>  computer turned up missing, but no one was ever charged 
HF>  with stealing it, then a theft never occurred?  Perhaps it 
HF>  would be more factual to say that you lent it out but could 
HF>  not remember who it was to.

     Just what is it you are suggesting here?

HF>  And yet the Russians acquitted him of that charge for lack 
HF>   of evidence.

HF>  Lack of evidence does not constitute lack of a crime

     What is the point of this statement?  Are saying I made such 
a suggestion?  Concentration camps of the type they ran were in 
fact a crime and several were hung for running them.  People died 
in them under rather undescribable conditions.

HF> MG>  It turns out that Lenin ordered the construction of a gas 
HF> MG>  chamber at Auschwitz some years later.  Then and only then 
HF> MG>  were people permitted to view what Lenin ordered to be 
HF> MG>  built.

HF>  Although not as educated on this subject as you seem to be, 
HF>  I read a book some years ago written by Albert Speer, a top 
HF>  level convicted Nazi architect imprisoned in Nuremburg.  He 
HF>  seemed very able to recall his knowledge of the gas 
HF>  chambers and the faces of persons going into them.

     (Correct that Lenin to Stalin.)

     I would have to ask for a more direct citation than that.  
As to his ever visiting one he did not have that kind of 
position.

HF> MG>  This works out to about three people per square foot.  And 
HF> MG>  yet the description of events holds that Nazis in gas masks 
HF> MG>  walked freely through the room pouring out Zyklon-B 
HF> MG>  pellets.

HF>  When the Jews and other prisoners were transported by 
HF>  railcar to various camps, they shoved in with such 
HF>  compression that as persons became too weak to even stand 
HF>  they were held upright by the sheer force of other bodies 
HF>  around them, including the dead.  Persons suffocated in 
HF>  this same fashion, much like what has happened at large 
HF>  sporting events and rock concerts today.

     Try it again.  The density is flat out impossible.  That is 
three per square foot.  Can't be done.  Flat out impossible.  But 
that is the story.  But you do bring up a good point.  Why would 
gas be necessary?  Anoxia would do the job quite nicely.

HF> MG>  holds the room was prepared by covering glass windows with 
HF> MG>  dirt -- some glass.

HF>  Your knowledge of construction is limited also.  When homes 
HF>  are built with cellars, the ground is pushed up around the 
HF>  foundation for added strength and moisture protection.  A 
HF>  small window, even glass, can sustain the pressure of dirt 
HF>  pushed up against it.

     That is hardly the impression one gets from the story.  
Certainly one can always imagine circumstances to save the story.

HF> MG>  I have asked for evidence.  I have presented all of the 
HF> MG>  above and more.

HF>  I do not consider the above to be evidence of anything, 
HF>  only speculation.

     I did not claim it was evidence.  I have merely presented 
the famous story did not occur as it is told.

MG>  The response I have received is, "You are denying the 
MG>  Holocaust." I have been asked how people died and I respond 
MG>  they were  worked to death in conditions of no sanitation 
MG>  and no medication and on starvation level food.

HF>  Are we to assume that the accusations of the prisoners 
HF>  themselves was just some form of mass hysteria.

HF>  That satisfies no one.

HF>  Certainly not me.

     There was only one such accusation by the prisoners.  That 
was at a camp outside of Munich.  They identified three buildings 
where the gassing occurred.  None of them were suitable for it 
and one of them was the office of the Commandant.  

     The stories of gassing grew up years later.  

MG>   In the 20th century I can profess to believe in the deaths 
MG>   of tens of millions but if I question one particular means 
MG>   of death the claim is that I have denied all of the 
MG>   deaths.

HF>  I do not believe that you have denied the deaths, I must 
HF>  say though that your premise that 10s of millions died from 
HF>  lack of food and over work is naive and uneducated.

     You forgot disease.  And we are only talking 12 million in 
the camps probably less as the numbers are being revised downward 
as actual studies are being made.  

     I would have to ask you why you think people would not die 
in large numbers when living under conditions of working every 
waking moment, minimum rations, and no sanitation?  They did not 
exactly have running water.

MG>   Any slightest deviation from accepted dogma, any slightest 
MG>   questioning of one small aspect of dogma is considered the 
MG>   same as denying EVERYTHING.

HF>  You are not making a "slight" deviation on one "small" 
HF>  aspect from the accepted dogma.  Even you must be aware of 
HF>  that.

     I am only noting there is no evidence of this particular 
means of death.

HF>  MG>   Watch the responses to this article if you think there is 
HF>  MG>   a difference.  The responses will give you a concrete 
HF>  MG>   example of the Inquisitional mentality as it exists 
HF>  MG>   today.

HF>  I do not have an "Inquisitional mentality" and you do not 
HF>  have all the facts.  Your statements have been inflammatory 
HF>  by design and inaccurate.

     I have asked for the facts I am missing.  As I pointed out 
no one is able to provide them.  I note you have not either other 
than a vague reference to Speer.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Children of Waco, I feel your pain.  Bill Clinton
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

+++■■■■■ r_940708 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1091)
To:      Lester Garrett                          4 Jul 94 00:46:10
Subject: Waco                                   

LG>  Well, a little clarification would help here.  To some 
LG>  extent I think Pete and you (as well as a couple of others 
LG>  on both sides of this aspect of the issue) are talking past 
LG>  each other.  Let me put it to you this way, Kate.  Let us 
LG>  grant for the sake of argument that the BATF acted 
LG>  illegally and improperly during the initial assault.  Does 
LG>  that then provide the Davidians with an excuse _never_ to 
LG>  surrender?  This is where I think you are not really 
LG>  responding to Pete's question.  If we are to pursue this 
LG>  aspect of the issue seriously, surely you cannot be 
LG>  maintaining that because the initial attack was unlawful it 
LG>  was, therefore, proper for the Davidians to ever refuse to 
LG>  surrender?

     To begin with we know no one was charges with failure to 
surrender so we can safely presume there is no such law.

     Next, people do not surrender to the police.  They surrender 
to charges.  There were no charges at the time.  Had there been 
charges it would appear to me the a voluntary surrender to them 
would be an admission of guilt and refusal to do so protected by 
the 5th amendment.  It would appear to me they would need a "we 
were forced" excuse to leave for a not guilty surrender.

     Next, there was no attempt to arrest them so innocent 
surrender to avoid the process of arrest was not open to them.

     Next, there were not arrest warrants against anyone inside 
save possibly Koresh depending upon how you interpret the 
search warrant but certainly even he is not named in it as a 
person to be arrested.

     Next, we know two people were murdered after the cease fire 
and it would be foolish to go outside to surrender with the very 
likely possibility of being shot for one's attempt to surrender.  
Surrender was not prudent.

LG>  If you do not hold that position (and I don't think you 
LG>  do), then the as yet unanswered question is under what 
LG>  conditions should the Davidians have surrendered.

     Being forced to do so or in response to an attempt to arrest 
them.

LG>  ".  .  .If we lived in a State where virtue was profitable, 
LG>  common sense would make us good, and greed would make us 
LG>  saintly.  .  .  .But since in fact we see that avarice, 
LG>  anger, envy, pride, sloth, lust and stupidity commonly 
LG>  profit far beyond humility, chastity, fortitude, justice 
LG>  and thought, and have to choose to be human at all, why 
LG>  then perhaps we _must_ stand fast a little -- even at the 
LG>  risk of being heroes."

     Who?


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Get Janet a fiddle.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1092)
To:      Michael Pilon                           4 Jul 94 01:13:10
Subject: MT. CARMEL                             

MP>  DV>  This is America, and we don't have to prove innocence, but 
MP>  DV>  rather we have to prove guilt.  Are you from a country where 
MP>  DV>  Napoleonic code is in effect ?

MP>  You both are in a sense, in Quebec and Louisiana the civil 
MP>  code is under the Code Napoleon .

     Louisiana dropped it a year or two ago.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Sometimes the Gov has to kill kids in order to save them.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1093)
To:      Rick Chadderdon                         4 Jul 94 01:18:10
Subject: Verbal abuse                           

RC>  JW> You said to Matt Giwer:
RC>  JW>
RC>  JW> RC> How can you justify removing *anyone's* right to free speech 
RC>  JW> RC> just because the speech is continuous and annoying?

RC>  JW> Eeek.  I shudder at the implications of *this* one. . .

RC>  No kidding.  And he considers himself an American.  His last 
RC>  post accuses me of not understanding "free speech." He's 
RC>  starting to sound like those people who say, "The 2nd 
RC>  amendment actually means..."

     You would do well to learn what both mean.  

RC>  Let's hope Matt doesn't enlist enough people for a drive to 
RC>  revise the 1st with this stuff.

     When you have learned enough you will know it does not need 
revision. 


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Get Janet a fiddle.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1094)
To:      Pete Bucy                               4 Jul 94 01:25:10
Subject: Wrong!                                 

PB>  LG> * Original to: Fred Taub at 1:157/200@fidonet.org

PB>  FT> "We need more citizens like him." Matt Giwer quoted as he
PB>  FT> refers to John Demjanjuk and advocates the murder of Jews.
PB>  LG> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

PB>  LG> Any more of that and you'll be history in this Echo.  

PB>  LG> Lester Garrett
PB>  LG> Moderator, DEBATE Echo

PB>  LG> cc: Being crashed via Netmail

PB>      I received on very hateful post from a fellow named 
PB>      Glen Bloom.  He called me a Nazi and asked why I didn't 
PB>      think that his Jewish relatives had a right to live.  
PB>      Nowhere in my post did I even use the word Jew.  
PB>      Suddenly I was receiving two or three posts a day from 
PB>      him.  He claimed that I was a racist and a Nazi.
PB> 
PB>      Then I started receiving posts from people who never 
PB>      read my original post and they started to support him.  
PB>      No matter what I said, he just kept on slandering me.  
PB>      About that time, the new moderator, Mark Watkins, who 
PB>      took over from Jeff Duke, started on me.  He 
PB>      accidentally posted a private message one the echo 
PB>      calling me a racist and a Nazi.

     And if you are interested the moderator of Politics 
conference, David Bloomberg, protected Fred Taub and permitting 
him to continue is lies and slander.  Then he banned me for 
calling Taub a liar in the same message where I pointed out his 
lies.

     Taub also clearly identified himself as a Jew as the basis 
for his lies.  If you were here he is the "lying Jew" I referred 
to in a cross post.  Bloomberg of course is Jewish.  Those types 
work real hard to give Jews a bad name.  Were I of the 
inclination I would have used it as an excuse to prove Jews are 
no good.

     As it is I will use the incident to raise the slander until 
the JudeoNazis are run off the edge of the world.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * First they came for Weaver and I did not speak.  Then they
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1095)
To:      Travis Beard                            4 Jul 94 02:25:10
Subject: BANNING CIGS                           

TB>  EM>  Counter that argument if you can, Bill.  Try to equate the 
TB>  EM>  value of smoking in public places with the value and 
TB>  EM>  necessity of driving a car to work, for instance.

TB>  The internal combustion engine is not a necessity of life 
TB>  on this planet.  Humans have existed quite well for tens of 
TB>  thousands of years prior to its invention and would 
TB>  continue to exist quite well without it.
TB> 
TB>  If you thnk otherwise, please prove it.  You can't.

     You are quite correct.  But then you do not own an car at 
present.  So why do you not tell us how we all survive without 
cars?  And in your response please remember that corner stores 
are out because they require IC engines to deliver to them.

     Please explain how you will deal with the millions of tons 
of horse manure on the streets.  Please explain in detail the 
economic impact on suburbs from this drastic to violent change in 
logistics.  Please explain how you will breed all the needed 
horses.  Please explain how you will deal with all the increase 
in deaths from the use of horses.
     
     After all of this please explain how you will get to work.  
Please tell us where you are going to put your horse stall and 
how you are going to get food for it and how many hours a day 
your are going to spend caring for the horse.  

     And if you try to take the out of electric cars please 
explain how you are going to double the electric power production 
of this country to power them.  

     And if you try to take the out of going back to a farming 
society please explain how you are going to accomplish that. 


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * BBQed Baby Back Ribs, Waco style.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1096)
To:      Pete Bucy                               4 Jul 94 02:38:10
Subject: Criticism of Willie                    

PB>      Lester, it is time that you admit that you are 
PB>      suffering from the great success of the Debate echo! 
PB>      There are so many posts pouring through this echo that 
PB>      I don't see how you could read them all.  If "Debate" 
PB>      keeps growing, it will soon have more posts than the 
PB>      infamous "Limbaugh" echo.

     I have no idea how LSG does it but I would suggest you take 
a speed reading course.  I go through around 2000 messages a day.  
With that I sort by name and subject and bulk kill what I know I 
have no interest in reading.  When things really back up I do 
bulk scans of everything on key words and read or kill as I 
desire and then wipe out the rest.  

     It is not all that hard if you have a strategy.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * God Lord!  It's a cookbook! -- FBI manual
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1097)
To:      Gary Steinweg                           4 Jul 94 02:48:10
Subject: Gc -> Genocide 1/2                     

GS> Genocide Almost Happened in America... Recently

     Actually what you are missing is that the Bonus Marchers on 
the Mall are in no way different from Tia Nan Men Square in China 
save it was 50 some years earlier.  Tanks, unaccounted for 
presumed dead and political arrests.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * W.A.C.O, acronym, Washington Approved Cook Out
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1098)
To:      Lisa Allison                            4 Jul 94 02:54:10
Subject: NEO-PROHIBITION (TOB                   

LA>  A tax on cigarettes is no more and no less than getting 
LA>  people to pay their fair share of the medical bill incurred 
LA>  on their behalf.  If people want to smoke they should have 
LA>  a right to--but they don't have a right to force their 
LA>  smoke onto others nor do they have a right to pass their 
LA>  medical expenses onto non-smokers.

     Sorry but the life time medical costs of people who smoke 
are statistically lower than non-smokers.  You may concentrate on 
lung cancer if you wish but it is one of the quickest forms of 
cancer death and incurs the very low costs in comparison to other 
cancers.  The more common smoking related causes of death are 
heart attack and stroke which are in the generally instantly 
fatal incurring no more cost than an ambulance and a doctor to 
say DOA and storing the body. 

     In fact any rational society interested in reducing health 
care costs should encourage smoking.

     If you would look into the actual costs you would not post 
such nonsense.

LA>  Your "neo-prohibition" argument totally overlooks the fact 
LA>  that smokers cost this nation in terms of medical expenses 
LA>  and productivity.  

     Not according to the insurance companies.  The "healthiest" 
people in this country do not die of heart attacks and strokes.  
They die of long term debilitating diseases and have much greater 
costs than smokers.  

Not only that, non-smokers pay with 
LA>  their lives for the smokers' rights to smoke.  

     As you know that claim has been completely discredited and 
is only supported by people who falsified the analysis.  It has 
all been posted here.  Please do not pretend you have not read 
it.

It's a 
LA>  medical fact that many people who do not smoke contract 
LA>  lung cancer from second hand smoke.  How do you reconcile 
LA>  that?  

     IT is not a medical fact.  It is a lie.  And you know it and 
yet you repeat it.

Should non-smokers wear helmets so they don't have 
LA>  to take that risk (that they may come into contact with 
LA>  smoke)?

     Should we all wear bullshit filters while reading your 
messages?

LA>  There are enough necessary evils in our society (i.e., 
LA>  polution from cars), we don't have to add second hand smoke 
LA>  to the list.  We now know the dangers of smoke and should 
LA>  act accordingly.

     As you know there is no problem with second hand smoke.  Why 
do you post stupidity like this?


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Waco!  Never again!  Vote Libertarian!
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1185)
To:      Charles Glasgow                         4 Jul 94 05:41:10
Subject: Hillary the BAM                        

CG>  And if there is one thing that's been made rather clear 
CG>  about the Clintons, it's that they don't HAVE any 
CG>  integrity.
CG> 
CG>  *If* Hillary was telling the truth about having tried to 
CG>  enlist at all, then I'm not surprised that the recruiter 
CG>  sent her packing.  One look at the type of personality I was 
CG>  dealing with, and I would have told her to get out myself.
CG> 
CG>  No law against a Marine recruiter being perceptive, is 
CG>  there?

     But of course she is lying and she is a known liar.  She 
paused expecting applause and got dead silence.  To hell with 
her and her lying story.  

     May she rot in Little Rock.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Waco lesson 2.  Obey or die.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1186)
To:      John Clifton                            4 Jul 94 05:43:10
Subject: Lawyer Matt fired?                     

JC> >      That would mean he converted the service of the trooper 
JC> >  to personal use.

JC>       You'd never get a conviction based solely upon that 
JC>  statement.

     If it can be demonstrated the trooper or any trooper ever 
arranged even ONE liaison it is a federal offense.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * First they came for Weaver and I did not speak.  Then they
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1187)
To:      Ron Mcclain                             4 Jul 94 05:45:10
Subject: OLLIE NORTH FOR SENAT                  

RM>  JW> MG>     Sedition.

RM>  JW> Treason.

RM>     Wasn't it Aaron Burr who was the first convicted of treason?

     No.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * FOIA?  We don't need no stinking FOIA!
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1188)
To:      Charles Glasgow                         4 Jul 94 05:45:10
Subject: WACO                                   

CG>  If you could, would you please post your copy of the search 
CG>  warrant so that both myself, and everybody else here who 
CG>  doesn't have a copy yet, can save it to our archives for 
CG>  future reference?

     This BBS has a real problem with multi part messages.

     If you will netmail me your address I will send you a disk 
containing it.  However, I would prefer someone with it not 
having the BBS problem doing the same thing. 


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Janet Reno, the third best woman for the job.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1251)
To:      Jerry Sturdivant                        4 Jul 94 17:16:10
Subject: Smoke Gets In Your Eyes                

JS> >  We are making progress on the tobacco issue BECAUSE the 
JS> >  people are demanding that the status quo change.  This is 
JS> >  as it should be.

JS>    What progress are you referring to? Education; or 
JS>    elimination?

     When they found people could not be cajoled into agreeing 
with them they resort to force.  After all, they know better.  
They are good people.  They love being in control.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * BBQed Baby Back Ribs, Waco style.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1267)
To:      Ed Mathis                               4 Jul 94 22:43:10
Subject: Nonsmokers' ally                       

EM>  I personally on at least 3 separate occasions have uploaded 
EM>  lists of specific studies -- addressed to YOU -- that show 
EM>  definite and significant harm to bystanders caused by ETS.  
EM>  As yet you have not given any *scientific* specifics that 
EM>  dispute any of these findings.  Your comments are 
EM>  invariably political or hearsay in nature;  you address 
EM>  some of the social/political ramifications of the research 
EM>  but offer nothing specific to invalidate the scientific 
EM>  principles therein.

     You would be better advised to read the thread before you 
jump in.  The discussion is of secondhand smoke.  There is no 
evidence of harm from that.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Get Janet a fiddle.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1268)
To:      Paul Smith                              4 Jul 94 22:46:10
Subject: Nonsmokers' ally                       

PS> PS>  I'm aware of the CRO's most recent allegations against the
PS> PS>  EPA report however I'm unfamiliar with previous efforts.
PS> PS>  Please give me the particulars on those CRO refutations of
PS> PS>  the EPA reports.

PS> MG>      You should be aware of the previous.  And since two 
PS> MG> reports on the CRS's analysis were posted here, one by me 
PS> MG> and one by Lester why should I re-post what you have already 
PS> MG> read?

PS>  To the best of my recall, neither of you have provided a 
PS>  source for the CRO allegations.  Who is the CRO?  What is 
PS>  their address?  What are their affiliations?  Who funds 
PS>  them?
PS> 
PS>  I can't find anyone who knows anything about this outfit.  
PS>  Do they exist?

     Why do you not call the Library of Congress and find out?


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Waco lesson 4.  The Feds can get away with it.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1269)
To:      Paul Smith                              4 Jul 94 22:47:10
Subject: Nonsmokers' ally                       

PS> PS>  I'm aware of the CRO's most recent allegations against the
PS> PS>  EPA report however I'm unfamiliar with previous efforts.
PS> PS>  Please give me the particulars on those CRO refutations of
PS> PS>  the EPA reports.

PS> MG>     You should be aware of the previous.  And since two reports
PS> MG>on the CRO's analysis were posted here, one by me and one by
PS> MG>Lester why should I re-post what you have already read?


PS> To the best of my recall, neither of you have provided a source for the CRO
PS> allegations.  Who is the CRO?  What is their address?  What are their
PS> affiliations?  Who funds them?

PS> I can't find anyone who knows anything about this outfit.  Do they exist?


PS>                                                        Take Care  --  Paul
PS>  * WaveRdr 1.10 [NR] * UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COPY

PS> --- EzyQwk V1.10g006fa0007
PS>  * Origin: YOUR BBS, Sacramento, ca 916-448-5840 (1:203/9264)

---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Waco!  Never again!  Vote Libertarian!
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1270)
To:      Rod Manchee                             4 Jul 94 22:47:10
Subject: Smoking                                

RM>  MG>       I would have told you smokers tend to die younger and 
RM>  MG>  of faster diseases and have an overall lesser cost to the 
RM>  MG>  system.  Any rational nation concerned about health care 
RM>  MG>  costs would encourage smoking.

