The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/g/giwer.matt/1995/giwer_controv_9503


 R_9503 
+++ r_950305 +++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Controv - (130)
To:      Jeremy Margolis                         3 Mar 95 05:06:04
Subject: KAHANE / JEREMY'S HERITAG              

JM>  Yes, silly, as you know I am Jewish.  More by tradition then 
JM>  religon .  I am about as much of a practicing Jew as you 
JM>  are.  My family is reform, though most of my relatives are a 
JM>  lot more religous.  So by birth and tradition I am Jewish, 
JM>  but by practice I believe in what I choose to call my 
JM>  higher power.

     Making you just one more stupid religionist.

---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Your messages can not be accused of substance abuse.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 401 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Controv - (131)
To:      All                                     3 Mar 95 05:06:04
Subject: WACO JUSTICE                           

                      682 days after Waco
                  The murders are still free. 


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Sufficiently advance manufaturing looks like creation.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 401 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




+++ r_950310 +++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Controv - (158)
To:      Dandelion                               8 Mar 95 04:50:50
Subject: HOW TO STOP DRUGS                      

DD> >***:[Quote]:***
DD> >      In practice the way to stop drugs is rather simple.  It is
DD> >***:[Reply]:***

DD> I just wonder, why does everyone feel the need to outlaw drugs?

     It makes the police look busy?  Who knows?  This article is 
a simple extension of the one I wrote pointing out there is 
nothing this society can stomach doing to drug dealers and users 
that is not worse than the drugs themselves will do to them.  So 
when the drug business carries a greater penalty than the laws I 
do not see that the concept of law being a deterrent can possibly 
work.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * When you are in a hole, don't dig.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 401 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Controv - (173)
To:      Thomas Banks                            8 Mar 95 04:50:50
Subject: LAW AND ORDER          01              

TB>  I don't know how things work in your state but in Virginia 
TB>  all a parole violation does is require the ex-con to serve 
TB>  out the rest of his or her sentence (plus any time for 
TB>  prosecutions for crimes committed while on parole).  So, 
TB>  from my perspective, it is hard to believe that the article 
TB>  was pulling a fast one of this nature.  But, of course, 
TB>  laws very from state to state.

     When I was in Virginia four years ago (and for 25 before 
that) it did not work that way.  A violation of a parole term 
such as drinking or associating with known criminals got what you 
say.  Committing any crime while on parole was treated much more 
harshly.  It was not just add petty theft to the time.  I do not 
remember clearly but I think criminal parole violation was worth 
one to five years in addition to the time for the additional 
crime.  That makes it a felony.

TB>  But there is a difference between conducting felony 
TB>  criminal activity while on parole and just generically 
TB>  violating some rule such as associating with known 
TB>  criminals or, as in this case, steeling a slice of pizza.

     As I said, the law may need some fine tuning to exclude 
criminal parole violation from the list of felonies.  But until 
that happens that is the way the law reads.  If that is the way 
Californians want it, that is there business.  Pizza thieves 
should find a more hospitable state.

TB> MG>      I have seen them and am getting the impression they 
TB> MG> found the most liberal city in the West they could.  Denver 
TB> MG> makes no sense as a choice otherwise.

TB>  This is ludicrous.  This is the dittohead mentality.  

     You do not say "Limbaugh" and declare victory any longer.  
IT was a cheap gambit to begin with.

Any 
TB>  source of information that puts out information 
TB>  contradicting their core beliefs is involved in a liberal 
TB>  disinformation campaign.  We can only trust the words of 
TB>  Rush or like personality, a real unbiased source   WINK>.

     I did not say one word about any disinformation campaign.  
If they had picked a less cosmopolitan city that is more 
representative of the "west" they could not have found "balance."  
Do you really think these people were chosen at random?  Of 
course not, they were screened for being able to articulate their 
positions if nothing else.  When the sample size (city 
population) to draw on gets too small the minority of people who 
are going to hold and can articulate eastern liberal ideas gets 
too small.  
     
     Lets see the same interviews done with a random sampling 
from the voter registration roles in Golden.  It will not look 
the same.

TB>  I am unaware of Denver's "most liberal city in the West" 
TB>  reputation.  More congressman from Colorado are Republican 
TB>  than Democrats.  

     Actually it is 4R/2D in the House and 1/1 in the Senate.  
5/3 isn't that much of a majority.
     

Who's the representative for Denver?  Pat 
TB>  Schroeder?

     Damned if I know.  The state only has 6 Representatives.  
However, it would be interesting to find out.  

TB> Personally, I say legalize.

     That does not make it happen.

TB> MG>      However, if you had first posted the story as saying 
TB> MG> the it was for felony parole violation without naming the 
TB> MG> crime the response would have been different.  I don't think 
TB> MG> you will disagree with that.

TB>  If I person violated parole then I have no real problem 
TB>  with him serving out the duration of the original sentence.  
TB>  However, I don't think this was what the article meant.

     You have to realize that even the parole board accepts some 
responsibility for its actions.  Releasing people is not a 
goodwill gesture.  It is also a matter of responsibility to the 
general population that criminals are not being released to 
commit more crime.  There has to be some real teeth in any such 
system.  

     Were the penalty for being caught committing a crime no 
more than breaking even where one started then it is just a 
gamble on being caught to get out early.  Any rational system has 
to be more than "as you were."

TB> MG>      Again, Unless it was one hell of a lot of bubblegum it 
TB> MG> was a misdemeanor and that means less than a year in prison 
TB> MG> for a class one.  So there was another crime involved or a 
TB> MG> truck load of it to be worth two years.

TB>  No, he got two years.  That I'm sure of.  Maybe he used a 
TB>  handgun in the commission of the crime .  Every state 
TB>  has its own set of laws.

     Again, there is more to the story than you are relating.  (A 
handgun is worth five years hard time added to the other penalty 
in any state the NRA has convinced to pass that law -- 41 of them 
I think.)

TB> MG>      Further, mental capacity is not relevant in this case.  
TB> MG> There is no reason to permit people to live by crime based 
TB> MG> upon their mental capacity.  They have to be removed from 
TB> MG> society.  In this case the question appears to be where they 
TB> MG> should be removed to, prison or a lock up home.

TB>  Mental capacity is considered in criminal cases.  For 
TB>  example, a person could be found incompetent to stand 
TB>  trial.  Instead of placing a person in a jail they could 
TB>  end up in a mental health facility.  But I think the 
TB>  pendulum as swung away from mental health care to 
TB>  warehousing everyone in prison.  You can't punish someone 
TB>  without the mental capacity to realize the consequences of 
TB>  their actions.  You can't rehabilitate them by having them 
TB>  pound out license plates.

     The point is that anyone without the capability to stand 
trial should be locked away for the same period some place else 
but still locked away.  The point is to stop crime.  Locking 
people away does that.  That the penalty might deter more crime 
in the future is a side benefit.  

TB>  I think the situation we're in right now is that people are 
TB>  so paranoid over crime emotions are taking over reason.
**
Continued in the next message...
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 401 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




+++ r_950311 +++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Controv - (150)
To:      Karl Schneider                          9 Mar 95 05:39:06
Subject: HOW TO STOP DRUGS                      

KS> MG*                        How to stop Drugs
KS> MG*     In practice the way to stop drugs is rather simple.  It is

KS> Or, we could do the intelligent thing and simply legalize them...

     I thought that is what I said.

---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Give the gift of life.  Dr. Herbert West
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 401 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Controv - (151)
To:      Alan Hess                               9 Mar 95 05:40:02
Subject: JEWISH NAZI GENOCIDE                   

AH>  BS> Are you a RELIGIOUS Jew, Alan?  Kenneth Weiss is a Jew, but I
AH>  BS> figure him for a Reform Jew.    (I like to tease Kenneth.)

AH> No, I'm not religious.
     