RM>  Just because they die younger doesn't mean they are sick 
RM>  for less time(faster diseases? some are faster, some are 
RM>  slower, many are more expensive) 

     In the case of smoking related diseases they are all fast, 
stroke, heart attack, and even lung cancer is among the fastest 
cancers as when it metastasizes from the lungs it goes any place 
in the body it wants.  

and have have an overall 
RM>  lesser cost to the system - actually they are well for less 
RM>  time and so have an overall lesser benefit to the system(ie 
RM>  contribute less to mitigate the cost when they die).

     You are making the implicit assumption that people who do 
not smoke never have any other illnesses.  Or that for some 
reason spending the last few years of life in a nursing home with 
all kinds of terminal diseases and a full time nursing staff is 
somehow cheaper.  

     Saying they are well for less time comes from things like 
counting these sick days.  If you are presuming the colds and 
flues are any comparison to treating Alzheimer's for years you 
are not thinking it through.

     As for contributions to the system, the average decreased 
age is something like 8 years.  The average age at death is 77.  
By subtraction we have death at 69 meaning they are retired and 
not contributing to but rather using Medicare.  

     It does not appear you have a case.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Welcome to Masada, Texas.  Never again!
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1272)
To:      James Taranto                           4 Jul 94 23:01:10
Subject: The other side                         

JT> MG>       I would rather ask if woman can provoke being beaten.  
JT> MG>  I note there is nothing that can stop a determined women 
JT> MG>  from continuing such provocation until successful.

JT>  If you mean to suggest that it is morally acceptable for 
JT>  men to murder women who nag them, then I must respectfully 
JT>  disagree.

     As I said nothing like that, why would you?


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Waco lesson 2.  Obey or die.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1274)
To:      Lester Garrett                          4 Jul 94 23:03:10
Subject: Waco                                   

LG>      AQ>  I is yyour main contention that the BATF fird first without  
LG>      AQ>  provocation and I don't think anybody can do that

LG>  MG>  BATF agents testified to it in court.  That is how it is 
LG>  MG>  known.

LG>  ??? Are you saying there was testimony from agents that 
LG>  they admitted to firing first?  While that may well be, I 
LG>  don't recall it.  If that's your claim can you quote from a 
LG>  source for that?  If true, I'd like to be sure I have that 
LG>  in my archives.

     I will try to put it together for you.  It comes from the 
reports posted here from the trial summaries.  

     You may remember they first said the plan was to use fire 
extinguishers on the dogs but then that got a bit muddled as no 
one was assigned to that duty.  Then it came out they came in 
shooting the dogs.  

     I have nothing good to say about a person who shoots dogs 
but that is not the issue.

     Rather the issue is that with so many people inside it is 
unreasonable for them to all have recognized they were ONLY 
shooting the dogs. 

     Next we have testimony that along with those gun shots 
grenades were set off.

     No, there is not specific testimony they were the first to 
fire at people.  However there is testimony they were the first 
to discharge weapons in a manner that is certainly menacing.

     Finally we have testimony from Attorney Jack Zimmerman that 
the missing door did have the evidence the BATF fired first in 
that the BATF claim is that Koresh came to the door with a gun 
and fired at them which initiated the shooting [at people.]


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Waco!  Never again!  Vote Libertarian!
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1278)
To:      Lester Garrett                          4 Jul 94 23:12:10
Subject: Zimmerman on PGP 2.6                   

LG>  I got it, but I can't bring myself to install it just yet.  
LG>  Back in '85 I was pleading for a 20 megger for my PC.  800 
LG>  megs on a home machine still boggles my imagination.  
LG>  Lezze, if'n I recall correctly, back in '85 that 20 megger 
LG>  was gonna cost the company around 800 bucks.  I just saw a 
LG>  gig drive advertised for about 800 bucks.

     You can get a better price than that.  Seriously, install 
it.  It looks big now but 420 looked big to me in March.  Stacked 
and I have about 150 left.  It is so much more convenient to keep 
things on the HD rather than the hassle of migrating them off to 
floppies.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * All right, Koresh, make my day. -- Reno
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1281)
To:      Rick Chadderdon                         5 Jul 94 02:42:10
Subject: Verbal abuse                           

RC>  Nah, listen to Matt.  He thinks I don't understand free 
RC>  speech.  Some kinds of speech are not protected.  I guess he 
RC>  thinks that nagging should be numbered among those.

     As you are not willing to educate yourself it appears I have 
to do so.

AMENDMENTS
 
1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for
a redress of grievances.
 
     Where do you propose I have suggested Congress should make a 
law? 

     Please be specific.

     When you have learned what you are talking about, please 
continue your posts.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Waco lesson 3.  Kill 'til no Fed breaths American air.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1282)
To:      Ron Mcclain                             5 Jul 94 02:50:10
Subject: CLINTON SCANDAL                        

RM>     Couple that to the timing of coming up on EAOS, and 
RM>  catching the first wave of downsizing, where they were 
RM>  providing incentives to get out, and the choice became 
RM>  iobvious, if I were to be able to look myself in the mirror 
RM>  each morning.

     Congratulations.  Spent 18 years with the civilian side of 
the Navy myself.  I do not see how you could have done it either.  

     In one meeting someone suggesting cutting a few corners on 
the development and capabilities of the SQS-53C sonar.  I am 
never one to give speeches but I did, a polemic actually.  I 
pointed out that should a war happen my son had a fair chance of 
having to fight with this sonar and I was damned if I would 
permit any cutting corners.  I ran off for ten minutes on their 
sons and daughters (it was in the wind at the time) having to 
fight that sonar.

     My issue was as it had been for years, nothing I do will 
ever put a sailor at risk, period.  The Fleet would always get 
the best I could do and if the money was not enough I would 
demand more for exactly the reason of the Fleet.  I was never 
refused.  I was only personalizing it for those who obviously did 
not have a clue as to the real impact of what they were 
suggesting.

     But at that time I never envisioned there would be an idiot 
like Clinton in office who would order people to die for his 
personal aggrandizement.  I do not know what I would have said 
but had he been in office I would certainly have interspersed "I 
am not like Clinton" into that tirade.  

     By Civil Service rules they could not have fired me for it.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Sometimes the Gov has to kill kids in order to save them.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1283)
To:      Ron Mcclain                             5 Jul 94 03:06:10
Subject: Clinton Scandal                        

RM>      Mr.  Bill, once he had a safe draft lottery number, 
RM>  almost immediatly was begging to be released from his afore 
RM>  mentioned intention of joining the Ark Guard as his way of 
RM>  avoiding Vietnam.

     After my last you may wonder why I was so gung ho on the 
military but did not take the uniform.  I was legally blind 
without glasses and had been rejected twice, the first from the 
Air Force Academy pre-screening to which I had a guaranteed 
appointment from an old family friend in Congress -- a friend of 
the family member who had died in WW II.  

     I could have gone in as a grunt as the doctor for my second 
physical was willing to fake it but then I also had a compressed 
disk that he never bothered checking (X-rays and all that.)  As 
at the time I was working for the Navy I did not take up his 
offer as it was fruitless and I had NO interest in going in as a 
grunt.  I had a physics degree, a designated EE, and a manager. 

     I was in a better position to do good than as private even 
though I would not have passed the first X-ray.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Bureau of Firearms, Alcohol, Religion and Tobacco
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1284)
To:      All                                     5 Jul 94 03:13:10
Subject: william meriwether                     

     Since William Meriwhether is sort of new here, let me 
introduce him.  He believes Thomas Jefferson wrote the 
Constitution.  He claims to be a history teacher in Arkansas.  He 
claims to be part of the reason education in Arkansas is the pits 
and his claims are an obvious example of why it is so bad.

     They have ignorant teachers.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * FOIA?  We don't need no stinking FOIA!
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1285)
To:      Brent Thomas                            5 Jul 94 03:18:10
Subject: Curiouser And Curiouser                

BT> CB> Why do you think that attempting to enter the US as a 
BT> CB> refugee is equivalent to declaring war upon the US?

BT>  Try living in Florida, the Americans are the minority and 
BT>  living in fear.

     You are very sadly and completely mistaken about Florida.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * BATF Motto "Let God sort out the innocent!"
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1286)
To:      Ron Mcclain                             5 Jul 94 03:20:10
Subject: Elders Attacks Christians              

RM>      And there is nothing charitable OR high-minded about 
RM>  exposing young minds to the hows of life threatening 
RM>  behaivior without also giving them the tools to avoid those 
RM>  situations also.  Personally, I do not want some stranger 
RM>  trying to take away my job as a parent.  I feel that I have 
RM>  a good enough rapport with my kids that I can answer any 
RM>  question they may have, without the uncontrolled exposure 
RM>  to someone elses values that occurs in all to many cases.
RM> 
RM>      Sure, young kids need to know, but they need to know it 
RM>  all, and not some PC versions, as it is presently pushed in 
RM>  our school systems.

     Try it a bit differently.  What in the fucking hell does the 
school system have to do with expending time on 1% of the 
population?  We still have reading, writing and arithmetic which 
they are failing on and of course we have civics which I am told 
no longer exists.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * FOIA?  We don't need no stinking FOIA!
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1287)
To:      Linda Terrell                           5 Jul 94 03:26:10
Subject: Elders Attacks Christians              

LT> RM>   Personally, I do not want some stranger trying to take 
LT> RM>  away my job as a parent.  I feel that I have a good enough 
LT> RM>  rapport with my kids that I can answer any question they 
LT> RM>  may have, without the uncontrolled exposure to someone 
LT> RM>  elses values that occurs in all to many cases.

LT>     And for those kids who do *not* have a rapport with 
LT>  their parents?  For thos kids whose Parents are just plain 
LT>  embarrassed to talk about the facts of life with them?

     Excuse me but there is no delegated power to the government 
to act in loco parenti on an arbitrary and capricious basis. 

     Consider you are stating that people who can not to save 
their souls teach simple arithmetic are capable of teaching 
values on sex.  They can not produce a class of literates yet 
you hold they can teach something reasonable about an infinitely 
more complex subject.  You are holding a generation, two 
generations in fact, of incompetants who have gotten union 
control of our education system can succeed in a complex matter 
where they have failed miserably in infinitely simpler matters.

     Why would you hold this position?


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * First thing we do, we arrest all the hostages.  FBI at Waco.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

+++■■■■■ r_940709 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1213)
To:      Sandra Peake                            6 Jul 94 19:47:10
Subject: Inquistion mentality                   

SP> MG> Holocaust.  I believed them.  I had faith.  Certainly there 
SP> MG> was no question of the 12 million or so who died in 
SP> MG> concentration camps and there still is no question of it.

SP>    Why, if so many bodies are missing, is there no question? 
SP>    12 million people gone is about 40% of Canada's current 
SP>    population.  Who were these 12 million?

     The bodies were burned of course.  What do you think the 
crematoria were for?

SP> MG>      Then I found a correspondent who was in investigator 
SP> MG> for the War Crimes Courts after the war.  His unit accounted 
SP> MG> for four executions, two life imprisonments, and a total of 
SP> MG> 65 years for four others.  He kept his original notes.  His 
SP> MG> name is in the Hall of the Righteous in Israel.

SP>    What kind of unit are you referring to - a Kommando, a 
SP>    military death squad, what?

     His unit were investigators of war crimes.  His unit 
investigated the first rumor of gas chambers.

SP> MG>      He pointed out that no one was charged with gassing at 
SP> MG> Nuremberg and thus obviously no one was convicted of gassing 
SP> MG> anyone.

SP>    Which Nuremburg Trial? THe first one? That was to settle 
SP>    blame for the major categories of offenders -  the 
SP>    warmongers.  

     Who are you referring to?  Conducting a war was not a crime.

THe prosecution had to settle for lesser 
SP>    figures, for, with the exception of Goering and Hess, the 
                     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SP>    others were not really major players, not even Admiral 
SP>    Doenitz.  

     Hoess was not charged at Nuremberg.

SP>    countries had their own trials.  To say there were no 
SP>    gassings because the Allied trial of the leaders did not 
SP>    convict anyone is to disregard totally the numerous 
SP>    trials of lesser Nazis, who were convicted and hung, or 
SP>    shot.

     Would you care to list some of those people and the charges?

SP>   He pointed out the Rudolph Hoess, the notorious
SP> MG> Commandant of Auschwitz was never arrested but, after he 
SP> MG> surrendered, was kept under house surveillance.  He was 
SP> MG> never charged at Nuremberg.

SP>     Not at the Allied War Crimes trial held in 1945-46 with 
SP>     the 4 Allied prosecutors.  They were not after small 
SP>     potatoes like him - they'd have rejoiced to get their 
        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SP>     hands on the hitherto unknown called Eichmann, who 
SP>     eluded capture for 15 years.  Hoess was under house 
SP>     arrest, which is a valid arrest.

     Consider the two parts I underlined.  Or did you really mean 
Hess vice Hoess?

SP>  MG>     After his testimony against his
SP>   superiors at Nuremberg he MG>was arrested and turned over to the
SP>   Russians at the request of MG>General Rudenko and charged with gassing
SP>   Russian citizens.  After MG>a two day trial he was acquitted of those
SP>   charges for failure of MG>the prosecution to produce evidence there
SP>   was any gassing.  He MG>was later tried on charges of crimes against
SP>   the Russian people MG>and hung. MG>     This was the key to the issue.

SP>    I believe he was tried on crimes against the POLISH 
SP>    people and that's why he was hung at Auschwitz.  

     Actually against the Russian people but the trial was held 
in Poland.  Seems some Russians had been shipped there.

SP>    Here was a man purported to MG>have written a book 
SP>    between the time of his surrender in 1946 and MG>his 
SP>    execution in 1947.  That book, Commandant of Auschwitz, 
SP>    MG>amounts to a full confession of gassing.  And yet the 
SP>    Russians MG>acquitted him of that charge for lack of 
SP>    evidence.  MG>     Not even asking when he had time to 
SP>    write this book why MG>would not such a confession lead 
SP>    to a conviction on exactly those MG>charges?
SP> 
SP>     That would seem reasonable - if it were published before 
SP>     the trial's end.  However, doomed men have written 
SP>     confessional treatises before now, and these stories 
SP>     have turned up only after their deaths.  I have not read 
SP>     this book; so cannot comment on its contents.

     What does publication have to do with it?  It was a 
manuscript before it was a book.  Where could he have hidden it?  
It would have been in the hands of the Russians no farther away 
than his jail cell.

SP>  It is obvious it did not exist at the time and what
SP>   has MG>been published is a forgery.

SP>    That's a leap of faith.  Hidden works can certainly exist 
SP>    w/o being published for some time.  Happens frequently.  
SP>    Family and friends smuggle out the text, and publish it 
SP>    posthumusly.

     I read the book way to long ago to remember its contents 
clearly but I remember no such story.  In fact I do not remember 
how its publication 12 years after the fact was explained.

SP>    THere were cremtoria at all the camps, hundreds of them, 
SP>    all spread out under the umbrella of 19 major camps.  
SP>    (Auschwitz consisted of 4 major camps, all separate, 
SP>    several miles apart.) However, not all of them had gas 
SP>    chambers by any means, and most of those that did used 
SP>    them for delousing.  None of the four death camps was 
SP>    located on German soil; so I'd doubt those reporters' 
SP>    testimony also.

     Of course there were crematoria.  What point are you trying 
to make with that?  

SP>    But when Birkenau was added to Auschwitz, it had one 
SP>    function.  To kill and dispose of as many prisoners as 
SP>    possible, and as many Jews as possible.  The railroad 
SP>    siding came right to the gas chambers.  At that point, 
SP>    doctors separated healthy male prisoners (occasionally 
SP>    some females for work at Ravensbruck , another sub-camp 
SP>    at Auschwitz) and marched them off to work details.  The 
SP>    rest were taken to the "showers, to be deloused." THese 
SP>    huge buildings were indeed, capable of handling 700 
SP>    people at once.  THe Zyklon-B was delivered through 
SP>    "shower heads" installed in the ceiling, along with dummy 
SP>    shower heads.  And there were 4 of these giant chambers!

     It is an interesting story but there is on support for it.  
First Zyklon-B is liquid hydrogen cyanide soaked into 
kaolinacious earth and then compressed into pellets described as 
blue and pea sized.  That does not come out of shower heads.  

     The 700 at once part comes from the story of the first 
experimental use of Zyklon-B where they were supposed to have 
been packed in 30 to the square meter -- impossible on the face 
of it.

SP>   However, the Russians refused access to
SP> MG> Auschwitz-Birkenau.  And it is noted their own court had 
SP> MG> thrown out these reports in the Hoess trial.  Thus the 
SP> MG> evidence from Auschwitz is not credible.  MG>

SP>     I'd like to see the charges , the transcripts, and the 
SP>     jurists' reasoning.  THere are (were) enough survivors of 
SP>     Auschwitz, and a few from Birkenau, that eyewitness 
SP>     testimony may not be so lightly tossed aside.

     So would I but then I do not read Russian.  As to eye 
witnesses to gassing they didn't start showing up until years 
later.  Even Wiesel's first book does not mention gas chambers.

SP>     In view of the fact that the Nazis blew up the gas 
SP>     chambers and crematoria at Birkenau in the late fall of 
SP>     1944, their current existence would be entirely 
SP>     questionable.  

     The crematoria were left standing and were in use until 
liberation.  As for blowing up gas chambers, what good would that 
do?  Blowing up a building doesn't do more than make a mess of 
it.  What it was would be a simple forensic matter to 
reconstruct.  In fact given all the real life experts in blown up 
buildings around during the war there should have been dozens of 
people capable of doing so in the group that liberated the camp.  

ANd so is the "evidence" of those who 
SP>     purported to point out the chambers as existing after 
SP>     the war.  Now, if they pointed out where the gas chambers 
SP>     had been...that is something entirely different.  Nor 
SP>     could the equipments' existence be verified by 
SP>     examination of the site, as they were destroyed and 
SP>     dismantled months before the war's end.

     There is no evidence of any order to construct or dismantle 
any gas chambers yet there is plenty of evidence of the 
construction and shipping and assembly of the crematoria. 

=====

     It appears to me you hold crematoria are evidence of gas 
chambers.  They are evidence of nothing but a lot of bodies do 
dispose of.  And need indicate no more than deaths from disease 
and starvation.  It is not as though they had running water or 
toilets.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Waco!  Never again!  Vote Libertarian!
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1217)
To:      Sandra Peake                            6 Jul 94 20:30:10
Subject: Inquistion mentality                   

SP>  MG>
SP> This is the famous room, the first gas chamber described in
SP> MG>Kommandant of Auschwitz.  In the book it was a spontaneous
SP> MG>experiment carried out hardly a month after the infamous Wannasee
SP> MG>Conference is supposed to have ordered the method used.  At this
SP> MG>point in my reconsideration of events I was reviewing some
SP> MG>material from people who were already skeptics of gassing. MG>     It
SP> turns out this was a rather small room and yet the MG>description is of
SP> at least 700 people being stuffed into it.

SP>    As there were numerous camps at which gassings occurred, 
SP>    and as there were both preliminary trials before the bugs 
SP>    got worked out, and then the actual working apparatus, 
SP>    some witnesses' testimony has gotten confused with other 
SP>    testimony, and the incompatibilities seized on to "prove" 
SP>    no gas chambers therefore existed.  It wasn't until I 
SP>    divided experimental early models from the later ones, 
SP>    and looked at the camps separately, that the differences 
SP>    got resolved in my mind.  Not every method was practiced 
SP>    at every camp.

     The above story is flatly impossible yet it is the classic 
first use.  It is also given as an invention at Auschwitz yet the 
Wannasee conference was supposed to have have been held a couple 
months earlier.

SP>    Therefore, to say that such-and-such a procedure was 
SP>    followed at Auchwitz-Birkenau has no relevance on what 
SP>    took place at Treblinka or Dachau.  Small wonder attempts 
SP>    to extrapolate a single working procedure from the 
SP>    different areas results in inconsistencies, upon which 
SP>    deniers of the Holocaust gleefully fasten.

     Then there was no Wannasee Conference to have organized 
everything and standardized the procedures.  That knocks another 
big hole into the story.

SP>    policy.  Because so many camps had crematoria for disposal 
SP>    of dangerous waste, including diseased bodies, does not 
SP>    mean that healthy men, women and children weren't killed 
SP>    and cremated at the death camps.

     Save you have still presented of evidence of gas chambers.

SP>   I  have never seen this mentioned as a method. 

     It is in the Holocaust FAQ on the internet.

THere were covered
SP>   slots in some doors, much like dispensing vents on washing machines,
SP>   through which the pellets could be dropped, in earlier models. THe
SP>   Auschwitz later ones had the gas dispensed through the ceiling.

     It was still pellets unless you can name a different gas 
that was used.  

SP>   It also MG>holds the room was prepared by
SP> covering glass windows with dirt MG>-- some glass. MG>     On cursory
SP> inspection the story is incredible.  Yet this is MG>the story.  And if
SP> one asks for better evidence?

SP>    I have read about viewing ports.  Why is this incredible? 
SP>    Surely the murderers would want to be able to tell when 
SP>    all were dead and to shut off the gas; so as to expedite 
SP>    disposal.  Seems reasonable to me.

     This is still the story of the first one.  It was supposed 
to be Zyklon-B thrown on the floor by men in gas masks causally 
walking through such a packed room.

SP>   This is where MG>the heresy comes in.  MG> I have asked for 
SP>  evidence.  I have presented all of the MG>above and more.  
SP>  The response I have received is, "You are MG>denying the 
SP>  Holocaust." MG>     I have been asked how people died and I 
SP>  respond they were MG>worked to death in conditions of no 
SP>  sanitation and no medication MG>and on starvation level 
SP>  food.  That satisfies no one.

SP>    But many thousands did.  Just in Belsen alone, 30,000 
SP>    people died of severe malnutrition and typhus (which was 
SP>    exacerbated by starvation) the week they were liberated.  
SP>    And there were thousands upon thousands of corpses lying 
SP>    about the camp when the Allies got to it.  Yet the camp 
SP>    bakery just down the road had tons of supplies, and the 
SP>    capacity to turn out 60,000 loaves of bread daily.  THose 
SP>    supplies, and potential bread, were withheld deliberately 
SP>    from the starving by the Nazis and guards in charge of 
SP>    the camp.

     What does this have to do with gas chambers?

SP> I have MG> been plication that a quick death by gassing is worse 
SP> I have MG> MG>than a from disease and starvation.

SP>    Give me the choice; I know which I'd choose.  (As if 
SP>    prisoners had any choice!)

     Suggest that a murder be executed by starvation and you will 
be told which is worse.     

SP> MG>     I have have dozens of
SP>  people literally refuse to respond to MG>my requests 
SP>  because they know the truth.  When I ask them why MG>they 
SP>  will not post the evidence of that truth they refuse to 
SP>  MG>respond.

SP>    Some people never want to hear another word about 
SP>    something that destroyed their souls.  

     Nonsense.  These are the same people who will say Israel can 
do no wrong because of the Holocaust.  Most were not even born 
until after the war.  

Others are tired of 
SP>    fighting the same battles over and over again.  Many have 
SP>    died.  But I asked my Polish friend, who spent 5 1/2 years 
SP>    in POW camps.  He was never in a death camp.  But he knows 
SP>    the truth.  And now, second-hand, so do I.

     If he was never at such a camp how did he know there were 
gas chambers?  

SP>  MG>     Have I denied the
SP> Holocaust in anything of the above?  Yet MG>almost every response I have
SP> received has been a claim that I MG>have denied there was any massive
SP> death of Jews regardless of the MG>stipulation I have made up front.

SP>    Only about half of the eleven million who died were Jews.  
SP>    Poland considered hers Polish citizens, and did not 
SP>    further distinguish them on racial or religious 
SP>    designation.  But over 3 million of those Poles were Jews.  
SP>    That's pretty massive in anybody's books.
     
     So what is your point?

SP>  behind.  In the 20th century I can profess to MG>believe in 
SP>  the deaths of tens of millions but if I question one 
SP>  MG>particular means of death the claim is that I have 
SP>  denied all of MG>the deaths.

SP>    You have denied the gas chambers, 

     Since when is pointing out the stories are not possible 
denying anything?  Since when is asking for credible evidence 
denying anything?

and also death by 
SP>    starvation , beatings and disease.  

     Then you are illiterate or have not read a word I have said 
that you did not what to read.

(Unsatisfactory was 
SP>    how you categorized these answers.) So that leaves 
SP>    outright murder by injection and hanging, which are 
SP>    neither efficient nor high up on the list as the major 
SP>    causes of death, as well as by shooting, which was high 
SP>    on the list.

     You said there were 30,000 who died from typhus in the week 
they were liberated.  Why would you now claim disease is 
inefficient or that disease could not account for it.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * God Lord!  It's a cookbook! -- FBI manual
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1221)
To:      Rick Chadderdon                         6 Jul 94 21:02:10
Subject: Verbal abuse                           

RC>  MG> RC>   No kidding.  And he considers himself an American.  His 
RC>  MG> RC>   last post accuses me of not understanding "free speech." 
RC>  MG> RC>   He's starting to sound like those people who say, "The 2nd 
RC>  MG> RC>   amendment actually means..."

RC>  MG>      You would do well to learn what both mean.

RC>  Tell me, Matt, what do *you* think I believe the 2nd 
RC>  amendment to mean?

AMENDMENTS
 
1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for
a redress of grievances.

     When did I suggest Congress should make a law?   

RC>  Your tactics don't change, do they, Matt? Can't offer 
RC>  information, just attack the source.  No problem, at least I 
RC>  got to see how sharp this guy with all the essays *really* 
RC>  is.

     I was unaware you had never read the 1st amendment.

RC>  Are you actually saying that the 1st amendment "as is" 
RC>  doesn't protect certain kinds of annoying speech already? 

     From the interference of Congress as it plainly says.  

RC>  If so, I apologize.  I think you're *wrong*, but you have 
RC>  the *right* to state your view...

     You should be knowledgeable of what you bring up.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * We are here to help you, Jude, I mean Mr. Koresh.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1222)
To:      Grant Karpik                            6 Jul 94 21:06:10
Subject: Ollie North for Senator                

GK> MG>      Myself I do not watch the god channel.  If they are
GK> MG> supporting North I would certainly like to know about it.

GK>  You don't have to watch the 'god channel' to find out about 
GK>  it.  It's been well reported in the media.  And before you 
GK>  come back with the 'liberal media' speech, that includes 
GK>  the American Spectator and the National Review among other 
GK>  conservative publications.

     In fact I have been reading of his campaign in the 
Washington Times and haven't noticed it.  

GK> MG>      If they happen to be supporting people with similar
GK> MG> values  then that is the political process.

GK> That's not the point as you well know.

     Then what is the point?

GK> MG>      All together I don't see it as more than 10 million
GK> MG> votes as  a block which is less than the Black vote that
GK> MG> votes Democrat.   And if you want to talk holy rolling
GK> MG> fundies you have to go a  long way to beat them.  Do not
GK> MG> forget that Black candidates  campaign right from the pulpit
GK> MG> of churches.

GK> MG>      If you have a problem with Jerry Falwell then you
GK> MG> should see  a crisis in Jesse Jackson.

GK>  You're changing the subject.  We are speking specifically 
GK>  about North and his yies to the 'religious right' in the 
GK>  US.

     That is what I am still asking about.  Is he really doing 
anything out of the ordinary for a politician and a voting block?  
What kind of deals is he making with Falwell?

     I was merely pointing out other examples of the same or 
worse that do not engender any comment.  What might you find so 
terrible about this group?  It is the same group that supported 
Reagan and nothing happened in eight years.  I do no see how 
supporting one Senator would make a difference. 

GK> MG>      North has come back from ex-marine with no job skills
GK> MG> to a  viable candidate.  Sounds like my kind of person.

GK>  A self-confessed liar? 

     To Congress?  Yes.

A person who under normal 
GK>  circumstances would be serving time in jail for knowingly 
GK>  breaking the law? Hey, whatever turns you on Matt....

     He would have been in jail if Congress had done its job 
instead of trying to hang Reagan.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * First they came for Weaver and I did not speak.  Then they
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1325)
To:      Pete Bucy                               6 Jul 94 02:22:10
Subject: Davidians are senten                   

PB>  JB>  A law enforcement officer who kills a citizen (whether the 
PB>  JB>  citizen is armed or not) is given time off, with pay, 
PB>  JB>  pending an investigation.  When and if the case goes before 
PB>  JB>  a coroner's inquest, nearly every case is "justifiable 
PB>  JB>  homicide."  Why is that option available to police, but not 
PB>  JB>  available to...the American People"?

PB>      The fantasy continues! If I had not spent so much time 
PB>      on this echo I would think that I had just read the 
PB>      latest Monty Python skit on law enforcement in America.  
PB>      'Why don't we give someone who kills a law enforcement 
PB>      officer time off with pay." Good God, give me a break!

     Are you saying the police are any better than the rest of 
us?  If so, why?

PB>      Do you really understand how stupid this sounds? I 
PB>      guess that we should give gang members two week 
PB>      vacations in Hawaii after the gun down a few innocent 
PB>      citizens?

     Are you so illiterate as not to know that was not his 
statement?

PB>      This may be hard for you to comprehend, but there is a 
PB>      great difference between sworn law enforcement officers 
PB>      and David Koresh-Kabob - Christ-Immolate, and his mob.

     And pray tell, other than your distorted fantasy life what 
was that difference?


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Sometimes the Gov has to kill kids in order to save them.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1326)
To:      Lester Garrett                          6 Jul 94 02:37:10
Subject: Waco                                   

LG> In a message to Matt Giwer, dated 20 Jun 94, Jim Bell wrote:

LG>          LG>  Do you happen to work for the government, Pete?

LG>      MG> IQ references are flames.

LG>  JB> Hey, that's great!

LG>  Actually, whether or not Matt intended it, it was a cheap 
LG>  shot on my part and I apologize to Pete for having used 
LG>  it.

     As I believe you know I used to work for the government.  


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Waco lesson 2.  Obey or die.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1327)
To:      Bill Reich                              6 Jul 94 02:52:10
Subject: Waco - Murder By Our                   

BR> SA>  A matter of life & death _for the losers of society_ ....  
BR> SA>  GOD BLESS THE BTAF and ALL LAW AND ORDER IN OUR SOCIETY!!! 
BR> SA>  I WANT MORE, MORE, MORE!!!!!

BR>  Who gets to decide who's a loser? I don't like to flame 
BR>  people but I would pick you really early, like first.  Bet I 
BR>  could make it stick too.

     She is a classic example of a class of women.  They have 
never witnessed serious violence.  They have never thought about 
having to use it.  She has no idea of the consequences.  

     Yet she gets orgasms just thinking about men doing it to 
each other and would demand a man kill "if he is man enough."  I 
think you know the type.  

     This is a type of woman to be avoided by all but Hell's 
Angel's how are in need of the encouragement.  She would also do 
well in a terrorist organization.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Let Waco be a lesson to all Americans.  Bill Clinton
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1356)
To:      Mike Perry                              6 Jul 94 15:09:10
Subject: Ollie North for Senator                

MP>  MG>       North has come back from ex-marine with no job skills 
MP>  MG>  to a viable candidate.  Sounds like my kind of person.

MP>  I don't doubt that, fortunately I believe most people would 
MP>  disagree with you.  The guy's a crook with a flag wrapped 
MP>  around him.
MP> 
MP>  This is so classic!  You're all too quick to condemn 
MP>  someone like Clinton, who still has yet to be conclusively 
MP>  nailed for any wrongdoing, yet you'll consider a convicted 
MP>  criminal such as North a hero.  Does this mean that you'll 
MP>  suddenly idolize Clinton if you find out he's murdered a 
MP>  few dozen innocent people?

     You can't seem to get passed the idea he is not convicted of 
anything.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * First thing we do, we arrest all the hostages.  FBI at Waco.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1357)
To:      Michael Pilon                           6 Jul 94 15:11:10
Subject: VERBAL ABUSE                           

MP>  MG>  It is supposed to be a Canadian study.  I didn't catch a  
MP>  MG>  formal reference to it but it was mentioned on a couple of 
MP>  MG>  the  talking head shows around the story.

MP>  There has been a lot done on abuse problems here.  Some 10 
MP>  million were spent on studies.  But one will have to see 
MP>  whether as you say all the blame is placed on men !

     I did not say that.  I said the physical abuse was roughly 
equal.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Ruby Creek, Waco; the war has already begun.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1358)
To:      Linda Terrell                           6 Jul 94 16:43:10
Subject: Elders Attacks Christians              

LT>     The Radical Right Chriastians leap into the Political 
LT>  fray slinging mud, and when someone slings it back, they 
LT>  cry "Bigot!" "Persecution!"  As if their Christian shield 
LT>  is supposed to make them free of being hit back when they 
LT>  puch out.

     But no one complains when Jesse Jackson campaigns from the 
pulpit.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Waco!  Never again!  Vote Libertarian!
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

+++■■■■■ r_940711 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1083)
To:      Rick Chadderdon                         8 Jul 94 03:48:10
Subject: Verbal abuse                           

RC>  MG> RC>  Nah, listen to Matt.  He thinks I don't understand free
RC>  MG> RC>  speech.  Some kinds of speech are not protected.  I guess he
RC>  MG> RC>  thinks that nagging should be numbered among those.
RC>  MG>
RC>  MG>      As you are not willing to educate yourself it appears I have
RC>  MG> to do so.
RC>  MG>
RC>  MG> AMENDMENTS
RC>  MG>
RC>  MG> 1st Amendment
RC>  MG> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
RC>  MG> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RC>  MG> religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
RC>  MG> the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
RC>  MG> people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for
RC>  MG> a redress of grievances.
RC>  MG>
RC>  MG>      Where do you propose I have suggested Congress should make a
RC>  MG> law?

RC> Matt, you really are not worth the time to explain this to.

     Then why are you bothering?  Just trying to waste bandwidth?

RC>  However, since I have already stated that I will discuss 
RC>  this until you decide that you are finished, I'll try 
RC>  again.
RC> 
RC>  First, you should quote the message where I *did* imply 
RC>  that you wanted a law making nagging a non-protected form 
RC>  of speech.  I did say that, but not here.  Or if it was in 
RC>  this message, you should have quoted that section, if you 
RC>  were going to quote at all.

     This message is in specific response to your claim regarding 
the protections of free speech and nothing more.  I needed to 
quote nothing more.

RC>  Second, if you do not wish for the "common scold" law to be 
RC>  reinstated, then you have made statements with implications 
RC>  contrary to your desires.  I see no need to quote you on 
RC>  this, anyone following this debate knows what you have 
RC>  said.

     Common scold is behavior, not speech.  In some places it 
would be a variation upon "fighting words."

RC>  Thank you for posting the 1st Amendment.  It was however 
RC>  unnecessary; I am well aware of it's content.  How do you 
RC>  *justify* not protecting "nagging" as a 1st amendment 
RC>  right?

RC>  Please be specific.

     You were obviously unaware of it as I had not proposed any 
Federal law in this regard.  

     When trying to save face it is usually less embarassing to 
simply not respond rather than try to backtrack as you are 
attempting.  


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Sometimes the Gov has to kill kids in order to save them.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901
SEEN-BY: 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1165)
To:      Mike Perry                              8 Jul 94 19:43:10
Subject: Ollie North for Senator                

MP>  MG>       You can't seem to get passed the idea he is not 
MP>  MG>  convicted of anything.

MP>  Who North?  He was guilty; he was convicted and due to 
MP>  political back-deal-making he got off.  

     You have a lot of education ahead of you.

     First, an overturned conviction is the same as a not guilty 
finding.  Second, he got off because Congress offered him 
immunity and he took a bath.

There was nothing 
MP>  presented which vindicated him whatsoever, even though his 
MP>  right-wing political allies tried to manipulate the media 
MP>  to make him look like a hero.  Ha!   His behind-the-scenes 
MP>  action makes your beef with Clinton laughable!  Matt, 
MP>  you're as consistent as astroturf under an electron 
MP>  microscope.

     His efforts to free hostages despite the desire of Congress 
that they remain hostages is laudable.

     His efforts to get rid of a Communist government in Latin 
America when Congress -- the Speaker of the House for certain -- 
wanted the country to remain Communist was laudable.

     That is the kind of change I want to see in Congress and I 
don't really care how it happens.     


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Lt. Frank Drebbin was in Charge of Corpus Crispy OPS.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901
SEEN-BY: 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1166)
To:      Mike Perry                              8 Jul 94 19:50:10
Subject: Ollie North for Senator                

MP>  MG>       That is what I am still asking about.  Is he really 
MP>  MG>  doing anything out of the ordinary for a politician and a 
MP>  MG>  voting block? What kind of deals is he making with 
MP>  MG>  Falwell?

MP>  Are you kidding?  When his trial was happening, Falwell was 
MP>  on television pleading for donations for the Ollie North - 
MP>  An American Hero campaign.  

     Do you even have a service record to compare to his?

What a riot!  They're both 
MP>  sleazebags - they belong together.

     Do you have any basis for that claim for either of them?  
Please post specifics.

MP> GK>> MG>      North has come back from ex-marine with no job
MP> GK>> MG> skills to a  viable candidate.  Sounds like my kind of
MP> GK>> MG> person.

MP> GK>>  A self-confessed liar?

MP>  MG>      To Congress?  Yes.

MP>  So it's OK to lie to Congress?  

     Under the old rule of turn about is fair play, yes.  A more 
adult version of the rule is "getting even is a moral 
imperative."

MP>  I'm confused here Matt.  

     I could not agree with you more.

MP>  Perhaps you can spell out your principals on these matters.  
MP>  When and where is it OK to lie, cheat and steal, and when 
MP>  is it inappropriate?  It sounds to me like you think it's 
MP>  only bad if non-conservatives do it, otherwise it's heroic.

     When you are acting in a manner no different from your 
adversary.  I can think of a time when that has not my standard 
of judgement.  It is not as though events were any kind of 
secret.  I was smelling it for at least a year simply by a close 
reading of events published in the Post.  

     It is very difficult to believe people close to events did 
not know what was going on.  For example, we know he did not 
violate any version of the Boland Amendment.  That amendment took 
a few weeks of negotiation each year.  It is inconceivable that 
one side did not know what to negotiate for and that the other 
side did now know they had an agenda in mind.

MP>  Your double-standards amaze me.  North went to trial and it 
MP>  was proven he betrayed the American people, yet you think 
MP>  he's a hero and claim he's not guilty of any wrongdoing.  

     You will have to recount the details of the charge 
"betraying the American people."  

MP>  Then you condemn Clinton for hypothetical things that 
MP>  aren't even illegal much less proven.

     When I post something about Clinton I rarely forget to post 
the substantiation for my statement in the same message.  I do 
not post such nebulous non-crime garbage as you have just done.

MP>  MG>       He would have been in jail if Congress had done its 
MP>  MG>  job instead of trying to hang Reagan.

MP>  How ironic since you're all too apt to blame EVERYTHING 
MP>  that's wrong with this country on Clinton and his wife.

     You will have to support that allegation.  I have not done 
so.  Why would you make up such a thing?


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * W.A.C.O, acronym, Washington Approved Cook Out
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901
SEEN-BY: 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1167)
To:      Chris Baugh                             8 Jul 94 20:05:10
Subject: psychological breakthroug              

CB>  MG>  And pray tell, other than your distorted fantasy life what 
CB>  MG>  was that difference?

CB>  Dr.  Freud needed to ask his patients to describe their 
CB>  fantasies before he was able to reach a conclusion about 
CB>  their psychological health.  However, you seem to have 
CB>  developed a method to both obtain and evaluate information 
CB>  about fantasies of people who have not told you anything 
CB>  about them.  

     Nothing you have quoted indicates a conclusion.  In fact it 
is right in line with that old fraud did.

     He has told me many things about his fantasy life.  I have 
simply compared his statements about Koresh which are known to be 
contrary to everyone's statements about events including the BATF 
and found he is repeating something that only he could have 
heard.  Thus, a fantasy -- or personal revelation if you are so 
inclined.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * BBQed Baby Back Ribs, Waco style.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901
SEEN-BY: 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1168)
To:      Chris Baugh                             8 Jul 94 20:11:10
Subject: Verbal abuse                           

CB>  MG>  Where do you propose I have suggested Congress should make 
CB>  MG>  a law?

CB>  You have explained to me that you consider spousal nagging 
CB>  as equivalent to threat of imminent physical harm as valid 
CB>  self-defense justification against a charge of assault.

     In many states, fighting words are considered a valid 
defense.  What would be the difference?

CB>  It could be argued that such a provision of assault law 
CB>  would be abriding freedom of speech of nagger, as it would 
CB>  create a situation in which nagging could become punishable 
CB>  by death by any spouse who was annoyed by nagging.  
CB>  Currently, nagging is not punishable by death.

     I can also be argued in the states with "fighting words" 
provisions.  It can also be argued it is as reasonable to 
intervene in the case of shouting fire in a crowded theater and 
in screaming "limp dick" to O.J. Simpson.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * We are here to help you, Jude, I mean Mr. Koresh.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901
SEEN-BY: 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1339)
To:      Mike Perry                              9 Jul 94 02:07:10
Subject: william meriwether                     

MP>  MG>       Since William Meriwhether is sort of new here, let me 
MP>  MG>  introduce him.  He claims to be part of the reason 
MP>  MG>  education in Arkansas is the pits and his claims are an 
MP>  MG>  obvious example of why it is so bad.