     Then you are not a Jew unless you believe in the Nazi theory 
of a Jewish race.  In which case you have to explain your ideas 
in terms of anthropology, not personal opinion.  

     Give it up.  You believe in the religion or you are not a 
Jew as there is no such thing as a Jewish race.  

AH>  No, most Jews believe that Jews deserve a place of their 
AH>  own in this world, just as other groups have.  Most Jews 
AH>  don't believe that all of Zion (Biblical Israel) belongs to 
AH>  the Jews - they believe the current State of Israel is 
AH>  enough.

     There are no Jews to believe it unless they are religious 
and there is not Jewish race to deserve it.  There is no one who 
"deserves" anything in this world.  When you folks who pretend to 
be "jews" but are nothing admit you lied, cheated, murdered and 
killed to get Israel then at least you are being honest about it. 

     Until then, real Jews, the religious type not you, are being 
completely dishonest.



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Give the gift of life.  Dr. Herbert West
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 401 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Controv - (189)
To:      Tony Miller                             9 Mar 95 20:26:26
Subject: AUSCHWITZ                              

TM>  MG>       And just what is wrong with that?

TM>  Nothing.  What these guys said is important, becasue you 
TM>  should never forget the viewpoint these folks used to 
TM>  commit their atrocities.

...

TM>  I will remember thiat discussion always.  You usually think 
TM>  of these neo-nazi types as uneducated bubbas in white 
TM>  sheets.  With this guy, nothing was further from the 
TM>  truth.

     Which is quite a good point.  If you don't see them, then if 
they are wearing a suit, they can't be racists.  That is an 
example of what I have been saying, as long as the next guy to 
come along keeps a Kosher kitchen he can't be a racist either.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Your messages can not be accused of substance abuse.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 401 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Controv - (190)
To:      All                                     9 Mar 95 20:26:26
Subject: IDENTIFY CHILD MOLESTERS               

     Is there a child molester living in your neighborhood?  Here 
is how to find out.

     Go to your local school and trap a kid.  Take the kid home 
and stake it out in your front yard around dusk.  Watch patiently 
through the window or in a molester blind and soon a molester 
will show up.  At that point you can photograph it or bag it as 
is your taste.  

     The kid may then be turned loose back in its natural 
environment the next morning.
     

---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Satan did not fall.  He was pushed.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 401 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Controv - (191)
To:      Jeremy Margolis                         9 Mar 95 20:26:28
Subject: KAHANE / JEREMY'S HERITAG              

JM>  Because I believe in a higher power I am a 'stupid 
JM>  religonist"? I never said I was religous, other then by 
JM>  birth.  However I try to be spiritiual.  If, because I 
JM>  believe in god, I am a 'stupid religonist' thats fine with 
JM>  me.

     Belief in absence of evidence is always stupid.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * If you can't keep up get a slower modem.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 401 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Controv - (192)
To:      Tony Miller                             9 Mar 95 20:26:28
Subject: LAW AND ORDER                          

TM> BS> MG>       Perhaps the law needs some fine tuning.  When
TM> BS> MG> I first   heard  of it, it applied to felonies only
TM> BS> MG> and that is still   my  understanding.  $1.50 is a
TM> BS> MG> misdemeanor.

TM> BS>  Not when anchovies are involved.

TM>  MG>       The use of anchovies is a felony in every state in the
TM>  MG>   union.

TM>  But seriously, Matt, if threat was involved, it's armed 
TM>  robbery, and a felony.  If I threatened you with a gun and 
TM>  took a slice of your pizza, I'd be guilty of armed robbery 
TM>  regardless of the value of what was stolen.

     Which is another possibility.  The person originally whining 
over it has admitted it also included a parole violation.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * You appear to have taken a vow of ignorance.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 401 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Controv - (193)
To:      All                                     9 Mar 95 20:26:28
Subject: LAW RE: WACO                           

                      Federal and State Law
                               by
                           Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <3/5>

     After nearly two years of discussing Waco I find
misconceptions about the law and the federal and state
relationships between laws to be unbelievably common.  At the
risk of inciting the corrective ire of our resident attorneys I
am going to try to lay out the basic, simplest principles that
relate to this subject.
     But first the is an even more obvious point that many appear
to have completely wrong.  Rather than trying to describe the
wrong point of view let me give the correct point of view.  If
there is no law, there is nothing to enforce, there is nothing
for a law enforcement officer to do.
     I really can not find a way to paraphrase that to make it
simpler.  If something is not codified in law there is nothing
any law enforcement person or agency can do.  And by extension
there is nothing the executive branch at any level can do,
period.
     Specific to Waco, this means that if there was not an
identified law against something the Branch Davidians were doing
then violating a non-law was not justification for the attack
upon them.
     Back to the top level discussion.  There are federal laws
and there are state laws.  Only federal agencies can enforce
federal laws and only state agencies can enforce state laws.
Federal agencies can not enforce state laws and state agencies
can not enforce federal laws.
     It is very clear in the Waco case that neither the BATF nor
the FBI had any authority to deal with any violation of any
aspect of any Texas law.
     The next point is that specific agencies are charged with
the enforcement of specific laws.  The BATF can not deal with
immigration violations, the FBI can not deal with alcohol law
violations and the BATF can not deal with kidnapping.  The point
is that when you hear of a "powerful multi-agency federal task
force" what is means is that they had to form a committee because
federal law enforcement is so bureaucratized.  I will leave it up
to the reader to reconcile "powerful multi-agency" and
"committee."
     This is not to say there are not the inter-agency equivalent
of the state and local "hot pursuit" agreements.  One agency
inadvertently discovering a crime over which they do not have
jurisdiction can hold the person or persons until an officer from
the proper agency shows up to make the arrest.  This is general
between federal, state and local agencies.
     But in these cases it is only a hold for an arrest by the
appropriate bureaucrat not for any other purpose.  Obviously the
DEA is not going to say, "I thought you were smuggling drugs not
alcohol, off you go."  The person is going to be held for the
BATF officer to show up and arrest.
     This is not to suggest agencies are limited to the items
mentioned in their names.  It was interesting to find the BATF
that started the entire mess in Waco was displaced by the FBI
because the FBI was in charge when federal agents are killed in
the course of duty, only to find the BATF was in charge after the
fire because they are charged with investigating fires related to
federal crimes.  It was also interesting to see the opportunity
for a "you cover my ass, I'll cover yours" situation develop.
     And as in the beginning not one of these agencies or even an
inter-agency committee can do anything unless it is with regard
to some specific law that is on the books.  Now I grant there are
laws on the books to cover just about anything one can imagine
but specific to the Waco case there are some seriously false
assumptions being made.
     For example, the assumption that the BATF took action
because of the large number of guns.  False.  There is no federal
law regarding the number of guns any person or group can own and
therefore the BATF had no power to do anything.
     The assumption that the BATF took action because of the
large amount of ammunition.  False.  There is no federal law
regarding the amount of ammunition a person or group can own
therefore the BATF had no power to do anything.
     The assumption that the BATF took action because of child
abuse and/or polygamy.  False.  There are no federal laws on
these matter thus the BATF has no power to do anything.
     The assumption the BATF took action because Koresh was
preaching the end times. False.  There is no law against such
preaching and therefore the BATF had no power to act.
     The (false) assumption that a combination of the above
constituted a plan for the violent overthrown of the United
States and therefore the BATF acted.  False.  There are such laws
but the FBI, not the BATF, is charged with enforcing those laws.
     The BATF was there for one and only one purpose, a (false)
suspicion that there were unregistered weapons or devices being
manufactured on the premises.  I state this is false as the only
justification for even being on the Branch Davidian property was
contained in the search warrant.  The search warrant contains no
serious or credible suspicion of any such weapon or device.
     And one more point regarding this last paragraph, it is also
true that only what is contained in a search warrant is
justification and then only when it refers to a suspected
violation of a law, in this case a federal law.  A search warrant
is not a fishing license and that it be specific is a
federal constitutional requirement and that governs federal
warrants.  (State constitutions govern state warrants and when in
compliance with USSC findings.)
     I doubt this will slow down those who do not understand this
aspect of the law.  I doubt they will even read this past the
point where they find their particular false assumption.  But it
is something that needed to be written up.
     Thank you for your time.