MP>  MG>      They have ignorant teachers.

MP>  Considering who wrote the above quoted message, I think 
MP>  Bill is starting out with a helluva lot of credibility.  

     Then you are in serious need of a brain transplant.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Waco lesson 4.  The Feds can get away with it.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901
SEEN-BY: 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1344)
To:      All                                     9 Jul 94 03:54:10
Subject: OJ damn it!                            

 *********** Original       To: ALL
 * SILICON *      was       By: MATT GIWER
 *  DUPE   *   posted:      On: MERCOPUS
 ***********              Conf: 0025 - Politics-F
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

     I hate to do this and I am not taking sides.  I do not 
follow sports, period.  I thought OJ was a basketball player 
until this started.

     However, the defense in its motion passed over one serious 
point and made not one thing of it in summation that I think is 
extremely interesting.

     To wit.  He started off making the point that in one hour OJ 
is presumed to have disposed of blood soaked clothes and shoes so 
effectively that they have not been found in less than one hour 
and there he dropped it.

     Let us take this one step further.  He disposed of all of 
his clothes and did NOT dispose of one glove.  Further he parked 
on the street just to increase the opportunity for people see him 
go onto his property stark naked save for wearing one glove.  

     I have no opinion one way or the other in this matter. 

     I am posting this only to suggest one of the things the 
defense may have up its sleeve.

     (For anyone unfamiliar with this type of hearing if the 
defense had proven his innocence beyond a shadow of a doubt it 
would not have been relevant to the hearing.  That is the way it 
is.)


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Welcome to Masada, Texas.  Never again!
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901
SEEN-BY: 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1410)
To:      Susana Atanasova                        9 Jul 94 18:26:10
Subject: 4th Amendment Rights                   

SA>  TG>   Matt, I may not be the moderator, but *I*, for one, am 
SA>  TG>   sure getting tired of rea 0ding this type of garbage.

SA>  MG>       I know you are not the moderator.  Are you saying you 
SA>  MG>  enjoy reading her blood lust?  I get very sick of the 
SA>  MG>  bloodthirsty types.  Are you suggesting you are one of 
SA>  MG>  them?

SA>  Matt, it is truly pathetic the time you require of everyone 
SA>  here to explain to you the content of *VERY* clear 
SA>  messages!
SA> 
SA>  By adding the word "may" to her first grouping she made it 
SA>  *CLEAR* to *ALL* - except you, that she does not want to 
SA>  come off as self-appointed, nothing more, nothing less.
SA> 
SA>  She said, "*I* am sure getting tired of reading this type 
SA>  of garbage." She is referencing *YOUR* post, dear.  She 
SA>  expresses the opinions of many who do not value you enough 
SA>  to invest the energy & time to hold your hand and walk you 
SA>  through every single post.  Please, take some remedial 
SA>  reading and certainly some introductory debate classes 
SA>  ASAP!  We can *ALL* improve with education!

     When you become more familiar with the participants of the 
conference you will have learned a lot.

SA>  Good luck in life, Matt.  Yours is certainly a hard row to 
SA>  hoe!

     I avoid the blood thirty types who live in a world of their 
personal fantasies.  I do well.  


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * First they came for Weaver and I did not speak.  Then they
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901
SEEN-BY: 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1411)
To:      Ron Mcclain                             9 Jul 94 18:29:10
Subject: CLINTON SCANDAL                        

RM>  MG> By Civil Service rules they could not have fired me for it.

RM>      Fireing I could have taken.  But, I felt that staying in 
RM>  put me at risk of captains Mast, and that would have 
RM>  entailed an undue hardship on my family, one that I did not 
RM>  think was worth staying in for.

     True, you need a couple of stars to get away with telling 
the truth and not pay too dearly for it.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Welcome to Masada, Texas.  Never again!
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901
SEEN-BY: 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1412)
To:      Susana Atanasova                        9 Jul 94 18:32:10
Subject: Elders Attacks Christians              

SA>  GK> SA>  TR>      She attacked what she called the "un-Christian
SA>  GK> SA>  TR>  religious right" for its opposition to education programmes
SA>  GK> SA>  TR>  in such areas as sex and AIDS.

SA>  Matt, I hope by "She" you mean Elder.  As by "her" I so mean, below.

SA>  GK> SA>  Bully for her!
SA>  GK> SA>   It's about time someone with a high profile came out and 
SA>  GK> SA>   publicly exposed the obvious truth for ANYONE who just 
SA>  GK> SA>   listens and doesn't stop to THINK! There is NOTHING 
SA>  GK> SA>   "Christian" about attempting to impose life threatening 
SA>  GK> SA>   ignorance upon others, in my opinion.  Susana ;-)

SA>  GK> MG>      You are truly psychotic.  Certainly terminally stupid.

SA>   Are you truly incapable of rational thought processes, or 
SA>   just unwilling to take the effort required to try an 
SA>   express a linear thought pattern?

     Would you start by explaining how ignorance can be forced 
upon anyone?  The Star Trek mind wipes are available as yet.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * BBQed Baby Back Ribs, Waco style.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901
SEEN-BY: 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1413)
To:      Susana Atanasova                        9 Jul 94 18:35:10
Subject: Elders Attacks Christians              

SA>  MG>      Then I guess they learn of the subject on the streets like
SA>  MG> most everyone does.

SA> Yet another inflammatory Matt Giwer *******FACTOID*******.
SA> Come on, Matt!
SA> Cite your source!
SA> Or, dare you admit it?
SA> You are spouting the fantasies you so dread!?!?
SA> Gotcha!

     Every so often Lester or someone posts the latest Q&A 
demonstrating the level of public education on some subject or 
other.  If people relied upon sex education in schools there 
would be a drastic increase in anal sex.  

     Do you really think results are any better for sex ed than 
for history or math?  If so, why?  And if it is graded you only 
need a D to avoid taking it again.

     Given some of the stories I have heard from an OB/GYN friend 
they apparently are relying upon sex ed for their information on 
condoms.  They don't seem to know it shouldn't be left inside.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Waco lesson 1.  Kill them before they burn you alive.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901
SEEN-BY: 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1414)
To:      Stewart Harris                          9 Jul 94 18:43:10
Subject: Elders Attacks Christians              

SH> >->     But no one complains when Jesse Jackson campaigns from the
SH> >->pulpit.

SH>  ................................. I would state:

SH> Nor have I heard the White House jump up and down over Louis boy
SH> and the Nation.

     Which clearly demonstrates it is a politically motivated 
attack upon a religious group.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * FOIA?  We don't need no stinking FOIA!
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901
SEEN-BY: 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1419)
To:      All                                     9 Jul 94 19:35:10
Subject: Religious Bigotry                      

 *********** Original       To: ALL
 * SILICON *      was       By: MATT GIWER
 *  DUPE   *   posted:      On: MERCOPUS
 ***********              Conf: 0025 - Politics-F
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

            Is Your Religion Government Approved?
                             by
                         Matt Giwer (c) 1994 <7/9>

     Leaders of the Black Muslim religion attack Jews and not one
politician says a word against these politically valuable, voting
bigots.
     Black politicians, notably one time Presidential candidate
Jesse Jackson, campaign from the pulpits of churches and these
registered voters are not criticized.
     Those who believe because of their religion that accepting
homosexuality is sinful are attacked by the Surgeon General and
a list of politicians that is growing daily.  But they are voters
to.  Therefore the difference must be elsewhere.
     The wording of the attack is where the answer lies.  The
attack is upon the religious right.  It is nothing more and
nothing less than an attack based upon politics.
     Clearly a form of religious conviction is being singled out
for attack because they oppose the political agenda of their
attackers.  And of course the political attack is being conducted
by liberal Democrats.  Thus we have every evidence of the
beginnings of another pogrom it has not gone very far yet but it
includes both party members in the Executive and Legislative
Branches of the government.  It is obviously an orchestrated
attack.
     Lets take another example.  We protect the right of the oil
industry to form an organization and lobby Congress.  In the
words of the 1st amendment these protected rights are those of
the freedom of assembly and the right to petition the government.
     In the case of these attacks we are dealing with another
freedom in the same amendment that of religion which includes the
right to believe anything they want to believe and act
accordingly save for a compelling government interest against
such actions.
     Here we have liberals with their liberal political agenda
who have chosen to single out fundamentalist Christians for
acting according to their religious beliefs.  And what is their
political crime?  Opposing the liberal political agenda because
of their religious beliefs.
     The same people who can not find a reason to object to
blatant anti-semitic bigotry can find reason to attack those
another religion themselves.  It is easy to see why they do not
object to religious bigotry, they are attempting to incite it
themselves.  They are trying to stir up the body politic to
prevent these people from exercising rights that are protected by
the 1st amendment.
     How far can it go?  That depends upon how successful these
attacks are.  It depends upon how many more administration
officials join in on the attack.  How many more liberals will
join this attack is not known.  That they all started within two
weeks of each other it is certainly a coordinated attack.  Some
one is organizing it.
     Who that might be it not apparent.  It could be President
Clinton as his administration is part of it and he has done nothing
to change the impression he approves of it.  I do not wish to
stir up Clinton defenders here but he has not distanced himself
in anyway from Elders' attack which had nothing to do with her
job as Surgeon General and was a purely political attack.
     As there is no "liberal" caucus then as far as we can go is
identify it is being coordinated by someone high up in the
Democratic party.  Who that might be is speculation but as Elders
is part of it and she reports to Clinton that again leads to him
as the coordinator.
     That means we can expect these attacks to increase and to
become as vicious and to grow as quickly as possible keeping in
the mind the possibility of a public backlash.
     I can not see why, after all of these years of working to
erase religious intolerance, liberals are now working to create
it again.  It appears antithetical to everything they have worked
for the decades to now revert to such crude bigotry.  It almost
makes one think they were hypocrites all along.

                            * * * * *

      Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

     1425 San Mateo Dr., Dunedin, Fl. 34698, 813-733-547


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * First they came for Weaver and I did not speak.  Then they
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901
SEEN-BY: 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1420)
To:      Rick Chadderdon                         9 Jul 94 19:37:10
Subject: Verbal abuse                           

RC>  Matt, you seem to make statements without considering the 
RC>  implications of what you have said.  If you do not want the 
RC>  legal structure changed in such a manner that the "common 
RC>  scold" is once again punishable with unrestrained domestic 
RC>  violence, then what was the point of your original post? 
RC>  What is your main point *now*?

     It was never punishable by domestic violence.  It was 
punishable by the decision of a judge.  

RC>  To answer your question, you, of course, never directly 
RC>  stated that you wished for Congress to make a law.

     Domestic violence is now a matter of state law.  I would not 
suggest making domestic relations courts federal.  

RC>  MG> RC>  If so, I apologize.  I think you're *wrong*, but you have
RC>  MG> RC>  the *right* to state your view...
RC>  MG>
RC>  MG>      You should be knowledgeable of what you bring up.

RC>  I am.  If you had bothered to explain *why* my argument 
RC>  bothered you at the beginning rather than merely stating 
RC>  that you believed me to be ignorant, this discussion would 
RC>  have gone differently.

     You were basing it upon an incorrect understanding of the 
1st amendment of course.  That is what I said in a different 
manner.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Bureau of Firearms, Alcohol, Religion and Tobacco
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901
SEEN-BY: 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1422)
To:      Susana Atanasova                        9 Jul 94 19:41:10
Subject: VERBAL ABUSE                           

SA>  LA>  I would submit to you that many men provoke the verbal
SA>  LA>  abuse so that they can feel justified in physically abusing
SA>  LA>  their domestic partners.
SA>  MG>
SA>  MG>      Why should only one form of abuse be a matter for the
SA>  MG> courts?  Please explain.

SA> Gosh, Matt!
SA> Here you go, again!

SA>  She explains her side of the debate, and you spew forth 
SA>  total tanget rubbish! DO you have *******ANY******* 
SA>  intentions of *******EVER******** learning *HOW* to 
SA>  debate?

     Where is it written that asking a person a question and 
giving them the floor is not a means of DISCUSSION?  If you are 
going to stick the title of the conference you need to talk with 
the moderator about that.  I have.  That is a name not its 
intent.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * FOIA?  We don't need no stinking FOIA!
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901
SEEN-BY: 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1423)
To:      Susana Atanasova                        9 Jul 94 19:44:10
Subject: WACO                                   

SA>  GS>  I am not the moderator, nor do I really want the job --
SA>  GS>  fact is though, this is a public forum were youngsters may
SA>  GS>  see it -- the language is entirely un-needed.

SA>  MG>      And you are one of those who always reads the mail with a
SA>  MG> your three year old daughter on your lap and she always asks you
SA>  MG> what the Carlin words are.

SA>  MG>      This is a conference for anyone who wants to show up.  If
SA>  MG> parents do not want their kids reading it that is their
SA>  MG> responsibility.  If their kids do not already know such words the
SA>  MG> kids are retarded.

SA> Matt,  Matt,  Matt,

SA> When are you going to learn, friend?

SA>  The man makes a valid, and reasonable point in a rational 
SA>  manner, and BINGO, we see Matt talking about the guys 
SA>  family....  we see Matt stating the obvious as though it 
SA>  were a revelation ( anyone who wants to can be 
SA>  here....DUH!!!)...  

     DUH becomes you.  He held that adult behavior should be 
moderated by the possible presence of children.  I believe I made 
it clear I hold that a foolish position.  Now if he would like to 
cite a conference rule on the matter or he would like to take it 
up with the moderator fine.  Until then he has no interest in the 
matter.

we see Matt implying that we should all 
SA>  adapt our lives to suit his caprices ( children of 
SA>  responsible parents should suffer so Matt can use profanity 
SA>  to express what his vocabulary does not encompass with 
SA>  correct terminology!), and, lastly, we have idiot cum 
SA>  Doctor of Education Matt stating that those who do not have 
SA>  profane knowledge are RETARDED, as FACT! - no IMOs in 
SA>  Matt's posts!   ;-)

     You should learn the meaning of the word profanity some day.  
Also look up obscenity.  A profane word and an obscene word are 
quite different.  If you have a good enough dictionary it will be 
made clear to you.

     I make no claim other than to know kids.  

SA>  Yes, this is the SAME Matt who, a few posts back, blew it, 
SA>  and before that one, too, and before that one....  and so 
SA>  on, and so on, and so on....  There is hope for Matt - It's 
SA>  called EDUCATION...

     You would be advised to get one some day.  It would be a 
good experience for you.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Let Waco be a lesson to all Americans.  Bill Clinton
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901
SEEN-BY: 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1424)
To:      Susana Atanasova                        9 Jul 94 19:49:10
Subject: Waco                                   

SA>  MG>      As I believe you know I used to work for the government.

SA>  You mean the reason every post by "Matt Giwer" contains 
SA>  pubescent meanderings *ISN'T* because you're a teen???

     It is because you are not able to support that statement.  
It is because I am not going to treat you different from anyone 
else just because you are a woman.  I am not going to let anyone 
get by posting their personal fantasies as reality, including 
you.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Welcome to Masada, Texas.  Never again!
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901
SEEN-BY: 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1425)
To:      Susana Atanasova                        9 Jul 94 19:52:10
Subject: Waco - Murder By Our                   

SA> Again?  Do you ***EVER*** ***NOT*** blow it?
SA>  When you have something to say about me, please, say it 
SA>  ***TO*** ***ME***.  And though you do have the pattern of 
SA>  stating *ALL* you spew as FACT, do ***NOT*** imply 
SA>  ***ANY*** knowledge of me, or my mentality, - YOU HAVE 
SA>  NONE!

     I know much about you from your postings.  I know you have 
opinions regarding Waco that are fantasies as they have no basis 
in reality.  Therefore you imagined them.  I also know you have 
expressed everything short of glee over the deaths of 90 people 
based upon those fantasies.  You even expressed specific joy over 
the deaths of the children so they would not grow up like their 
parents.  As you enjoy thinking of them dead and that enjoyment 
derives from your fantasies I know quite a bit about you.  

     It is a very perverted form of pleasure that comes from 
thinking about the deaths of others.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Get Janet a fiddle.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901
SEEN-BY: 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1427)
To:      Pete Bucy                               9 Jul 94 19:57:10
Subject: Wrong!                                 

PB>      I have found some very sensitive Jewish callers over 
PB>      the last few years.  That is a shame because as a race, 
PB>      Jews are very tough and resilient people.  

     They are a race again?

PB>      Once when I asked how the Jews could have gone so 
PB>      peacefully to the death camps I was blasted by several 
PB>      callers.  I just didn't understand how the ancestors of 
PB>      those who forged the State of Israel could have given 
PB>      in so easily to the Nazis.  

     Check your dates.  They were not related.

When you know that you are 
PB>      going to be killed, why not take a few of your 
PB>      tormentors with you? It just didn't make any sense to 
PB>      me.  But it was a legitimate question, not a racist 
PB>      comment.

     Actually the response of the people who did live in 
Palestine was not only the astonishment you are expressing but 
contempt for them; that they were a shame and an embarrassment.

PB>      These attempts to stifle free speech by some overly 
PB>      sensitive Jewish callers is an affront to the freedom 
PB>      that the Jews of Israel have fought and died for.  It is 
PB>      also an insult to those Americans who have supported 
PB>      the Jewish cause in Israel.  Their position is that you 
PB>      must support them 100%.  There is no room for criticism.  
PB>      They forget that this is America and our freedom of 
PB>      speech is protected, even it offends them.

     That is the value of the Holocaust.  Because it happened, 
Israel can do no wrong even though if there had been an Israeli 
State immediately after the war there might have been a serious 
debate as to whether or not to let the cowards is.

PB>  MG>  Taub also clearly identified himself as a Jew as the basis 
PB>  MG>  for his lies.  If you were here he is the "lying Jew" I 
PB>  MG>  referred to in a cross post.  Bloomberg of course is 
PB>  MG>  Jewish.  Those types work real hard to give Jews a bad 
PB>  MG>  name.  Were I of the inclination I would have used it as an 
PB>  MG>  excuse to prove Jews are no good.

PB>      You can't damn an entire race because of the actions of 
PB>      a few individuals.  

     There are other kinds of Jews.  He is the lying kind.

PB>      What I have found to be very offensive on the Fido 
PB>      echos is that there is so much censorship and there are 
PB>      so many moderators who will cut your access if you 
PB>      disagree with them.  Lester and I have disagreed on 
PB>      several issues, but he has never used his authority to 
PB>      threaten me.  If the other moderators took the same 
PB>      professional position as does Lester, Fido would be a 
PB>      much better place.

     You do not know what being banned is.  I have been banned 
from more networks than you probably know exist.  I have been 
pre-emptively banned from conferences I have never been on.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * W.A.C.O, acronym, Washington Approved Cook Out
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901
SEEN-BY: 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1428)
To:      Chris Baugh                             9 Jul 94 20:06:10
Subject: Zimmerman on PGP 2.6                   

CB>  MG>  It is so much more convenient to keep things on the HD 
CB>  MG>  rather than the hassle of migrating them off to floppies.

CB>  I agree completely with your very conservative advice about 
CB>  having a large hard disk - or would it be liberal use of 
CB>  money to solve the problem of having too many floppies? 
CB>  

     I invested $90 in Stacker and got an additional 420M.  Run 
the numbers.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Waco!  Never again!  Vote Libertarian!
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901
SEEN-BY: 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1450)
To:      All                                     9 Jul 94 22:26:10
Subject: Curiouser and curiouser                

 *********** Original       To: BILL BLOMGREN
 * SILICON *      was       By: MATT GIWER
 *  DUPE   *   posted:      On: MERCOPUS
 ***********              Conf: 0108 - Giwer World-L
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

On 07/09/94 BILL BLOMGREN to MATT GIWER on Curiouser and curiouser

BB>  Seems like Guantanamo is an ideal place..  Just leave one 
BB>  hole in the fence, and let Fidel take care of them all...  
BB>  Just say "miami is over *there* 

     Brilliant.  Spread the rumor it is a ruse and they are 
really in Florida and if they can only escape there are attorneys 
waiting outside to guarantee they can stay.  It would make a good 
payback for the Carter Boatlift.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Please petition the brain-bank as a hardship case.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901
SEEN-BY: 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1453)
To:      Dave Christian                          9 Jul 94 22:41:10
Subject: Is this really necessary               

DC>  In presenting this post, it appears that you would prefer 
DC>  that people not do that for Mr.  Meriwhether but rather base 
DC>  their opinion of him on what you have stated in your post.
DC> 
DC>  Again, I'm a little confused as to why you have chosen to 
DC>  attack Mr.  Meriwhether in this manner where this type of 
DC>  thing seems to be out of character from what I've seen you 
DC>  post in the past.