                            * * * * *

        Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

    P.O. Box 82541, Tampa, Florida, 33682-2541, Bus. 813-969-0362



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Sufficiently advance manufaturing looks like creation.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 401 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Controv - (194)
To:      All                                     9 Mar 95 20:26:28
Subject: PARNIODS PLEASE READ                   

                       Paranoids Among Us
                               by
                           Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <3/8>

     This is more directed towards you paranoids than about you
so I hope you will be paying attention.  Specifically you are
giving whatever you touch a bad name.  You may be right but keep
it down.
     I suggest is that you read all the Tom Clancy books before
you consider jumping off on your next "issue."  Look to the
obvious before you look the mysterious.  Look to fact before you
look to fancy.
     For example, the most recent paranoia was that the strip in
money was so the government could use microwaves to find out how
much cash you have.  That is strange, mysterious, even has a
touch of Buck Rogers in it -- or am I showing my age using Buck
Rogers.  Why would that bother you?
     Fact: if you are a multimillionaire and your wife spends a
lot of hundred dollar bills the government has "reasonable
suspicion" that you are in the drug business.  As with the Scott
case, you can be murdered for that "reasonable suspicion."  In
our gender neutral society I presume this applies to husbands
with multimillionaire wives also but it has not come to a test
yet.
     Fact:  The government is moving to get $100 and $50 bills
out of circulation.  If you have a large amount in cash, hiding
it will take five times more volume with $20s.  This is gradual.
They are not being pulled from circulation, they are simply not
being replaced as they wear out.  They do not get much wear so
this is taking some time.  There is no hurry on this one.
     Fact:  The mere possession of a large amount of cash means
it can be confiscated (forfeited) under the presumption that only
drug dealers have large amounts of cash.  You have to prove the
inanimate money, not yourself, is innocent to get it back.
     So, what does it matter if the government can use microwaves
to count your cash?  The government is removing your ability to
conveniently hold large amounts of cash.  And in the interim your
cash can simply be taken or you can be killed simply for having
it.  I will grant that a microwave search would make the theft
and murder more efficient.  Paranoia about microwaves detracts
from the real concern that the government has the power to steal
and kill at will simply over the possession of cash.
     How about the currently popular microchip belief?  Back to
Buck Rogers with an Intel twist, throw in satellites and they can
find you any where and know all about you on some super computer
some place.
     Fact:  Cray's latest is not up to the job.
     Fact:  Your credit card, ATM card, and SSN are on files every
place.
     Fact:  An experienced investigator knows which records to
demand / subpoena in an instant and can have them in a couple days
if not hours.
     So the only way to avoid instant tracking rather than a
couple days of tracking is to go completely on cash.  But as
enough cash to live on can be confiscated you can not do that.
And in trying to do so you risk being murdered for it.  Granted
if you manage your affairs just right you can live completely on
cash but that expertise and those job skills are not all that
common.
     How about the huge covert organization the government
controls from the garbage man down to UPS employees?
     Fact:  Every government agent in any department has an
obligation of referral of an item to the correct agency.
     Fact:  There are, counting the US Post Office, more people
employed by the government than there are employed in
manufacturing.
     Fact:  State and local law agencies are similarly obligated
to report upwards to the federal government.
     And with all of this why would the government need to pay a
dime to support a separate covert information gathering
organization?  For it to be more effective than what it already
has would have to be so big that half the country would have to
be spying upon the other half.  And most of that would be wasted
in that the government already has the best sources of
information in hand.
     There is nothing the wildest paranoia can imagine that is
more complex and more in line with what is happening.  You have
hidden concentration camps?  I have organized murder.  You have
black helicopters?  I have an FBI Rapid Deployment Force.  You
have Russian tanks in the US?  I have the FBI in Moscow working
with the KGB. 
     You have imagination, I have the evening news.
     Paranoia, like fiction, has to make sense.  Reality does
not.  Reality is stranger than paranoia.  Reality does not have
to make sense.

                            * * * * *

        Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

    P.O. Box 82541, Tampa, Florida, 33682-2541, Bus. 813-969-0362



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Jesus is coming!  Everyone look busy.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 401 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Controv - (195)
To:      All                                     9 Mar 95 20:26:32
Subject: PBS AND THE 1ST                        

                     1st, Religion, and PBS
                               by
                           Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <3/9>

     There is currently a "discussion," rather a sanctimonious
debate occurring as to whether or not the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting and it subsidiaries, the TV Public Broadcasting
System and National Public Radio should continue to receive money
from the federal government.  Radio and TV media are clearly held
by the Supreme Court to fall under the 1st amendment provision of
freedom of the press.  Fine with me.  Let us look at the first
amendment.

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.

     If I read this correctly we have five distinctly different
areas of prohibition against Congress from making laws.  Those
are religion, speech, press, assembly and petition.  I can read
it differently with different emphasis upon semicolons and commas
but I do not think any of us are in agreement as to these five I
have named are a reasonable break-out.
     IF we are to assume, for the sake of argument of course,
that these were all put into one amendment and duly ratified, for
the purpose of having them all treated in the same manner then we
have a point to begin a moderately pleasant discussion.  Let us
begin to be moderately pleasant.
     Now we all agree that in english, as observed by Mark Twain,
that its users would rather use the wrong word than the correct
word twice in the same sentence.  This rule applies to the 1st
amendment.  That is something english speakers appear to be born
with.  It is not rational, it is english.  Perhaps a trait we
inherited from the British.
     But never mind.  Let us take an overview of this.  Solely
because Thomas Jefferson wrote in a private letter to a friend
that his opinion was that the 1st created a "wall of separation"
between church and state we have a Supreme Court mandated wall of
separation.  Fine with me.  Who am I to note Jefferson was not
involved in the drafting of the 1st amendment?
     Moving right along, the right of lobbying and lobbyists is
protected under this clause as in the right to petition
government for the redress of grievances.  The best we appear to
be able to prohibit constitutionally is the right to bribe
government for the redress of grievances.  We clearly prohibit the
government from petitioning itself, government paid for lobbying,
in that a government agency can not hire a lobbyist to promote in
Congress what that government agency wants.
     We have some momentum here so lets keep going.  Within the
uniform application of public order and safety people can
assemble any place and time they wish and the only questions are
in regard to public demonstrations.  Certainly the government
paying to organize a public demonstration would be shot down as
quickly as those who refused to participate in a spontaneous
demonstration in the old USSR would have been.
     Freedom of speech is so revered and protected a bullwhip up
a man's anus is protected but ...  hold it.  I have a problem
here.  Where is this wall of separation?
     Let us review the bidding.  The rational people who put
these five protections into one amendment did so for a reason.
That reason does not appear to have been to save paper but rather
that they were to be treated the same, that they were all in the
same general category of protections.  I guess I am missing why
difference clauses of the same sentence in the same amendment are
given different treatment.  Perhaps it is just me.
     I simply do not see why a government sponsored religion, a
government newspaper, a government lobbyist, a government public
spokesman is prohibited when government established art, radio
and TV is acceptable.  The person fluent in the english language
would assume all variants in each clause (under the Twain rule)
would apply to all the other clauses.  If supporting art or TV or
radio is acceptable then so is supporting a government religion.
If supporting a religion is not acceptable then neither is
supporting art or TV or radio.
     Perhaps I am missing something in noting it is all the same
amendment.  How can I come to understand that different criteria
apply to different clauses in the same sentence?  I doubt anyone
can help me over this sticking point.  I do not see how I can
have government established radio and TV networks and not have a
government established religion.
     This rancorous name calling is all over a rather trivial
issue, a government established and subsidized "press" is no more
approved by the 1st than is a government established and
subsidized religion.  They are all equally prohibited.  The US
equivalent of Pravda is unthinkable.  The US equivalent of BBC
Channel 1 is for some reason acceptable.  Not in any reading the
US Constitution I have done.  But then, I am not a constitutional
attorney.  I do not know how to make five little rabbits out of
one big rabbit.