     I have no interest in whether or not people post to him.  I 
am just letting them know what they are getting into.  It took 
almost a year to get him to completely reveal himself on 
Politics.  It is guaranteed all messages to him will be a waste 
of bandwidth.  But if that is your thing, go for it.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Lt. Frank Drebbin was in charge of Waco operations.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901
SEEN-BY: 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

+++■■■■■ r_940712 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1436)
To:      Bruce Baugh                             7 Jul 94 16:57:10
Subject: Patriotism, 1 of 6                     

BB>  It's Independence Day here in the US and A, and my brother 
BB>  and I have been talking a lot recently about what our 
BB>  country means to us.  Here's one of my favorite essays about 
BB>  the essence of the American heritage as I understand it.
BB> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

BB> On the Duty of Civil Disobedience

BB> by Henry David Thoreau

BB> [1849, original title:  Resistance to Civil Goverment]

     Since you like the guy so much, just what was he hung up 
about?  What was he protesting?
     

---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * We are here to help you, Jude, I mean Mr. Koresh.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1437)
To:      Ed Mathis                               7 Jul 94 17:00:10
Subject: Second-Hand Smoke                      

EM>  TB>  They also have to breathe the smoke from the fireplace.  
EM>  TB>  So?

EM>  Bad analogy, Travis.  Firstly, if the fireplace smoke is 
EM>  getting into the house there is a very real danger of 
EM>  carbon monoxide poisoning, among other things.  And 
EM>  secondly, the smoke from the fireplace does not contain 
EM>  over 400 toxins and 43 carcinogens, as does tobacco smoke.

     But as you know there is no evidence this does anyone any 
harm.

EM>  TB>  A causal link is far from proved with the ETS 
EM>  TB>  concentrations in homes and ANY disease.

EM>  You obviously choose to believe the tobacco industry 
EM>  instead of our health professionals and scientists.  Do you 
EM>  really feel that Philip Morris or RJ Reynolds gives a damn 
EM>  about more than your money?

     As you know the most recent people to debunk the fraudulent 
claims of the EPA was the Congressional Research Service.

     Why do you not stick with the very well known facts?

EM>  TB>  You are trying to connect regular smoking and ETS.  You 
EM>  TB>  can't.

EM>  Sure I can.  It's very simple.  ETS is a byproduct of 
EM>  regular smoking.  Nothing complicated about that fact.

     You have to show actual harm.  The only way that can be done 
is the way the EPA did it, fraud.

EM>  TB>  Ahhhhhhhhh, now we see your true agenda.  Rights and laws 
EM>  TB>  are not equivalent.  The right to freedom of speech is NOT a 
EM>  TB>  law.  Read the Bill of Rights.

EM>  The so-called "right" to smoke is not in the Constitution.  
EM>  And behavior that is deleterious to the "public good" is 
EM>  not protected.  Our legal system has affirmed and 
EM>  reaffirmed that principle for 200 years.

     More precisely the power to ban smoking is not a power 
granted to the government.

EM>  TB>   And well it should be along with all substances.  
EM>  TB>   Government has no duty or responsibility to be the 
EM>  TB>   citizens parents.  GET OUT OF OUR LIFES!> YOU DON"T BELONG 
EM>  TB>   THERE>

EM>  The Constitution charges the government with the duty to 
EM>  protect the common good.  That is the basis for most of our 
EM>  present laws dealing with defense, health, criminal 
EM>  justice, pollution, etc.

     That is highly questionable.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Linda Thompson, loose cannon on deck.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1448)
To:      Susana Atanasova                        7 Jul 94 23:38:10
Subject: 4th Amendment Rights                   

SA>  MG>      You are obviously a blood thirsty slut.

SA>   Uh, Matt?  Me?  Blood  thirsty?  No way!  I desire  the  
SA>   *end*  of  violence in our *very* violent society.  

     Then you are also ignorant.

I want 
SA>   us *all* to be able to see our children playing in the 
SA>   yard, *in safety*, with *no* risk of molesters & drive-by 
SA>   shooters, 

     Neither applies to the Davidians but you are happy they were 
killed.  Sounds blood thirsty to me.

SA>  As far as me being a "slut":

SA>  I have *NEVER* made *ANY* sexual remarks, requests, comments, inuendo 
here.
SA>  Perhaps you had a momentary lapse of reasoning, and *meant* to post:
SA>  "You are a person who disagrees with me."

     Take it in the sense of the SNL parody of 
Point/Counterpoint.

SA>  But beyond that you
SA>  MG> have provided no substantiation for your fantasies.

SA>  Uh, you mean "beyond [ being a blood thirsty slut"]?
SA>  Is *that* "substantiation", IYO?
SA>  RE: "FANTASIES":

SA>   I have expressed my opinion.  An opinion is not "fact", 
SA>   and, as such, does not require "substantiation", beyond my 
SA>   own affirmation that the text of my post that you 
SA>   responded to is, indeed, my *opinion*.

     An unfounded opinion is a fantasy.  Perhaps in your case a 
delusional state.  

SA>  MG>      What is the scope of your hatred?

SA>   I do not have the capacity for hatred.  I "go with the 
SA>   flow", "live and let live", "forgive and forget"...  AT THE 
SA>   SAME TIME: I feel that: wrongs should be righted; guilty 
SA>   should be punished; order should be maintained; common 
SA>   sense should prevail.

     Yet you are delighted with the deaths of the Davidians at
Waco.  Your statements are incommensurate.

SA>  Would you like to talk
SA>  MG> about it?

SA>  Since I have no "scopr of hatred" there is *nothing* to 
SA>  "talk about."
SA> 
SA>  I have left every word of your post unedited.  I have 
SA>  responded fully to you.  There is not even a *faint* glimmer 
SA>  of rationality seen by me in your posts.  If you like, you 
SA>  may consider joining the debate team in your school, as I 
SA>  did way back in the Seventies.  You will be able to 
SA>  "debate" once you learn how.
SA> 
SA>  What you have posted to me is, in *no* way, a debate, or 
SA>  invitation to commence a debate, rather, it is an immature 
SA>  outlashing by a hypoeducated mentality.

     You admit you offer only baseless opinion and then you want 
debate.  Did you never learn that is not possible?  Do you have 
anything other than baseless opinions?  If so, we can begin 
discussion.



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * W.A.C.O, acronym, Washington Approved Cook Out
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1449)
To:      Susana Atanasova                        7 Jul 94 23:45:10
Subject: Daniel Villareal                       

SA> Please read his posts here.

SA> They may help to remove the blind from your eyes.

     As he and I are in more or less complete agreement and we 
have spoken on the phone several times I would suggest you need 
to read them much more than I do.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Waco lesson 1.  Kill them before they burn you alive.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1450)
To:      John Clifton                            7 Jul 94 23:46:10
Subject: Lawyer Matt fired?                     

JC> JC>       You'd never get a conviction based solely upon that
JC> JC> statement.

JC> >     If it can be demonstrated the trooper or any trooper ever
JC> > arranged even ONE liaison it is a federal offense.

JC>       Fine.  But you wouldn't get the proof from simply 
JC>  Willie saying that bimbo made him break out in a sweat.  
JC>  You might end up with a laughingstock for a Prez, however.

     Of course you would not.  But the trooper conveyed the 
message you would.  It is as simple as that.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Ruby Creek, Waco; the war has already begun.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1451)
To:      John Clifton                            7 Jul 94 23:47:10
Subject: Matt generalizes from the              

JC> >      In other words would give the woman in this case the 
JC> >  power to torment a man out of his house and away from his 
JC> >  family probably forever.

JC>       No.  I'd change the divorce/child support laws to 
JC>  reflect the view that nagging is a form of abuse.

     And of course you would agree to treat it as just as serious 
a crime as physical abuse.  

JC>                             * * * * *

JC> JC>        Did she know just the right buttons to push to set 
JC> JC>  him off? Perhaps.  Would her pressing these buttons be 
JC> JC>  abuse or, at the very least, a provocation?  Certainly.  
JC> JC>  Does it justify verbal or physical abuse in return?  No.

JC> >      Does it justify the law not holding nagging deserving 
JC> >  the same punishment as the man would get if he were to hit 
JC> >  her?

JC>      Violence gets the nod as the more serious offense.

     As should nagging.  

JC>                             * * * * *

JC> JC>        I, too, know a couple where the wife alleged physical 
JC> JC>  abuse that he was able to *prove* he didn't commit.  
JC> JC>  Fortunately for him, she was so drunk when she made up her 
JC> JC>  stories that it was obvious they weren't cut from whole 
JC> JC>  cloth.  BTW, she also alleged that he molested the 
JC> JC>  children--another lie he was able to put to rest 
JC> JC>  conclusively.

JC> >     And of course there were no penalties for the lies and you
JC> > agree there should be no such penalties.

JC>      ????

JC>       I think she *should* be penalized for doing her little 
JC>  number under oath. 

     But that almost never happens.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Janet Reno, the third best woman for the job.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1452)
To:      Chris Baugh                             7 Jul 94 23:50:10
Subject: Matt generalizes from the              

CB>  MG> That is what I am saying.

CB>  MG>  It should be a matter of domestic relations court and if it 
CB>  MG>  fails to cease criminal court.  It is known to provoke 
CB>  MG>  physical violence.  There is no reason it should be 
CB>  MG>  permitted to continue without relief.

CB>  I think another way of phrasing your point would be as 
CB>  follows:
CB> 
CB>  The nuisance of being constantly nagged without one's 
CB>  consent shall be considered legally equivalent to imminent 
CB>  physical danger for the purpose of considering whether 
CB>  assault was committed as an act of self-defense.

     It would be considered in the same category as fighting 
words and any physical response would be justified.  


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * "Flame on!" -- Janet "The Torch" Reno
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1453)
To:      Susana Atanasova                        7 Jul 94 23:51:10
Subject: WACO                                   

SA>  I was unaware that there exist segments of the Earth's 
SA>  population where humans selectively breed to obtain certain 
SA>  traits, as you insinuate in your reply.

     If you decline to quote there is no way to respond.  

SA>  By guessing, rather than posing a reasonable query, I 
SA>  respond to you that: 1) I am not the result of 
SA>  [sic]"selective breeding program efforts";

SA>  2) I have *NO* "lust [for] blood; and,

     Yet you are happy over all the dead Davidians.  That is 
blood lust.

SA>  3) You will gain *MUCH* more information by posting 
SA>  "well-formed" questions.

     If you had any information you would post it.  You have 
clearly stated you are only posting opinions.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Waco lesson 4.  The Feds can get away with it.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1454)
To:      Chris Baugh                             7 Jul 94 23:55:10
Subject: WACO                                   

CB>  MG>  Think about it.  Lets say you did want to do some form of 
CB>  MG>  mass murder.  You have all the money you need to buy guns 
CB>  MG>  and ammunition.  Would you buy a dozen guns? Why? If you 
CB>  MG>  want to do serious damage you get one rifle, possibly one 
CB>  MG>  handgun and all the ammunition you can carry.

CB>  I'm not sure if I can imagine the criminal mentality well 
CB>  enough to be able to discuss this point capably.

     The context is the Davidians.  We are not talking criminals 
here.  

     However, would you be more concerned about a person carry 
one rifle and lots of ammunition or ten rifles and little 
ammunition?  


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Waco lesson 4.  The Feds can get away with it.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1455)
To:      Susana Atanasova                        7 Jul 94 23:57:10
Subject: WACO - MURDER BY OUR                   

SA>  MG>      The BATF started it if you remember.

SA>   Actually, I opine that Koresch *started it*, by his *acts 
SA>  that led to that day*.

     As we agree you are only posting your baseless opinions and 
you have just confirmed it is only your opinion there is nothing 
to discuss.  Anyone who has paid attention to events also knows 
your opinion is baseless.  Therefore I can not debate much less 
discuss your fantasy in this regard.

SA>  And then the FBI
SA>  MG> poisoned them.

SA>   The FBI poisoned who(m), with what, how, when, where? 
SA>   Document, please.

     They induced chemical pneumonia in the children with the use 
of CS gas.  You should know that is its effect upon children.

SA>  MG>  be the FIRST person to cite evidence (not what you think 
SA>  MG>  you remember reading some place, no speculation, not a 
SA>  MG>  question to me) but your EVIDENCE he was psychotic.

SA>   *ANY* person that says the things he said in the homemade 
SA>   videotape aired after the *event*, taped at one of the 
SA>   communes, is cukoo for cocoa puffs!

     What is it he said that you found as credible evidence of a 
psychosis?  Do not forget you will be tested as to your knowledge 
of a psychosis.

SA>  And if you plan you say
SA>  MG> he claimed to be Christ don't waste the space, provide a
SA>  MG> quotation and the source of that quotation.

SA>  Just check the video.

     I did.  What is it you saw or heard?

SA>  Else you will only
SA>  MG> be sharing your fantasies with the rest of us.

SA>   You fail to accept the *FACT* that we each have 
SA>   *OPINIONS*.  "Fantasies" are a *totally* different product 
SA>   of our minds, separate and apart from OPINIONS.

     Opinions unsupported by reality are fantasies at best.

SA>  MG> It is
SA>  SA>   the parents fault they put their kids in such a dangerous
SA>  SA>   situation.

SA>  MG>      We are talking about Waco here.  The Government did
SA>  MG> everything to them.

SA>   No dear, their *parents* took them to be with Koresch.  
SA>   Had they *not* ...

     They were living at home with their children.  And there was 
no reason to expect the government would show up in force killing 
dogs and throwing grenades into the building with no plan to 
serve the warrant.  

     There was no reason to expect the government to have 
initiated the final attack after the government agreed not to do 
so.

SA>  MG> I do not blame them.  I blame our system for
SA>  SA>   not getting them put away and the kids sent to good homes
SA>  SA>   with MENTALLY STABLE adults at the helm.

SA>  MG>      As above, not your insane fantasies but rather evidence.

SA>   The above is not a fantasy, but an opinion.  Please, ask 
SA>   your teacher to explain the difference to you at school 
SA>   Monday.

     It is also a baseless opinion which makes it a fantasy.  
(Remind me to sell any stock I might have in that "largest 
corporation in the world."  You are giving its management talent 
a very bad name.)

SA>  MG> I pity the
SA>  SA>   parents because I believe the were the sick, loser ilk of
SA>  SA>   our society.

SA>  MG>      Your fantasy belief structure is to be studied by
SA>  MG> professionals not expounded by you.

SA>   Please, note that I used the term, "I believe"; it is my 
SA>   *belief*, not a "fantasy" that was expressed to you here.

     Groundless beliefs are fantasies.  Sort of like believing in 
Santa Clause.

SA>  MG> I have mixed emotions for the kids: Sorrow
SA>  SA>   because they missed out on life before it started; Relief
SA>  SA>   because we are rid of that many more future nut cases /
SA>  SA>   losers.  Part of the reason this country is having problems
SA>  SA>   is that there are less and less PATRIOTIC souls, like
SA>  SA>   mine!  I CARE ABOUT THE U.S.  of A.!!!
SA>  MG>
SA>  MG>      You are a blood thirsty, vicious, poor excuse for a human
SA>  MG> being.  And so far as I can tell, living in a fantasy world.

SA>  The operative here is "[you] can tell..."

     It makes you no less blood thirst rejoicing in so many 
deaths.

SA>  MG>       You prefer to simply shoot them down and poison their 
SA>  MG>  children.  You are disgusting.

SA>  Do not assume to know my preferences, 

     I deal with your statements.  You are happy over the deaths 
of innocent men, women and children.

unless you are a 
SA>  "blood thirsty slut", in which case I understand your 
SA>  belief that you know my mind.  

     If your words do not match your mind then you have a serious 
problem.

However, I am not a person 
SA>  of the type you erroneously typed me as, so, it follows 
SA>  that your statement does not reflect my desires in the 
SA>  least.  Your post substantiates my concluding remarks.

     You post glee over 83 deaths and you deny you are blood 
thirsty.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Janet Reno, the third best woman for the job.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1456)
To:      Susana Atanasova                        8 Jul 94 00:16:10
Subject: WACO AD INFINITUM POSTING              

SA>  SA>  This is a formal and cordial invitation to ANYONE on
SA>  SA>  ANYSIDE of the WACO DEBATE who was, in fact, THERE WHEN IT
SA>  SA>  HAPPENED.  To give me / us all THE FIRST HAND STORY.

SA>  MG>      When you stop pretending you were we can get on with this.

SA> The text of my message negates your unmeritous comment.

     Are saying you did not read or hear the court testimony of 
the people who were there?  Are you going to pretend you do not 
know the voluminous materials posted all over the networks?


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * BBQed Baby Back Ribs, Waco style.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1457)
To:      John Clifton                            8 Jul 94 00:21:10
Subject: Willie Nice Guy                        

JC> >     I am surprised the book gets an audience.  So far as I have
JC> > heard it contains nothing I have not posted.

JC>      Step aside, Woodward!  Giwer has arrived!

     Perhaps he should.

JC>       One Mr.  William Clinton is *not* a very nice man.  He 
JC>  "gosh darns" for the cameras while browbeating his 
JC>  subordinates in private.  

     Is that a surprise?  He did it into an open mike about a 
year ago.

Reminds me of a guy I worked for 
JC>  who invariably blamed someone else for everything that went 
JC>  wrong.  

     Those who are known perfect ...  

     It is painfully obvious the man is not mature enough for the 
job.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Bureau of Firearms, Alcohol, Religion and Tobacco
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1458)
To:      David Mann                              8 Jul 94 00:24:10
Subject: Zimmerman on PGP 2.6                   

DM>  Yes, you can lose SO much more when they make high-pitched 
DM>  shreiking noises (sort of like nagging).  I have had ONE 
DM>  hard disc cough its guts out on the table,and that was 
DM>  enough for me.  I now have a tape drive and USE it!  Only 
DM>  have 340 uncompressed, but it's all the room I need right 
DM>  now for banging about in.  But, then Lumen Micro for 
DM>  Windows, and the new General Electric Aladan software hits, 
DM>  it's gonna take a big chunk.

     If I am not mistaken LSG mentioned he had a tape drive as do 
I.  You may remember I was posting my problem with the Colorado 
250 drive in that I could only get it to work with Colorado 
preformatted tape.  Even though the software has a format 
function it can not seem to format tape.  


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Lt. Frank Drebbin was in Charge of Corpus Crispy OPS.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246


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

+++■■■■■ r_940713 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1261)
To:      David Mann                             10 Jul 94 01:50:10
Subject: Elders Attacks Christians              

DM>  MG>      But no one complains when Jesse Jackson campaigns from the
DM>  MG> pulpit.

DM>  Wrong-a-mundo!   _I_ do, as I also complain when various 
DM>  religious groups run around trying in influence elections 
DM>  or send in their lobbyists, which is strictly against the 
DM>  law if they are so-called "non-profit" (non-prophet?) 
DM>  organizations.

     In the case of the target being Jerry Falwell's cable 
network there is no suggestion he is not paying taxes on the 
network's earnings.  Therefore there is no reason to attack him.  
     
     Yet Minister Jackson can use a tax exempt church pulpit to 
give campaign speeches.  

     Keep your facts straight.

DM>  The likes of Cardinals O'Connor and Ratzinger are always 
DM>  being bitinskis on various bits of proposed legislation.  

     It is accepted that people have a duty to act in accordance 
with their religious convictions.  That they speak against 
something based upon those convictions is ONLY directed towards 
those who look to them as a source of guidance.  They express 
their teachings in many ways.  That the press chooses to show up 
and publicize them is solely the choice of the press.

DM>  When a group in New York petitioned the tax courts to 
DM>  revoke the RC church's tax exempt status, they refused to 
DM>  even conduct a hearing.

     You will have to give particulars.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * First they came for Weaver and I did not speak.  Then they
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901
SEEN-BY: 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1262)
To:      Bruce Baugh                            10 Jul 94 01:55:10
Subject: Patriotism, 1 of 6                     

BB>  MG>  Since you like the guy so much, just what was he hung up 
BB>  MG>  about? What was he protesting?

BB>  Slavery, and the Mexican War, primarily.  Unwanted 
BB>  intervention, in general.

     Back up.  How was he jailed or whatever regarding these?


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Waco lesson 1.  Kill them before they burn you alive.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901
SEEN-BY: 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1263)
To:      David Mann                             10 Jul 94 01:56:10
Subject: Zimmerman on PGP 2.6                   

DM>  MG>       If I am not mistaken LSG mentioned he had a tape drive 
DM>  MG>  as do I.  You may remember I was posting my problem with 
DM>  MG>  the Colorado 250 drive in that I could only get it to work 
DM>  MG>  with Colorado preformatted tape.  Even though the software 
DM>  MG>  has a format function it can not seem to format tape.

DM>  This may sound crazy, but...
DM> 
DM>  Make sure the heads are clean.  I had a similar problem 
DM>  here.  Did the old alcohol-swab bit on the head (NOT ANY 
DM>  other part!), and things are just dandy again.