                            * * * * *

        Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

    P.O. Box 82541, Tampa, Florida, 33682-2541, Bus. 813-969-0362



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Nine out of ten Chosen People choose the Torah.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 401 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




+++ r_950312 +++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Controv - (208)
To:      All                                    10 Mar 95 12:57:50
Subject: BUY THE UNIONS                         

          Billie Jeff sucks Hillary's Cucumber

     On 8 March 1995 BJ signed an Executive Order in favor of the 
unions.

     He can not be going after union member votes as they are 
only 12% of the working population and they have been voting 
conservative since Reagan.  

     The only explanation for this is that the union leadership, 
undemocratically entrenched in power, gives out the political 
action money.  With this "bold" stroke BJ gets $20+ million in 
campaign support for 1996.  

     Who gives a rat's ass.  It is only Slick Willie.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Brevity is the soul of lingerie.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 401 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




+++ r_950313 +++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Controv - (12)
To:      All                                    11 Mar 95 06:35:22
Subject: AUSCHWITZ                              

TP>  >       How about the 31 million civilians that were simply 
TP>  >  unaccounted for after the war?  As for the "to say nothing" 
TP>  >  there were 6 million Christians.  It was perhaps up there 
TP>  >  but in no manner was it outstanding in recent history save 
TP>  >  for the publicists.

TP>  Tell me, Matt; in your determination to deny the Holocaust 
                                             ~~~~

     And as another example of the knee-jerk response to 
discussing the subject without the proper reverence, you 
deliberately and willfully mischaracterize (read, lie) about what 
I wrote and you quoted.  See how it goes?  And honest people keep 
asking me what else I am saying for people to claim I "deny" the 
holocaust because they can not find it in what I write.  Of 
course, those are honest people unlike yourself.

TP>  (and to further discount its horror) have you any 
TP>  statistics on how many members of other groups died as 
TP>  subject in "medical" experiments? While there have been 
TP>  many massacres of groups of people, even in our lifetimes, 
TP>  and certainly in this century, please tell me how many died 
TP>  of callously and intentionally inflicted wounds and 
TP>  diseases.

     Do you have statistics on how many Jews did?  You are the 
first to imply only Jews were used.  Would you care to provide 
the supporting data?  Where did you get the idea it was only 
Jews?  

     And are we to assume also that Jews had diseases that were 
left untreated and early on Jewish women were sterilized?  And 
what did we learn from that?  Should we have a would be Dr. 
Mengele as Surgeon General?  Obviously we learned nothing nor 
will people who whine and moan about it bring it up when it 
conflicts with their politics.  

     If it were not for their politics they would give their 
ritual curses to socialism as the root of National Socialism.  
That will not be done.  It is too politically beneficial to 
pretend otherwise.  

TP>  > SL>   Freedom of speech does not and should not include
TP>  > SL>   outrageous lies.  Freedom of speech only applies to
TP>  > SL>   beliefs, not revisionist and bigoted thought.

TP>  >      It does apply.  Eat it.

TP>  You're right, Matt.  Freedom of speech *does* apply, even in 
TP>  the case of your racist comments against Mr.  Ku, and your 

     And you can eat that too.

TP>  bigotry shown in the case of the Holocaust.  

     And you have the freedom to lie and provide the evidence you 
are lying just as you did above in this very message.

I would fight 
TP>  to allow you to keep up speaking as you do.  See, in this 
TP>  age, people tend to think your kind of bigotry has died 
TP>  out.  I want to make sure others know that people like you 
TP>  still exist, so that the revulsion that decent folks have 
TP>  when faced with apologists for inhuman assholes doesn't 
TP>  diminish.

     As do I want you to keep posting so people can see how 
freely your kind lies when they have no rational position to 
support.  Thank you for your assistance in this matter.  You 
should have taken Roger Armstrong's advice more seriously.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Televangelists. The pro wrestlers of religion.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 401 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Controv - (13)
To:      All                                    11 Mar 95 06:35:22
Subject: DANGEROUS NEW DISEASE                  

                  TANSTAAFL except for Liberals
                               by
                           Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <3/10>

     It is a sad comment upon the state of education in this
country when everyone from Congressrats to school teachers show
they could not pass a simple 4th grade arithmetic test.  Here is
the test.

     Mohammedette (a PC test) has forty apples.  She is given
four and one half percent more apples.  Does she have
          a)   An increase
          b)   A cut
          c)   no apples at all

     I know, that telegraph the punch line.  First off you have
to understand that a) is the only completely wrong answer.  Now
liberal Congressrats and teachers and of course the media ravens
are hotly debating whether the correct answer is b) or c).  
     One school in Louisiana (that state being the only state
with lower school achievement than Arkansas) is firmly convinced
the answer is c) and is teaching that to the children.  I hope no
one is surprised by the school achievement in that state given
this being taught as true.  Where do they get such stupid
teachers?  Where I charged to hire such stupid people I could
guarantee results.
     To his credit, and I am certain in what was in burst of
insight after a long struggle, President Clinton realized that
Mohammedette would at least have some apples left so he said the
correct answer was b).  Of course his is from the second worst
educated state in the country so we should give him as many
pleads as possible for getting that close to the correct
answer.  It may encourage him to study hard and learn and perhaps
do better next time.
     His fellow Democrats on Congress do agree with him that b)
is the correct answer.  But what excuse do they have?  They come
from states with better educational standards than Arkansas.  So
what excuses their obvious inability to grasp basic arithmetic.
I will grant the only group that gave them a majority was the
group that did not finish high school.  But still this is a
fundamental concept not limited to arithmetic.
     It is one of those very fundamental concepts one uses to
test the development of two and three year olds, whether or not
they can distinguish between less and more.  Children who are not
able to grasp such concepts are considered to some degree
retarded.  An adult that can not grasp that distinction is either
considered retarded or to have some other mental problem.
     Thus we find the Democrats in Congress are either retarded
or perhaps suffering from some degenerative brain dysfunction or
perhaps they have suffered a serious head injury.  It is quite
surprising to find so many of them with the identical problem all
the in the same place and in fact in the same party.
     So I propose this.  That the Center for Disease Control
immediately be assigned the job of determining the cause.  This
could be some new contagious disease.  It could escape the
limited circles of liberals and into the healthy population at
any moment.  Liberals have been known to consort and even mate,
consider the Maitlan -- Carvell marriage.  If it is contagious
Maitlan is certainly at great risk not to mention the general
population.
     I can not adequately express the seriousness of the danger
of this disease.  Drivers with it will be speeding up believing
they are slowing down.  Investors will be throwing themselves out
of windows when they make a fortune in the stock market.  There
are other consequences too horrible to contemplate and certainly
not suitable for publication where children might read.
     We are all at risk of losing our ability at basic reasoning
as have so many liberals.  Should this be contagious we are all
lost.  I can not imagine these people were all born retarded.  If
so it is hard to understand how they could have gotten to their
positions in life.
     And above all a cure must be found.  More is more and less
is less.  We can not have people actually believing that more is
less.  As I have shown above it is very dangerous to permit them
loose in society.  It is only a matter of time before they hurt
themselves and others.  For their own good we much restrain them.