     Since it was brand new.  Since I tried to format the tape 
sent by the VAR of the system it has not worked.  

     I am not going to argue much as Colorado does not gouge on 
the price of their tapes.  My only local problem is availability.

     My friend, please.  I have been into computers since 1967.  
I thank you for your help but I was only conveying information to 
Lester in a hope of avoiding a problem he might have in the 
future.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Waco!  Never again!  Vote Libertarian!
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901
SEEN-BY: 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1268)
To:      Todd Rourke                            10 Jul 94 05:10:10
Subject: Elders Attacks Christian               

TR>  I think you're being narrow-minded.  While AIDS has 
TR>  certainly spread in the gay community, I don't think you 
TR>  can hold them entirely responsible.

     Of course it can not be held entirely responsible.

     It can only be held 99% responsible.  


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Waco lesson 4.  The Feds can get away with it.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901
SEEN-BY: 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1269)
To:      Todd Rourke                            10 Jul 94 05:17:10
Subject: Money laundering in Georg              

TR>     WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S.  Customs agents laundered $11 
TR>  million in illegal drug money in order to establish the 
TR>  credibility of an Atlanta-based sting operation that 
TR>  officials say penetrated the highest levels of Colombia's 
TR>  drug cartels.

     Obviously untrue.  It was not enough money to be taken 
seriously.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * FOIA?  We don't need no stinking FOIA!
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901
SEEN-BY: 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1271)
To:      Pete Bucy                              10 Jul 94 05:40:10
Subject: WACO - MURDER BY OUR                   

PB>      You seem to believe that there are no criminals without 
PB>      jury trials.

     That is the way the law reads.  Do you have a fantasy 
interpretation?


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * FOIA?  We don't need no stinking FOIA!
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901
SEEN-BY: 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1326)
To:      Susana Atanasova                       10 Jul 94 18:50:10
Subject: 4th Amendment Rights                   

SA>  SA>    Uh, Matt?  Me?  Blood  thirsty?  No way!  I desire  the 
SA>  SA>    *end*  of  violence in our *very* violent society.

SA>  MG>      Then you are also ignorant.

SA>   For desiring a diminished level of violence?  Gs, Matt, 
SA>   you are incompre- hensible!

     Then you would rather have been in favor of disbanding the 
BATF as they started the violence in Waco.

SA>  MG> I want
SA>  SA>   us *all* to be able to see our children playing in the
SA>  SA>   yard, *in safety*, with *no* risk of molesters & drive-by
SA>  SA>   shooters,

SA>  MG>       Neither applies to the Davidians but you are happy 
SA>  MG>  they were killed.  Sounds blood thirsty to me.

SA>   The reply, which you took out of it's context, *somehow*, 
SA>   is RE: your statement that I am a "blood thirsty slut" - 
SA>   not the BDs.  While I am not disturbed by their deaths 
SA>   there is no doubt in my mind but that *you* are disturbed, 
SA>   Matt.  ;-)

     I should have kept your messages so you could have shown me 
the context it was out of.  You raved on about losers and how it 
was good they were dead and how it was good the children were 
dead so they would not grow up to be losers.  

     The moderator does keep copies of the messages on this 
conference.  He may be able to show you your messages so you can 
point out what the context really was.

SA>  MG>       An unfounded opinion is a fantasy.  Perhaps in your 
SA>  MG>  case a delusional state.

SA>   Your attempts at justification are truly abysmial, Matt.  
SA>   I do pity you.  

     You are not capable of pity.  You are happy when people die.

SA>  MG>       Yet you are delighted with the deaths of the Davidians 
SA>  MG>  at Waco.  Your statements are incommensurate.

SA>   No, Matt.  you confuse me with yourself!  I am not 
SA>   delighted; I am disinterested RE: WACO.  You, however, 
SA>   seem to have found am outlet through their deaths and are 
SA>   planning to use it to it's fullest.

     Then what were all those messages saying how happy you were 
that the losers and the children of losers were dead?  How do you 
explain the message thanking the BATF for killing them?

SA>  MG>       You admit you offer only baseless opinion and then you 
SA>  MG>  want debate.  Did you never learn that is not possible?  Do 
SA>  MG>  you have anything other than baseless opinions?  If so, we 
SA>  MG>  can begin discussion.

SA>  We *could* begin discussion just as soon as your maturity level
SA>  catches up with your age, or at least
SA>                                 your age(.5)
SA> God! I hope Lester has a rudimentary knowledge of Algebra, or here
SA> we go, again!

     I really have no interest fairly treating people who are 
happy with death.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Welcome to Masada, Texas.  Never again!
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901
SEEN-BY: 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1327)
To:      Susana Atanasova                       10 Jul 94 18:59:10
Subject: Daniel Villareal                       

SA>  MG>       As he and I are in more or less complete agreement and 
SA>  MG>  we have spoken on the phone several times I would suggest 
SA>  MG>  you need to read them much more than I do.

SA>  I can hear the conversations now,,, "Uh, sure Matt!  
SA>  Anything you say, Matt!  Just put down the phone, Matt!" 
SA>  ANYTHING to be done with you!
SA> 
SA>  I would like Mr.  Villareal to post his side of this story.

     If he does you are up shit creek.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * BBQed Baby Back Ribs, Waco style.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901
SEEN-BY: 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1328)
To:      Lester Garrett                         10 Jul 94 19:00:10
Subject: Davidians are senten                   

LG> In a message to Pete Bucy, dated 29 Jun 94, Matt Giwer wrote:

LG>  MG> Perhaps you are lying.  That is more likely considering
LG>  MG> your ignorance of events.

LG> Enough with this "lying" garbage already.  Stop it.

     What is the proper term?  I am willing to use it if you will 
tell me what it is.  


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Waco lesson 1.  Kill them before they burn you alive.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901
SEEN-BY: 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1329)
To:      Susana Atanasova                       10 Jul 94 19:04:10
Subject: Inquistion mentality                   

SA>  SP>    people at once.  THe Zyklon-B was delivered through
SA>  SP>    "shower heads" installed in the ceiling, along with dummy
SA>  SP>    shower heads.  And there were 4 of these giant chambers!
SA>  MG>
SA>  MG>      It is an interesting story but there is on support for it.
SA>  MG> First Zyklon-B is liquid hydrogen cyanide soaked into
SA>  MG> kaolinacious earth and then compressed into pellets described as
SA>  MG> blue and pea sized.  That does not come out of shower heads.

SA> Matt, Matt, Matt,
SA> WAKE UP!
SA> The term "showers" is in QUOTES, as is "shower heads", both followed by
SA> _dummy shower heads_!

SA>  NOBODY is SAYING that the capsules came OUT OF SHOWER 
SA>  HEADS! On the other side of the wall of the "delousing 
SA>  chamber" there was the standard

     I was unaware that quotation marks could change a showerhead 
into a pipe.

SA>  plumbing pipe, with a threaded cap, attached to the pipe 
SA>  with small chain.  At the correct time, murderers would 
SA>  deposit the pellets into the pipes, where they would roll, 
SA>  by gravity, to the "shower heads", which had the holes 
SA>  bored out to accomodate them, then, the pipe was recapped.  
SA>  See now?

     Perhaps you could give me a source for this information?  
You might also convey it to the keeper of the internet FAQ on the 
Holocaust.  It is not contained there.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Janet Reno, the third best woman for the job.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901
SEEN-BY: 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1330)
To:      John Clifton                           10 Jul 94 19:06:10
Subject: Lawyer Matt fired?                     

JC> JC>       Fine.  But you wouldn't get the proof from simply
JC> JC> Willie saying that bimbo made him break out in a sweat.
JC> JC> You might end up with a laughingstock for a Prez, however.

JC> >     Of course you would not.  But the trooper conveyed the
JC> > message you would.  It is as simple as that.

JC>       You must be kidding.  How are you going to establish 
JC>  intent without taking the circumstances of his uttering the 
JC>  statement into account?
JC> 
JC>       You're beating a dead horse and you know it.  There's 
JC>  more to it than the simple statement and it's delivery by 
JC>  the cop.

     Sorry that is all it takes.  Unless it was an official duty 
of the troopers to proposition women for him then there paid time 
was being converted to Clinton's personal use.  The troopers were 
not provided as personal servants.  They were provided as 
bodyguards.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Lt. Frank Drebbin was in charge of Waco operations.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901
SEEN-BY: 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1331)
To:      John Clifton                           10 Jul 94 19:08:10
Subject: Nagging as verbal abuse                

JC> JC>       No.  I'd change the divorce/child support laws to
JC> JC> reflect the view that nagging is a form of abuse.

JC> >     And of course you would agree to treat it as just as
JC> > serious a crime as physical abuse.

JC>      No.

     As it is known to provoke physical violence why not?  Why 
should the provocation of an action be held innocent while the 
action provoked be considered a crime?

JC> >      Does it justify the law not holding nagging deserving
JC> > the same punishment as the man would get if he were to hit
JC> > her?

JC> JC> Violence gets the nod as the more serious offense.

JC> > As should nagging.

JC>      Nonsense.

     As above, why?

JC> JC>       I think she *should* be penalized for doing her little
JC> JC> number under oath.

JC> > But that almost never happens.

JC>       It's too bad, too, that it doesn't.  Women are now 
JC>  crying abuse of the children in more than half the divorce 
JC>  cases.  If some of 'em went to jail for their lies, it 
JC>  would cut down on the gross number of false accusations.  
JC>  As it is, the system almost encourages them to lie.

     If all of them went to jail for perjury and swearing false 
warrants and everything else they get away with then it would 
work out.  As it is the courts and prosecutors refuse to take 
notice.  Yet if the woman were to do the same thing against a 
neighbor it would be noticed.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Waco lesson 2.  Obey or die.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901
SEEN-BY: 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1332)
To:      Linda Terrell                          10 Jul 94 19:14:10
Subject: OJ damn it!                            

LT> MG>       To wit.  He started off making the point that in one 
LT> MG>  hour OJ  is presumed to have disposed of blood soaked 
LT> MG>  clothes and shoes so  effectively that they have not been 
LT> MG>  found in less than one hour  and there he dropped it.

LT>    Well, no one know ALL the evidence the Prosecution has.  
LT>  THey may have found the clothes.  That house was gone 
LT>  through after the warrent was issued -- clothes were found 
LT>  in a washer; drains were taken apart.  The only thing the 
LT>  Prosecution showed in evidence was just enough to pin OJ 
LT>  and debate the challenges of the Defense.
LT> 
LT>      does the Prosecution have to put *all* its cards on the 
LT>  table at a Hearing?  Or just enough to get a trial?

     Perhaps I did not make this clear.  The he was the Shapiro, 
the defense attorney.  As for clothes we are talking a shoe also.  


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Waco!  Never again!  Vote Libertarian!
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901
SEEN-BY: 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1333)
To:      Jeff Welch                             10 Jul 94 19:15:10
Subject: Ollie North for Senator                

JW> MG>      First, an overturned conviction is the same as a not 
JW> MG> guilty finding.  Second, he got off because Congress offered 
JW> MG> him immunity and he took a bath.

JW>  Wrong.  An overturned conviction erases penaties without 
JW>  regard to whether the accused actually committed the crime 
JW>  or not.

     It also legally erases the conviction.  Were he ever asked 
if he had ever been convicted of a crime he could truthfully 
answer no.  That is the way the law works.  An overturned 
conviction is the same as no conviction.

JW> MG>     His efforts to free hostages despite the desire of Congress
JW> MG>that they remain hostages is laudable.

JW> His disregard for the law of the land is condemnable.

     Which law are you talking about?  Please be specific.

JW> MG>      His efforts to get rid of a Communist government in 
JW> MG> Latin America when Congress -- the Speaker of the House for 
JW> MG> certain -- wanted the country to remain Communist was 
JW> MG> laudable.

JW> His doing so via illegal means is despicable.

     As he demonstrated to Congress during the hearings, at no 
time did he violate any version of the Boland amendment that was 
in force at the time.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * FOIA?  We don't need no stinking FOIA!
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901
SEEN-BY: 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1334)
To:      Susana Atanasova                       10 Jul 94 19:18:10
Subject: WACO                                   

SA>  MG>      Yet you are happy over all the dead Davidians.  That is
SA>  MG> blood lust.

SA>   How many many many times must I repeat to you that I am 
SA>   indifferent before you actually comprehend the meaning of 
SA>   my statement? That may be Matt Blood Lust, but not General 
SA>   Sane Man Blood Lust!

     You were thankful to the government for having killed them.  
You were happy the "losers" and their children were dead.  I see 
no way to read indifference into that.

SA>  SA>  3) You will gain *MUCH* more information by posting
SA>  SA>  "well-formed" questions.

SA>  MG>      If you had any information you would post it.  You have
SA>  MG> clearly stated you are only posting opinions.

SA>  My *only* opinion here is that *you* do *not* desire to be 
SA>  caught in a debate, at any cost!

     Opinions are not debatable as you learning in that HS 
debating society you are so proud of.

SA>  You have gone to EMBARRASSING lengths to shun any attempts 
SA>  at rational exchanges here, - not only with me, but with 
SA>  *many* users here! Are you some sort of ploy to deter the 
SA>  thinking human from fruitful pursuits?

     Posting only opinions is not thinking.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Children of Waco, I feel your pain.  Bill Clinton
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901
SEEN-BY: 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1335)
To:      Susana Atanasova                       10 Jul 94 19:21:10
Subject: WACO - MURDER BY OUR                   

SA>  SA>  MG>      The BATF started it if you remember.

SA>  SA>    Actually, I opine that Koresch *started it*, by his *acts 
SA>  SA>   that led to that day*.

SA>  MG>       As we agree you are only posting your baseless 
SA>  MG>  opinions and you have just confirmed it is only your 
SA>  MG>  opinion there is nothing to discuss.

SA>   You, however, state your *opinion* as fact, and decline to 
SA>   identify *ANY* fact to substantiate the validity of your 
SA>   difference of opinion with me.

     I give the facts as best they are known to me.  I have some 
four megs of files on the subject on line and, as you know, I 
freely quote it as source material.  I have also written and 
posted maybe ten articles on the subject.  

     On the other hand you claim Koresh started it by his ACTS 
while not citing what those ACTS were much less pretending to 
substantiate them.

SA>  Anyone who has paid attention to events also knows
SA>  MG> your opinion is baseless.

SA>  Again, you opine w/o so stating! So tedious, Matt.

SA>  Therefore I can not debate much less
SA>  MG> discuss your fantasy in this regard.

SA>   Yes, Matt." [You] cannot debate, much less discuss.." I 
SA>   hope you absorb the various comments to you RE: what is 
SA>   fantasy

     I have described what I consider fantasy and why I call it 
that.  I can not find a better term for an opinion with no basis 
in reality.     

SA>  SA>  And then the FBI
SA>  SA>  MG> poisoned them.
SA>  SA>   The FBI poisoned who(m), with what, how, when, where?
SA>  SA>   Document, please.
SA>  MG>      They induced chemical pneumonia in the children with the use
SA>  MG> of CS gas.  You should know that is its effect upon children.

SA>  That is *not* poison, Matt.  that is an *IRRITANT*.

     Multi-hour exposure of children does exactly what I said.  
We do not have a good term for chemical warfare when there is no 
war.  I have not found a word to describe a chemical attack with 
the intent to induce a fatal illness.  (Testimony to Congress 
after the fire said they were using ferret (40mm) grenades in the 
second floor windows to get the children.  Court testimony said 
they were piping gas into the hallways to keep people trapped in 
the rooms.) 

     What word would you use?

SA>  MG>       What is it he said that you found as credible evidence 
SA>  MG>  of a psychosis?  Do not forget you will be tested as to 
SA>  MG>  your knowledge of a psychosis.

SA>         HE SAID HE WAS SENT HERE BY GOD!  "A HOLY MESSENGER!"

     If you hold with religion then you know many people who are 
highly regarded have made that claim.  If you reject religion 
then you can hold he was foolish for saying that.  

     Given the context of religion and particularly the Christian 
religion there is nothing psychotic in that statement.  There are 
many similar and well accepted statements within Christianity.  
If you would like to wander around Fido you will find claims of 
direct and regular contact with God including direct personal 
inspiration.  

     If that is what you class as a psychosis then there are tens 
of millions of psychotics in this country alone.  You may indeed 
hold that position but it in no way would make Koresh anything 
special.

     Right now the LDS are choosing a new representative of god 
on earth.  In Vatican City lives the infallible interpreter of 
God's will on Earth.  

SA>  MG>      They were living at home with their children.  And there was
SA>  MG> no reason to expect the government would show up in force killing
SA>  MG> dogs and throwing grenades into the building with no plan to
SA>                                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
SA>  MG> serve the warrant.
SA>  MG> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

SA>   MATT! Snap out of it, man!  You're deluding, again!  Where 
SA>   is the sworn testimony to substantiate this 
SA>   "mattfactoid"?
     
     It was given in court under oath.  It was also said in a 
press conference by the BATF that they originally planned to 
attack after the warrant had expired which is the same as 
attacking without a warrant.

SA>  MG>       You post glee over 83 deaths and you deny you are 
SA>  MG>  blood thirsty.

SA>  No, Matt!  I post indifference to them.  Despite your 
SA>  futile and pathetic attempts and converting us all to 
SA>  BDism, I REMAIN INDIFFERENT.  I have no blood thirst.

     Nothing in your messages gave the slightest hint of 
indifference.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * "Flame on!" -- Janet "The Torch" Reno
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901
SEEN-BY: 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

+++■■■■■ r_940714 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1187)
To:      All                                    11 Jul 94 05:17:10
Subject: Holocaust                              

 *********** Original       To: JAMES WALDRON
 * SILICON *      was       By: MATT GIWER
 *  DUPE   *   posted:      On: MERCOPUS
 ***********              Conf: 1438 - WorldTalk-F
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Worldtalk

On 07/09/94 JAMES WALDRON to ALL on Holocaust

JW>  This is fair warning that ALL holocoust DISBELIEVERS are to 
JW>  take their fantasies and whatever other demons they are 
JW>  possesed with to ANY OTHER echo but DO NOT continue to 
JW>  debate the holocaust occurence in WORLDTLK.  If you 
JW>  continue to do so, you will be asked to leave the echo or 
JW>  suffer a link cut.  UNFORTUNATELY, the holocoust DID occur 
JW>  and we don't need idiotic denial morons attesting to a 
JW>  different scenario.  There's been enough suffering 
JW>  already.

     Sir, not to continue it but there has NEVER, EVER been a 
debate as to the occurrence of the holocaust.  Not once as in 
NEVER EVER.  I have so stipulated in dozens of messages.  The 
only discussion has been as to the existence of gas chambers.  
You know that and you will not acknowledge that.

     What do you call a person who makes a claim contrary to 
fact while knowingly doing so?  You do not like that name so you 
have told me. 

     You are making yourself a classic example of those I have 
identified.   

     You are not a moderator, you are a paristan and the only way 
you can silence questioning is to prohibit disbelieve.  You are 
no better than a Nazi.  
     
     I do remark that you have proved my claim that few can 
separate a challenge to gas chambers from the holocaust which did 
occur.
     
     What in the hell are you talking about?  

     NO ONE in this conference EVER denied the Holocaust occurred 
EVER.  

     Everything I have said it true.  I will also take the 
liberty of cross posting this response all over the world.  You 
will of course ban me for telling the truth.  That also I will 
crosspost to the world.  


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * It ain't charity with other people's money.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901
SEEN-BY: 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1188)
To:      All                                    11 Jul 94 06:13:10
Subject: Holocaust                              

 *********** Original       To: JAMES WALDRON
 * SILICON *      was       By: MATT GIWER
 *  DUPE   *   posted:      On: MERCOPUS
 ***********              Conf: 1438 - WorldTalk-F
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Worldtalk -- Fido

On 07/09/94 JAMES WALDRON to ALL on Holocaust

JW>  This is fair warning that ALL holocoust DISBELIEVERS are to 
JW>  take their fantasies and whatever other demons they are 
JW>  possesed with to ANY OTHER echo but DO NOT continue to 
JW>  debate the holocaust occurence in WORLDTLK.  If you 
JW>  continue to do so, you will be asked to leave the echo or 
JW>  suffer a link cut.  UNFORTUNATELY, the holocoust DID occur 
JW>  and we don't need idiotic denial morons attesting to a 
JW>  different scenario.  There's been enough suffering 
JW>  already.

     Sir, not to continue it but there has NEVER, EVER been a 
debate as to the occurrence of the holocaust.  Not once as in 
NEVER EVER.  I have so stipulated in dozens of messages.  The 
only discussion has been as to the existence of gas chambers.  
You know that and you will not acknowledge that.

     What do you call a person who makes a claim contrary to 
fact while knowingly doing so?  You do not like that name so you 
have told me. 

     You are making yourself a classic example of those I have 
identified.   

     You are not a moderator, you are a paristan and the only way 
you can silence questioning is to prohibit disbelieve.  You are 
no better than a Nazi.  
     