                            * * * * *

        Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

    P.O. Box 82541, Tampa, Florida, 33682-2541, Bus. 813-969-0362



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Jesus is coming!  Everybody preach something.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 401 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




+++ r_950314 +++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Controv - (102)
To:      All                                    12 Mar 95 03:38:08
Subject: A SOCIALIST IS A MARXIST               

                      Socialism is Fascism
                               by
                           Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <3/10>

     I know the assertion in the title upsets liberals in that
they know they are closet socialists and do not like hearing the
truth.  I have read their objections and now I am going to do a
more complete treatment of this subject.
     There is no question that both Mussolini and Hitler
considered themselves practical Marxists.  There exist sufficient
quotations from their own words and writings to support that
contention.  Where they differed from Marx, and as we know there
are as many ways to implement Marxism as there are failures of
it, was that they openly admitted that Marxism could not be
imposed with any pretension democracy.  Thus they were
unapologetic dictators.
     And it is clear that people are not Marxists at heart.  It
is not in human nature to live equally with all others without
competition.  All socialists and US liberals agree that social
differences much be minimized.  As with the present opening
volley on affirmative action, they are supporting equality of
results.
     The only way US liberals differ is that they are still not
freely admitting that it is only by force that social differences
can be minimized.  What they hide behind is what they can not get
democratically they will accept by judicial fiat that is
undemocratic.  But in any event, they like Mussolini and Hitler
fully understand that they must use the force of government to
attain their ideals.
     The primary means of refusing to admit Socialism in Fascism
is to point out that Fascists were dictators.  But as just
discussed they fully accept the use of democratic and
undemocratic force to attain their ideals.  What they focus on is
the lack of democracy in Italy and Germany in those days while
ignoring the use of force to impose social ideals.
     It is clearly the tyranny of democracy that was one of the
principles guiding the creation of the US Constitution.  Not only
was it created as a republican form of government, it was given
strictly limited powers so that a simple majority could not
impose force upon a minority.  And, as is clear from reading the
US Constitution, all forms of federal social laws are clearly not
powers granted to the federal government, that is, they are all
unconstitutional, regardless of Supreme Court findings.
     A side note here, the US Supreme Court was not granted the
power in the Constitution to find laws unconstitutional.  Nor was
it granted any power to initiate judicial remedies.  Its only
power is judge the cases brought before it.
     This refusal of liberals to focus on the use of government
force and instead focus upon the democratic, but at best
extra-constitutional, use of force to impose their ideals, is
only a diversion.  They do support the use of the coercive power
of the government to force people to behave as they wish.  In
this manner, they are promoting the idea that the government
should have unlimited powers just as did those two unashamed
dictators.
     The next obfuscation is to claim socialism is not a form of
Marxism.  The best they can do to support this claim is to point
to some obscure social thinkers while ignoring where they got
their ideas.  But even granted that, the socialists early this
century gave no signs of having ever heard of these obscure
writers either.
     When you look at the composition of the socialist groups and
the near socialist groups you find them littered with members who
freely quoted the writings of Karl Marx.  In other countries
those openly calling themselves socialists and talking Marx met
with varying degrees of success.  Often, as in England, they had
to call themselves the Labour Party or some such to avoid the
Marxist identification.
     In the US, the parties with socialist in their names did not
get very far.  What happen in the Democrat Party, which today has
lead to the "liberal" philosophy, is that they merely spoke of
principles without ever mentioning their origins.  This is
demonstrated today in that liberals can only deal with emotion
and can not rationally support their positions.  That is because
they have cut themselves off from their intellectual roots in
Marxism.
     When asked why it is good to tax the rich and give to the
poor they reply with emotion not reason.  Either a heart rending
appeal on the condition of the poor or an accusation the
questioner is heartless.  Had they not abandoned their Marxist
roots they could simply point to their presumption that the
industrial world is headed toward a classless society and that
their policies are simply a result of social forces much as those
supporting free enterprise point to equally undefinable market
forces.
     But lacking intellectual roots they have only emotion to
use.  That a country should be operated based upon emotion rather
than reason is not a position even liberals will openly support
although they will continue to use only emotional justifications.
It is not only understandable, it is easily explainable.
     But note there is not one idea liberals or admitted
socialists promote that can not be traced back to Marxism.  Nor
is there one social idea of Mussolini and Hitler they did not
admit came from Marxism.  The only difference is in the admission
or denial that force in necessary to impose their ideas.

                            * * * * *

        Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

    P.O. Box 82541, Tampa, Florida, 33682-2541, Bus. 813-969-0362



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * One finger is all a real American needs.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 401 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Controv - (103)
To:      All                                    12 Mar 95 03:38:36
Subject: A SHORT FORM FOR THE DUMB              

     For those who can not read the long form.

     Our schools are not teaching that 100% plus 4.5% is less 
than 100%.

     Is there anyone going to defend our schools now?  Is there 
anyone stupid enough to defend what our schools are teaching 
these days?  

     Is there anyone stupid enough to defend Clinton or any 
Democrat for believing the same premise?  IF you are that stupid 
please step forward and identify yourself.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Morality is a necessary evil.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 401 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Controv - (104)
To:      Jaime Alexander                        12 Mar 95 03:38:38
Subject: A USED CAR FROM CLINTON?               

JA> MG>      Would you then concede he was lying to the voters 
JA> MG> during his campaign?

JA>  Yes, I will concede that he was lying because he MUST have 
JA>  known that only Congress can tax.

     Why must he have known that?  This is simply one example of 
many where he has claimed he would do things he has not the power 
to do.  From what I have heard him say on matters relating to the 
Constitution, were I to judge him upon what he has said, I could 
not credit him with such elementary knowledge.

     But then, he did teach constitutional law in Arkansas and 
you know the state of education in Arkansas so no one should be 
surprised by his ignorance of the Constitution as he has 
expressed it.

JA>  Campaigning politicians are like used car salesmen.  They 
JA>  will promise you ANYTHING to get what they want.  So they 
JA>  should be TREATED like used car salesmen (i.e., with 
JA>  skepticism).

     But on the presumption Clinton is honest he has proven 
himself ignorant.  On the presumption he has a liar we can assume 
he is intelligent.  In any event, you hold he is no better than a 
crooked used car salesman.  A crooked used car salesman who today 
could be prosecuted for criminal fraud for what he is saying.  

     =====

     Now tell me, why are so many upset that the House is doing 
what it said it would do?  If fulfilling campaign promises in 
some manner prohibited?  Why?


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * One finger is all a real American needs.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 401 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Controv - (105)
To:      All                                    12 Mar 95 03:38:38
Subject: CONGRESSIONAL FALSE LAWS               

                   Congress Shall Make No Law
                               by
                           Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <3/11>

     Without going through a myriad of examples of Congress
exceeding it delegated authority, let us cut to the quick.  In
passing laws in areas not delegated to it in the Constitution, it
is not, repeat NOT, responding to new social pressures and
changes in the world.  I grant there have been many changes in
the two hundred plus years since it was adopted.  But what
Congress is doing is not adapting to those changes.
     What Congress is doing is to the state of affairs the
Constitution itself was intended to prohibit.
     For example, at no time was the granting of the power to
regulate interstate commerce intended to me the power to prohibit
interstate commerce.  If the power to regulate were intended to
be the power to prohibit interstate commerce then the federal
government would have been granted the power to economically
isolate the states.  No one suggests that was a power granted to
Congress.
     Yet, while agreeing there is no power of prohibition, we
have many laws prohibiting some forms of interstate commerce.
Try selling kiddie porn across state lines with an FBI agent
present and see what happens.  That is the power of prohibition
that was not granted in the general and obviously does not exist
in the particular, ANY particular.  The assault weapons ban is
the same issue.  It is clear that if Congress has the power to
ban the manufacture of assault weapons and prohibit them from
interstate commerce then in fact Congress has the power to ban
any and all interstate commerce.
     If Congress should decide it does not want people traveling
between states it clearly has the power to make doing so a felony
if you grant it has the power to prohibit any activity between
the states.  If you do not accept that Congress has only the
powers granted to it then you accept that Congress has unlimited
powers as long as there is some word or three in the Constitution
under which it can act.
     My point is that this is nothing new.  It is a regression to
what was intended to be prohibited by the Constitution.  It is
not adapting to modern times.  And let us keep in mind here,
there were always modern times.  Today we point to the instant
communications; in the past they pointed to the new and improved
reign of King Falderall the IV.  That we now have TV instead of
one page newspapers does not mean that people are not using TV in
the same manner as those newspapers.  That there were newspapers
instead of the town crier and the rumor mill does not mean they
were not used in the same manner.  