     I do remark that you have proved my claim that few can 
separate a challenge to gas chambers from the holocaust which did 
occur.
     
     What in the hell are you talking about?  

     NO ONE in this conference EVER denied the Holocaust occurred 
EVER.  

     Everything I have said it true.  I will also take the 
liberty of cross posting this response all over the world.  You 
will of course ban me for telling the truth.  That also I will 
crosspost to the world.  


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * It ain't charity with other people's money.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901
SEEN-BY: 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1271)
To:      Brent Thomas                           11 Jul 94 18:02:10
Subject: Curiouser And Curiouser                

BT> MG>BT> CB> Why do you think that attempting to enter the US as a
BT> MG>BT> CB> refugee is equivalent to declaring war upon the US?

BT> MG>BT>  Try living in Florida, the Americans are the minority and
BT> MG>BT>  living in fear.

BT> MG>     You are very sadly and completely mistaken about Florida.

BT>  Matt, your probably right.  

     Of course I am right.  I am living in Florida.

Honest question for you Matt, 
BT>  why is our government trying to solicit other countries to 
BT>  take this people in?

     I am not aware that they are.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Welcome to Masada, Texas.  Never again!
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901
SEEN-BY: 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1273)
To:      Pete Bucy                              11 Jul 94 18:06:10
Subject: Davidians are senten                   

PB>  PB>      The fantasy continues! If I had not spent so much time
PB>  PB>      on this echo I would think that I had just read the
PB>  PB>      latest Monty Python skit on law enforcement in America.
PB>  PB>      'Why don't we give someone who kills a law enforcement
PB>  PB>      officer time off with pay." Good God, give me a break!

PB>  MG> Are you saying the police are any better than the rest of
PB>  MG> us?  If so, why?

PB>      A police officer is sworn to uphold the law.  As part of 
PB>      his job we routinely place him at risk.  We put him into 
PB>      situations where he must deal with deadly criminals.  

     Please do not overrate the job.  Driving a cab and 
prostitution are more dangerous.

PB>      Therefore we must grant him both the option of 
PB>      defending himself with deadly force, when the need 
PB>      arrises; and we must hold him above the motives of the 
PB>      common criminal.

     Why do not cab drivers and prostitutes have the same option?  


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Lt. Frank Drebbin was in charge of Waco operations.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901
SEEN-BY: 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1284)
To:      Jeff Welch                             11 Jul 94 18:11:10
Subject: Religious Bigotry                      

JW> MG>      Leaders of the Black Muslim religion attack Jews and 
JW> MG> not one politician says a word against these politically 
JW> MG> valuable, voting bigots.

JW>  Yet the Jews (the attack-ees) have plenty to say about 
JW>  those who attack them.

     There are several Jewish congressmen who have remained 
silent, Metzenbaum and Lieberman for two.  Metzenbaum in 
particular is retiring and personally has nothing to lose but he 
remains silent.

JW> MG>      The wording of the attack is where the answer lies.  
JW> MG> The attack is upon the religious right.  It is nothing more 
JW> MG> and nothing less than an attack based upon politics.

JW>  And since the religious right has taken the political 
JW>  position of attacking the current administration, they are 
JW>  every bit as subject to criticism as any other political 
JW>  body.

     The religion of the group is being attacked.  Were it 
specifically addressed toward the individuals that would be 
different.  But it is not.  

JW> MG>      Clearly a form of religious conviction is being singled 
JW> MG> out for attack because they oppose the political agenda of 
JW> MG> their attackers.

JW>  Clearly those they have been attacking for years are 
JW>  finally fighting back, and that is as it should be.

     As above, only against the people actually doing the 
attacking.  Lets us say for example Metzenbaum were in favor of 
confiscating all guns -- he is.  Therefore you would hold it 
proper for the NRA to attack all Jews.  You want to define it 
more narrowly than that?  Then the attack should be against those 
who are followers of Jerry Falwell as the only group 
identification.

JW> MG> And of course the political attack is being conducted by 
JW> MG> liberal Democrats.

JW>  Nobody is "attacking" the Christian Right.  Any response to 
JW>  the attacks of the Christian Right are purely defensive at 
JW>  this point.

     As above.  There is no "group" attack.

JW> MG>      Here we have liberals with their liberal political 
JW> MG> agenda who have chosen to single out fundamentalist 
JW> MG> Christians for acting according to their religious beliefs.

JW>  "Single out" nothing.  Any political action body opposing 
JW>  the administration in power is going to be subject to 
JW>  criticism as they criticize the administration.  What 
JW>  *should* the left do when the right attacks?  Say "Hi, 
JW>  there!  Thank you very much for your input!  We're a bunck 
JW>  of crooks and liars responsible for the downfall of the 
JW>  modern family?  Hmmm.  O.K.--well, thanks for pointing that 
JW>  out to us!"
JW> 
JW>  Fat chance.

     They should be directing their attacks toward the people 
making the attacks.  That is apparently too difficult for them.   
Falwell attacks Clinton then Clinton should attack Falwell.  As 
it is Falwell attacks Clinton and Clinton's minions attack all 
fundamentalist Christians.

JW> MG> And what is their political crime?

JW> Slander.  Libel.  Bigotry.  Very UN-Christian hatred.

     Are you now judging them?  Who is them?  Them never attacked 
anyone.

JW> MG> Opposing the liberal political agenda because of their 
JW> MG> religious beliefs.

JW>  Which is their right as American citizens.  It is also the 
JW>  right of those being attacked to defend themselves against 
JW>  this.

     And the NRA has the right to attack all Jews.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Lt. Frank Drebbin was in Charge of Corpus Crispy OPS.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901
SEEN-BY: 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1287)
To:      Michael Pilon                          11 Jul 94 18:23:10
Subject: VERBAL ABUSE                           

MP>  MG> I did not say that.  I said the physical abuse was roughly
MP>  MG> equal.

MP>  Hmmm okay, but I would think that given the fact that msot 
MP>  men tend to be bigger than women the level of abuse could 
MP>  be higher.  

     So women are more stupid also.  What are you trying to say?

But I have taken the odd wack from females over 
MP>  the years, I hate to be sexist but it was usually around 
MP>  the PMS festival times ;-)...  

     Why would you take it?

So if that is abuse I would 
MP>  say I have been more abused than any women I know.

     Yet you had the story of a woman you know ...  Looks like 
we have a perspective now.     


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * "Flame on!" -- Janet "The Torch" Reno
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901
SEEN-BY: 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1300)
To:      All                                    11 Jul 94 23:12:10
Subject: Whew.  scary stuff.                    

 *********** Original       To: ALL
 * SILICON *      was       By: MATT GIWER
 *  DUPE   *   posted:      On: MERCOPUS
 ***********              Conf: 0025 - Politics-F
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 **********  Original From: BUBBA DICK DALE
 * STOLEN *             To: ALL
 *  STUFF *    Date/Number: 07/08/94 - 0004838
 **********             On: MERCOPUS - 0108 - Giwer World-L
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    KPOC-TV in Ponca City, Oklahoma, has been doing some investigative
    reporting on the Davidian murders in Waco.  They've turned up some
    VERY interesting things -- there were army choppers from Ft. Hood
    brought in for the initial assault (an illegal police action) and
    one of the pilots admitted that the government fired first.  They
    have videotape of ONE bullet hole in a single BATF vehicle, which
    shows that the Davidians may not have fired much at all, much less
    the "hail of gunfire" which the BATF claimed.  The front doors to
    the compound are missing, and they'd show which direction the
    bullets were flying.  The company that produced the CS gas told the
    government not to use it in a certain manner or it would produce
    cyanide gas.  During the cleanup, several people were treated for
    cyanide poisoning.  The infrared tape of the compound has the
    time/date numbers blurred or altered, and 4.5 minutes are missing
    from right at the start of the fire.  That footage would show who
    started the fire.  Finally, there were NO illegal weapons found
    that belonged to the Davidians.  The illegal arms were PLANTED
    there by the BATF (which they admitted).

    There is more, but just that evidence should be enough to bring
    up Janet Reno, Bob Riggs and the BATF people on charges of first
    degree murder.

    The latest news:  KPOC-TV has been receiving "interesting" (and
    anonymous) communications suggesting that further investigation
    might be unwise.  They have apparently posted armed guards.  When
    they finish their investigation and get the tape footage together,
    their program is supposed to air on some 160 TV stations.

    What a wonderful government.  So much for freedom of religion and
    freedom of the press, not to mention balance of power.



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * One finger is all a real American needs.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901
SEEN-BY: 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1301)
To:      Susana Atanasova                       11 Jul 94 23:20:10
Subject: WACO AD INFINITUM POSTING              

SA>  LG>  They already have -- during the trial.  And daily summaries 
SA>  LG>  of the testimony presented at that trial were posted here 
SA>  LG>  and elsewhere.  Sorry you missed it.

SA>  Again, I invite anyone who was there when it happened, on 
SA>  either side of the issue, to post their FIRST HAND 
SA>  knowledge of the events that took place, in an effort to 
SA>  end the he-said / she-said / hear-say that abounds here 
SA>  from those of us who are only forming opinions based upon 
SA>  what we receive via the media.
     
     We have sworn testimony from those with that first hand 
knowledge.  Do you actually expect them to log on to this 
conference?  


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * First thing we do, we arrest all the hostages.  FBI at Waco.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901
SEEN-BY: 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2


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

+++■■■■■ r_940715 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1384)
To:      All                                    12 Jul 94 15:25:10
Subject: Brady                                  

 *********** Original       To: ALL
 * SILICON *      was       By: MATT GIWER
 *  DUPE   *   posted:      On: MERCOPUS
 ***********              Conf: 0025 - Politics-F
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE           For further information,
June 29, 1994                   call:  Tom Wyld, NRA Public Affairs
                                703-267-3820

ANOTHER COURT DECLARES BRADY ACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Deciding in favor of Arizona sheriff, court declares Brady "void 
for vagueness"

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Siding with law enforcement officials and the 
National Rifle Association of America, U.S. District Judge John 
M. Roll of Arizona declared yesterday that so-called mandatory 
background checks under the Brady Act are unconstitutional.   It 
was the third court victory for chief law enforcement officers in 
suits backed by NRA.  

"This is the first suit in which the Act was found void for 
vagueness,'"  said Mrs. Tanya K. Metaksa, Executive Director of 
NRA's Institute for Legislative Action.  "The Court also rejected 
the government's claim that Brady imposes no criminal penalties  
on law enforcement.  It is gratifying that federal judges concur 
in arguments NRA made against the Act when it was in bill form.  

"These same arguments apply to the so-called Brady II' -- a gun 
ban and restrictive licensing scheme modeled after New York City.  
Now these arguments cannot be ignored."

Mrs. Metaksa noted that, while individual sheriffs were 
challenging Brady in court, the National Sheriffs' Association 
decided, by resolution June 15, to strongly oppose Brady II.'"  

Key issues resolved by the court:

- Despite what the Justice Department argued, the Brady Act 
threatened law enforcement with criminal sanctions.  The Court 
found that the U.S. Government's protestations to the contrary 
"fall on all fronts."

- The states are not agencies of the federal government and chief 
law enforcement officers are not federal agents.   The court held 
that the Brady Act violated the Tenth Amendment and found the 
U.S. Government's arguments "disingenuous" and "not merit[ing] 
further comment." 

- Criminal statutes must clearly define what is forbidden; Brady 
did not.  The plaintiff, Sheriff Richard Mack of  Graham County, 
Arizona, was obliged under the Act to perform a "reasonable 
effort" background check.  The Court held that requirement void 
under the Fifth Amendment's due process clause.

"The real tragedy continues -- namely, that the federal 
government continues to commandeer local law enforcement to 
implement a political agenda rather than empowering law 
enforcement to attack criminals directly," said Mrs. Metaksa.   
"Tonight, Sheriff  Mack will patrol his vast jurisdiction, arrest 
criminals, crack tough cases and respond to calls for assistance.  
In short, he will heed the people he serves, not politicians and 
bureaucrats thousands of miles away."

Mrs. Metaksa congratulated Sheriff Mack for having the courage to 
take on the federal leviathan and win.

The phrasing of Judge Roll's decision suggests that an injunction 
against enforcement of the Act applies nationwide.  Thus, it 
appears likely that government enforcement of the applicable 
portions of the Brady Act anywhere in the United States -- and 
certainly in the District of Arizona -- is forbidden.

- nra -

                Downloaded from GUN-TALK (703-719-6406)
                A service of the 
                National Rifle Association 
                Institute for Legislative Action
                Fairfax, VA 22030
 


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Politically Correct.  Life in a spell checker world.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901
SEEN-BY: 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3651/5 3654/5


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1390)
To:      All                                    13 Jul 94 00:55:10
Subject: New problem                            

 *********** Original       To: ALL
 * SILICON *      was       By: MATT GIWER
 *  DUPE   *   posted:      On: MERCOPUS
 ***********              Conf: 0036 - Controversy-F
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

     This is going to be off topic in many conferences but I have 
not heard of a problem like this before.

     I was getting around to cleaning up all the unused stuff on 
the HD and was using DDEL, like DELTREE, to clean up all those 
great promise programs that delivered crippled nothing.

     From the best post mortem I could do it appears a 
subdirectory became linked with the main directory in some manner 
perhaps as is done in SHARE, I have no idea.  However, by the 
time I caught it, it had trashed so much of main and all of its 
sub-directories that reformatting was easier than trying to 
replace the missing files. 

     I have never heard of this before and it is obviously a 
serious problem.  

     (BTW:  I need replacements of any public keys that might 
have been sent me and the numbers for ABJECT POVERTY and 
T-RECALL.  Sloppy use of tape backup is as bad as not using it at 
all.)  


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Remember, drag the body inside.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901
SEEN-BY: 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3651/5 3654/5


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

+++■■■■■ r_940717 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1297)
To:      Jeffrey Senn                           13 Jul 94 20:15:10
Subject: 4th Amendment Rights                   

JS>  MG> Then what were all those messages saying how happy you were
JS>  MG> that the losers and the children of losers were dead?  How do you
JS>  MG> explain the message thanking the BATF for killing them?

JS> 'Scuse me for buttin in here but I don't think the BATF killed them. They
JS> killed themselves. The BATF gave them how long? 6 weeks? Somewhere
JS> in that area? to come out and surrender their ILLEGAL weapons. That is
JS> why the BATF was there in the first place. When they served the search
JS> warrant didn't the Davidians OPEN FIRE on the BATF? BATF was WAY
JS> too patient as far as I'm concerned.

     Good sir, you have things so confused you do not have the 
basis for any thoughts on this subject.  The BATF conducted the 
first attack killing four Davidians.  Within a couple days the 
FBI took over.  The FBI demanded they surrender to murder charges 
not weapons charges.  There was no evidence of any illegal 
weapons at the time.  

     The BATF at no time served any warrant as was clear from 
BATF testimony at the trial.  The BATF also testified to coming 
in throwing grenades and shooting their pets.  They readily admit 
to being the first to shoot.  The only question is if they were 
the first to shoot at the Davidians or the Davidians were the 
first to shoot at them.  

     The Government introduced one of a pair of doors to prove 
the Davidians first and it lost the other of the pair of steel 
doors the Davidians claimed had the evidence to support their 
version of the story.  But of course you do not find losing 
evidence the size of a door anything surprising.

     As for killing themselves you do remember the FBI was drove 
them crazy with the lights and sounds and sleep deprivation.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Bill Clinton invented the artificial appendix.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901 259/98
SEEN-BY: 259/99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5
SEEN-BY: 3654/5


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1299)
To:      Susana Atanasova                       13 Jul 94 20:24:10
Subject: Elders Attacks Christians              

SA>  SA>   Are you truly incapable of rational thought processes, or
SA>  SA>   just unwilling to take the effort required to try an
SA>  SA>   express a linear thought pattern?

SA>  MG>      Would you start by explaining how ignorance can be forced
SA>  MG> upon anyone?  The Star Trek mind wipes are available as yet.

SA> Read the message, again, Matt - *maybe* you have been receiving tutoring in
SA> comprehension skills, and will "get it", this time.
SA> I feel compelled to interlope into this fantasy world you live in with a
SA> *REALITY CHECK*:

SA>                         *Star Trek* is *fiction*, Matt.

     You are learning.  Now how is ignorance forced upon anyone?  
Please be specific.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * No Office.  No Oath.  No public trust. H. Ramrod Clinton
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901 259/98
SEEN-BY: 259/99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5
SEEN-BY: 3654/5


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1300)
To:      Chris Baugh                            13 Jul 94 20:29:10
Subject: Elders Attacks Christians              

CB>  MG> The Star Trek mind wipes are available as yet.

CB> Should I assume that you meant to include the word "not," or were
CB> you suggesting a new topic for the Fox series "The X-Files"?

     Of course, this is a spell checker world.  


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * If you think health care is expensive now, wait til its free
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901 259/98
SEEN-BY: 259/99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5
SEEN-BY: 3654/5


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1301)
To:      Gary Novosielski                       13 Jul 94 20:30:10
Subject: Ollie North For Senator                

GN> MG> First, an overturned conviction is the same as a not guilty
GN> MG> finding.

GN> In any case, it's a long, long, way from being innocent. Face it. North
GN> admitted to criminal acts.  Under oath.

     It is the legal meaning of innocent.  

GN> In fact, if he decided tomorrow to proclaim his innocence, he could
GN> immediately be brought up on charges of perjury

     Are you suggesting he is under oath?  How else could perjury 
be invoked?  

     You are publically calibrating your legal knowledge.

GN> MG>His efforts to free hostages despite the desire of Congress
GN> MG>that they remain hostages is laudable.

GN> It was not the Congress, but Ronald Reagan who desired that the most famous
GN> group of hostages should remain hostages. And he saw to it that they did
GN> remain hostages, right through the election, until the hour of his
GN> inauguration

     As you know that has been studied to death by Congress and 
nearly every registered Democrat for 13 years and no one has 
found the slightest bit of evidence for it.  Perhaps you will be 
the first to provide the evidence everyone else missed?

GN> MG>His efforts to get rid of a Communist government in Latin
GN> MG>America when Congress -- the Speaker of the House for certain --
GN> MG>wanted the country to remain Communist was laudable.

GN> In the name of Anti-Communism, North's efforts financed the murder of
GN> countless innocent people through U.S. financed and trained terrorist 
Contra
GN> Death Squads, when the American people through their elected 
representatives
GN> (and in any number of public opinion polls) had repeatedly made it crystal
GN> clear that they did NOT want that kind of activity carried on in their 
name.

     Contra death squads?  You have things somewhat confused.  
The "death squads" were in El Salvador presumably run by either 
the government or the Army.  The Contra rebels were in Guatemala 
and fought a guerrilla style war.  

GN> That was not laudable. That was as un-American and unpatriotic an act as I
GN> ever heard of. In fact, although he has escaped conviction in the U.S., 
North
GN> could arguably be charged with Crimes Against Humanity under international
GN> law.

     It certainly can not have happened the way you described.

GN> MG> That is the kind of change I want to see in Congress and I
GN> MG> don't really care how it happens.

GN> So if this election thing doesn't work out, you'd be in favor of a coup? 
Well,
GN> at least that's consistent with your choice of North for the job.

     There is already a coup attempt scheduled for September.  
You should keep up on matters.

GN> Brand me a "conservative" if you will, but I favor the old fashioned
GN> Constitutional approach.

     Is appears you have calibrated yourself on your knowledge of 
the Constitution also.     


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Pray for Bill Clinton. Psalm 109 verse 8
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901 259/98
SEEN-BY: 259/99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5
SEEN-BY: 3654/5


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1303)
To:      Chris Baugh                            13 Jul 94 20:37:10
Subject: psychological breakthroug              

CB>  MG> He has told me many things about his fantasy life. I have
CB>  MG> simply compared his statements about Koresh which are known
CB>  MG> to be contrary to everyone's statements about events
CB>  MG> including the BATF and found he is repeating something that
CB>  MG> only he could have heard. Thus, a fantasy -- or personal
CB>  MG> revelation if you are so inclined.

CB> I now see your point.  But do you really expect to win a debate
CB> against an article of faith held without evidence?

     It is some times for the good of the person to confront them 
with their fantasies.  


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * They're coming to take Perot away, ha ha he he ho ho
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901 259/98
SEEN-BY: 259/99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5
SEEN-BY: 3654/5


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1313)
To:      All                                    13 Jul 94 22:04:10
Subject: MILITARY WAITERS                       

 *********** Original       To: RON HATHCOCK
 * SILICON *      was       By: MATT GIWER
 *  DUPE   *   posted:      On: MERCOPUS
 ***********              Conf: 0945 - Limbaugh-F
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

RH>  MG> Can anyone post a full quote and source for this story?

RH> My mother called me on Friday, July 1, and read it to me from her local
RH> paper, the Commercial Appeal, in Memphis, TN. I haven't a copy of it, nor
RH> was it carried in my local papers.

     Got it.

Washington Times, June 28, 1994 page A8, "SERVICE WARFARE"
  "One of the four White House military aides who, while in uniform were
forced last Tuesday night to carry hors d'oeuvre trays about the White
House offering food to guests of President Clinton and Hillary Rodham
Clinton yesterday paid visits to the Capitol Hill offices of Rep. Dan
Burton, Indiana Republican, and Newt Gingrich, Georgia Republican.
   The four officers drafted as waiters, Mr. Burton learned in the
meeting were a Marine officer who serves on the personal staff of Marine
Corp Commandant Carl Mundy, an Air Force captain who has worked in the
space programs, a Navy lieutenant who is a surface-warfare officer, and
a lieutenant who is a naval intelligence officer.
  The officer described the scenario as personally degrading and told
the congressman that he and fellow officers were ordered by a worried
White House staff not to common on the incident.
   "Once again, the White House had tried to put a lid on things," Mr.
Burton commented later.  "Sooner or later, they are going to have more
pots than they have lids."
   "Mr. Burton said, "The entire U.S. military deserves a public
apology."
   Meanwhile, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Randy
"Duke" Cunningham, California Republican, has sent a letter to Mr.
Clinton saying that "as a retired Navy fighter pilot and an American who
considers it a privilege to have served my country in combat, I consider
the lack of respect shown to these military officers personally
deplorable...Military personnel in the White House are not domestics."


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * My incoming messages have the right of way.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901 259/98
SEEN-BY: 259/99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5
SEEN-BY: 3654/5


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1345)
To:      Todd Rourke                            14 Jul 94 04:58:10
Subject: Elders Attacks Christian               

TR>  MW> AIDS was first dirsovered in gay men.  It DID orgiginate from them.
TR>  MW> It might very well be that if there never were gays in the US, we
TR>  MW> wouldn't have any epidemic...

TR> It originated in Africa... where it's primarily a heterosexual
TR> malady. So no, it didn't originate with gays... please get your facts
TR> straight. Thank you.

     But from many aspects which I have related here it appears 
to be directly related to anal sex.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * They're coming to take Perot away, ha ha he he ho ho
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901 259/98
SEEN-BY: 259/99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5
SEEN-BY: 3654/5


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1346)
To:      All                                    14 Jul 94 05:10:10
Subject: Filter bait                            

     For what it is worth I have declared Susana Atanasova (a 
possible non-handle) to be filter bait.  In all my years at this 
she has become number six on the list.

     I have clearly expressed my opinions of her to her.  For 
those who may have missed she posts personal fantasies as 
opinions unsupported by reality.  She continues to deny what she 
has posted.  She rejoices in the deaths of others and praises 
their murderers.

     I have no tolerance for such people as you may have noticed. 
You have also notices LSG does not like such truthes to be told.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Bill Clinton invented the artificial appendix.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901 259/98
SEEN-BY: 259/99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5
SEEN-BY: 3654/5


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1363)
To:      Jeff Welch                             14 Jul 94 18:47:10
Subject: Religious Bigotry                      

JW> MG>     They should be directing their attacks toward the people
JW> MG>making the attacks.

JW> Last I heard, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell were mentioned by name.

     And the quotes I have seen make direct reference to the 
Religious Right as a group.  

JW> MG>That is apparently too difficult for them.
JW> MG>Falwell attacks Clinton then Clinton should attack Falwell.  As
JW> MG>it is Falwell attacks Clinton and Clinton's minions attack all
JW> MG>fundamentalist Christians.

JW> Utter crap.  Post a quote.  Let's see this famous "attack on all
JW> fundamentalist Christians".

     I will try to find a few for you.

JW> MG>JW> MG> And what is their political crime?

JW> MG>JW> Slander.  Libel.  Bigotry.  Very UN-Christian hatred.

JW> MG>     Are you now judging them?  Who is them?  Them never attacked
JW> MG>anyone.

JW> Get real.  The attacks are out there on CBN *every day*.

     Falwell might be but the religious right as a people are 
not.  

JW> MG>JW>  Which is their right as American citizens.  It is also the
JW> MG>JW>  right of those being attacked to defend themselves against
JW> MG>JW>  this.

JW> MG>     And the NRA has the right to attack all Jews.

JW> Only in Giwer Logic.

     Metzenbaum is Jewish.  Falwell is conservative.  Show me the 
distinction?


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Michael Moriarity of Law & Order blackballed by Janet Reno.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901 259/98
SEEN-BY: 259/99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5
SEEN-BY: 3654/5


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1364)
To:      Pete Bucy                              14 Jul 94 19:03:10
Subject: Wrong!                                 

PB>  PB>      I have found some very sensitive Jewish callers over
PB>  PB>      the last few years.  That is a shame because as a race,
PB>  PB>      Jews are very tough and resilient people.

PB>  MG> They are a race again?

PB>     Most of the Jews that I know refer to themselves as a separate
PB>     race race. Race can be used in a term that is not derogatory
PB>     in nature.

     I will keep you in mind when there is a claim it is a 
religion.  The last time the claim of race was brought up I was 
directed to the Ethiopian Jews.

PB>  PB>      Once when I asked how the Jews could have gone so
PB>  PB>      peacefully to the death camps I was blasted by several
PB>  PB>      callers.  I just didn't understand how the ancestors of
                                                         ~~~~~~~~~
PB>  PB>      those who forged the State of Israel could have given
PB>  PB>      in so easily to the Nazis.

PB>  MG> Check your dates.  They were not related.

PB>     They are related. It was the Jewish refugees of WWII that
PB>     formed the State of Israel. How can you say that they are not
PB>     related.
        ~~~~~~~

     European Jews had been in Europe for centuries.  Those who 
founded the state had mostly lived in the region since they 
kicked the crap out of the Canaanites.  They were not the 
ancestors of.

PB>  MG> Actually the response of the people who did live in
PB>  MG> Palestine was not only the astonishment you are expressing but
PB>  MG> contempt for them; that they were a shame and an embarrassment.

PB>     I seem unbelievable that they didn't fight back.

     They allowed themselves to be disarmed.

     Join Worldtalk and find the staunchest Jews being in favor 
of very strict gun controls and equally insistant it can not 
happen in what ever country they are in.



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * It ain't Bill's fault.  Hil put him up to it.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901 259/98
SEEN-BY: 259/99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5
SEEN-BY: 3654/5


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1433)
To:      Michael Pilon                          15 Jul 94 01:48:10
Subject: OJ DAMN IT!                            

MP>  MG> follow sports, period.  I thought OJ was a basketball player
MP>  MG> until this started.

MP> No he is a hockey player, you may have confused him with Wayne Gretzky who
MP> is a lacross player. But then all Canadians look alike.

     Actually I confused him with "The Hook" from Slap Shot.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Clinton taxes gas.  Price of beans soars.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901 259/98
SEEN-BY: 259/99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5
SEEN-BY: 3654/5


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

+++■■■■■ r_940717 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1296)
To:      Jeffrey Senn                           13 Jul 94 20:15:10
Subject: 4th Amendment Rights                   

JS>  MG> Then what were all those messages saying how happy you were
JS>  MG> that the losers and the children of losers were dead?  How do you
JS>  MG> explain the message thanking the BATF for killing them?

JS> 'Scuse me for buttin in here but I don't think the BATF killed them. They
JS> killed themselves. The BATF gave them how long? 6 weeks? Somewhere
JS> in that area? to come out and surrender their ILLEGAL weapons. That is
JS> why the BATF was there in the first place. When they served the search
JS> warrant didn't the Davidians OPEN FIRE on the BATF? BATF was WAY
JS> too patient as far as I'm concerned.

     Good sir, you have things so confused you do not have the 
basis for any thoughts on this subject.  The BATF conducted the 
first attack killing four Davidians.  Within a couple days the 
FBI took over.  The FBI demanded they surrender to murder charges 
not weapons charges.  There was no evidence of any illegal 
weapons at the time.  

     The BATF at no time served any warrant as was clear from 
BATF testimony at the trial.  The BATF also testified to coming 
in throwing grenades and shooting their pets.  They readily admit 
to being the first to shoot.  The only question is if they were 
the first to shoot at the Davidians or the Davidians were the 
first to shoot at them.  

     The Government introduced one of a pair of doors to prove 
the Davidians first and it lost the other of the pair of steel 
doors the Davidians claimed had the evidence to support their 
version of the story.  But of course you do not find losing 
evidence the size of a door anything surprising.

     As for killing themselves you do remember the FBI was drove 
them crazy with the lights and sounds and sleep deprivation.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Bill Clinton invented the artificial appendix.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901 259/98
SEEN-BY: 259/99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5
SEEN-BY: 3654/5


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1298)
To:      Susana Atanasova                       13 Jul 94 20:24:10
Subject: Elders Attacks Christians              

SA>  SA>   Are you truly incapable of rational thought processes, or
SA>  SA>   just unwilling to take the effort required to try an
SA>  SA>   express a linear thought pattern?

SA>  MG>      Would you start by explaining how ignorance can be forced
SA>  MG> upon anyone?  The Star Trek mind wipes are available as yet.

SA> Read the message, again, Matt - *maybe* you have been receiving tutoring in
SA> comprehension skills, and will "get it", this time.
SA> I feel compelled to interlope into this fantasy world you live in with a
SA> *REALITY CHECK*:

SA>                         *Star Trek* is *fiction*, Matt.

     You are learning.  Now how is ignorance forced upon anyone?  
Please be specific.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * No Office.  No Oath.  No public trust. H. Ramrod Clinton
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901 259/98
SEEN-BY: 259/99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5
SEEN-BY: 3654/5


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1299)
To:      Chris Baugh                            13 Jul 94 20:29:10
Subject: Elders Attacks Christians              

CB>  MG> The Star Trek mind wipes are available as yet.

CB> Should I assume that you meant to include the word "not," or were
CB> you suggesting a new topic for the Fox series "The X-Files"?

     Of course, this is a spell checker world.  


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * If you think health care is expensive now, wait til its free
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901 259/98
SEEN-BY: 259/99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5
SEEN-BY: 3654/5


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1300)
To:      Gary Novosielski                       13 Jul 94 20:30:10
Subject: Ollie North For Senator                

GN> MG> First, an overturned conviction is the same as a not guilty
GN> MG> finding.

GN> In any case, it's a long, long, way from being innocent. Face it. North
GN> admitted to criminal acts.  Under oath.

     It is the legal meaning of innocent.  

GN> In fact, if he decided tomorrow to proclaim his innocence, he could
GN> immediately be brought up on charges of perjury

     Are you suggesting he is under oath?  How else could perjury 
be invoked?  

     You are publically calibrating your legal knowledge.

GN> MG>His efforts to free hostages despite the desire of Congress
GN> MG>that they remain hostages is laudable.

GN> It was not the Congress, but Ronald Reagan who desired that the most famous
GN> group of hostages should remain hostages. And he saw to it that they did
GN> remain hostages, right through the election, until the hour of his
GN> inauguration

     As you know that has been studied to death by Congress and 
nearly every registered Democrat for 13 years and no one has 
found the slightest bit of evidence for it.  Perhaps you will be 
the first to provide the evidence everyone else missed?

GN> MG>His efforts to get rid of a Communist government in Latin
GN> MG>America when Congress -- the Speaker of the House for certain --
GN> MG>wanted the country to remain Communist was laudable.

GN> In the name of Anti-Communism, North's efforts financed the murder of
GN> countless innocent people through U.S. financed and trained terrorist 
Contra
GN> Death Squads, when the American people through their elected 
representatives
GN> (and in any number of public opinion polls) had repeatedly made it crystal
GN> clear that they did NOT want that kind of activity carried on in their 
name.

     Contra death squads?  You have things somewhat confused.  
The "death squads" were in El Salvador presumably run by either 
the government or the Army.  The Contra rebels were in Guatemala 
and fought a guerrilla style war.  

GN> That was not laudable. That was as un-American and unpatriotic an act as I
GN> ever heard of. In fact, although he has escaped conviction in the U.S., 
North
GN> could arguably be charged with Crimes Against Humanity under international
GN> law.

     It certainly can not have happened the way you described.

GN> MG> That is the kind of change I want to see in Congress and I
GN> MG> don't really care how it happens.

GN> So if this election thing doesn't work out, you'd be in favor of a coup? 
Well,
GN> at least that's consistent with your choice of North for the job.

     There is already a coup attempt scheduled for September.  
You should keep up on matters.

GN> Brand me a "conservative" if you will, but I favor the old fashioned
GN> Constitutional approach.

     Is appears you have calibrated yourself on your knowledge of 
the Constitution also.     


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Pray for Bill Clinton. Psalm 109 verse 8
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901 259/98
SEEN-BY: 259/99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5
SEEN-BY: 3654/5


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1302)
To:      Chris Baugh                            13 Jul 94 20:37:10
Subject: psychological breakthroug              

CB>  MG> He has told me many things about his fantasy life. I have
CB>  MG> simply compared his statements about Koresh which are known
CB>  MG> to be contrary to everyone's statements about events
CB>  MG> including the BATF and found he is repeating something that
CB>  MG> only he could have heard. Thus, a fantasy -- or personal
CB>  MG> revelation if you are so inclined.

CB> I now see your point.  But do you really expect to win a debate
CB> against an article of faith held without evidence?

     It is some times for the good of the person to confront them 
with their fantasies.  


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * They're coming to take Perot away, ha ha he he ho ho
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901 259/98
SEEN-BY: 259/99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5
SEEN-BY: 3654/5


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1312)
To:      All                                    13 Jul 94 22:04:10
Subject: MILITARY WAITERS                       

 *********** Original       To: RON HATHCOCK
 * SILICON *      was       By: MATT GIWER
 *  DUPE   *   posted:      On: MERCOPUS
 ***********              Conf: 0945 - Limbaugh-F
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

RH>  MG> Can anyone post a full quote and source for this story?

RH> My mother called me on Friday, July 1, and read it to me from her local
RH> paper, the Commercial Appeal, in Memphis, TN. I haven't a copy of it, nor
RH> was it carried in my local papers.

     Got it.

Washington Times, June 28, 1994 page A8, "SERVICE WARFARE"
  "One of the four White House military aides who, while in uniform were
forced last Tuesday night to carry hors d'oeuvre trays about the White
House offering food to guests of President Clinton and Hillary Rodham
Clinton yesterday paid visits to the Capitol Hill offices of Rep. Dan
Burton, Indiana Republican, and Newt Gingrich, Georgia Republican.
   The four officers drafted as waiters, Mr. Burton learned in the
meeting were a Marine officer who serves on the personal staff of Marine
Corp Commandant Carl Mundy, an Air Force captain who has worked in the
space programs, a Navy lieutenant who is a surface-warfare officer, and
a lieutenant who is a naval intelligence officer.
  The officer described the scenario as personally degrading and told
the congressman that he and fellow officers were ordered by a worried
White House staff not to common on the incident.
   "Once again, the White House had tried to put a lid on things," Mr.
Burton commented later.  "Sooner or later, they are going to have more
pots than they have lids."
   "Mr. Burton said, "The entire U.S. military deserves a public
apology."
   Meanwhile, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Randy
"Duke" Cunningham, California Republican, has sent a letter to Mr.
Clinton saying that "as a retired Navy fighter pilot and an American who
considers it a privilege to have served my country in combat, I consider
the lack of respect shown to these military officers personally
deplorable...Military personnel in the White House are not domestics."


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * My incoming messages have the right of way.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901 259/98
SEEN-BY: 259/99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5
SEEN-BY: 3654/5


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1344)
To:      Todd Rourke                            14 Jul 94 04:58:10
Subject: Elders Attacks Christian               

TR>  MW> AIDS was first dirsovered in gay men.  It DID orgiginate from them.
TR>  MW> It might very well be that if there never were gays in the US, we
TR>  MW> wouldn't have any epidemic...

TR> It originated in Africa... where it's primarily a heterosexual
TR> malady. So no, it didn't originate with gays... please get your facts
TR> straight. Thank you.

     But from many aspects which I have related here it appears 
to be directly related to anal sex.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * They're coming to take Perot away, ha ha he he ho ho
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901 259/98
SEEN-BY: 259/99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5
SEEN-BY: 3654/5


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1345)
To:      All                                    14 Jul 94 05:10:10
Subject: Filter bait                            

     For what it is worth I have declared Susana Atanasova (a 
possible non-handle) to be filter bait.  In all my years at this 
she has become number six on the list.

     I have clearly expressed my opinions of her to her.  For 
those who may have missed she posts personal fantasies as 
opinions unsupported by reality.  She continues to deny what she 
has posted.  She rejoices in the deaths of others and praises 
their murderers.

     I have no tolerance for such people as you may have noticed. 
You have also notices LSG does not like such truthes to be told.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Bill Clinton invented the artificial appendix.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901 259/98
SEEN-BY: 259/99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5
SEEN-BY: 3654/5


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1362)
To:      Jeff Welch                             14 Jul 94 18:47:10
Subject: Religious Bigotry                      

JW> MG>     They should be directing their attacks toward the people
JW> MG>making the attacks.

JW> Last I heard, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell were mentioned by name.

     And the quotes I have seen make direct reference to the 
Religious Right as a group.  

JW> MG>That is apparently too difficult for them.
JW> MG>Falwell attacks Clinton then Clinton should attack Falwell.  As
JW> MG>it is Falwell attacks Clinton and Clinton's minions attack all
JW> MG>fundamentalist Christians.

JW> Utter crap.  Post a quote.  Let's see this famous "attack on all
JW> fundamentalist Christians".

     I will try to find a few for you.

JW> MG>JW> MG> And what is their political crime?

JW> MG>JW> Slander.  Libel.  Bigotry.  Very UN-Christian hatred.

JW> MG>     Are you now judging them?  Who is them?  Them never attacked
JW> MG>anyone.

JW> Get real.  The attacks are out there on CBN *every day*.

     Falwell might be but the religious right as a people are 
not.  

JW> MG>JW>  Which is their right as American citizens.  It is also the
JW> MG>JW>  right of those being attacked to defend themselves against
JW> MG>JW>  this.

JW> MG>     And the NRA has the right to attack all Jews.

JW> Only in Giwer Logic.

     Metzenbaum is Jewish.  Falwell is conservative.  Show me the 
distinction?


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Michael Moriarity of Law & Order blackballed by Janet Reno.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901 259/98
SEEN-BY: 259/99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5
SEEN-BY: 3654/5


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1363)
To:      Pete Bucy                              14 Jul 94 19:03:10
Subject: Wrong!                                 

PB>  PB>      I have found some very sensitive Jewish callers over
PB>  PB>      the last few years.  That is a shame because as a race,
PB>  PB>      Jews are very tough and resilient people.

PB>  MG> They are a race again?

PB>     Most of the Jews that I know refer to themselves as a separate
PB>     race race. Race can be used in a term that is not derogatory
PB>     in nature.

     I will keep you in mind when there is a claim it is a 
religion.  The last time the claim of race was brought up I was 
directed to the Ethiopian Jews.

PB>  PB>      Once when I asked how the Jews could have gone so
PB>  PB>      peacefully to the death camps I was blasted by several
PB>  PB>      callers.  I just didn't understand how the ancestors of
                                                         ~~~~~~~~~
PB>  PB>      those who forged the State of Israel could have given
PB>  PB>      in so easily to the Nazis.

PB>  MG> Check your dates.  They were not related.

PB>     They are related. It was the Jewish refugees of WWII that
PB>     formed the State of Israel. How can you say that they are not
PB>     related.
        ~~~~~~~

     European Jews had been in Europe for centuries.  Those who 
founded the state had mostly lived in the region since they 
kicked the crap out of the Canaanites.  They were not the 
ancestors of.

PB>  MG> Actually the response of the people who did live in
PB>  MG> Palestine was not only the astonishment you are expressing but
PB>  MG> contempt for them; that they were a shame and an embarrassment.

PB>     I seem unbelievable that they didn't fight back.

     They allowed themselves to be disarmed.

     Join Worldtalk and find the staunchest Jews being in favor 
of very strict gun controls and equally insistant it can not 
happen in what ever country they are in.



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * It ain't Bill's fault.  Hil put him up to it.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901 259/98
SEEN-BY: 259/99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5
SEEN-BY: 3654/5


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (1432)
To:      Michael Pilon                          15 Jul 94 01:48:10
Subject: OJ DAMN IT!                            

MP>  MG> follow sports, period.  I thought OJ was a basketball player
MP>  MG> until this started.

MP> No he is a hockey player, you may have confused him with Wayne Gretzky who
MP> is a lacross player. But then all Canadians look alike.

     Actually I confused him with "The Hook" from Slap Shot.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Clinton taxes gas.  Price of beans soars.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 246 301 401 470 601 701 801 901 259/98
SEEN-BY: 259/99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20 20040 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5
SEEN-BY: 3654/5


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


Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.