     Technology does not change human nature.

     19+1 handguns instead of one shot flintlocks do not increase
crime.  In the history of London the single most effective thing
to decrease crime was gaslights on the streets.  The "guest
bedroom" came about as no dinner guest in his right mind would go
home after dark in the best of neighborhoods.
     So are increasing gun restrictions a result of increased
technology?  Of course not.  But why the increased restrictions?
     Because human nature wants regimentation of human behavior.
Regulating the arms a person may possess is as old as human
history.  When Romans were using short swords "civilian" swords
were limited to a fraction of that length.  When Japan saw its
Samurai system threatened by black powder it banned them rather
than getting better guns.  When the peasants revolted against
Peter the Great's attempt to industrialize Russia they were
banned from having any weapon.
     So what is new?  The people who claim new laws are necessary
because of changing times are NOT talking about laws which
address the changes in our times.  They are in fact regressing to
the exact traditional and primitive response people have always
had.  And the people specifically did not give Congress the power
to exercise those primitive responses.
     Why should Congress have the power to prohibit Kentucky from
growing and exporting marijuana?  Where is it written Congress
has the power to prohibit arbitrary items from interstate
commerce? The last time that was tried, it was called Prohibition
and took a Constitutional Amendment.  Where is it written
Constitutional Amendments are no longer needed to do the same
thing?
     I am fully aware that the points I am raising are at best
thirty years away from a concerted and no failures along the way
effort to be recognized again as the meaning of the Constitution.
It really is time to start over.  At present the country is on a
path of worship it prior decisions and refusing to admit its
previous errors lest "the turmoil be too great."  
     It is trivial
to point out that a finding against all federal drug laws would
wreck havoc upon our country.  But it is more important to uphold
justice in that they have committed no crime as Congress had no
power to pass any such law.
     We are arguing our own precedent rather than the
Constitution.  The Constitution is not sacred.  It can be changed
at any time and the means of changing it are stated within it.
     But when these "forces of change" are in fact regressions to
exactly the arbitrary powers of government it was intend to
prohibit, that is not progress.  It is not response to changing
times.  It is regression to pre-constitutional times when
anything was fair game.
     Gentlemen and ladies, it looks like a duck, it waddles like
a duck.  I would prefer to believe it is a duck than a
Constitutional law.

                            * * * * *

        Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

    P.O. Box 82541, Tampa, Florida, 33682-2541, Bus. 813-969-0362



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 *                      Outgoing!
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 401 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Controv - (106)
To:      Tony Miller                            12 Mar 95 03:38:38
Subject: JEWS & HOLOCAUST                       

TM>  MG>       But consider the obvious.  ALL religions are stupid as
TM>  MG>  are  the followers.

TM> Have you accepted Jesus as your personal savior?

     Only as my personal tax advisor.

TM>  MG>       So one stupid shit religion got dumped on as opposed
TM>  MG>  to  another stupid shit religion.

TM> One complete rosary recitation coming your way.

     How Catholic...

TM>  MG>       Is any rational person supposed to take this
TM>  MG>  seriously?

TM> I'm rational.  I take it seriously.  :-)

     Oxymoron alert.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * One finger is all a real American needs.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 401 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




+++ r_950316 +++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Controv - (226)
To:      Jeremy Margolis                        14 Mar 95 21:10:26
Subject: KAHANE / JEREMY'S HERITAG              

JM>  Oh...you, of all people throughout the history of time, 
JM>  finnaly have destroyed all evidence of a possible belief in 
JM>  god, and then can show us your evidence that he/she does 
JM>  not exist? How silly of me...that I did not hear of your 
JM>  great find(s) before.

     Me?  I have only pointed out the lack of evidence in the 
first place.  That savage tribesmen call the Hebrews started your 
beliefs is your business.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Please petition the brain-bank as a hardship case.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 401 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Controv - (227)
To:      All                                    14 Mar 95 21:10:26
Subject: MATT GIWER'S TROUBLES                  

GK> MG>       I almost forgot, are people who post that the belief 
GK> MG>  the sun  rising in the east is a conspiracy kicked off?  
GK> MG>  Are those who  post Bilderberger and Tri-lateral 
GK> MG>  conspiracies kicked off?  Is  there any other conspiracy 
GK> MG>  theorist that has been kicked off?  I  am quite familiar 
GK> MG>  with the internet.  I am even personally acquainted with 
GK> MG>  the people who started it -- the ones in charge.   I know 
GK> MG>  of no rule that only this one claim is cause for being  
GK> MG>  kicked off.

GK>  He wasn't 'kicked off'.  His commercial provider decided 
GK>  that they didn't want his business anymore.  Capitalism in 
GK>  action....

     Agreed completely.  But we must also agree completely that 
what passes for an organized effort on internet was the reason.  
There were people who were self proclaimed Jews and others with 
Jewish sounding surnames that were calling upon others to message 
his provider to get him kicked off.

     And thus Gannon was honest and truthful is his statement 
that an organized Jewish effort resulted in his getting kicked 
off of the internet.  That is what I saw happening and there is 
no question, unless the people posting were lying, that they did 
mail complaints as part of the effort.

     Thus in fact we have an formal and unquestionable example of 
Jewish organized censorship on the internet.  And this can be 
quoted far and wide as evidence of Jewish censorship as this 
example is completely true.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Philosophy is to knowledge as folklore is to elves.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 401 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Controv - (228)
To:      Jeremy Margolis                        14 Mar 95 21:10:28
Subject: PBS AND THE 1ST                        

JM>  Am I the only one getting tired of his little articles he 
JM>  feels the need to post up as if we all were concerned about 
JM>  his ravings? I think it strokes your ego to have your words 
JM>  up on a bbs.  What a waste of time for you to write them, 
JM>  and for us to have to bypass them.

     Your N key is in the middle of your BM.  I suggest you stick 
your finger there to get on to the next message.  That should 
trivial even with your depressed skull injury.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Please petition the brain-bank as a hardship case.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 401 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Controv - (229)
To:      John Powell                            14 Mar 95 21:10:28
Subject: UNPERMITTED SKEPTICISM 01              

JP>  JP>  I didn't know at the time that it was an unpermitted topic
JP>  JP>  for this Echo and I've always been secretly interested in
JP>  JP>  the 'internal dynamics' of those who flatly disbelieve the
JP>  JP>  Holocaust...

JP>  MG>  That never came up here at least by the person who first 
JP>  MG>  posted.  It was only fallaciously and falsely introduced by 
JP>  MG>  those who responded.

JP>  Yep, I noticed that too.  Even though this is a 
JP>  conversational-like forum you know that some topics don't 
JP>  proceed the way a face-to-face conversation would.  If you 
JP>  said such-and-such-Holocaust-stuff in a face-to-face group 
JP>  setting somebody might say "Hey, did you say the Holocaust 
JP>  never happenned?" and you'd be able to reply "Of course 
JP>  not, that's not what I meant!"  The exchange would take 10 
JP>  seconds to resolve.  In this type of forum that type of 
JP>  exchange could take 10 _WEEKS_ to resolve and I can easily 
JP>  understand why the Moderator(s) don't want to spend all 
JP>  that time on an unnecessary disruption.

     Rather in this week's politics one might say, are you really 
cutting school lunches?  And the answer would be, we are 
increasing it and anyone saying it is a cut is doing so 
deliberately and for similar reasons.
     
     But to a conference that has existed for years, what is ten 
weeks?

JP>  MG>  Speaking of how true beliefs arise, this conference is a 
JP>  MG>  perfect example.

JP> How do you mean?

     By the above example.  What people have claimed was said but 
not said it now true.  And skeptics will not accept skepticism of 
their own claims and will not support them when asked to do so.

JP>  JP>   Well, there have to be limits and as per strict definition 
JP>  JP>   I agree that Holocaust claims are not fringe science.

JP>  MG>  Fringe science?  Such claims are contrary to science but 
JP>  MG>  then I am too close to the off topic line to go further.

JP>  I don't know exactly how other people draw their lines or 
JP>  make their definitions.  In my mind Science is that which 
JP>  we're pretty sure about at this particular moment and 
JP>  Fringe Science is that which we're pretty sure is at least 
JP>  somewhat counter to what we're pretty sure about at the 
JP>  moment .

     Try it this way.  If a documented, well understood, in all 
the textbooks and known physiologic process, reported in our 
media every couple years is reported occuring entirely 
differently in another limited place and time, which would you 
suspect?  See you in DEBATE or CONTROV for the explicit example.

JP>  I have no problem with Holocaust stuff be classed as 
JP>  non-Fringe Science since it mostly doesn't deal with the 
JP>  present collection of Science Laws.

     Try the above conferences and remind me to give you the 
example with references.

JP>  MG>  Of course there was none here.  The nearest response to it 
JP>  MG>  was claiming the skeptics had reviewed the skeptics.  A 
JP>  MG>  self congratulatory tautology so to speak.

JP>  However, if the skeptics who reviewed the skeptics have 
JP>  made significant documentable errors then you could always 
JP>  specifically document those errors and ask the Moderator if 
JP>  you could post that documentation without discussion.

     There were no errors presented that were relevant and the 
relevant is a CYA as I remember none at all but someone might 
have posted one.

JP>  MG> I was kind of hoping that this crowd
JP>  JP>  could address those specifics (for personal reasons because
JP>  JP>  I just don't see how the existing documentation can be
JP>  JP>  refuted and because the psychology behind Holocaust
JP>  JP>  disbelief is interesting).

JP>  MG>  No problem here.  The moderator has declared irreproducable 
JP>  MG>  personal testimony to be absolutely true and unquestionable 
JP>  MG>  and that skepticism of impossible claims is not permitted.

JP> I don't think that's exactly what the Moderator declared...

     Given the name of the conference, that is exactly what was 
done.  Now had there been an explanation that would moderate my 
opinion.  As there was none and given the conference title, that 
is what happened.

JP>  JP>  Oh well, maybe another day, another place...

JP>  MG> Obviously not in this conference.

JP>  Its not really a big deal to me.  My interest was in trying 
JP>  to get a glimpse at the psychology of disbelief as regards 
JP>  alternative beliefs of the Holocaust.  I think my life will 
JP>  continue pretty much as usual without having had that 
JP>  glimpse.

     I find it of the most interest in that the groups related to 
this off topic subject go high order at the slightest hint of 
anything violating their space.  That is the psychology I am 
exploring.  I am good at sensing a hot button sticking out and I 
will push it to see what happens.  I am not really a bad guy as 
the other person is advertising that hot button in what the post.  

     Even with pro or anti abortion types, what they are posting 
is daring you.  If you don't touch it you can say most anything 
else about the subject and they don't pay attention and are 
otherwise rational.  This is different.

     I first discovered it in the very early 80s when, in a BBS 
discussion of some point of military strategy I pointed out that 
a certain middle eastern nation was a liability to the US.  The 
next day I got the N word and the anti word in several responses.  
And it has was downhill from there.

     That is a hot button that fascinates me.  I did not even 
realize it was there to the point of irrationality.  I have been 
exploring it ever since.  
     
     It came up in this conference because of someone's post 
where I simply noted that is was not acceptable to be skeptical 
of a certain subject and you noted the response.  And then a 
group of self proclaimed skeptics proving exactly what I first 
stated and only what I stated.  

     It is like going to a UFO conference and questioning 
Communion.  No evidence for Communion presented, no evidence 
against those challenging Communion presented, only claims that 
**
Continued in the next message...
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 401 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




+++ r_950320 +++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Controv - (128)
To:      Jonathan Downes                        18 Mar 95 03:04:50
Subject: A SOCIALIST SAYS HE IS A               

JD>  MG>  I know the assertion in the title upsets liberals in that 
JD>  MG>  they know they are closet socialists and do not like 
JD>  MG>  hearing the truth.  I have read their objections and now I 
JD>  MG>  am going to do a more complete treatment of this subject.

JD>   Well, I may be a liberal, but I am definately a Socialist, 
JD>   and since I find your writing to be utterly fallacious, I 
JD>   could not let it pass without pointing out some of the 
JD>   more obvious untruths.

     I would rather have expected to see you post the differences 
and the intellectual roots of socialism being different from 
marxism.

JD>  MG> There is no question that both Mussolini and Hitler
JD>  MG> considered themselves practical Marxists.  There exist sufficient
JD>  MG> quotations from their own words and writings to support that
JD>  MG> contention.  Where they differed from Marx, and as we know there
JD>  MG> are as many ways to implement Marxism as there are failures of
JD>  MG> it, was that they openly admitted that Marxism could not be
JD>  MG> imposed with any pretension democracy.  Thus they were
JD>  MG> unapologetic dictators.

JD>   Ok, I am assuming you have some proof here...  would be 
JD>   _extremely_ interested to see these quotations of which 
JD>   you speak...

     Some sample Hitler statements: "I have learned a great deal 
from Marxism, as I do not hesitate to admit....  National 
Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken 
its absurd and artificial ties with a democratic order."

     "There will be no license, no free space, in which the 
individual belongs to himself.  This is Socialism -- not such 
trifles as the private possession of the means of production.  Of 
what importance is that if I range men firmly within a discipline 
they cannot escape? Let them then own land or factories as much 
as they please.  The decisive factor is that the State, through 
the Party, is supreme over them, regardless of whether they are 
owners or workers.  All that, you see, is unessential.  Our 
Socialism goes far deeper."



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * My corespondant's body weight is 180 cans of dogfood.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 401 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Controv - (129)
To:      Robert Pappas                          18 Mar 95 03:04:52
Subject: IDENTIFY CHILD MOLESTERS               

RP> MG>     Go to your local school and trap a kid.  Take the kid
RP> MG>home
RP> MG>and stake it out in your front yard around dusk.  Watch
RP> MG>patiently
RP> MG>through the window or in a molester blind and soon a molester
RP> MG>will show up.  At that point you can photograph it or bag it
RP> MG>as
RP> MG>is your taste.

RP> MG>     The kid may then be turned loose back in its natural
RP> MG>environment the next morning.

RP>  as opposed to your natural environment; a rubber room with 
RP>  a computer.  you are indeed a fruitcake matt.  i have never 
RP>  twitted anyone before but your endless, pointless messages 
RP>  are starting to get on my goddamn nerves.  do me a personal 
RP>  favor and stop addressing your messages to "all" but rather 
RP>  to "everyone" so i will be able to skip your messages with 
RP>  ease...

     It appears the more time goes on the more fools without a 
sense of humor have to be added to the idiot list of those who 
respond.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * You appear to have taken a vow of ignorance.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 401 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Controv - (130)
To:      All                                    18 Mar 95 03:04:52
Subject: SEAN O'CLAST                           

                   Sean O'Clast, Icon Smasher
                               by
                           Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <3/16>

     The young Sean was raised and educated by his family apart
from the teachings of the new religion Patrick had brought to
auld Erie.  As he grew to a young man he made his fame among the
old people who were still in power by making jokes of the new
Roman Catholic religion.  Where they had a sacred belief that was
not reasonable he would tell a story that would ridicule it.
     As he grew older the old men in power died off and the
younger who were staunch Roman Catholics drove him from Erie as
they would have no ridicule of their beliefs.  As the older but
wise Sean fled first to Britain and then to France and across
Europe he found every place his insights into the foibles of
Roman Catholicism were not appreciated.
     As his last refuge he found himself in Byzantium where in
his audience with the emperor he recited his stories of the
foibles of Roman Catholicism and as head of the Eastern Catholic
Church he laughed at Sean's wisdom and insight.  Sean was
appointed to the court with the task of finding fault with the
Roman Rite.
     And for years he prospered, traveling around the Empire and
every place he went people laughed and understood the failings of
the Roman Rite. But in age Sean's compassion for his adopted land
and people grew and he wished to give them insight into their own
foibles so that they might not be as foolish as their Roman
brethren.
     And so he prepared his magnum oratory to reveal his insights
into the foolishness of the Eastern Rite.  And with great
announcement and many to hear, he delivered his wisdom to the
empire.  And he was executed.
     In his last moments he realized the greatest wisdom an
iconoclast can have.  It is only the faults of others that people
wish exposed.
     More practically those who shatter icons in all directions
will collect approbrium from all directions.  Though they may
collect an attaboy from one side or the other occasionally, one
aw shit cancels a thousand attaboys.  Ridicule 999 liberal and 1
conservative icon and one might as well not have lived.
     It is not limited to two sided issues but in humans there
exist few places for a person who attacks in all directions.  So
when we see an person like H. L. Menkin who passed for a liberal
in his day, was his position as a thinker safe when fifty years
later it surfaced his opinions of races and Jews were the same as
was common in his time, everything he wrote, previously praised,
was written off.
     Then was the the praise for thinking, not for the thinking
but rather for the position he took?  Could not a clever fool
take the same position and garner similar praise?  And how does
one tell the difference?
     A case could be claim that if enough years go by all the
previous issues will be forgotten and a determination can be
made.  But the nearest example we have of that is Aristophanes
and I would suggest that is more based upon modern ignorance of
real Greek life than upon his wit.  We have no idea of the
complete social setting in his time and his breadth my have
presented only one side of the thought of the times.
     Rather to be successful, an iconoclast must be a member of
only one side and never attack that side.  And iconoclast is
simply a market niche like any other.
     Perhaps I have bored you to tears but if you got this far
let me go into a recent example, Newt Gingrich.  He is a man who,
like him or not, agree with him or not, he calls them as he sees
them.  When he started this Congress he called for questioning
everything, that thinking was on the table.  He assigned a
tutorial reading list to the new Congress.
     His point was not only to challenge the icons that had
governed Congress for 40 years but to call everything into
question.  It failed.  When he put traditional conservative
thinking on the table he lost the thrust of media attention.  He
still gets a few seconds now and then and agreed the thrust is
now with the committee chairmen but under the presumption the
media at least wants to know who their audience wants to hear has
shifted from "question everything" to challenging what is
happening.
     For a more longstanding issue a person can make a career of
joking about the Muslims rhetoric against Israel but vice versa
is the kiss of death. 
     If that is not to your liking find someone puncturing the
posturing of the Christians against homosexuality and abortion
and then see what happens when that same person punctures the
equal stupidity of homosexuals and the pro-abortion types.
     Find a person both strongly support the arts and the art of
western culture and at the same time being against government
funding of the arts and see if he has any friends.  Certainly he
has friends but does he have someone willing to give him a
platform?
     If you wish to be an iconoclast be prepared to have to find
some form of mammon that will give you sanctuary and guard your
back.  And thus you see in western history a dirth of examples of
people who will poke holes in every fallacy.  You see none who
will agree there are no correct answers.
     There is a place that holds all human ideas are humorous.
That is the Tao.  But then, even the enlightened know there is no
fun to be had without choosing a side.  And of course the penalty
for switching sides is well understood.

                            * * * * *

        Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

    P.O. Box 82541, Tampa, Florida, 33682-2541, Bus. 813-969-0362



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * The revolution is coming because we find the law revolting.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 401 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




+++ r_950321 +++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Controv - (245)
To:      All                                    20 Mar 95 01:18:46
Subject: IQ tests really                        

     Doctor Laufer, I do believe I've got it!

     Finally the IQ test issue.  You will recall I have talked 
about the written test and the puzzle test and my continuing 
problem with why it appears to measure my test taking ability.

     I have a good explanation at this point.  All of these 
written tests are, these days at least, made up my committee.  
That is, different ways to get at the right answer.  And that 
puzzle test (I do not think I mentioned but my score there was in 
the 190s vice the Cattel 163) was by one person.  And there the 
difference.  

     The puzzle test had exactly ten puzzles, not seven not 
eleven but ten.  Already I know something about him if only that 
he is missing no fingers.  Then he shows me his thought processes 
in a set of tests he thinks are incrementally hardly but that I 
perceive as incrementally more revealing.  Finally when I finish 
the last test in record time with commentary and CAN USE both 
hands to rearrange the puzzle I have learned about HIS (singular) 
person idea of a test.

     He set up a challenge between the two of us.  I got him.  
Not the test, him.

     Similarly, a committee test like the rest the problem is 
connecting (and I remember this) which of the hard questions is 
related the which previous question rather than looking for the 
answer.  I was looking for the framework of the right right 
answer depending upon which committee member wrote it.  

     In other words, an IQ test is in fact a personal challenge 
and in fact, follow on, perfectly honest.  I, the test maker, 
want to test how smart you are.  Obviously, if you are smarter 
than me, I can't test you -- the ultimate fallacy of high end 
discrimination.

     So, I can prove you are stupid, what is my mother's maiden 
name?  OK, I am an honest person and I decide to make it fair and 
I do not make it personal.  I ask you which makes a horse turn 
left, gee or haw, as in the WW I army test.  So you do not like 
that and I make it nonverbal, it is still you against me in that 
I have to think up something you can not answer in order to rate 
you.  The plural you of course in that as my friend I would 
include at least on question an OB/GYN could only answer.

     Given this viewpoint, it is their job to come up with 
questions that can discriminate intelligence levels, I can 
explain why I do better on the harder questions.  I have figured 
out the people who are formulating the questions.  And I also 
explain why I did best on a test developed by a single person.  I 
figured out the thinking of the test giver rather than the test.

     The puzzle parts were specific and then uncovered for all 
ten.  The form of "random" lay out was fixed in every puzzle.  

     This gets us to what I am doing on tests.  Beating people at 
their own game when they are foolish enough to put their game in 
writing.  This insight just might ruin my interest in the boards.  
Give me on written question and it might take me forever.  You 
personally give me a dozen and after the 6th you lose.  That is 
the talent I have, not taking tests but figuring out test makers.

     So where does this leave us.  We now know what an IQ test 
is.  It is the ancient art of combat between the test maker and 
the test taker.  It it very human but then what is human is 
absolute in human terms.  

     So a real IQ test is a challenge, taking away every possible 
referent to our common knowledge (my brilliance) you will then do 
better than I think you should on this test.  The closure on 
these tests is a time limit.  With no time limit I would like to 
talk with the idiot who thinks C is the right answer.

     Consider the possible scores range from 1 to 200.  Without 
the time closure that implies someone at the 200 level agrees 
with the test creator and, in the event of a wrong answer, the 
test creator, regardless of IQ, is right.  Of course I grant that 
committee tests are not that simple but the single person puzzle 
test I referred to is exactly that issue. 

     So if you want a real test, (listening, Roger A.?) picking 
the greatest challenge and and seeing who wins.  Why do the test 
talk to the best and why has that always been the EF challenge?  
People here who completely disagree have always dumped on the 
fools even if they agreed with them.  

     In any event, the point of the long digression is that your 
best IQ test is your self evaluation of how you do in disagreeing 
with the best you can find.  That is all an IQ test is in the 
first place.  And that makes the boards another cutting level of 
IQ competitors.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * A power granted is a power abused.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 401 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51





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.